"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

Between 80-100 witnesses. Which ones were untruthful?

I didn’t say that any were untruthful, just woeful.

[Kenmair]

Certain claims that she has made are indeed problematic but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bath water.

Problematic is one way of putting it, dishonest and deliberately misleading is another. I'm not sure how anyone can take Lean or "IB" seriously when so many lies have been exposed. Why not tell the truth if she had ALL the transcripts as she claimed on YT. (another lie). There's about 15 deliberate lies in her book (see below). One or two might be possible, but not 15+.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

[faithlilly]

Problematic is one way of putting it, dishonest and deliberately misleading is another. I'm not sure how anyone can take Lean or "IB" seriously when so many lies have been exposed. Why not tell the truth if she had ALL the transcripts as she claimed on YT. (another lie). There's about 15 deliberate lies in her book (see below). One or two might be possible, but not 15+.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

Yet there is much in the book that is verified in the transcripts. Shall we talk about those?

[Kenmair]

Yet there is much in the book that is verified in the transcripts. Shall we talk about those?

Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?

If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.

ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!

[faithlilly]

Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?

If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.

ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!

You have posted the link where there is a discussion about the lies. What more would you like to discuss?

I’d advise anyone who has read the book to read the transcripts and find for themselves the congruity between the two.

I’m not interested in the various relationships within the case or who’s fallen out with who. That does not change the facts and the facts are all that concern me, not personalities.

It is telling though that rather than challenge my belief that Luke is innocent, the transcripts have done the opposite and hardened my conviction. They have shown several witnesses to be if not deliberately dishonest then certainly evasive. An excellent example of this was Findlay’s masterful taking apart of the testimony of Fleming and Walsh. He left them with not a shred of credibility.

[Joe Blogs]

Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?

If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.

ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!

No Sandras here Ken! Only Josephs!
Yes i'm monitoring, but cant really add anything, best leaving Faith to deal with you, her replies to you are far superior to anything I can offer!

[Kenmair]

You have posted the link where there is a discussion about them. What more would you like to discuss?
 An excellent example of this was Findlay’s masterful taking apart of the testimony of Fleming and Walsh. He left them with not a shred of credibility.

If that was the case re: DF being so masterful why did the jury not acquit? The only people who believe this weren't in court - particularly Lean who wrote a book about a case based on testimony from the killer and his mother.

[Kenmair]

No Sandras here Ken! Only Josephs!
Yes i'm monitoring, but cant really add anything, best leaving Faith to deal with you, her replies to you are far superior to anything I can offer!

Why are you so invested then? Every day you seem to be here or elsewhere. Any word on the latest parole hearing?

[faithlilly]

Why are you so invested then? Every day you seem to be here or elsewhere. Any word on the latest parole hearing?

If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?

[Kenmair]

If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?

Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...

[Joe Blogs]

Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...

I'll start Ken, Dr Lean was quite correct about the Manson DVD being a freebie, although it came free with a music album and not a magazine.
So Dr Leans point still stands, the DVD was a free gift!

[Joe Blogs]

If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?

Oh Ken is most certainly elsewhere, Faith, but I would never accuse him of such and cause him any anxiety!

[faithlilly]

Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...

Absolutely.

Now before we start our discussion I think it’s best if I make it clear that if you are looking at me to excuse claims of Dr Lean’s that have turned our to be untrue then you’re looking in the wrong place. Dishonesty moves the case forward not one jot….i think we both are in agreement about that.

Now what would you like to discuss?

[Chris_Halkides]

I didn’t say that any were untruthful, just woeful.

I might use the word woeful or problematic to describe cyclist Leonard Kelly's testimony, for example.  I would also like to make clear, however, that "untruthful" does not mean the same thing as lying.

[faithlilly]

I might use the word woeful or problematic to describe cyclist Leonard Kelly's testimony, for example.  I would also like to make clear, however, that "untruthful" does not mean the same thing as lying.

Indeed. It surprises me that the police used a piece of evidence, which in itself was problematic, to build their case around.

Leonard Kelly in his first statement claimed.

“ I cannot describe the noise. It wasn’t a voice. It sounded of movement, like branches moving on a tree.”

Yet by the trial this was his recollection.

“ I thought somebody had somebody in a headlock. It was just a strangling sort of sound — a human,”

How can one of those statements be in the least congruent with the other and yet the police used this single piece of evidence to tie all the others together?