UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Joe Blogs on December 21, 2024, 03:47:12 PM
-
Would Alan Turnbulls closing speech have convinced you of Luke Mitchells guilt or would you have been left with reasonable doubt?
-
Among other things, his closing speech avoided the issue Ms Bryson's getting lost and how this would have affected the time at which she saw someone. His speech left me with no doubt that he could sell sand to Lawrence of Arabia.
-
Hi Chris. Are you happy with Donald Findlays closing speech? It is getting a lot of criticism on Twitter, due to the fact that Findlay implied that Andrina Bryson must have seen Luke in his bomber jacket and also for stating that it was possible for Luke to have carried out the crime.
Not sure what Findlay was trying to do. Of course it was possible for Luke to carry out the murder, but only through applying a very muddled illogical scenario!
Maybe Findlay thought that he had pointed out enough problems with the prosecution case that they would easily outweigh anything negative he said?
I mean Findlay is dead right, a LM guilt scenario is illogical from the get go, who in their right mind would arrange to meet their girlfriend only to kill them within a half hour or so? Not only did they plan to meet, but Jodi's family knew they planned to meet, just who did LM think would be the prime suspect under such circumstances?
Of course LM claims that Jodi was meeting him at his mums house in Newbattle, as arranged in the texts. And again Findlay quite rightly pointed out that if Luke lied about meeting at Newbattle, how did he know that the texts hadn't been retained on Judith's phone to prove otherwise?
And if Judith knew that Jodi planned to meet Luke in Easthouses , why then didn't she confront Luke about this when he phoned at 10.40? All that Judith did was phone Alice, who promptly headed for RDP to search for Jodi!
Indeed, there seems to be no mention of a clash of statements regarding where Luke and Jodi planned to meet that day, no mention of 'mucking about up here', Judith even went to see Luke in the days following the murder, yet only queried why he didn't phone back, no mention about meeting up in Easthouses whatsoever at that time.
Next Findlay pointed out that the couple Andrina Bryson saw seemed like strangers standing appart, not lovers meeting and embracing. Again,a very good point, a very 'important fact if you ask me!
Then we have to ask why Jodi's body was found about two thirds back along RDP if its true they planned to muck about in the Easthouses area? Why did Jodi seem to be heading for Newbattle when she was attacked? Again, very important if you ask me!
Then Fidlay points out the 5.40 call to Ovens allerting Jodi's family that she hadn't arrived! You have to ask, arrived where?? Easthouses or Newbattle? Why didn't Ovens at least quiery why Jodi hadn't arrived, if it was supposed to be in Easthouses, a mere three minute walk from Jodi's house?
Anyway, the point Findlay was making was, why phone for the cavalry to arrive when you intend to loitre on Newbattle RD seen by all in the parka for almost another hour?
This has always been a big point for me, there was absolutely no need for Luke to be on Newbattle road at all on the way home if guilty. Get home, wash, burn clothing and get an alibi in place right away, then phone Jodi's house.
Standing on Newbattle RD with the chance of being lifted by the police in the murder clothes is quite frankly absurd!
Then Findlay points out the 6.40 phone call home that Luke made, while he must have already 'been' at home going by the Crown scenario.
Then Findlay points out the claim of Luke waiting until 10.00 to get rid of the murder weapon!
Then of course we have Luke finding Jodi's body! As Findlay points out, if Luke was guilty then he would have avoided fining the body at all costs! Either simply stay at home, leave the dog at home or just refrain from going over the V and looking! For heavens sake, its that simple surely? DONT GO NEAR THE BODY!
So,on the whole, I think Findlay's closing speech had enough in it to cause most people reasonable doubt over Luke Muir Mitchells guilt!
It did for me anyway Chris! How about you??
-
It doesn't matter if you're not happy with Findlay's closing speech, the jury did not believe LM or CM's version of events.
-
Hi Ken.
Yes, in the end the jury decided that Luke and Corrine had not told the truth, but the thing is did Findlays closing speech influence them with their decision?
Hinting that Andrina Bryson saw someone in a bomber jacket and agreeing that it was possible for Luke to have carried out the crime would certainly have made the jury scratch their heads surely?
Very strange statements indeed from Findlay! No wonder supporters are asking, why?
And what did Findlay mean it was possible for LM to carry out the crime? Was he agreeing with the prosecution scenario? A scenario which he had just demolished, showing how ridiculous it was for LM to stand in his murder clothes on Newbattle Rd for an hour after the murder instead of rushing home to destroy evidence and clean up?
