Do Scott and Sandra not have all the evidence that was used in court, including transcripts etc. They would also have copies of these statements and photos/cctv if it existed. So why would they say Luke did not have a parka and push that statement so strongly over the years, seems very risky if there is evidence to the contrary.
I personally would not believe such important information from some random person on the internet without proof like the picture in question. If these photos did exist and they definitely from before the murder then that would be case closed for me, would prove Luke and his mum to be lying, a jacket to be missing and his current his legal team to be liars and almost knowing trying to get a child killer off.
Sorry I don’t believe it, would love for it to be true though as it would mean for me the correct person is locked up.
Bullseye, what if SM stepped forward with a picture and said at the same time he remembered seeing his brother home? Both of these were game changers to yourself, would that just keep you on the fence?
This sitting on the fence where you are saying that you believe fully that both Ms Lean and SF's do nothing but tell the truth? Why the hell are you on any fence? If you believe everything they say to be true then there is no fence - Absurd.
Abrupt I know, but come on now, one cannot have it all ways, can they now? - They do not hold the CCTV footage, they do not hold the physical recordings of the taped interviews, at least, that is what they claim? Ms Lean says 'maybe the police FW the CCTV recording to another point' Ms Lean says that she has NOT heard the recordings but seen the transcripts of the calls. Not and never held the full court transcripts of the trial itself, and how do we know this? Firstly Ms Lean stated this as fact, that to have such would have cost the price of a small mortgage, then we can move to AO's, could not say if he had been a Crown witness or not?
And we know what they class as evidence is not evidence at all other than existence. We have the statement of RK to back this up, not in the defence papers, no reason to be there. We have multiple missing phone logs for and again, no reason to be there. They are defence papers which mainly consist of the case that DF put forward. From all that he had access to, such as seeing the physical copy of all phone logs, statements in their entirety, vital precognitions and on that list goes.
The actual reason for that agreement, the manipulation around this alone. The carefully worded manipulation "Another source made the Mitchell's aware of an agreement to not discuss the DNA evidence" Now let us apply the correct term here. The AD with DF made an agreement in front of Luke to not continue further with DNA that was not going to be used as evidence"
Subtle, but changes the meaning entirely. By not saying who the source is gives room for not acknowledging the actual reason, applying the word "evidence" when it was not evidence of anything other than existence.
"You'd think if they had all that DNA evidence they would have used it?" Quite so, they would have, IF it were evidence of anything other than existence. "It makes no logical sense for they did discuss the DNA evidence" Yes it does make perfect logical sense, when the correct term is applied, the actual truth.
Oddly enough, you certainly appear to believe lots with zero proof to back it up other than blind faith? The many people who speak of that coat don't do so for the good of their health, what reason can anyone else have to simply make things up? - Applying being scared, trying to oppose the truth, are not answers, they are teachings!
