Alan Turnbulls closing speech

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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? 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

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).

[Joe Blogs]

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?

[Joe Blogs]

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!

[Vertigo Swirl]

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).

[Joe Blogs]

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!