Was the information of the bank statements known to the defence? Yes, how do we know this, we know this as DF did not question the veracity of this information.
Thanks Faithlilly?? However it is more than safe and accurate to assume, that your 'I have it from a reliable source' that there was nothing wrong with the till timing mechanism, to be absolute piffle?
Before these discussions around the alibi and of AB continue let's touch on another area. That of 'is there anything in the defence papers' - You have touched on this several times, and of Ms Lean?
Three areas here - This question, of there being anything in the defence papers? - around the bank statement reliability?
Mr Kelly's statement, that of alibi for his son.
Multiple phone records.
Let us add another - that of the police investigation around elimination.
As you rightly point out, the defence papers/case notes/transcripts - "all" of the evidence that Ms Lean has? Is that of the defence. With me so far?
Prior to Ms Lean becoming POA, which was sometime after all appeals, and before the submission to the SCCRC? Her source of information, was mainly that of the Mitchells and any court proceedings? - Correct?
After becoming POA, after LM having no defence team/lawyer - Ms Lean gained access to all that the defence had?
Back to the police investigation and the Crown/Fiscal services. - Submissions are made, primarily around the evidence sourced against the appellant in question. Once this is submitted, (We know in this case, further work was required prior to full acceptance, by the Crown) - The case then lies with the Crown, any investigation that takes place from here, is by request of the Crown/Fiscal. Everything in the investigation, around elimination of others has in effect, nothing to do with the case against the appellant?
Therefore Ms Lean does not have, and has never had - "all" that went into this investigation where elimination is concerned.
Ms Lean does not have access to everything, and has never had access to everything - yet?
Ms Lean has, (claimed) from 2003 - had close contact with the appellant and his family.
In effect, Ms Lean in her Ms Marple work - has made some pretty damming conclusions based on this? We know the bias, purely based on defence is from this, but we also have that impartiality, this personal, non professional side also?
It would also be fair to assume - that upon the conclusion, of this independent review by the SCCRC, Ms Lean realised just how much was not inclusive of the defence papers she has? - She had however been scratching one's head, has she not around trivial matters. The call to AW's daughter is one example. Let's refresh on that for those unaware:
It would seem that on the night of Jodi's discovery, her aunt had arrived at the scene. let us first of all be realistic here, common sense is all that is needed. That AW had phoned her daughter, this distraught grandmother? There is no need in the slightest, for the record of this call be inclusive of the defence papers, the information however is known - yet;
This very trivial matter has become something of a multiple investigation for Ms Marple and her team?
"How did this lady suddenly appear at the scene?"
"If the police are covering up for some one on high, what are the connections?"
'Oh I know, she is a friend of someone, who is a friend of someone else, in the police'
There is significantly more - we get the gist however. A mother phones her daughter, after the discovery of Jodi, her grand-daughter. There is no reason for the record of this call to be in the defence papers. For it is only the defence papers, that Ms Lean has. As with the other intricate areas of elimination of these 'others' Of quite a lot in fact. Yet, and again there are pretty damming statements made around this. Truth be told - Ms Lean does not know everything, she has no way of knowing when and why, anyone was eliminated - What she does know however, is every piece of damming evidence against LM. She simply excuses all of this away. Jodi's aunt is highly suspicious but LM is not?
Another point to highlight here - that of precognitions, that are done by both the defence and Crown. There is a lot of information that Ms Lean does have, it is however not mentioned - much of it airbrushed over. Or of extraordinary extremity - there are multiple theories added. (Occams Razor)
The final point in all of this is disclosure - This is nothing short of guff. Findlay and his highly trained team of professionals. Those multiple precognitions. Is it not more accurate to say that, most of what is questionable to Ms Lean, is just that - her questions. These questions around her opinions, nothing more? As we know that Findlay would be more than aware of Mr Kelly's alibi for his son - this is basic fact. He did not need to keep it in his defence case. SK was not on trial.
