"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[KenMair]

If he spoke up would you believe him that Luke wasn’t Jodi’s killer?

Not sure, however I'm sure I've mentioned previously I've been in his company when he said he was guilty and was rather uncomplimentary, let's leave it at that. If he'd spoken in his defence, I would have questioned why he's stayed silent - wouldn't you?

You seem to think that because there's no concert photo of LM in a parka that he never had one, despite 8+ court witnesses testifying he had?

[faithlilly]

Not sure, however I'm sure I've mentioned previously I've been in his company when he said he was guilty and was rather uncomplimentary, let's leave it at that. If he'd spoken in his defence, I would have questioned why he's stayed silent - wouldn't you?

You seem to think that because there's no concert photo of LM in a parka that he never had one, despite 8+ court witnesses testifying he had?

You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?

“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?

I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”

Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?

[KenMair]

You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?

“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?

I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”

Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?

Good to see you put such effort in trying to disprove me. As I've said,  I've been in his company when he said not to mention his brother who he referred to as a "that f***** wee c***".

Now, back to why he hasn't spoken up for him in 20 years?

[faithlilly]

Good to see you put such effort in trying to disprove me. As I've said,  I've been in his company when he said not to mention his brother who he referred to as a "that f***** wee c***".

Now, back to why he hasn't spoken up for him in 20 years?

A little bit of advice. If you want people to give any credibility to your claims perhaps you should start by being consistent?

[KenMair]

Why are you in the position to give me advice in a closed convicted murder case? I've been consistent (in my opinion). I stand by the courts decisions/appeal and transcripts. The fact you can't respond to why SM & PM haven't spoken in 20 years over winning an internet argument says enough.

I've witnessed SM saying his brother was guilty.,
You've asked if SM told me he thought his brother was innocent, would I believe him?
Regardless of what he said/she said, I'll stand with court verdict unless further evidence is provided - not local gossip.

[Venturi Swirl]

You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?

“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?

I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”

Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?

I hate how people can’t read and understand plain English.  Ken has been consistent and the quote you dug up proves it.  Oops.

[Parky41]

Why are you in the position to give me advice in a closed convicted murder case? I've been consistent (in my opinion). I stand by the courts decisions/appeal and transcripts. The fact you can't respond to why SM & PM haven't spoken in 20 years over winning an internet argument says enough.

I've witnessed SM saying his brother was guilty.,
You've asked if SM told me he thought his brother was innocent, would I believe him?
Regardless of what he said/she said, I'll stand with court verdict unless further evidence is provided - not local gossip.

He had placed a lock on his door, prior to leaving the family home. The latter taken place shortly after being released from custody, whilst under charge. Had not visited his brother in prison for months prior to giving testimony. MIAST, where his mother publicly declared she had been abandoned, left to rot with failing health. LM only ever relates to his mother. Nothing of the father and brother ever. Factors that don't point to a belief in innocence. It's one thing not publicly supporting this innocence cry, it's something else entirely when the mother has been abandoned also?

The united front has come in the shape of that duo - SL & CM. With those obtuse claims of only meeting in September 2003. Who believes that story now after all that has been exposed? That a stranger contacted another for help with her sons case? There was no case. No arrest and at a time just short of 'celebrating the end of a difficult time' That far too close collaboration, conflict of interest, from two people who clearly knew each other.

[faithlilly]

He had placed a lock on his door, prior to leaving the family home. The latter taken place shortly after being released from custody, whilst under charge. Had not visited his brother in prison for months prior to giving testimony. MIAST, where his mother publicly declared she had been abandoned, left to rot with failing health. LM only ever relates to his mother. Nothing of the father and brother ever. Factors that don't point to a belief in innocence. It's one thing not publicly supporting this innocence cry, it's something else entirely when the mother has been abandoned also?

The united front has come in the shape of that duo - SL & CM. With those obtuse claims of only meeting in September 2003. Who believes that story now after all that has been exposed? That a stranger contacted another for help with her sons case? There was no case. No arrest and at a time just short of 'celebrating the end of a difficult time' That far too close collaboration, conflict of interest, from two people who clearly knew each other.

Isn’t it about time we moved on? The transcripts are opening the case up more and more every time one is posted. There is now no need to rely on Dr Lean’s tome for information on the case….the transcripts are revealing a whole new world of information. Much of it was indeed contained in Dr Lean’s book, some is absolutely new and does contradict what we thought we already knew.

No one cares whether Dr Lean and Corrine Mitchell knew each other, it’s old news…it doesn’t matter. No one cares whether Shane supports his brother…it really is immaterial. Have we not heard from Andrew Malkinson’s sister who thought he was a murderer right up to he was exonerated?

Shane has testified under oath that he can’t remember if Luke was home the night of Jodie’s murder so, while on the 14th of April 2004 he didn’t believe that Luke could kill Jodi as he ‘couldn’t hurt a fly, hurt anyone’ perhaps that’s changed? Who knows…families are fickle and his feelings now towards Luke matter not a jot. What does matter is that we now have indisputable records of much of the trial testimony.

Come on Parky, it’s a brave new world out there. Throw down the shackles of old enmities and embrace what’s really important, that we now have a clean, untainted record of the real evidence in this case.

[Venturi Swirl]

Isn’t it about time we moved on? The transcripts are opening the case up more and more every time one is posted. There is now no need to rely on Dr Lean’s tome for information on the case….the transcripts are revealing a whole new world of information. Much of it was indeed contained in Dr Lean’s book, some is absolutely new and does contradict what we thought we already knew.

