"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Alf]

Hmmm can I just point out that if we haven’t seen JuJ’s testimony we can’t know that the cancellation by JuJ was a lie.

Like the rest of us you do not have the slightest idea what claims JuJ’s original statements or her court testimony contained. Of course we do know for certain that you have no proof of several ‘facts’ you’ve relied on.

Why are you perpetuating these stories if you don’t have the slightest idea what claims her original statements or her court testimony contained then?

[Chris_Halkides]

Different case, different set of circumstances, not comparable clearly.

Exactly how are they different?  Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"?  If so, why?

[Chris_Halkides]

Most folk who have analysed this case objectively would be utterly astonished if he never did it - that's why he is where he is, has had his numerous appeals rejected and why he'll most likely remain where he is indefinitely.

David Wilson, who was a prison governor, thinks otherwise regarding LM.  As for the number of appeals, that is a meaningless metric.  Todd Willingham lost at least ten appeals, yet in the reality-based community, there is a strong consensus that there was no evidence of arson in his case.

[Chris_Halkides]

Donald Finlay was the defence barrister wasn’t he?  So of course he would say that wouldn’t he?

Are you saying that he was incorrect? if so, please explain.

[Chris_Halkides]

BTW a dog finding a body would have been its handler taken the dog over the wall, leading them to where the body was.

You have every right to your opinion.  If another commenter were to say that your statement was not merely wrong, but worthy of a Billy Madison award, that opinion would also be within his or her right.  Neither view aligns exactly with my thoughts.

[Chris_Halkides]

Alas

I counted five paragraphs, not one of which dealt with the procedural problems of F and W's testimony, let alone any other problems with it.  Alas, indeed.

[Chris_Halkides]

What on earth does all this supposedly prove or disprove?

If I had a dog (especially one being trained in tracking) who put her paws up on the wall, I would want to see what was on the other side of it.  YMMV.

[Alf]

Exactly how are they different?  Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"?  If so, why?

And you compblain about me putting words in your mouth?   Sheesh.  I wrote what I wrote and what I wrote is self evident and entirely factual.  Exactly how are the two cases different?  In evert way that’s how.  No two cases are ever the same either in the manner of the crime itself, the witnesses and their powwrs of recall, police procedures, how the evidence is presented in court, etc etc etc.

[Alf]

Are you saying that he was incorrect? if so, please explain.

I’m saying that as he was Mitchell’s defence lawyer everything he has to say on the case comes with an agenda, the defence of his client.  He is not an impartial commentator.  Do I really have to spell every single one of my posts out to you?

[Alf]

If I had a dog (especially one being trained in tracking) who put her paws up on the wall, I would want to see what was on the other side of it.  YMMV.

YMMV?
If i had murdered someone and returned to the murder site with a dog trained in tracking I would expect it to show an interest in that site, so what does this prove or disprove exactly?

[faithlilly]

Exactly how are they different?  Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"?  If so, why?

These kind of comments does make me wonder how the writer thinks case law or police procedures are devised?

[Chris_Halkides]

As I've said many times previously, and also said many times by Venturi Swirl, this is a very different case with very different circumstances - and different circumstantial evidence that was categorically overwhelming.

MA,
Every case is by definition different, but neither you nor VS discussed which differences you mean or why the are signficant in your opinion.  The rest of your comment is conclusory.  If you want to see an overwhelming case for guilt, Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher is a good example; if you want to see an overwhelming case for innocence, the Duke lacrosse three is pretty good.  This case does not fall into either category.

[Chris_Halkides]

I’m saying that as he was Mitchell’s defence lawyer everything he has to say on the case comes with an agenda, the defence of his client.  He is not an impartial commentator.  Do I really have to spell every single one of my posts out to you?

Your answer fails to answer my question, which is whether proper procedures were followed or not.  A good rule of thumb regarding a well constructed lineup is that a person who is entirely unrelated to the case should pick the suspect out only at the level indicated by chance (for a lineup of twelve people, this would be about 8% of the time).  "Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger that Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut and the background in the Mitchell photo was much lighter than the others."  ""If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]." 

"Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects."  This is one of those statements that damages the credibility of the authorities.  "It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade." (Scotsman)

[Chris_Halkides]

YMMV?
If i had murdered someone and returned to the murder site with a dog trained in tracking I would expect it to show an interest in that site, so what does this prove or disprove exactly?

Even if there are two reasonable interpretations of Mia's behavior, the burden is the prosecution to show that LM had prior knowledge of its location, and they failed to do so.  Beyond that your comment assumes that the murder took place where [Name removed]'s body was found, and two former detectives disputed that matter.
(YMMV means your mileage may vary)

[Chris_Halkides]

In every way that’s how.  No two cases are ever the same either in the manner of the crime itself, the witnesses and their powers of recall, police procedures, how the evidence is presented in court, etc etc etc.

One implication of what you wrote is that no wrongful conviction could be the starting point for reform.  Another implication is that a just conviction could be used as a model of how to investigate correctly.