No wonder some are saying that Findlay must have thought LM was guilty!
-
It was a matter of time before Findlay was blamed, they've blamed everyone else except the maniac responsible. DF's job is not to presume guilt but to prove that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, which he was unable to do due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the jury not believing LM's sole alibi.
I'm sure he said he spent more time with LM than any other client so doubt he would have deliberately mislead the jury. It's another interesting but futile angle from the remaining campaigners.
-
None the less , Ken, I would certainly agree that it was incredibly odd to say the least for Findlay to mention Bryson seeing LM in his bomber and stating that a LM guilt scenario was quite possible!
Very strange defence tactics indeed!
-
It was a matter of time before Findlay was blamed, they've blamed everyone else except the maniac responsible. DF's job is not to presume guilt but to prove that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, which he was unable to do due to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and the jury not believing LM's sole alibi.
I'm sure he said he spent more time with LM than any other client so doubt he would have deliberately mislead the jury. It's another interesting but futile angle from the remaining campaigners.
Sectarianism rules deep in your parts doesn’t it?
-
Sectarianism rules deep in your parts doesn’t it?
What parts are those then?
Findlay is from Fife, so is Turnbull? Findlay successfully defended Paul [Name removed], a catholic, so not sure how your sectarianism theory works. LM was not religious and identified as a teen satanist.
-
None the less , Ken, I would certainly agree that it was incredibly odd to say the least for Findlay to mention Bryson seeing LM in his bomber and stating that a LM guilt scenario was quite possible!
Very strange defence tactics indeed!
I'm sure DF knew what he was doing.
Anyway, welcome aboard Sandra and say hello to your no. 1 fan faithlilly 8((()*/
-
No Sandra's here, Ken! That rumour is nonsense!
As for Faithlilly, I have read her posts for a number of years now on various forums, many of us regard her as a superior authority regarding LM innocence. I am a newbie compared to Faith, she is the master, I am merely a pupil!
I am the fan!
-
No Sandra's here, Ken! That rumour is nonsense!
As for Faithlilly, I have read her posts for a number of years now on various forums, many of us regard her as a superior authority regarding LM innocence. I am a newbie compared to Faith, she is the master, I am merely a pupil!
I am the fan!
Lovely comment, I'm welling up. 8)><(
Considering Sandra has been exposed as a compulsive liar via the court transcripts, your comments only maintain what everyone apart from Mrs Lilly and Chris already know. A desperate last throw of the dice after your microphone and speakers were reclaimed by the bingo wivies.
-
Not so, Ken!
But, you're free to think whatever you wish, and call me whatever you wish!
It will make no difference to my replie's!
They like to call me Jolean over on Twitter, as you probably know!
-
Not so, Ken!
But, you're free to think whatever you wish, and call me whatever you wish!
It will make no difference to my replie's!
They like to call me Jolean over on Twitter, as you probably know!
I suppose identities are neither here nor there. The fact Ms Lean has been exposed as distorting "facts" to fit an agenda is more important. I'm not sure why yourself or faithlilly would support SL's view compared to court testimonies that proved LM's guilt. There is a website that goes through dozens of SL's book lies if you want to comment on them?
-
Yes, i'm well aware of all the negative articles concerning Dr Lean, Ken, they're well advertised on Twitter!
Needless to say, I still fully support her!
Goodnight!
-
Yes, i'm well aware of all the negative articles concerning Dr Lean, Ken, they're well advertised on Twitter!
Needless to say, I still fully support her!
Goodnight!
Why do you fully support someone who has been exposed as a compulsive liar? I'm not on twitter but have seen the court transcripts website that shows the extent of SL's lies compared to what actually happened. Even a primary school child would see through this.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
Why do you fully support someone who has been exposed as a compulsive liar? I'm not on twitter but have seen the court transcripts website that shows the extent of SL's lies compared to what actually happened. Even a primary school child would see through this.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
What has SL had to say for herself now that her lies have been exposed, or has she gone into hiding?
-
Why do you fully support someone who has been exposed as a compulsive liar? I'm not on twitter but have seen the court transcripts website that shows the extent of SL's lies compared to what actually happened. Even a primary school child would see through this.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
Yes, i've read the transcript comparisons, Ken!
But surely you mean what was actually 'said'. not what actually 'happened'.
Entirely different thing! We dont know what happened yet, especially if LM is innocent!
All we have is what was 'said' in statements, much of which was changed by witnesses as time passed on the run up to the trial, that should be the main concern.
-
Yes, i've read the transcript comparisons, Ken!