No one cares whether Dr Lean and Corrine Mitchell knew each other, it’s old news…it doesn’t matter. No one cares whether Shane supports his brother…it really is immaterial. Have we not heard from Andrew Malkinson’s sister who thought he was a murderer right up to he was exonerated?

Shane has testified under oath that he can’t remember if Luke was home the night of Jodie’s murder so, while on the 14th of April 2004 he didn’t believe that Luke could kill Jodi as he ‘couldn’t hurt a fly, hurt anyone’ perhaps that’s changed? Who knows…families are fickle and his feelings now towards Luke matter not a jot. What does matter is that we now have indisputable records of much of the trial testimony.

Come on Parky, it’s a brave new world out there. Throw down the shackles of old enmities and embrace what’s really important, that we now have a clean, untainted record of the real evidence in this case.

And what have we learned from the transcripts that definitively exculpates Mitchell?  What we have learned is that SL, his Number One ambassador had to misrepresent the truth of some of the court proceedings in order to strengthen her case but what did she fail to mention in them that now shows Mitchell in a better light than before?  Nothing, I'll wager...

[Chris_Halkides]

Just quickly ......  those two women only saw this guy fleetingly at a gate from a car and yet positively Id'd him. The photo on the newspaper 'jumped out at them' as being LM (one of the women even said, "Oh my God, it's him!").They were unequivocal that it it was him; no doubt whatsoever.

The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case.  As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy.  IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.

[Venturi Swirl]

The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case.  As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy.  IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.

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

[Parky41]

And what have we learned from the transcripts that definitively exculpates Mitchell?  What we have learned is that SL, his Number One ambassador had to misrepresent the truth of some of the court proceedings in order to strengthen her case but what did she fail to mention in them that now shows Mitchell in a better light than before?  Nothing, I'll wager...

Exactly. And nothing. Which is why we have this continuous attempt at pulling up all and sundry around 'what can happen' without showing that it did happen in this case.

The lies matter. Every lie, every attack on the basis of lies, matter. Every lie was promoted and backed fully by the convicted. All three books are for and from LM. The 3rd was co written and fact checked by the self published author of the 1st two. The 3rd as with the other two, proudly welcomed by CM also. There is no, and never has there been this feeble 'The lies don't matter, all that matters is the point'  - The exposure, the continuous reminder of those lies will always be applicable for as long those books are on sale. Why doesn't the alter ego/clone work to have those books taken down if they don't want the lies to be continuously exposed? That will be for the same reason, that no proof was ever required to back up the narrative in the 1st instance. - They are not and never have been interested in the truth. All charlatans.

Which again brings us back full circle, credibility or lack of it. A convicted killer who has promoted/backed every lie put out from and for him. Is claiming to be innocent. Who was exposed repeatedly to have lied in the investigation into the death of his girlfriend. Who's abundance of lies played a major factor in his own conviction. The chopping and changing of accounts, from him, his mother, his brother, all aided in his conviction. Which the transcripts expose. The clear lack of support from family/friends, not just of LM but also the mother is relevant, of course it is. The lying since his conviction to gain public support is relevant all the way back to the 30th of June. Compulsive liars don't hold credibility. The transcripts give us clear reason, back fully, why LM was taken to trial for this murder. Not the feeble, false, made up narrative of - 'It was because a policeman 'may' have written something down wrong!

Ms Lean has never held much of any of the transcripts, did not attend the trial - Utter fallacy that most of what transpired at court is held within her book. - Utter tosh. Intentionally misled the reader into believing she had. Mainly using media reports, manipulating around them, to make it appear as if it was from transcripts and her attendance. Much like her 1st book, now withdrawn - A psychological scam of inference. An opinion long held prior to the release of the transcrips.

[Mr Apples]

The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case.  As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy.  IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.

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. Chris, in addition to the eyewitness evidence (which was, on its own, damaging for the defence), there were an additional 19 other points/adminicles of circumstanstial evidence used to convict LM. So, while the eyewitness testimony per se was convincing, it was even more convincing and robust when those other 19 strands of circumstantial evidence were pulled together; it exposed LM extremely convincingly. As people have been saying on here for years now, the evidence against LM was overwhelming and watertight. 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.

[faithlilly]

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. Chris, in addition to the eyewitness evidence (which was, on its own, damaging for the defence), there were an additional 19 other points/adminicles of circumstanstial evidence used to convict LM. So, while the eyewitness testimony per se was convincing, it was even more convincing and robust when those other 19 strands of circumstantial evidence were pulled together; it exposed LM extremely convincingly. As people have been saying on here for years now, the evidence against LM was overwhelming and watertight. 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.

If it was as compelling a case as you suggest then it would have brought back a unanimous verdict. They jury could have been split 8 to 7, because as I’ve already pointed out, the judge would only need 8 of the jury to agree on Luke’s guilty for a guilty verdict to be brought forward.

[Venturi Swirl]

If it was as compelling a case as you suggest then it would have brought back a unanimous verdict. They jury could have been split 8 to 7, because as I’ve already pointed out, the judge would only need 8 of the jury to agree on Luke’s guilty for a guilty verdict to be brought forward.

Could’ve been 9 to 6, 10 to 5, 11 to 4, 12 to 3, 13 to 2, 14 to 1 too.