"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

Chris, I could get an Off the Record statement from Shane tomorrow that would blow your endless witness theory away. Post Code EH52 XXX. Will you then consider the logic of his argument the same as "Rolfe"?

It is well known none of the family support LM regardless of your Canadian case studies.

Off you go then but please provide proof that it’s actually Shane. No missing receipt, concert photo malarkey.

[Chris_Halkides]

You have never seen these statements, you have absolutely no idea, how the process went down. Which make the rest of your point mute.

FLO probably did* record the interviews, which is counter to some recommendations I have read.  Scotland does not allow transcripts to be published, which is a policy I wish were revisited.  I provided pages of Dr. Lean's book.  You can accept her account or not.  But this discussion brings up another point.  My understanding is that once someone becomes suspected of committing a crime, the FLO is supposed to have a second person at the interview.  This applies not just to Luke, but also to Shane and Corinne, who were later charged.  This is yet another procedural deficiency in this investigation (it is not easy to keep track of all of them). 
EDT
*I meant to write "did not"

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, I could get an Off the Record statement from Shane tomorrow that would blow your endless witness theory away. Post Code EH52 XXX. Will you then consider the logic of his argument the same as "Rolfe"?

It is well known none of the family support LM regardless of your Canadian case studies.

It would be quite interesting to know what Shane had to say, provided that his identity were known with certainty.  With respect to Rolfe, her identity is hardly a secret, but it seems to me that we are talking about different concepts.  Rolfe is a very logical thinker; Shane has knowledge that many others do not.

[Parky41]

It would be quite interesting to know what Shane had to say, provided that his identity were known with certainty.  With respect to Rolfe, her identity is hardly a secret, but it seems to me that we are talking about different concepts.  Rolfe is a very logical thinker; Shane has knowledge that many others do not.

He certainly does and lots of it - Did not see his brother home, admitted to lying and why he had lied. Three people, same household., in the very first instance all handing over wrongful account of their movements. The alibi a farce. like trying to fit an elephant into a phone box once the winging it came crashing down around them. Strength in numbers, not in this instance it was not.

But I do agree, who has heard of someone not having time to themselves whilst others are about, not really the point though, is it. Played perfectly to have SM admit to lying and why he had lied. He was not in the kitchen, his mother had no psychic powers to say what he was thinking (my word!)Active on the internet, mother not home, no brother. Blown wide open.

Question time again for you - How many statements did SM give? Which were recorded? Dates and times? When did the FLO first speak to him?

And if you do not know the answers then why do you not know them, why do you not ask?

[faithlilly]

He certainly does and lots of it - Did not see his brother home, admitted to lying and why he had lied. Three people, same household., in the very first instance all handing over wrongful account of their movements. The alibi a farce. like trying to fit an elephant into a phone box once the winging it came crashing down around them. Strength in numbers, not in this instance it was not.

But I do agree, who has heard of someone not having time to themselves whilst others are about, not really the point though, is it. Played perfectly to have SM admit to lying and why he had lied. He was not in the kitchen, his mother had no psychic powers to say what he was thinking (my word!)Active on the internet, mother not home, no brother. Blown wide open.

Question time again for you - How many statements did SM give? Which were recorded? Dates and times? When did the FLO first speak to him?

And if you do not know the answers then why do you not know them, why do you not ask?

Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting Luke surely all of their accounts would be the same?

Much like the Jones/Walker search party whose accounts all tallied with Luke’s but over the months changed in absolute tandem with each other.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting Luke surely all of their accounts would be the same?

Much like the Jones/Walker search party whose accounts all tallied with Luke’s but over the months changed in absolute tandem with each other.

- How many times has that been pointed out on the Madeleine McCann forum re: the McCanns and their friends' witness statements?  I don't recall you ever, ever, EVER accepting it there, so what a cheek to be trotting out that line here. 

[Parky41]

- How many times has that been pointed out on the Madeleine McCann forum re: the McCanns and their friends' witness statements?  I don't recall you ever, ever, EVER accepting it there, so what a cheek to be trotting out that line here.

They really are a piece of work, falling over themselves constantly with the BS speech. 

[Parky41]

"Much like the Jones/Walker search party whose accounts all tallied with Luke’s but over the months changed in absolute tandem with each other."

