Author Topic: What IF Luke Mitchell is proven guilty after the remaining samples are tested?  (Read 5496 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?

Didnít a police officer write Leonard Kellyís first statement



Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Didnít a police officer write Leonard Kellyís first statement

AgainÖ.. Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Chris_Halkides

And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time.  The search party changed what was said about Mia.  Ms. Bryson's statement also changed.  This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.

Offline faithlilly

And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time.  The search party changed what was said about Mia.  Ms. Bryson's statement also changed.  This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.

Absolutely and itís also interesting that while Fleming and Walsh gave a statement early in the investigation when they recognised Luke in the newspaper in August neither reported it to the police. Odd behaviour if they thought that Luke may be involved in the murder.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

AgainÖ.. Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?

Makes no difference if he did or didnít John
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time.  The search party changed what was said about Mia.  Ms. Bryson's statement also changed.  This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.

Leonard Kellyís statements/evidence didnít change over time John

He remained consistent from day one ie; 1st July 2003

He always claimed to have heard someone being strangled/a human sound at around 5:00pm when he was cycling along the path heading home from work
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time.  The search party changed what was said about Mia.  Ms. Bryson's statement also changed.  This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.

Many other witnesses supported Leonard Kellyís evidence ie; of what he said he had heard that evening
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Makes no difference if he did or didnít John

It makes all the difference. What we have is yet another benign statement fundamentally changed to support the police narrative.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Leonard Kellyís statements/evidence didnít change over time John

He remained consistent from day one ie; 1st July 2003

He always claimed to have heard someone being strangled/a human sound at around 5:00pm when he was cycling along the path heading home from work

Leonard Kellyís statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didnít deny having changed it.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Many other witnesses supported Leonard Kellyís evidence ie; of what he said he had heard that evening

Who?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Who?

Many other witnesses

Might be an idea to speak to someone who attended the 42 day trial
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Leonard Kellyís statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didnít deny having changed it.

Leonard Kellyís evidence of what he heard that evening remained the same
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Bullseye

Might be an idea to speak to someone who attended the 42 day trial

Sorry but that seems to be your answer to everything when asked for a source. You can say any old rubbish, try to taint the evidence and then make out itís true by saying - speak to someone at the 42 day trial or you were not at the 42 day trial. You are tying to make it seem the lies you are spreading is actual evidence from the trial, it is not, it is you guessing, surmising and fantasising imo. You were not at the trial either so how can you know. You have never given any source for a lot of the misinformation you put out there other than a blog written by yourself Iím sure. Hardly a credible source. Do you have any other sources? Maybe you are in contact with someone that attended all or most of 42 days of the trial? We know Sandra and Scott are and they also have the defence papers.
How about sticking to facts instead of trying to put out false information to try to confuse matters. Is it any wonder people look to Sandra and Scott and the FB groups when you are spouting rubbish like that. You have a great knowledge of the case and can certainly put up a good argument. We are all free to put out theories and put forward what we think might have happened but please stop trying to make out your theory as fact, itís getting boring now. When you do stick to the facts you make some great arguments and some very good points but I just feel some of the stuff you come out with then discredits, in some ways, the good points you make.

Offline Nicholas

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Bullseye


It is John

Again no sources just Ďit isí that says it all really!

Is it me or faithlilly thatís John? Or just everyone that disagrees with you?