But surely you mean what was actually 'said'. not what actually 'happened'.
Entirely different thing! We dont know what happened yet, especially if LM is innocent!
All we have is what was 'said' in statements, much of which was changed by witnesses as time passed on the run up to the trial, that should be the main concern.
If Mitchell is so evidently innocent from what was presented in court why did Sandra Lean have to misrepresent so much of it in her campaign to free him?
-
If Mitchell is so evidently innocent from what was presented in court why did Sandra Lean have to misrepresent so much of it in her campaign to free him?
I believe Dr Lean was working from original statements rather than trial transcripts to compile her book, Vertigo!
Therefore there can be no 'trial transcript', 'book' comparison as it were!
-
I believe Dr Lean was working from original statements rather than trial transcripts to compile her book, Vertigo!
Therefore there can be no 'trial transcript', 'book' comparison as it were!
Hmm, didn’t she claim to have full access to the court transcripts?
-
Hmm, didn’t she claim to have full access to the court transcripts?
Maybe, Vertigo, would need to check!
Still doesn't mean she based her book on them though does it?
Would need to watch some of Dr Leans podcasts on the subject to see exactly what she claims.
-
What has SL had to say for herself now that her lies have been exposed, or has she gone into hiding?
She is hanging on via her sock puppet account Joe Blogs pretending she has done no wrong. Even the clowns who run the LM campaign kicked her out.
-
Maybe, Vertigo, would need to check!
Still doesn't mean she based her book on them though does it?
Would need to watch some of Dr Leans podcasts on the subject to see exactly what she claims.
If she had full access to the court transcripts then there really is no excuse for not basing her book on them is there?
-
If she had full access to the court transcripts then there really is no excuse for not basing her book on them is there?
I dont know, Vertigo!
Obviously Dr Lean thinks that LM is innocent, so isn't going to quote too much from the final evidence that made it to court, by that time the search trio especially had changed their story considerably!
Why does her book need to be based on the trial transcripts and not earlier witness statements which undoubtably hold more truth?
For instance, 'mucking about up here' was thrown about several times in court and seemed to be accepted, yet LM claim of meeting Jodi at Newbattle was not questioned by a sole in the days/weeks following the murder!
I believe the evidence which ended up in court bore little resemblance to the original statements, and Dr Lean was quite right to give us a more complete/truer version of events in her book!
-
I dont know, Vertigo!
Obviously Dr Lean thinks that LM is innocent, so isn't going to quote too much from the final evidence that made it to court, by that time the search trio especially had changed their story considerably!
Why does her book need to be based on the trial transcripts and not earlier witness statements which undoubtably hold more truth?
For instance, 'mucking about up here' was thrown about several times in court and seemed to be accepted, yet LM claim of meeting Jodi at Newbattle was not questioned by a sole in the days/weeks following the murder!
I believe the evidence which ended up in court bore little resemblance to the original statements, and Dr Lean was quite right to give us a more complete/truer version of events in her book!
Because statements given in court are given under oath and should carry more weight imo and should certainly not be ignored or misrepresented when writing a book about the case because it is upon the evidence presented in court that the jury makes its judgement.
-
If she had full access to the court transcripts then there really is no excuse for not basing her book on them is there?
She claims in a YT video she had "all" the transcripts which is a lie as the person who is publishing the transcripts was told some are not available and most were being transcribed for the first time. Lying is second nature to Lean and I'm sure she doesn't believe LM is not guilty, but wrote the book as an "Innocence Fraud" and used the case to generate money and notoriety for herself.
I've yet to see anyone in the criminal justice or legal world refer to her book as an accurate portrayal of the case.
-
She claims in a YT video she had "all" the transcripts which is a lie as the person who is publishing the transcripts was told some are not available and most were being transcribed for the first time. Lying is second nature to Lean and I'm sure she doesn't believe LM is not guilty, but wrote the book as an "Innocence Fraud" and used the case to generate money and notoriety for herself.
I've yet to see anyone in the criminal justice or legal world refer to her book as an accurate portrayal of the case.
Thats interesting Ken!
Do you know which ones were transcribed for the first time?
And if this is the case, how then can Dr Leans book be compared with them ?
-
Because statements given in court are given under oath and should carry more weight imo and should certainly not be ignored or misrepresented when writing a book about the case because it is upon the evidence presented in court that the jury makes its judgement.
Well, somebody lied in court regarding where Jodi and Luke planned to meet, Vertigo! Wasn't LM taking a huge risk lying to the police regarding this issue not knowing whether or not the Jodi texts still existed?
