Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
 @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Thisis what I actually wrote and I stand by it,

Spraying a suspect’s house with luminol is not the first thing the cops do in an evidence search, particularly not when the murder was obviously committed elsewhere. 

I’ll start taking posting lessons off you when you start posting like a grown-up.
2
If you are going to challenge beliefs can you make it sensible one's, unlike "Police wouldn't use luminol in a suspected murderer's house?"
Thisis what I actually wrote and I stand by it,

Spraying a suspect’s house with luminol is not the first thing the cops do in an evidence search, particularly not when the murder was obviously committed elsewhere. 

I’ll start taking posting lessons off you when you start posting like a grown-up.
3
I suppose that as a defence lawyer, he considered her a hostile witness, to be discredited if at all possible.
Lawyers aren't nice people when they are in a court setting. They are  there to win if at all possible.

Thanks for the arguments.  Not a bad effort at all on your part.
4
Thanks for putting me straight MrA.  If it was “common knowledge” that luminol was used extensively in the house and garden and drains and pipes examined (though I have tried in vain to find a reliable cite which confirms this) then I have to concede that my scepticism may have been misplaced.  However it does seem again that when it comes to “common knowledge “ people pick snd choose what to believe depending on how it suits their narrative.  It’s regarded as “common knowledge’ for example that Mitchell had an interest in satanism and owned a green parka which the police were unable to locate after the murder.  Mitchell supporters seem unable to believe it.  And yes, a few drops of Jodi’s blood found in the house would not have proven anything imo as Mitchell’s defence could have legitimately claimed innocent transfer.   
BTW I will continue to ask questions and challenge commonly held beliefs in this case all the while it pleases me to do so,  despite the laughing emojis.

If you are going to challenge beliefs can you make it sensible one's, unlike "Police wouldn't use luminol in a suspected murderer's house?"
5
You are correct VS - It is a mess because there is nothing in effect to be sourced directly bar the slow release of some transcripts from the trial.

 What an absolute mess it is. All set to confuse of course.

Chris as with Faith, say it was probably LM that F&W saw just not at the wooden gate. They claim they got the place of the sighting wrong! That it was actually several hundred yards further down that road. They want to swap low wooden gate on kerbside to off road and beside 10ft high white wooden painted entry doors. But wait a minute. LM is claiming to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate at this time! So in reality it is, from shade, against a low wooden gate, to out in the open, out of the shade, beside a bus stop, from standing to sitting and on this charade goes.

Some 15mins later he is seen again by MO - It wasn't MK and WW does not have intel around that sighting at all. The same person who claimed that MO knew LM, let's see how that works. So this sighting takes place a little distance from where LM claimed to be. So they seen this lad they could not identify, but did not see the lad just along from him that they could have identified? Both dressed in similar clothing, those claimed doppelgangers anyway. So MO didn't think, wow, he looks like a lad I know, but I know it isn't him because I have just seen him a second ago? - What a mess.

But, IF we do not move that wooden gate to a wall, from standing to sitting, and F&W do have the place of that sighting exactly as it was, what do we have? We have a positive Identification being made of LM. They really can't have it all ways, can they now? They are both saying I believe it was LM, they got his identity correct! But we have to move the sighting to where LM claimed to be at that point?

"Occam's 'bloody' Razor" - The same male with his khaki green clobber was seen around 4:55pm in Easthouses meeting a girl. He is identified as being LM. He is seen again some 45mins later at the wooden gate and (as above) he is LM, as has been admitted by both Chris and Faith, they got his identity correct! The same male is seen again further down that road, he is seen by MO but she could not place an identity upon him, there is NO other male in khaki green clothing just along from there, he is the only male with khaki green clothing on that road/standing in off it. He is seen again by CH who could identify him, seen again by AH who could identify him!

Back to LM who claimed to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of estate making calls to the Jones house, 5:32 (instantly hung up) and 5:38pm. He is NOT seen here at all. He is seen around 5:40pm by F&W several hundred yards up that road, at the wooden gate. He knew he had been seen by boys who knew him, around 6pm. He told the police he had walked a little way up to the road, to where those sightings took place, to see if Jodi were in sight! - But wait, LM was NOT seen looking up any road ever, he was not seen walking back to the entrance of his estate, after his claimed looking to see if the girl were in sight. He was seen standing in off road, trying not to be seen, identified, in those places!

So, in this sad sorry saga - LM was not seen at all doing what he claimed to be doing at any point in time!

The house searches, whatever actions were carried out, whatever substances were applied - NO one has seen those reports first hand nor heard anything about those searches yet via the trial transcripts. But yes, we do know that there was nothing 'incriminating' found, nothing that could be used to show that LM had traipsed blood home nor of course had his long hot shower, the latter, that he never needed to have done in the first place anyway! It is all hyped up fallacy for effect! Attempting at all times to paint the impossible. Stating he 'had' to have did something, to then apply nothing was found = not the killer. What a lot of nonsense. It is as with everything else, that 'whatever' was found from anywhere, could not be directly linked to the murder, not and never that there was nothing at all! Not to say it wasn't linked, only that it could not be proven so.

There is NO evidence that MK was ever on NR at those places, zero. We don't get to swap the title of a claimed singular 'essay' to two essays with different titles on the say so of SF's? Has no one learnt their lesson yet around this male? Or indeed Ms Lean for that matter? Are people incapable of taken the time to analyse information correctly? He was investigated, there was zero evidence of him being on that road, there was zero evidence of any 'essay' of killing a girl in the woods. There were statements from tutors who stated categorically they had 'never' seen such an essay from that student! That the two held were part one and two of something, the first claimed to be so good a follow up was requested?

"WW does not have intel around that sighting at all".


How exactly do you know that? More guesses lol? You might not like it, but I have very good intel into that sighting. That person M'O'S saw was 100% NOT LM. He was significantly taller and also much older than LM. M.O'S has never changed her mind or even had doubts about that in the past 20 years. As I said, I could say more about why it was almost certainly MK, but you wouldn't believe me anyway. Even if I showed you a photo of him standing in that lane, you would say it's fake. @)(++(*
6
This is not an excuse for endeavouring to intimidate witnesses.

I suppose that as a defence lawyer, he considered her a hostile witness, to be discredited if at all possible.
Lawyers aren't nice people when they are in a court setting. They are  there to win if at all possible.
7
I guess he's only doing what he's paid to do - defend Brueckner.

This is not an excuse for endeavouring to intimidate witnesses.
8
Charming, eh what. In defence of a middle aged predator with convictions for this type of sexual abuse against under aged girl children.

I guess he's only doing what he's paid to do - defend Brueckner.
9
I think he probably did, as the witness said that CB didn't seem to be aroused.

Charming, eh what.  In defence of a middle aged predator with convictions for this type of sexual abuse against under aged girl children.
10
There is surely only one question to ask, which I am reluctant to mention.  But under certain physical situations it isn't possible for a man to urinate.  So was it or wasn't it? I bet Fulscher didn't ask that.  So ultimately nothing gained from traumatising a young girl.

I think he probably did, as the witness said that CB didn't seem to be aroused.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10