Most of the reasoning and debate around LM not being the killer of Jodi Jones is based upon that of 'fallacy' ?
AB - The first and foremost absolute basis for her sighting, the only factual reason for her attention was that of what appeared to be 'a disagreement, argument of sorts' Her attention was drawn to the male. His actions. It was he she recalled with certainty when she stated "I'm as sure as sure can be" This person was honest to a T. She made nothing up and she did not pick LM out in court on this absolute basis. LM some 18 months later had changed dramatically. Much fuller. long hair pulled tightly back in a ponytail. There is absolutely no doubt she had seen his picture many times in the paper after that Identification. She stuck firmly to that of the youth she had seen, on the path and in the Identification.
That photo Id where LM's hair is more blonde than anything else. It is however not 'poker straight' Any other picture we see of LM is that of a youth with brown - sandy coloured hair. Exactly the colour she described. 11 other youths in those pictures, different colour of hair, shape, size. - she picked LM out, even though his hair appeared very blonde as opposed to sandy. She remembered him with clarity. She was not drawn to the white background she was drawn to him.
Every other part of her description was nothing short of - dam good. From the first until those more in-depth clarification ones were obtained. The hair appearing to be clumped at his neck - it stuck out. That Khaki green jacket, not shiny, the bulging pocket, badge. The type was of possibility. Not definite. It appeared to be drawn at the waist. Parkas have draw cords do they not? What colour were the trousers, green?
Of the girl - Dark hair which was possibly contained. It was not flowing in whatever length. She had on a dark blue top with LIGHTER coloured trousers, possibly Jeans and possibly bootcut. Upon further clarification. Very dark blue/black possibly navy. The trousers were SLIGHTLY LIGHTER in colour than that of the top. They were loose fitting. Possibly Jeans but not trousers as such. Jodi was wearing a black hoody with slightly lighter coloured dark blue cord/jeans.
The attention was on the male. His actions. Not his clothing nor that of the female. She did however get those clothes pretty dam close to what they actually were.
So it is easy is it not - with this fallacy of reasoning to ignore all of this dam good description and choose to concentrate on that emblem. This witness had LM implanted in her recall, his apparent anger. Whatever else was captured in her mind was that of brief colours and description. Not everything, which is nigh on impossible to do - it was him and she did remember that face very clearly. When AB said "I'm as sure as sure as can be"
I was watching some TV documentary series last night - based on cameras in real police work. Glasgow? Comment by one of the DI's.
'I'm glad we can now do this, it used to annoy the hell of me when people simply thought crimes should be solved almost instantly. They are more often than not, that of a long drawn out process. Whilst we may be able to eliminate most in those first days and weeks, it still takes a long time of gathering evidence to solve. Often many months.
Therefore again, this fallacy of reasoning. That if they were so sure they had got their man, why did it take months until his arrest. - It is called investigating and being thorough. Making sure they do have the right man rather than fitting up the wrong one. Yes, we are all aware it happens. But still there is nothing in the case of LM to show this to be true, quite the opposite.