And again, why didn't Judith question LM about'mucking about up here' when he phoned her at 10.40?
No such quiery was made and Judith phoned Alice soon after to send her directly to RDP!
So, honestly, who doe's it look like was telling the truth regarding the meeting place of Jodi/Luke??
And remember, the only question Judith asked LM in the days following the murder was why he didn't phone again when Jodi failed to turn up! No quiery was made about the meeting place as far as I know, was it??
When did 'mucking about up here ' become FACT? And you tell me only to accept the court evidence, Vertigo!
I cant do that i'm afraid, no way! That doesn't make sense to me!
-
Thats interesting Ken!
Do you know which ones were transcribed for the first time?
And if this is the case, how then can Dr Leans book be compared with them ?
The point which you've conveniently ignored is SL claimed she had all the transcripts. The LM transcriptions website show that clearly never happened. She also claimed the transcripts were not available for mere mortals, only people like herself. Yet another lie.
-
The point which you've conveniently ignored is SL claimed she had all the transcripts. The LM transcriptions website show that clearly never happened. She also claimed the transcripts were not available for mere mortals, only people like herself. Yet another lie.
Yes, i've read all about that on Twitter long ago Ken!
But really, what has that got to do with LM guilt/innocence?
Lets discuss why you think he's guilty rather!
-
Yes, i've read all about that on Twitter long ago Ken!
But really, what has that got to do with LM guilt/innocence?
Lets discuss why you think he's guilty rather!
Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the points?
The burden of proof is on the so-called LM campaign to prove otherwise. Nothing I've seen or read has made me change my mind. In fact it has probably made it stronger due to the nature of people involved in the campaign, particularly Lean, Forbes and now LM's girlfriend of 20 years ago taking the reigns.
-
Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the points?
The burden of proof is on the so-called LM campaign to prove otherwise. Nothing I've seen or read has made me change my mind. In fact it has probably made it stronger due to the nature of people involved in the campaign, particularly Lean, Forbes and now LM's girlfriend of 20 years ago taking the reigns.
I dont know why you're looking at those who have been involved in the campaign instead of studying the evidence. Ken?
Dont you agree with Findlay that the prosecution case has many illogical elements to it?
No way was the killer standing in his murder clothes on Newbattle Road for an hour after the murder, Ken!
That just did not happen!
-
I suppose identities are neither here nor there. The fact Ms Lean has been exposed as distorting "facts" to fit an agenda is more important. I'm not sure why yourself or faithlilly would support SL's view compared to court testimonies that proved LM's guilt. There is a website that goes through dozens of SL's book lies if you want to comment on them?
My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.
-
I dont know why you're looking at those who have been involved in the campaign instead of studying the evidence. Ken?
Dont you agree with Findlay that the prosecution case has many illogical elements to it?
No way was the killer standing in his murder clothes on Newbattle Road for an hour after the murder, Ken!
That just did not happen!
Give it up Sandra, it's embarrassing. You've had over 20 years to prove otherwise and every attempt has been laughed out of court. I had a look on twitter and you've had the run-around there and now trying to gain attention here. There's people here with a lot more knowledge of the case than me so your chances of catching a bite are slim.
-
My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.
Given that most of the court transcripts have only recently been made public, and the vast majority of information about the case has come from the media (which seems overwhelmingly to support the guilty verdict), who or what shaped your views if not Sandra Lean’s determined campaign to convince the world of his innocence?
-
Give it up Sandra, it's embarrassing. You've had over 20 years to prove otherwise and every attempt has been laughed out of court. I had a look on twitter and you've had the run-around there and now trying to gain attention here. There's people here with a lot more knowledge of the case than me so your chances of catching a bite are slim.
Thanks Ken, I will be more than happy to listen to those people with a lot more knowledge and discuss things!
-
My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.
My sentiments exactly Faith!
-
Thanks Ken, I will be more than happy to listen to those people with a lot more knowledge and discuss things!
No you won't. You're an idiot who thinks posting on an internet forum will make your life better. You were kicked off the LM campaign by half-wits, so don't pretend you are interested in discussing things.
-
No you won't. You're an idiot who thinks posting on an internet forum will make your life better. You were kicked off the LM campaign by half-wits, so don't pretend you are interested in discussing things.
Well, thanks for your opinion anyway , Ken!
Nighty night!
-
It doesn't matter if you're not happy with Findlay's closing speech, the jury did not believe LM or CM's version of events.
