"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

From the Scotsman:

“The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, and that he seemed to be "piling up a rather substantial list of coincidences".

The witness was baited by Donald Findlay into agreeing with him

And the media didn’t report the entire transcript of Donald Findlay’s cross examination of Gordon D ickie and John F erris

What was their evidence during the trial to Alan Turnbull

[Nicholas]

So what conviction do you think that Wisconsin law enforcement got right….the rape Steven Avery served 18 years for before DNA proved him innocent or the one featured in Making a Murderer where Avery and his nephew were alleged to have slashed and stabbed a young woman repeatedly on a mattress that had absolutely no DNA of the victim on it?

I’m of the opinion Wisconsin law enforcement got both right

Psycho killer and rapist Steven Avery has never been ruled out of the 1995 crime

[Nicholas]

LIVE Roberta Glass on one of the triple child killers and psychopathic murderers of  Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/5OjELsISeyY?feature=share

Similarities with the Midlothian psycho killer LM
👇
https://youtu.be/XGzKwUlZsMo

[faithlilly]

The witness was baited by Donald Findlay into agreeing with him

And the media didn’t report the entire transcript of Donald Findlay’s cross examination of Gordon D ickie and John F erris

What was their evidence during the trial to Alan Turnbull

Joh [Name removed] told the truth, under oath.

[faithlilly]

I’m of the opinion Wisconsin law enforcement got both right

Psycho killer and rapist Steven Avery has never been ruled out of the 1995 crime

The rape was in 1985 and the DNA found on the victim was linked to another man who was already serving 60 years for another sexual assault which occurred in the same vicinity after the rape Avery was convicted of.

Therefore Avery certainly has been ruled out of the 1985 crime.

Best stick to stalking Facebook groups and asking spurious questions I think. You really aren’t much of a researcher.

[Venturi Swirl]

The rape was in 1985 and the DNA found on the victim was linked to another man who was already serving 60 years for another sexual assault which occurred in the same vicinity after the rape Avery was convicted of.

Therefore Avery certainly has been ruled out of the 1985 crime.

Best stick to stalking Facebook groups and asking spurious questions I think. You really aren’t much of a researcher.

Like you I was convinced that Stephen Avery was a miscarriage of justice but I also recognise how persuasive one-sided documentaries can be which is why I am looking forward to the new series.  I am open minded about it.  If you’re interested in challeneging your own beliefs about this case you could start by reading the post on here by Scipio_USMC
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6945.15

[Nicholas]

The rape was in 1985 and the DNA found on the victim was linked to another man

Therefore Avery certainly has been ruled out of the 1985 crime.

You are correct

Penny Beernsten was brutally beaten and raped in 1985

1995 was the year the dna from nail scrapings was said to belong to a then unknown individual

Sadistic psycho rapist and murderer Steven Avery has not been ruled out of the 1985 crime

[faithlilly]

You are correct

Penny Beernsten was brutally beaten and raped in 1985

1995 was the year the dna from nail scrapings was said to belong to a then unknown individual

Sadistic psycho rapist and murderer Steven Avery has not been ruled out of the 1985 crime

Don’t be silly now.

[Mr Apples]

‘I read’….doesn’t that always ring alarm bells when you post it? You do believe any old rubbish after all.

How would Luke benefit from Shane claiming he got home earlier than he did? If a story had been agreed between the Mitchells surely by the 3rd of July they would all be saying the same thing?  If an alibi was being set up why didn’t Shane say categorically that he’d seen Luke at home when he returned home on the 3rd? Your logic really makes no sense.

It is interesting that if Shane had got home at 15.40, as he usually did, Luke wouldn’t have been home from school. This is, of course, what Shane said in his first statement. This did not help Luke in the slightest.