[/b]

Lying again I see, such is your way, nature even. - Not on your sweet life did their accounts collude with Mitchells, chalk and cheese. Again, to those breaks approaching from the east, always to those breaks from the first to the last. Not so much the 4th person, not quite 60ft to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" - Boring and tedious as per, this constant erasing of LM and his very reason for given why he knew exactly where to go. It's all in the lie dear, of where he said his dog did this alert, clear that away, with the evidence from the first statements to the last, which did happen. LM only had special knowledge. no dog, no him, no others where he claimed. Leading that dog on its short lead attached to the harness. No dog in any woodland, only LM knowing exactly where to go, around 10ft and the most amazing detail! Through trees the lot. - Behave. Away and feed your lies to those who soak them up.

[faithlilly]

Lying again I see, such is your way, nature even. - Not on your sweet life did their accounts collude with Mitchells, chalk and cheese. Again, to those breaks approaching from the east, always to those breaks from the first to the last. Not so much the 4th person, not quite 60ft to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" - Boring and tedious as per, this constant erasing of LM and his very reason for given why he knew exactly where to go. It's all in the lie dear, of where he said his dog did this alert, clear that away, with the evidence from the first statements to the last, which did happen. LM only had special knowledge. no dog, no him, no others where he claimed. Leading that dog on its short lead attached to the harness. No dog in any woodland, only LM knowing exactly where to go, around 10ft and the most amazing detail! Through trees the lot. - Behave. Away and feed your lies to those who soak them up.

How many reputable sources will it take to point out the changes to the search party’s statements before you’ll admit the truth?

[Chris_Halkides]

How many reputable sources will it take to point out the changes to the search party’s statements before you’ll admit the truth?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/
"This claim was initially corroborated by the family members of the search party. Files show that these statements were changed approximately one month after the event. The original statements, which supported Mitchell’s claim, were put to the witnesses by his defence QC Donald Findlay but they said they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant."
From The Herald on 16 September 2018

[Nicholas]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/
"This claim was initially corroborated by the family members of the search party. Files show that these statements were changed approximately one month after the event. The original statements, which supported Mitchell’s claim, were put to the witnesses by his defence QC Donald Findlay but they said they were unable to remember or it was not what they meant."
From The Herald on 16 September 2018

Craig Dobbie stated;

“It wasn’t until July 3 that our suspicions about Luke increased. We had a degree of suspicion, but not enough to detain him.

Things were starting to piece together - things his school friends were saying about him carrying knives; the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed; and, most importantly, the difference in the statements given by Jodi’s family about how Jodi’s body had been found and Luke’s version of events”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-2470415

Referring to the 4th July 2003 Craig Dobbie stated;

“We made it clear he was under caution - it was only fair to him to do so. This was when he further entrenched his position

This was a few days on after the killing so what he was saying at this stage was probably more accurate

There were critical differences in what he was saying about when the body was found. The family were consistent in their evidence

They all said Luke never walked past the V in the wall before climbing over and discovering the body.

But Luke’s version was completely different

He said he walked past the wall a considerable distance and the dog reacted at the point relating to where Jodi’s body was

We couldn’t get away from this conflict in versions.


Why don’t you ask sadistic killer Luke Mitchell and/or scammer Sandra Lean to publish the murderers (Luke Mitchell) 1st July 22 page written witness statement along with the transcripts of his 4th July 2003 police interview?

[Nicholas]

Scotland does not allow transcripts to be published

Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell can publish his own “transcripts” ie: his 1st July 2003 22 page written witness statement along with the transcripts of his police interviews.

In the case of the latter transcripts, killer Luke Mitchell knows he can redact police questions 

Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell can also publish the Scottish criminal cases review commissions 200 page statement of reasons as to why they think he’s guilty

[Nicholas]

Rolfe is a very logical thinker

Are you referring to “Holly Goodhead”?

[Nicholas]

"The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s appeal and public relations spin campaign is yet another example of the innocence fraud phenomenon

Innocence fraud is a very real phenomenon which the majority of people within the wrongful conviction cult-like movement choose to fail to address

[Nicholas]

With respect to the Malkinson case, I wrote a summary on another thread:  "The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case.

Offhand, I would point out that the former case shows that police cannot be relied upon not to destroy evidence

Can you detail exactly what was allegedly destroyed, when it was destroyed, by whom it was destroyed and why it was destroyed?