And there we have it - that predictive manipulation and blatant lies - That this campaign reeks of. Becoming quite the habit for you. One can only assume that LM himself is very close to your heart. Far too personally involved. Only someone close will continuously try to re-write the evidence, the statements and lie. Any measure used to add weight, yet again to nothing.
Mr Swah - In, response to your question, how do I know what the dog did, was I there? - Is it not relatively simple? - We have witnessed, time and again. Those excerpts of verbatim used. We know, do we not, that the same method would and should be used for such important points. For proof. It is nowhere near good enough to claim witness's did something, then use some long winded r'd in an attempt to prove that point? - Clear, precise, sentences from their statements would do the job. - When this does not happen, when we know a defence tactic is being used, of which we naturally choose the opposite of the point attempting to be made. As with the above. There is no dispute over SK claiming to forget about the dog standing at this V. It is where LM claimed this happened. One should show, with clarity that they said - 'we had walked some distance passed this V -------------- in line with LM's claim and his clarification. He did not clarify this by saying, oh it was slightly passed, or just to the left - he said exactly "parallel to where Jodi lay" He drew a diagram. Intelligent lad.
DF did not make ref to this search party being way passed this V and so forth - he spoke of what happened at this V. Of SK forgetting about the dog standing at it? Of the dog "pulling to it" whilst approaching on their walk down. How do I know this where Findlay is concerned? As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely. And of bringing in no dog expert, why? - How was this dog expert going to prove LM, the search duo and the dog were 40ft, parallel to where Jodi was? - we can see what a dismal job Ms Lean makes of it. They backtracked, how did they see LM on the other side and those blatant lies - That the base of this V is 6ft from the ground?
What did you make of CM's podcast about the jacket and the burner? - When she spoke of the jacket claimed to have been burnt. That it was an original army parka, very heavy and so forth - Freudian slip? Not really, no - as she went on to talk about buying the new one, the claimed replacement. She knew this claimed replacement was of the exact type - this original army surplus of it's heaviness and so forth? Not a replica but the exact same, an original.