Firstly, do you think the police waited 3 days until they asked SM for his first statement? That they would wait 3 days before asking SM where his wee brother was between school finishing time and 1730 on 30.06.03? Bearing in mind that this was an investigation into the savage, brutal murder of a 14-year-old child -- a child who was courting SM's wee brother, and this same wee brother was the one person this savagely murdered child specifically set off to meet on the afternoon of 30.06.03?

As regards the alibi, what would've benefitted LM, and getting stories to match from the off, or stories not matching from the off, etc? We could theorise and speculate about this all day and not get anywhere; it would be futile as there are so many variables involved as to why stories may or may not add up from the outset (trauma, genuine memory loss and lies, for example; and there are people who think that stories that match from the off is a surefire sign of lies and deceit, and, likewise, there are those who think that stories that don't match from the beginning is indicative of dishonesty; such a minefield ). I revert back to my earlier points of SM saying, on 03.07.03, that he could not remember if he saw LM or not when he got in from work on 30.06.03 and that he got in at 1540 hrs. So, SM committed to neither seeing nor not seeing his brother, which, imo, is a cop-out and an ambiguous way of saying LM wasn't there. Besides, SM told the High Court that he phoned LM at the family landline from his mobile at approximately 1605 hrs and spoke to him for about 2 mins; are we really expected to believe that he forgot about this phone call within a few days? And f forgot about fixing his friend's car? No way-- he was lying. And I suspect he was told to lie by CM until they all thought of a story they could stick to (and that eventually came -- from CM on 06.07.03 -- in the form of "LM mashing tatties in the kitchen"). As I said in a previous post, it would've been impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent that day, as it was merely a two-storey, detached property. The fact that SM made such a big fuss of wether or not he saw LM that day speaks volumes; he was lying. You either saw him or you didn't. No in between (such as not remembering either way if LM was there or wasn't there). How does that even work??! A cop-out of an answer, imo. SM was lying. And, as highlighted in my previous 2 posts on this thread, SM finally admitted under oath that he didn't see his brother in the house that day between 1530 - 1730. From not being sure on 03.07.03, to saying he saw him, as per his statement on 07.07.03 (which aligned exactly with CM's statement on 06.07.03,  as she instructed him to amend his original statement given on 03.07.03 to match hers -- funny that, eh?), to then renegue on all of this on 14.04.04 and revert back to saying  "he couldn't remember if his brother was in the house", to then finally, in January 2005, when under oath, admit verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." Such a mess. SM, as I've shown, lied throughout the entire investigation, eventually telling the truth at court.

Btw, I suspect the reason SM & CM didn't face perjury charges was because the Crown took pity on them and felt that they had both suffered enough because of the stress of investigation and trial, and, above all, the fact LM was convicted of murder.

[faithlilly]

Firstly, do you think the police waited 3 days until they asked SM for his first statement? That they would wait 3 days before asking SM where his wee brother was between school finishing time and 1730 on 30.06.03? Bearing in mind that this was an investigation into the savage, brutal murder of a 14-year-old child -- a child who was courting SM's wee brother, and this same wee brother was the one person this savagely murdered child specifically set off to meet on the afternoon of 30.06.03?

