Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Fulscher up to his usual disgraceful tricks by trying to get Hazel Behan's evidence declared inadmissible.

From The Guardian...

Wednesday’s hearing was delayed for more than an hour after Brückner’s defence lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, lodged an objection to the official translation of Behan’s 2020 interview with Germany’s criminal police, the BKA. He claimed that the police officer who had interviewed her had not been qualified to do so, thus rendering the interview null and void.The judge, Uta Engemann, rejected the objection, paving the way for Behan to give her evidence.

Tis time Fulscher moved to Portugal.  He would fit right in there.  No good working for The Prosecution. against sex offenders. No one listens to them.
2
Usual rubbish. Seen it on the documentary, read it in the book. So Mitchell must be innocent. Not understanding, or not willing to understand,  that what they have watched/read is only 5% of what this case is about. They lack the common sense to investigate farther. They are the same types to cry that covid is a hoax, getting jab is just being microchip, that trans people are infringing there rights blah blah. What theses types can't do, is focus on innocence, without pointing the finger at others. That is where Lean comes in and the misinformation she infects there brains with. How many times do you read, these types shouting about moped at walls? Not true. Or about changed statements? How many times did the Mitchell's change there's?  How about Mitchell's clothes ripped off him by the police? Not true, he handled them over. I could go on. One thing they will never mention though, is SM >> GAME OVER.
I don't think that Covid-19 was a hoax.  I got the vaccine for it and many others.  [Name removed] did change her statement. I never said ripped; what I said was that one only takes fingernail scrapings from victims and from suspected perpetrators, let alone clothing.  I think that the police bullied SM; I also think that both sides have said things about his testimony that were not entirely true.  As for pointing fingers, I advise letting the forensics identify persons of interest.
3
Fulscher up to his usual disgraceful tricks by trying to get Hazel Behan's evidence declared inadmissible.

From The Guardian...

Wednesday’s hearing was delayed for more than an hour after Brückner’s defence lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, lodged an objection to the official translation of Behan’s 2020 interview with Germany’s criminal police, the BKA. He claimed that the police officer who had interviewed her had not been qualified to do so, thus rendering the interview null and void.The judge, Uta Engemann, rejected the objection, paving the way for Behan to give her evidence.
Desperation.
4
Fulscher up to his usual disgraceful tricks by trying to get Hazel Behan's evidence declared inadmissible.

From The Guardian...

Wednesday’s hearing was delayed for more than an hour after Brückner’s defence lawyer, Friedrich Fülscher, lodged an objection to the official translation of Behan’s 2020 interview with Germany’s criminal police, the BKA. He claimed that the police officer who had interviewed her had not been qualified to do so, thus rendering the interview null and void.The judge, Uta Engemann, rejected the objection, paving the way for Behan to give her evidence.
5
Good old Portuguese Plod

Hazel eventually ran out of the room and raised the alarm at the hotel reception, the court heard. Hazel told the court how Portuguese police “laughed and joked” in front of her when she went to give a statement in Portimao.

“There were 3 police officers there, three men, they had their feet on the table and were chatting with each other,” she said.“They were completely unaware of anything happening around them, and they were only speaking in Portuguese. They were laughing and joking with each other when I sat in the chair. They threw a bag of evidence across the table and asked if they were my clothes and I said yes, of course. It was all very quick. They told me that the best thing that I could do was to go home. I never heard anything again from the Portuguese police.” She said in the days following the attack she felt “like I was in a bubble”.

8
He was forensically aware (as per his telling the police "it's not a full match if you only have some dna")...
LM's words only mean that he was good at analytical reasoning.  Being forensically aware means taking precautions to guard against transfer of materials per Locard's principle.
9
Apologies, I probably didn't word it very well! From what I read, the reason he was not granted parole, was because he was still considered a danger to woman. He's served his time, so if it is a well-known cover up, they could release Luke safe in the knowledge that he wasn't guilty in the first place without losing face. Not sure if that makes any more sense lol!
10
I do not understand what your second sentence means.  A parole board hearing (as I understand it) is not about guilt or innocence.  Regarding the rest of your comment, let me quote former prison governor David Wilson:  "However, slowly and silently, the Scottish judicial system clearly decided that George [Beattie] had served his sentence and so what was the point of re-opening old wounds and owning up to a collective failure of having got Margaret McLaughlin]’s murder investigation and then George’s criminal prosecution so disastrously wrong....What happened to Luke almost echoes all the mistakes that took place within the investigation, trial and conviction of George Beattie and so my fear is that Jodi’s killer has never been caught and punished at all."  I think that there is a tendency to cover up that is universal; whether this did nor did not influence the parole board is impossible to say. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10