"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

The transcripts revealed how much chief campaigner and ex-POA SL had distorted the facts via podcasts, protests, TV and books, when there was no need to tell so many lies if a truthful account was being presented. The transcripts website goes into this in detail. Many campaigners (both M/F) are still parroting her lies.

The parole decision deemed LM to be a sexual risk to females. It was approved under MAPPA via numerous agencies not just SPS or the psychiatric report (Orchard Clinic consultant).

Your whole approach has been speculative so why would you need to see the psych report when you presumably made a decision on LM many years ago without full disclosure?

Yet again, if you have a problem with Dr Lean can I suggest that you take it up with her. I found nothing in the transcripts to date which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke was Jodi’s killer.

The psych report has nothing to do with Luke’s mental state at the time of Jodi’s murder and therefore has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.

[Kenmair]

Yet again, if you have a problem with Dr Lean can I suggest that you take it up with her. I found nothing in the transcripts to date which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke was Jodi’s killer.

The psych report has nothing to do with Luke’s mental state at the time of Jodi’s murder and therefore has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.

It was proven in court that LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was recently refused parole as a danger/sexual risk to females, regardless of guilt or innocence. He won't be able to visit you if ever released unless his named female (GC) and criminal justice parole officer is there too.

Over the years you've based many of your arguments on SL's claims which turned out to be lies. I thought she was a con-artist from day one so no need to take up anything with her - she is well aware of that. Out of interest, which transcripts prove brd that LM is not guilty?

[faithlilly]

It was proven in court that LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was recently refused parole as a danger/sexual risk to females, regardless of guilt or innocence. He won't be able to visit you if ever released unless his named female (GC) and criminal justice parole officer is there too.

Over the years you've based many of your arguments on SL's claims which turned out to be lies. I thought she was a con-artist from day one so no need to take up anything with her - she is well aware of that. Out of interest, which transcripts prove brd that LM is not guilty?

Again every miscarriage of just begins with a guilty verdict in court and why on earth would Luke visit me? My interest is purely academic.

Mark Lindsay KC, the parole board's lawyer, said that the report you have mentioned played no part in the parole  board's eventual decision so you really do have to wonder why not? Surely a damning report of that nature would be included when considering Luke for parole?

Luke had no need to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing I have read from any of the witness testimony presented by the prosecution has reached that threshold for me. It appears John Scott QC and Allan Jamieson agree.

[Kenmair]

Again every miscarriage of just begins with a guilty verdict in court and why on earth would Luke visit me? My interest is purely academic.

Mark Lindsay KC, the parole board's lawyer, said that the report you have mentioned played no part in the parole  board's eventual decision so you really do have to wonder why not? Surely a damning report of that nature would be included when considering Luke for parole?

Luke had no need to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing I have read from any of the witness testimony presented by the prosecution has reached that threshold for me. It appears John Scott QC and Allan Jamieson agree.

He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether you, or half-arsed comments from JS QC and AJ (really?) doesn't matter. There is not the slightest chance of him being the next Guildford 4, Birm 6, Ice Cream 1, however much you mention MOJ beginning with a guilty verdict.

You previously mentioned you'd happily entertain Mitchell in your home if he was released - do you still hold that view after the parole risk warning? Your interest is emotional, not academic. No one has moved this case forward an inch in 20+ years. It's an Innocence Fraud, nothing more.

[faithlilly]

He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether you, or half-arsed comments from JS QC and AJ (really?) doesn't matter. There is not the slightest chance of him being the next Guildford 4, Birm 6, Ice Cream 1, however much you mention MOJ beginning with a guilty verdict.

You previously mentioned you'd happily entertain Mitchell in your home if he was released - do you still hold that view after the parole risk warning? Your interest is emotional, not academic. No one has moved this case forward an inch in 20+ years. It's an Innocence Fraud, nothing more.

Luke was found guilty be a majority verdict….of course we now know that the ‘strong majority’ claim was a lie…so perhaps 7 jurors weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the chance of this being a miscarriage of justice, individuals with much more experience of the legal system than you or I have grave concerns about this conviction. What makes you think that your uninformed opinion holds more water?

For you this case isn’t really about Luke is it? It’s actually about sticking the boot into Dr Lean. Any individual who Dr Lean had campaigned for would have been the object of the same treatment from you. I often wonder if you two have history. Did she turn you down at some point because your hatred of her is certainly personal?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Luke was found guilty be a majority verdict….of course we now know that the ‘strong majority’ claim was a lie…so perhaps 7 jurors weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the chance of this being a miscarriage of justice, individuals with much more experience of the legal system than you or I have grave concerns about this conviction. What makes you think that your uninformed opinion holds more water?

For you this case isn’t really about Luke is it? It’s actually about sticking the boot into Dr Lean. Any individual who Dr Lean had campaigned for would have been the object of the same treatment from you. I often wonder if you two have history. Did she turn you down at some point because your hatred of her is certainly personal?

Haven’t most of the people Sandra Lean campaigned for turned out to be guilty?

[Moggrey21]

A

[Kenmair]

Haven’t most of the people Sandra Lean campaigned for turned out to be guilty?

Some even confessed.

Sorry Faith, I've never met Auld Sandra - bit of an age gap. You'll need to think of new ways to belittle me.

[faithlilly]

Some even confessed.

Sorry Faith, I've never met Auld Sandra - bit of an age gap. You'll need to think of new ways to belittle me.

No need Ken, you do a perfectly adequate job yourself.

[Kenmair]

No need Ken, you do a perfectly adequate job yourself.

I'm post-modern - I know I don't always get it right, but I knew Lean was a con artist the first time I saw/heard her. You were duped by a new age clairvoyant and actively supported her claims for years. You come across as mad Annie in Misery waiting to capture the author.

There are are only 3 court verdicts:
1) Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)
2) Not proven
3) Not guilty

There isn't a fourth option for internet conspiracy theorists 20 years later. It was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).

PS: Hi Sandra/JB.

[Joe Blogs]

I'm post-modern - I know I don't always get it right, but I knew Lean was a con artist the first time I saw/heard her. You were duped by a new age clairvoyant and actively supported her claims for years. You come across as mad Annie in Misery waiting to capture the author.

There are are only 3 court verdicts:
1) Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)
2) Not proven
3) Not guilty

There isn't a fourth option for internet conspiracy theorists 20 years later. It was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).

But court verdicts can lead to appeals as you know Ken.
A court verdict isn't the end of the line.

[Kenmair]

But court verdicts can lead to appeals as you know Ken.
A court verdict isn't the end of the line.

Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.

[Joe Blogs]

Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.

The tide can turn, Ken, the tide can turn!
Goodnight, sir.

[Kenmair]

The tide can turn, Ken, the tide can turn!
Goodnight, sir.

T

[faithlilly]

Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.

Have you ever looked into how many individuals who have subsequently had their convictions quashed have either been refused leave to appeal that conviction or lost their appeal?