In a sub-forum which exists to test the jury's verdict, bringing in what the verdict was does not advance the discussion.
-
My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.
The lack of forensic evidence against Luke is one problem for the prosecution's narrative. A second problem is that some of the witness testimony does not make sense. A third problem is that some of the witness testimony was gathered in ways that are problematic and contrary to good practice. As for the transcripts themselves, they don't help the prosecution's case, and in some ways they hurt it. Then there is the lack of a motive and a timeline that might charitably be called extremely tight.
-
The lack of forensic evidence against Luke is one problem for the prosecution's narrative. A second problem is that some of the witness testimony does not make sense. A third problem is that some of the witness testimony was gathered in ways that are problematic and contrary to good practice. As for the transcripts themselves, they don't help the prosecution's case, and in some ways they hurt it. Then there is the lack of a motive and a timeline that might charitably be called extremely tight.
None of these things are the prosecution’s problem. They did their job successfully . They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.
-
None of these things are the prosecution’s problem. They did their job successfully . They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.
In saying that they did their job successfully, you are implicitly doing what Ken Mair did, namely using the jury's verdict as evidence in a discussion that examines their verdict. Some of the problems that I mentioned are the same problems that outside observers of the case (Dr David Wilson and Dr Allan Jamison come to mind, but there are others) have been making for a long time, independently of Dr Lean. Other problems have been thrown into sharper relief because of the release of the transcripts: Mr Trumbull's speaking falsely about the level of certainty regarding the timing of Andrina Bryson's sighting is one of several examples. When witness testimony is gathered poorly, it decreases its probative value. How the testimony was gathered has nothing to do with Dr Lean, and over the course of a number of comments in a different thread, I contrasted what was done with what would have been good practice.
-
None of these things are the prosecution’s problem. They did their job successfully . They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.
Why focus on Dr Lean though, Vertigo?
Even those connected to the case voiced their concerns on programmes like 'The Devils own' and MIAST!
You know all the arguments, why was LM free of substantial blood and other DNA of Jodi if the attack was unplanned, etc,.
-
In saying that they did their job successfully, you are implicitly doing what Ken Mair did, namely using the jury's verdict as evidence in a discussion that examines their verdict. Some of the problems that I mentioned are the same problems that outside observers of the case (Dr David Wilson and Dr Allan Jamison come to mind, but there are others) have been making for a long time, independently of Dr Lean. Other problems have been thrown into sharper relief because of the release of the transcripts: Mr Trumbull's speaking falsely about the level of certainty regarding the timing of Andrina Bryson's sighting is one of several examples. When witness testimony is gathered poorly, it decreases its probative value. How the testimony was gathered has nothing to do with Dr Lean, and over the course of a number of comments in a different thread, I contrasted what was done with what would have been good practice.
As I said, none of these so-called problems are the Prosecution’s. They did their job and they’re not losing any sleep over it. The problems belong entirely with the campaign to free Luke Mitchell and so far they have failed to present these alleged problems in a way that has convinced several appeal panels to reverse the verdict.
-
Why focus on Dr Lean though, Vertigo?
Even those connected to the case voiced their concerns on programmes like 'The Devils own' and MIAST!
You know all the arguments, why was LM free of substantial blood and other DNA of Jodi if the attack was unplanned, etc,.
I’m not focused on her per se, but many people got involved in looking at this case because of her. Initially I presumed she was an honest campaigner presenting evidence that hadn’t been spun to fit a narrative. More fool me for falling for her propaganda. She has done Mitchell’s campaign untold damage because now people like me wouldn’t trust a word that she says to be true. If the evidence of Luke’s innocence speaks for itself why the need to spin it in such an underhand way?
-
As I said, none of these so-called problems are the Prosecution’s. They did their job and they’re not losing any sleep over it. The problems belong entirely with the campaign to free Luke Mitchell and so far they have failed to present these alleged problems in a way that has convinced several appeal panels to reverse the verdict.
Let me rephrase. These are problems for the defenders of the prosecution. Todd Willingham lost all his appeals and was executed. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only blind luck freed her. Andrew Malkinson spent many more years in prison than he should have because of the multiple problems with the English CCRC. Amanda Knox is not yet fully exonerated, even though a child could have figured out this case. Losing an appeal is evidence of a sort, but it is not very probative evidence.
Now let me come back to the police and prosecution for a moment. Mr Trumbull misled the jury in his closing argument and did other questionable things. The police dissembled about some things, as was discussed in another thread. Their treatment of the two brothers are object lessons in how not to perform interrogations. Whether they are losing sleep over their unprofessional conduct is not the point.
