Alan Turnbulls closing speech

[Joe Blogs]

The point which you've conveniently ignored is SL claimed she had all the transcripts. The LM transcriptions website show that clearly never happened. She also claimed the transcripts were not available for mere mortals, only people like herself. Yet another lie.

Yes, i've read all about that on Twitter long ago Ken!
But really, what has that got to do with LM guilt/innocence?
Lets discuss why you think he's guilty rather!

[Kenmair]

Yes, i've read all about that on Twitter long ago Ken!
But really, what has that got to do with LM guilt/innocence?
Lets discuss why you think he's guilty rather!

Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the points?
The burden of proof is on the so-called LM campaign to prove otherwise. Nothing I've seen or read has made me change my mind. In fact it has probably made it stronger due to the nature of people involved in the campaign, particularly Lean, Forbes and now LM's girlfriend of 20 years ago taking the reigns.

[Joe Blogs]

Why do you keep changing the subject instead of addressing the points?
The burden of proof is on the so-called LM campaign to prove otherwise. Nothing I've seen or read has made me change my mind. In fact it has probably made it stronger due to the nature of people involved in the campaign, particularly Lean, Forbes and now LM's girlfriend of 20 years ago taking the reigns.

I dont know why you're looking at those who have been involved in the campaign instead of studying the evidence. Ken?
Dont you agree with Findlay that the prosecution case has many illogical elements to it?
No way was the killer standing in his murder clothes on Newbattle Road for an hour after the murder, Ken!
That just did not happen!

[faithlilly]

I suppose identities are neither here nor there. The fact Ms Lean has been exposed as distorting "facts" to fit an agenda is more important. I'm not sure why yourself or faithlilly would support SL's view compared to court testimonies that proved LM's guilt. There is a website that goes through dozens of SL's book lies if you want to comment on them?

My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.

[Kenmair]

I dont know why you're looking at those who have been involved in the campaign instead of studying the evidence. Ken?
Dont you agree with Findlay that the prosecution case has many illogical elements to it?
No way was the killer standing in his murder clothes on Newbattle Road for an hour after the murder, Ken!
That just did not happen!

Give it up Sandra, it's embarrassing. You've had over 20 years to prove otherwise and every attempt has been laughed out of court. I had a look on twitter and you've had the run-around there and now trying to gain attention here. There's people here with a lot more knowledge of the case than me so your chances of catching a bite are slim.

[Vertigo Swirl]

My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.

Given that most of the court transcripts have only recently been made public, and the vast majority of information about the case has come from the media (which seems overwhelmingly to support the guilty verdict),  who or what shaped your views if not Sandra Lean’s determined campaign to convince the world of his innocence?

[Joe Blogs]

Give it up Sandra, it's embarrassing. You've had over 20 years to prove otherwise and every attempt has been laughed out of court. I had a look on twitter and you've had the run-around there and now trying to gain attention here. There's people here with a lot more knowledge of the case than me so your chances of catching a bite are slim.

Thanks Ken, I will be more than happy to listen to those people with a lot more knowledge and discuss things!

[Joe Blogs]

My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.

My sentiments exactly Faith!

[Kenmair]

Thanks Ken, I will be more than happy to listen to those people with a lot more knowledge and discuss things!

No you won't. You're an idiot who thinks posting on an internet forum will make your life better. You were kicked off the LM campaign by half-wits, so don't pretend you are interested in discussing things.

[Joe Blogs]

No you won't. You're an idiot who thinks posting on an internet forum will make your life better. You were kicked off the LM campaign by half-wits, so don't pretend you are interested in discussing things.

Well, thanks for your opinion anyway , Ken!
Nighty night!

[Chris_Halkides]

It doesn't matter if you're not happy with Findlay's closing speech, the jury did not believe LM or CM's version of events.

In a sub-forum which exists to test the jury's verdict, bringing in what the verdict was does not advance the discussion.

[Chris_Halkides]

My position regarding Luke’s innocence was never formed merely on Dr Lean’s claims so the transcripts and what they prove or disprove hasn’t changed that position.

The lack of forensic evidence against Luke is one problem for the prosecution's narrative.  A second problem is that some of the witness testimony does not make sense.  A third problem is that some of the witness testimony was gathered in ways that are problematic and contrary to good practice.  As for the transcripts themselves, they don't help the prosecution's case, and in some ways they hurt it.  Then there is the lack of a motive and a timeline that might charitably be called extremely tight.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The lack of forensic evidence against Luke is one problem for the prosecution's narrative.  A second problem is that some of the witness testimony does not make sense.  A third problem is that some of the witness testimony was gathered in ways that are problematic and contrary to good practice.  As for the transcripts themselves, they don't help the prosecution's case, and in some ways they hurt it.  Then there is the lack of a motive and a timeline that might charitably be called extremely tight.

None of these things are the prosecution’s problem.  They did their job successfully .  They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.

[Chris_Halkides]

None of these things are the prosecution’s problem.  They did their job successfully .  They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.

In saying that they did their job successfully, you are implicitly doing what Ken Mair did, namely using the jury's verdict as evidence in a discussion that examines their verdict.  Some of the problems that I mentioned are the same problems that outside observers of the case (Dr David Wilson and Dr Allan Jamison come to mind, but there are others) have been making for a long time, independently of Dr Lean.  Other problems have been thrown into sharper relief because of the release of the transcripts: Mr Trumbull's speaking falsely about the level of certainty regarding the timing of Andrina Bryson's sighting is one of several examples.  When witness testimony is gathered poorly, it decreases its probative value.  How the testimony was gathered has nothing to do with Dr Lean, and over the course of a number of comments in a different thread, I contrasted what was done with what would have been good practice.

[Joe Blogs]

None of these things are the prosecution’s problem.  They did their job successfully .  They are problems perceived by Mitchell’s supporters based on information largely fed to them through Lean’s not entirely honest filters.

Why focus on Dr Lean though, Vertigo?
Even those connected to the case voiced their concerns on programmes like 'The Devils own' and MIAST!
You know all the arguments, why was LM free of substantial blood and other DNA of Jodi if the attack was unplanned, etc,.