theshed Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 4 minutes ago, Tazio said: Sandra Lean turned up on hear I seem to recall, or someone very close to her and the case, on a previous thread. Yes I mind that, can’t mind the name but was someone representing him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas-voss Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Might of done it might not.No idea how they could come to the verdict he did do it though.Until new evidence is brought forward though ( and this show didn't bring any ) I can't see anything changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilnunb Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 7 minutes ago, Tazio said: Sandra Lean turned up on hear I seem to recall, or someone very close to her and the case, on a previous thread. Strange. Jambo? 😁 I had no issue with the one sided view of the programme as obviously Sandra Lean is fully behind Luke Mitchell and trying to prove his innocence. Felt the show was a bit 'meh' overall tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Midlothian is like eerie Indiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 9 hours ago, The Modern Leper said: I struggle to get past the idea of a 14 year old boy committing such a brutal slaying, almost to the point of decapitating his victim, and being able to leave himself without any incriminating dna evidence upon his person. Was it not the case that as the search party found the body he fell on it in apparent grief there by making dna a difficult thing to prove as evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 18 minutes ago, Tazio said: Sandra Lean turned up on hear I seem to recall, or someone very close to her and the case, on a previous thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, milky_26 said: The joke there being that a polygraph wouldn’t even be considered now even if they were thought reliable in the UK as people can train themselves to pass them. And especially if they’ve had a long time to practice. The USA is pretty much the only country that routinely uses them. Most experts think that a confident calm person will have no problems with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 It was always felt, at the time of the trial, that the evidence was all circumstantial. Whatever the jury heard was probably more substantial than the programme suggested, although the pre trial press sensationalism wouldn’t have helped keep their pre conceived notions in check. The programme was always going to be a one sided affair in trying to show a miscarriage of justice. I seriously wonder about two things. Why were the police trying to force a confession, knowing full well that it would not have stood up in court due to legal process not being followed. They seem not to have covered themselves in much glory. Any decent defence lawyer would have made sure any confession or statement would be inadmissible. How did poor Jodie end up on the other side of that wall? That path is used frequently, especially during the summer and is fairly close to houses. It is a very narrow strip of trees and bushes, providing limited cover. If someone forced her over, the commotion could easily have attracted attention, making it a very risky manoeuvre by an assailant. No blood was reported as found on the path side of the wall. Did she climb over of her own free will? If so why? Was there someone over there whom she knew and trusted? There are so many questions that could still be asked about the whole terrible affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) Is the Chief Super that headed the Jodi Jones investigation, the same guy who became head of the CCU anti corruption unit in Glasgow, which lead to these two PI's being kicked out the force? Edited February 25, 2021 by Cruyff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 6 minutes ago, Cruyff said: Is the Chief Super that headed the Jodi Jones investigation, the same guy who became head of the CCU anti corruption unit in Glasgow, which lead to these two PI's being kicked out the force? Doubt it. The corruption investigation started in 2005 and was reported to Crown Office June 2013. Police Scotland was only formed in April 2013. There would have been no involvement from Lothian officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 I will stay on the same path as I always have from 2005 Cannot believe a 14yo could commit such a crime and not leave a shred of evidence that could convict him. Police have done an astonishing lousy job. Press responsible for so much hearsay information. eg Clothes burning, did it happen or not, I don't believe it did. Feel for Much for the Jones family, they deserve complete closure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said: Doubt it. The corruption investigation started in 2005 and was reported to Crown Office June 2013. Police Scotland was only formed in April 2013. There would have been no involvement from Lothian officers. Ok, cheers 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 14 minutes ago, Cruyff said: Ok, cheers 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Modern Leper Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 47 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: Was it not the case that as the search party found the body he fell on it in apparent grief there by making dna a difficult thing to prove as evidence. No. There was none of Jodis blood found on him or in any of the searches related to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) What I found a bit frustrating was the absence of anything about the trial. Whch is all in the public domain. What were the prosecution and defence arguments? On the face of this programme it seems an outragous outcome. But would a jury have convicted if presented with the evidence as claimed shown here? With an even barely competent QC or whatever defending counsel challenging that evidence? Edited February 25, 2021 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said: Was it not the case that as the search party found the body he fell on it in apparent grief there by making dna a difficult thing to prove as evidence. There was none of his DNA found on her or hers found on him so no that wasn't the case. I've never understood why his mother wasn't prosecuted for obstruction, providing false alibis, destroying evidence etc. She must have done these things if the prosecution is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, graygo said: I've never understood why his mother wasn't prosecuted for obstruction, providing false alibis, destroying evidence etc. She must have done these things if the prosecution is correct. Don't think you are far away from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 26 minutes ago, The Modern Leper said: No. There was none of Jodis blood found on him or in any of the searches related to him. 8 minutes ago, graygo said: There was none of his DNA found on her or hers found on him so no that wasn't the case. I've never understood why his mother wasn't prosecuted for obstruction, providing false alibis, destroying evidence etc. She must have done these things if the prosecution is correct. My memory is vague on what was reported way back when this initially hit the papers. there was sometime about what happened when the body was found by Mitchell and his dog that jeopardised the investigation. I know there was a complaint by Mitchell about the body being left out in the rain and not covered bay a tent or tarp. As I say it’s vague memories now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 38 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: I will stay on the same path as I always have from 2005 Cannot believe a 14yo could commit such a crime and not leave a shred of evidence that could convict him. Police have done an astonishing lousy job. Press responsible for so much hearsay information. eg Clothes burning, did it happen or not, I don't believe it did. Feel for Much for the Jones family, they deserve complete closure. Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime? 2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental.... Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children. Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime? 2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental.... Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children. Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago? Off topic but I recently googled the James Bulger case relating to something else to fact check. I remember at the time in the press it was reported that they killed him by throwing and dropping things on him. I’d never read about their attempts and tactics to make it look like an accident. Utterly horrific and more baffling to me that anyone capable of that isn’t in a secure psychiatric unit for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Modern Leper Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 I’m not going to name him but if you’ve followed this case you will be aware of who the private investigators were referring to. Living locally I can say there has always been talk. I think it’s been gathering pace pretty rapidly since the James English podcasts. Time will tell what comes of it, if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, Tazio said: Off topic but I recently googled the James Bulger case relating to something else to fact check. I remember at the time in the press it was reported that they killed him by throwing and dropping things on him. I’d never read about their attempts and tactics to make it look like an accident. Utterly horrific and more baffling to me that anyone capable of that isn’t in a secure psychiatric unit for life. When the injuries were made public of what happened to the poor wee lad I was genuinely 50% utter rage 50% deeply upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime? 2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental.... Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children. Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago? Having a shower wouldn't get rid of DNA*** and it has been said that he hadn't showered anyway. Dirty hair and fingernails etc. *** even 17 years ago. Edited February 25, 2021 by graygo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 For anyone interested in a bit balance. Strange that the programme itself didn’t mention any of this. https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 11 minutes ago, graygo said: Having a shower wouldn't get rid of DNA*** and it has been said that he hadn't showered anyway. Dirty hair and fingernails etc. *** even 17 years ago. Sorry, I meant as enough DNA to get a DNA profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 8 hours ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime? 2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental.... Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children. Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago? No probs, DK I didn't get my message across properly. His age isn't relevant to the atrocity of the murder (recent murder of Ailish McPhail in Rothesay confirms that), I was implying his age is, in making it a perfect murder in 2003. The police detectives should be hanging their heads in shame at this case. The policing is akin to something out of the 70's/80's, not this millenium. If you watch the recent White House Farm (80's) murders series, that is the policing we are seeing here. It must him, we are not looking into anybody else. The above case was get it cleared up as murder/suicide and the culprit was nearly ignored (athough he maintains his innocence). He may have done it, but I have trouble without the evidence. But, if a senior barrister cannot get him off, it makes you wonder what the jury took out of it. Were prejudice in their preconceived opinions? probably imo. I don't have too much faith in juries (enough posts earlier to back my opinion) The programme was totally one sided, but it still drew attention to key witnesses changing their statements. The girl in the car not able to identify him in court? That didn't mean she said "he didn't do it" though. She wasn't sure it was him. This has ben a cluster**** from the day happened, a 14yo girl has lost her life and her family have not received the policing her murder deserved. All in my own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboSpur Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 9 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said: For anyone interested in a bit balance. Strange that the programme itself didn’t mention any of this. https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ GUILTY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iantjambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 I’ve been back and forward so many times with this case. The documentary didn’t tell anything that wasn’t already known. The two former cops almost seemed to be acting at times tbh. The circumstantial evidence against Mitchell is definitely strong. However, a few things bother me. The time of the murder was broad daylight, early evening and it was warm. People would’ve been out and about. He must’ve been covered in blood and so how did he get from the crime scene to his home without anyone spotting him? Also, how was traces of Jodi’s blood not found on him or in his house. The doctor at the police station even said that his hair and fingernails were dirty and that he hadn’t bathed in at least 24 hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His name is Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 10 minutes ago, JamboSpur said: GUILTY Makes you think there may have been more evidence than, he kept bottles of piss under his bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weakened Offender Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 11 hours ago, Furious Styles said: Midlothian is like eerie Indiana. It definitely is. Too many big families. The bloodlines are tainted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His name is Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 A quick Google search shows that the trial lasted 3 months, enough time to lead vast amounts of evidence, circumstantial or not. The jury took only 5hrs to deliberate their unanimous guilty verdict. Since the conviction, Mitchell has lodged 4 appeals, the conviction was upheld each time. I'd suggest that the legal system