"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Chris_Halkides]

Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.

Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.

On the contrary, it is a mistake to keep one's field of vision narrowly on this case alone, when so many other cases around the world illustrate the need to follow correct procedures regarding eyewitnesses.  It is even more misguided to handwave away the many irregularities in eyewitness protocols that plagued this case.  The notion that Scotland has a better justice system that Wales (or England?) is an assertion without support.  Who eliminated [Name removed], the same police force that failed to process the crime scene remotely correctly?  The same police force that (without disput) violated LM's rights?

As to the robustness of the evidence, let us briefly examine a portion of the Fleming/Walsh evidence as an example.  One, against police instruction Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it.  Her credibility is therefore nil, and Ms. Fleming's memory was rendered unreliable.  Moreover, Ms. Fleming was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further damaging her credibility.  On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted (and may have cited upthread in some instances) states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable.  Then there is the questionable agreement between their description of LM vs. the description of people who actually knew him and saw him in Newbattle.  Furthermore, this was a sighting of a stranger from a car, hardly an ideal set of circumstances.  Finally, even if both Fleming and Walsh were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was.
EDT
I left out the jogger, which suggests that the sighting did not take place where Fleming/Walsh said it did.

[Nicholas]

Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it.  Her credibility is therefore nil

 

[Nicholas]

Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.

What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?

Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:

A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.

There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:

Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.

This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.

Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.

Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.

This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.

Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.

So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang.  The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.

LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.

It doesn’t appear sadistic killer Luke Mitchell ever bothered to phone 999

11:39pm - Police control room telephoned killer Luke Mitchell whilst he was still on the other side of the V - woodland side - to find out where he was

Janine Jones Stated “The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone talking to the police and we were shouting at him. He then started to raise his voice”
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+%27Only+time+that+Luke+showed+emotion+after...-a0125974641

[Nicholas]

Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing.
 The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes).
10:59pm and his on that path.
11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready.
11:20pm they catch sight of each other.
11:22 head down together.
By 11:30pm he is in those woods and
by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.

Where did the idea that killer Luke Mitchell phoned 999 come from?

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.thejusticegap.com/case-victor-nealon-17-wasted-years/
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/victor-nealon/

Victor Nealon was wrongfully convicted of rape primarily on the strength of eyewitness testimony.  The Justice Gap wrote, "in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the same officer was present at the ID parade and spoke to at least one of the witnesses."  Another witness only identified Mr. Nealon after the witness saw him confer with his solicitor.  Much as in the Andrew Malkinson case, the case of Victor Nealon indicates the folly of failing to follow proper identification procedures.  Guidelines regarding ID parades and eyewitnesses were written in response to failures in the criminal justice system.  There are other problems with the eyewitness evidence in the Nealon case, which each person can explore at his or her leisure.

If the LM case were a contest between the lack of forensic and electronic evidence vs. strong, clear eyewitness evidence, it would be a horse race.  Yet as David Wilson noted, the eyewitness evidence in the LM case is weak and inconsistent.

[Mr Apples]

I was surprised that AB's transcript never mentioned anything about her saying a youth with 'long messy hair' was spotted at the EH end of the path on the afternoon of 30.06.03 wearing 'army clothes & big boots'. This was mentioned on pages 116-117 of IB. The inference from IB is that AB described the youth as above when talking to her husband some time on the morning/early afternoon of 01.07.03. Her husband's brother, Mark Bill Bryson, was supposedly in AW's house before lunchtime on 01.07.03, telling everybody about his brother's sighting (according to SL, as per what MBB was saying in AW's house, AB's first two initial statements never mentioned a female) and there was a general agreement, according to John [Name removed] (nickname 'Fung'), that the sighting was LM on the basis of his Army Cadet membership. However, it emerged, according to SL, that it wasn't AB's husband that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing, but it was AB herself (though her testimony at court said it was 'fishing clothes' and not army clothing as she initially said). Messy.

[Parky41]

Quote from: Chris_Halkides on September 13, 2023, 03:43:17 PM

Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it.  Her credibility is therefore nil

[/color][/b]

Do you mean that CM contaminated SM's memory by inventing one for him? Rendering her credibility as nil? That SM's credibility when giving statements was bad enough with his claimed amnesia, to suddenly claiming to remember seeing his brother "mashing tatties," because his mother had coached him in what to say? Is that what you mean by loss of credibility?

[Parky41]

I was surprised that AB's transcript never mentioned anything about her saying a youth with 'long messy hair' was spotted at the EH end of the path on the afternoon of 30.06.03 wearing 'army clothes & big boots'. This was mentioned on pages 116-117 of IB. The inference from IB is that AB described the youth as above when talking to her husband some time on the morning/early afternoon of 01.07.03. Her husband's brother, Mark Bill Bryson, was supposedly in AW's house before lunchtime on 01.07.03, telling everybody about his brother's sighting (according to SL, as per what MBB was saying in AW's house, AB's first two initial statements never mentioned a female) and there was a general agreement, according to John [Name removed] (nickname 'Fung'), that the sighting was LM on the basis of his Army Cadet membership. However, it emerged, according to SL, that it wasn't AB's husband that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing, but it was AB herself (though her testimony at court said it was 'fishing clothes' and not army clothing as she initially said). Messy.

It is indeed messy MA - Perhaps if MBB had giving testimony (did he?) we may have heard more in respect of this if true? But seriously, the notion that it was the brother and not his wife who made the sighting. I doubt very much that AB's 1st account only mentioned a male, does that sound at all feasible? When Ms Lean has also said that in AB's 1st account it was of the girl wearing light denim jeans? I think we  have all been burnt/misled by this farce of narrative?

[Mr Apples]

It is indeed messy MA - Perhaps if MBB had giving testimony (did he?) we may have heard more in respect of this if true? But seriously, the notion that it was the brother and not his wife who made the sighting. I doubt very much that AB's 1st account only mentioned a male, does that sound at all feasible? When Ms Lean has also said that in AB's 1st account it was of the girl wearing light denim jeans? I think we  have all been burnt/misled by this farce of narrative?

Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)

Oh, while you're still around, Parky ......  I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?

[faithlilly]

Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)

Oh, while you're still around, Parky ......  I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?

Of course he has MA. The information is in a file along with the photo of Luke in that parka at a concert and the judge’s directions.

[Chris_Halkides]

Do you mean that CM contaminated SM's memory by inventing one for him? Rendering her credibility as nil? That SM's credibility when giving statements was bad enough with his claimed amnesia, to suddenly claiming to remember seeing his brother "mashing tatties," because his mother had coached him in what to say? Is that what you mean by loss of credibility?

Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.

[Parky41]

Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)

Oh, while you're still around, Parky ......  I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?

It's all so transparent MA, isn't it?

[Parky41]

Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.

Excellent. Well done for spotting that. This "laughable eyewitness testimony" - In line with someone making up a sighting that had not taken place at all? But here you are playing mental gymnastics with other sightings.

[Mr Apples]

Of course he has MA. The information is in a file along with the photo of Luke in that parka at a concert and the judge’s directions.

As I said, we'll just have to wait & see. If said evidence does eventually appear on the blog, does that mean that your participation on here will become even more sporadic??

[Mr Apples]

Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.

It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.