As regards the alibi, what would've benefitted LM, and getting stories to match from the off, or stories not matching from the off, etc? We could theorise and speculate about this all day and not get anywhere; it would be futile as there are so many variables involved as to why stories may or may not add up from the outset (trauma, genuine memory loss and lies, for example; and there are people who think that stories that match from the off is a surefire sign of lies and deceit, and, likewise, there are those who think that stories that don't match from the beginning is indicative of dishonesty; such a minefield ). I revert back to my earlier points of SM saying, on 03.07.03, that he could not remember if he saw LM or not when he got in from work on 30.06.03 and that he got in at 1540 hrs. So, SM committed to neither seeing nor not seeing his brother, which, imo, is a cop-out and an ambiguous way of saying LM wasn't there. Besides, SM told the High Court that he phoned LM at the family landline from his mobile at approximately 1605 hrs and spoke to him for about 2 mins; are we really expected to believe that he forgot about this phone call within a few days? And f forgot about fixing his friend's car? No way-- he was lying. And I suspect he was told to lie by CM until they all thought of a story they could stick to (and that eventually came -- from CM on 06.07.03 -- in the form of "LM mashing tatties in the kitchen"). As I said in a previous post, it would've been impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent that day, as it was merely a two-storey, detached property. The fact that SM made such a big fuss of wether or not he saw LM that day speaks volumes; he was lying. You either saw him or you didn't. No in between (such as not remembering either way if LM was there or wasn't there). How does that even work??! A cop-out of an answer, imo. SM was lying. And, as highlighted in my previous 2 posts on this thread, SM finally admitted under oath that he didn't see his brother in the house that day between 1530 - 1730. From not being sure on 03.07.03, to saying he saw him, as per his statement on 07.07.03 (which aligned exactly with CM's statement on 06.07.03,  as she instructed him to amend his original statement given on 03.07.03 to match hers -- funny that, eh?), to then renegue on all of this on 14.04.04 and revert back to saying  "he couldn't remember if his brother was in the house", to then finally, in January 2005, when under oath, admit verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." Such a mess. SM, as I've shown, lied throughout the entire investigation, eventually telling the truth at court.

Btw, I suspect the reason SM & CM didn't face perjury charges was because the Crown took pity on them and felt that they had both suffered enough because of the stress of investigation and trial, and, above all, the fact LM was convicted of murder.

I’m too tired to answer your post fully atm but let’s start with your last point. The charges were not for perjury as they hadn’t given evidence in court. The charges were for perverting the course of justice and were abandoned just before Shane and Corrine gave evidence….and outwith the hearing of the jury. So the jury would have known from the media that Luke’s mother and brother had been charged but not that the police had dropped those charges before their appearance in court. It shouldn’t be necessary to say but Luke had not been convicted at that point.

The placing of the charges were only ever to cast doubt on the Mitchell’s testimony, including Luke’s alibi, and by the time the case came to court they had done their job. I’m not sure whether you actually believe in the compassionate judicial system you suggest, whether you really are that gullible or whether you’re now justifying your beliefs with any old rubbish.

[Venturi Swirl]

I’m too tired to answer your post fully atm but let’s start with your last point. The charges were not for perjury as they hadn’t given evidence in court. The charges were for perverting the course of justice and were abandoned just before Shane and Corrine gave evidence….and outwith the hearing of the jury. So the jury would have known from the media that Luke’s mother and brother had been charged but not that the police had dropped those charges before their appearance in court. It shouldn’t be necessary to say but Luke had not been convicted at that point.

The placing of the charges were only ever to cast doubt on the Mitchell’s testimony, including Luke’s alibi, and by the time the case came to court they had done their job. I’m not sure whether you actually believe in the compassionate judicial system you suggest, whether you really are that gullible or whether you’re now justifying your beliefs with any old rubbish.

it’s really quite amazing how tolerant you are of changes to witness stories in this case but not so much in the other high profile case you have devoted your life to.   What’s the reason for that I wonder…?

[Mr Apples]

I’m too tired to answer your post fully atm but let’s start with your last point. The charges were not for perjury as they hadn’t given evidence in court. The charges were for perverting the course of justice and were abandoned just before Shane and Corrine gave evidence….and outwith the hearing of the jury. So the jury would have known from the media that Luke’s mother and brother had been charged but not that the police had dropped those charges before their appearance in court. It shouldn’t be necessary to say but Luke had not been convicted at that point.

The placing of the charges were only ever to cast doubt on the Mitchell’s testimony, including Luke’s alibi, and by the time the case came to court they had done their job. I’m not sure whether you actually believe in the compassionate judicial system you suggest, whether you really are that gullible or whether you’re now justifying your beliefs with any old rubbish.

