Why do you do this, Parky? The police and prosecution went to inordinate lengths to tie the AB sighting down to between 4.49 and 4.54pm - definitely before 5pm - and they did so for good reason. Sightings after 5pm would have jeopardised the credibility of their 5.15pm claimed time of death too much.
Thank you Ms Lean,
I simply did "this" as I was replying to Harper.
Quote
The police staged their reconstruction with Jodi leaving at "a few minutes after 5pm" to coincide with the sightings at 5.05pm
No Ms Lean, that is what you believe, what you like to work around. It does not make it fact.
The police simply put out a reconstruction at "around" 5pm.
We have of course covered this.
We know, you feel it was done on the following basis also, that;
the weather was the same. Remember? When you stated it could not have been overcast on the 30th as they did not
include this type of weather in the reconstruction?
That you first reasoning, for the defence not using this - was due to "Stocky Man" not being part of the prosecution case.
The reality being Ms Lean, that he is most certainly part of your case.
Which does not alter the plain and simple truth.
That there was nothing in these sightings that could show AB's to be wrong, and there still is not.
Tell us Ms Lean, what have you done to determine the timings of these sightings, of their accuracy -
other than state;
Quote
The other two witnesses were clear that their sightings were after 5pm
Why were they clear? how did they know this, were they looking at their watches, perhaps phoning the time?
Now as much as;
Quote
Reasons for the defence not using those sightings? Who knows? Donald Findlay works from the old school reasoning
Maybe so - it does not alter the plain and simple fact, that there was nothing in these sightings, that could prove AB's sighting to be wrong. More so, that Jodi could not have been murdered between 5 and 5.30pm.
Shimmy aroud these timings as much as you like - it alters nothing.
5.32 until 5.38pm - first, then second connecting call. There is 6mins.
How does this lesson any time that Luke Mitchel had, it did not.
That is what Mr Findlay in his old school ways would have been clear on.
He may have his faults - highly intelligent all the same.
Unless we agree with CM of course, she could have shown him how to win this case - hands down.
" Your honour, we have sperm, blood, hair and fibre, none of it my clients, I rest my case" Quote
by showing that AB's descriptions were nothing like Jodi and Luke,
But it was, clever police all the same, showing this girls hair to be freely flowing;
Catch a killer indeed;
Jodi's hair was contained in that red hair fastener, that Luke saw that night.
They were certainly keeping that information - out of the reconstruction.
AB knew it was contained.
She described the same clothing Luke gave bar this logo.
Jodi was wearing a very dark top with slighter lighter dark blue trousers.
These are but circles of dispute over time.
I believe this woman did remarkably well, in her memory.
But of course- we do have these odd claims over and over of Luke having "poker straight blonde hair"
He did not.
Of AB possibly seeing a pupil from school, the colours being completely different.
I'll trust my own judgement for now, on all of the evidence I have seen, inclusive of yours.
And for this, the police and the prosecution did not need to jam all of this in.
It is as it was. How it happened.
It's almost as futile as saying - the chose Luke as an "easy target".
They did not choose - they simply could not ignore, the evidence before them.