Marty;
You have made it abundantly clear that my posts are "totties", still to fathom what this means.
I'll take a guess here and assume it is not complimentary.
Amongst numerous posts I have put forward - there lies some of these examples.
Now perhaps would be a good time to read them, if you can be bothered of course.
I will however take the time to give you a handful of examples, from the list of 47 I have, to date.
Here, is a post that someone made, in response to Ms Leans podcast.
Tell me if you believe this to be a lie, misleading or blatant misrepresentation of the facts, that Ms Lean put out?
That warranted the following response;
I am shocked that the police took a polaroid photo of Luke Mitchell and showed only that photo to a witness.
This is not allowed and police should have shown a selection of photographs.
What they did was suggestive and leading.
.
We know of course that AB was shown 12 pictures not just one - it was a photo identification process.
Now for this, it is irrelevant how a person may feel about these 12 pictures.
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, she was shown 12 pictures.
Used to imply that AB was shown one picture only - it worked with the above poster.
Both CM and Ms Lean state that the search trio
"had to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path"Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The relevant point, is not - what these two feel this search trio should have done, the relevant point is the blatant misrepresentation of facts.
That fact is, the truth is - they did not have to walk passed here, they would have had to walk backwards to do so.
Used, to imply this search trio, should have popped in to this lady's house whilst walking passed it.
"The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield"Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth is, the fact is - this search trio came from a bottom end of Mayfield.
Used to imply this search trio had much further to walk.
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
Ms Lean explained this away - claiming that all she had to go on, were, media reports and court transcripts.
And the word of both Luke and Corinne Mitchell.
Was that a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as;
In this very same book, we have;
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."
Therefore Marty - around my various pieces of written work, It interests me, as to what motivates a person - repeatedly;
To lie, to mislead and blatantly misinform people.
Amidst these studies - I have gained further insight into this case, and realise, fundamentally, why suspicion upon Luke, fell.
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case.
That there is little, in the way of actual evidence - to prove that Luke is innocent.
Therefore the above - may be used for multiple purpose, but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.
Unfortunately - is this claimed search for the truth, for Justice - the truth itself is not being put forward. Is this Just, to do so?.