-
Why focus on Dr Lean though...
Maybe Dr Lean cut off Ken Mair in rush hour traffic on a busy afternoon. More seriously, the pro-guilt interest in Dr Lean is an impediment to a dispassionate consideration of the evidence in this case (as well as discussions of the various failures of the criminal justice system).
-
I’m not focused on her per se, but many people got involved in looking at this case because of her. Initially I presumed she was an honest campaigner presenting evidence that hadn’t been spun to fit a narrative. More fool me for falling for her propaganda. She has done Mitchell’s campaign untold damage because now people like me wouldn’t trust a word that she says to be true. If the evidence of Luke’s innocence speaks for itself why the need to spin it in such an underhand way?
But Vertigo, now you have almost as much info and material to pore over as Dr Lean had, study it and make uo your own mind! Forget about Dr Leans book!
Look at the prosecution scenario and see if it makes sense to you, is it a logical coherent believable story?
I know the biggest problem for guilters is Shane's court evidence, but read his trial transcript carefully, not once did he say that he went down stairs at 5.15 and Luke wasn't there!
Over and over and over again when pushed by Turnbull, Shane simply said he did not know if Luke was in the house or not! Shane used phrases like, he may have been or he couldn't honestly remember if he saw Luke or not!
Never ever did Shane say that Luke was not in the house at 5.15, check it out!
What are you left with? LM finding the body? Read Findlays closing speech in this regard!
Are you 100% sure of LM guilt , Vertigo? If so, why?
-
Maybe Dr Lean cut off Ken Mair in rush hour traffic on a busy afternoon. The pro-guilt interest in Dr Lean is an impediment to a dispassionate consideration of the evidence in this case.
Thats what I was saying to Vertigo, the evidence is all out there now for everyone to study, Chris!
Dr Lean needn't come into it!
I think the guilters have used her as an excuse for long enough now!
I think Vertigo is a reasonable person and will inform us why he believes LM is guilty!
-
But Vertigo, now you have almost as much info and material to pore over as Dr Lean had, study it and make uo your own mind! Forget about Dr Leans book!
Look at the prosecution scenario and see if it makes sense to you, is it a logical coherent believable story?
I know the biggest problem for guilters is Shane's court evidence, but read his trial transcript carefully, not once did he say that he went down stairs at 5.15 and Luke wasn't there!
Over and over and over again when pushed by Turnbull, Shane simply said he did not know if Luke was in the house or not! Shane used phrases like, he may have been or he couldn't honestly remember if he saw Luke or not!
Never ever did Shane say that Luke was not in the house at 5.15, check it out!
What are you left with? LM finding the body? Read Findlays closing speech in this regard!
Are you 100% sure of LM guilt , Vertigo? If so, why?
No, I’m not 100% sure, but I do believe when all the evidence is taken into account (not just cherry picking bits and pieces) that he is the most likely culprit. There is no smoking gun I agree, on the other hand there is nothing that excludes him and nothing tangible that points to another culprit imo, apart from (probably malicious) gossip and rumour that is. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem if all the evidence were re-tested in a court of law, I’m not that massively invested in the case - my interest stems mainly from the fact that I felt cheated by the way Mitchell’s chief cheerleader manipulated my opinion into thinking he must be innocent and then me learning on this forum that her programme was actually quite disingenuous. I can’t help thinking that if Mitchell really was innocent and the facts clearly demonstrated this that there would have been no need to over egg the pudding as it were. It’s now actually quite difficult to separate fact from fiction unless you’re thoroughly immersed in the case (which I am not).
-
No, I’m not 100% sure, but I do believe when all the evidence is taken into account (not just cherry picking bits and pieces) that he is the most likely culprit. There is no smoking gun I agree, on the other hand there is nothing that excludes him and nothing tangible that points to another culprit imo, apart from (probably malicious) gossip and rumour that is. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem if all the evidence were re-tested in a court of law, I’m not that massively invested in the case - my interest stems mainly from the fact that I felt cheated by the way Mitchell’s chief cheerleader manipulated my opinion into thinking he must be innocent and then me learning on this forum that her programme was actually quite disingenuous. I can’t help thinking that if Mitchell really was innocent and the facts clearly demonstrated this that there would have been no need to over egg the pudding as it were. It’s now actually quite difficult to separate fact from fiction unless you’re thoroughly immersed in the case (which I am not).
Very good, Vertigo! Understood!
As you know, other suspects have been mentioned!