Well, at the very least, surely they had grounds to pursue a charge of perjury against CM, given SM's admission on the stand that he did not see his brother in the house between 1640 - 1730 hrs on.30.06.03? I don't know if they could've charged SM with perverting the course of justice, given he finally admitted on the stand that his brother wasn't home. There are gaps in my knowledge with regard to the legalities of the above.

I don't think you need to come back in and address anything.else. I've delineated clearly and convincingly that LM was not home during those crucial times, as per SM's evidence. Even your entrenched stance is rendered untenable by my previous posts on this thread; I've successfully dismantled your theories with evidence and sound.reasoning.

[faithlilly]

Well, at the very least, surely they had grounds to pursue a charge of perjury against CM, given SM's admission on the stand that he did not see his brother in the house between 1640 - 1730 hrs on.30.06.03? I don't know if they could've charged SM with perverting the course of justice, given he finally admitted on the stand that his brother wasn't home. There are gaps in my knowledge with regard to the legalities of the above.

I don't think you need to come back in and address anything.else. I've delineated clearly and convincingly that LM was not home during those crucial times, as per SM's evidence. Even your entrenched stance is rendered untenable by my previous posts on this thread; I've successfully dismantled your theories with evidence and sound.reasoning.

Have you studied this case at all?

They did charge Shane with perverting the course of justice, why do you think he was so afraid to tell the truth in court ? The Crown dropped the charges just before he gave evidence and out of earshot of the jury. The jury would have therefore believed he still had dishonesty charges pending and thus damaging his credibility.

Sound reasoning? You knew neither the difference between perjury and perverting the course of just nor that Shane had been charged with the latter. Knowing the charges he faced is integral to understanding the evidence he gave in court.

What really does concern me about this dialogue with you is that it is obvious that you don’t understand the complexity of this case yet could tomorrow sit on a jury of a similarly complex case. That really does terrify me.

[Mr Apples]

Have you studied this case at all?

They did charge Shane with perverting the course of justice, why do you think he was so afraid to tell the truth in court ? The Crown dropped the charges just before he gave evidence and out of earshot of the jury. The jury would have therefore believed he still had dishonesty charges pending and thus damaging his credibility.

Sound reasoning? You knew neither the difference between perjury and perverting the course of just nor that Shane had been charged with the latter. Knowing the charges he faced is integral to understanding the evidence he gave in court.

What really does concern me about this dialogue with you is that it is obvious that you don’t understand the complexity of this case yet could tomorrow sit on a jury of a similarly complex case. That really does terrify me.

Everyone and their dog knows the charges against Cm &.SM were dropped. What I was inferring was, given SM's evidence on the stand, and how the case ended, was it not possible that they could have reinstated the charges against both of them? I suspect they could have, but decided not to as SM finally told the truth, and thought CM had suffered enough.

Point taken re inadequate jury members, etc. But, you could apply this to all walks of life, right through to so-called professionals (lawyers, police, cjsw departments, to name a few). I'm not denying our judicial system is flawed to a certain degree. I'm also not suggesting that there are not gaps in my knowledge with regard to said judicial system and indeed this case.

[Mr Apples]

The reason the Crown played what seemed like hardball with the Mitchells was because it was glaringly obvious that LM did it and they were trying to provide him with a false alibi. Moreover, they were having a tough time trying to prove it categorically, especially as they had no direct evidence. They had to fight fire with fire and use unorthodox tactics against a cunning and devious family (going toe to toe with them). I've said this several times on here. I think you are talking nonsense when you say that the perverting the course of justice charges frightened SM to the point he became scared to say anything. That he would just acquiesce and nod like a donkey and agree with the police when his own brother was facing a considerable amount of time in jail. Rubbish! All SM had to say was that he saw his wee brother. He didn't. A big deal was made about LM's whereabouts and that is extremely telling. The alibi was a dog's dinner. He and his mother were lying and the police sussed it out.