Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[faithlilly]

Nah. Hip length jacket? Not  bomber jacket then? Let's rewind if you will please. Back to the bit where Luke had help. The swapping of jackets IMO.

IYO absolutely but there’s absolutely no evidence to back it up. You can speculate as long as you wish but don’t expect the rest of us to give it any credence.

[rulesapply]

There is as much to back up my speculation as there is, yours

[rulesapply]

I always said, IMO.

[faithlilly]

Did Andrina Bryson ever state, "It was not a parka?"

Yes she did, in court under oath, during her cross examination by DF. She said she had expressly told the police that out of the photographs of the jackets she was shown she had picked the parka because “ it was most like the jacket she’d seen but that the jacket she had seen was not a parka’.

[faithlilly]

There is as much to back up my speculation as there is, yours

I don’t speculate. I find facts much more helpful.

[rulesapply]

Yes she did, in court under oath, during her cross examination by DF. She said she had expressly told the police that out of the photographs of the jackets she was shown she had picked the parka because “ it was most like the jacket she’d seen but that the jacket she had seen was not a parka’.

So, now you are defending Andrrina Bryson? Way fo go!! AB saw a male.in a green,  hip length jacket with a bulging pocket. How many jackets were green and hip length and worn by teenagers back in the day??

[rulesapply]

I don’t speculate. I find facts much more helpful.

What about the green,  hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?

[rulesapply]

What about the green,  hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?

Oh no, faithlilly. Back up what you have said please. Your pretence if having no idea what I can possibly be talking about is,  embarrassing.

[faithlilly]

So, now you are defending Andrrina Bryson? Way fo go!! AB saw a male.in a green,  hip length jacket with a bulging pocket. How many jackets were green and hip length and worn by teenagers back in the day??

Look back on my posts re: Andrina Bryson. From her first two statements you can see that she was an honest witness simply reporting what she saw…a couple at the Easthouses entrance to RD path at 5.45. The later discrepancy in her bank statement obviously caused doubt but the fact that she would not identify Luke in court speaks volumes about her honesty, even when pressured to follow the narrative.

As to AB’s description of the jacket worn by the youth, she described it as waist length not hip length. I believe RW, a witness totally discredited during her court testimony, described the jacket her sighting was wearing as ‘ hip length’.

[faithlilly]

What about the green,  hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?

Fleming in her first statement claimed that she and RW had left the house to go shopping at 6pm. At 6pm Luke was seen by witnesses who knew him standing further up the Newbattle Road wearing exactly what he claimed to have been wearing.

[faithlilly]

Oh no, faithlilly. Back up what you have said please. Your pretence if having no idea what I can possibly be talking about is,  embarrassing. Stop acting stupid, please

I have already answered this. Please see above.

[Natterjack]

If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?

Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?

[faithlilly]

If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?

Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?

I think the more important question is why did the search trio lie under oath, don’t you?

[Natterjack]

I think the more important question is why did the search trio lie under oath, don’t you?

So a change in a statement automatically constitutes a lie?

[Parky41]

If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?

Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?

Exactly. One had and needs to ignore every lie Mitchell told to tie in with the truth of this search trio. That clear consistency in their statements, that LM had went to straight to this V with his dog. That desperation to wipe out all his words, to scrape away at the pit of that barrel. To bring LM back to even a MM to the left of this V break.

That this implication pushed out that they told the truth then lied. No they told the truth and clarified that truth. This cherry picking nonsense, at least that is consistent. For they not only disregard massive parts of Mitchells testimony, alter and add to it. They do the same with everyone's, in that clear attempt to rewrite this case, to make is Lean V Others.

Where we can see, without a shadow of a doubt, those changes in statements from those clearly lying. As we had with Mitchells mother. Of coercing her other son to tell the same lies she told. To the point he had himself in the kitchen talking with his mother, at a time she was in Morning, Noon and Night.