and the people who are aware of the full circumstances of the case made the correct decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, His name is said: A quick Google search shows that the trial lasted 3 months, enough time to lead vast amounts of evidence, circumstantial or not. The jury took only 5hrs to deliberate their unanimous guilty verdict. Since the conviction, Mitchell has lodged 4 appeals, the conviction was upheld each time. I'd suggest that the legal system and the people who are aware of the full circumstances of the case made the correct decision. Does 4 appeals mean that the evidence was looked at again or was it just that the legal process was looked at? Serious question as I don't know. Edit: what I mean is that maybe an appeal was "I didn't get a fair trial" "aye ye did" isn't looking at the evidence. Edited February 26, 2021 by graygo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His name is Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, graygo said: Does 4 appeals mean that the evidence was looked at again or was it just that the legal process was looked at? Serious question as I don't know. Edit: what I mean is that maybe an appeal was "I didn't get a fair trial" "aye ye did" isn't looking at the evidence. Im not sure what what the basis of the appeals were tbh. More than likely it would be one aspect of the case looked at or an attempt to lead new evidence which would have a bearing on the case and or the verdict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 17 minutes ago, graygo said: Does 4 appeals mean that the evidence was looked at again or was it just that the legal process was looked at? Serious question as I don't know. Edit: what I mean is that maybe an appeal was "I didn't get a fair trial" "aye ye did" isn't looking at the evidence. IIRC and I am happy to be proved wrong, the appeals that were heard by other judges looked at the evidence etc but there was also a couple that looked at a possible miscarriage of justice that would look at the processes and procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 11 hours ago, Tazio said: The joke there being that a polygraph wouldn’t even be considered now even if they were thought reliable in the UK as people can train themselves to pass them. And especially if they’ve had a long time to practice. The USA is pretty much the only country that routinely uses them. Most experts think that a confident calm person will have no problems with them. Or psychopaths. Don't think they can be used anywhere as evidence. Even the US. Apparently you can fool them by literally twitching your arsehole muscles when answering the questions. Seen it on a TV show. Possibly Mythbusters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshed Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Regards the women who drove past in the car not pointing him out in court might that be because his appearance had changed in a couple of years? When you see him coming out of court his hair is longer and tied back, fatter about the face and looks much older compared to how he’d have looked the day the women said she’d seen him Also any idea why his brother wasn’t on that programme along side the mum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 41 minutes ago, His name is said: A quick Google search shows that the trial lasted 3 months, enough time to lead vast amounts of evidence, circumstantial or not. The jury took only 5hrs to deliberate their unanimous guilty verdict. Since the conviction, Mitchell has lodged 4 appeals, the conviction was upheld each time. I'd suggest that the legal system and the people who are aware of the full circumstances of the case made the correct decision. I am of this opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 6 minutes ago, theshed said: Regards the women who drove past in the car not pointing him out in court might that be because his appearance had changed in a couple of years? When you see him coming out of court his hair is longer and tied back, fatter about the face and looks much older compared to how he’d have looked the day the women said she’d seen him Also any idea why his brother wasn’t on that programme along side the mum? Did his brother not fail to corroborate his alibi? Perhaps as a family they no longer speak to each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, theshed said: Regards the women who drove past in the car not pointing him out in court might that be because his appearance had changed in a couple of years? When you see him coming out of court his hair is longer and tied back, fatter about the face and looks much older compared to how he’d have looked the day the women said she’d seen him Also any idea why his brother wasn’t on that programme along side the mum? The film also implied that the car being driven was further away from that corner than it actually is. The two people seen would have been much closer to the car than implied. The speed the car was driven at was also much faster than most people would approach the corner. The whole scenario of the car viewing thing was nonsense. It convinced me that the rest of the programme would also be manipulated to support the view of the woman campaigner, who seemed to be enjoying every second of her time on film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said: The film also implied that the car being driven was further away from that corner than it actually is. The two people seen would have been much closer to the car than implied. The speed the car was driven at was also much faster than most people would approach the corner. The whole scenario of the car viewing thing was nonsense. It convinced me that the rest of the programme would also be manipulated to support the view of the woman campaigner, who seemed to be enjoying every second of her time on film. Yeah, she definitely approached the roundabout far too fast. In reality the driver probably stopped to give way, or at least slowed right down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Furious Styles said: Yeah, she definitely approached the roundabout far too fast. In reality the driver probably stopped to give way, or at least slowed right down. I havent watched the show yet but was the roundabout there at the time of the murder? I think it was made when the "new" houses were built next to the school. Not sure when they were built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshed Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Furious Styles said: Yeah, she definitely approached the roundabout far too fast. In reality the driver probably stopped to give way, or at least slowed right down. Did the ex police guy in the car not tell her to go faster when approaching the roundabout? Anyway as other have said that part was a waste of time and surely the ex police would have known this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Carl Fredrickson said: I havent watched the show yet but was the roundabout there at the time of the murder? I think it was made when the "new" houses were built next to the school. Not sure when they were built. I don’t know. Would make sense I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just read the original Luke Mitchell thread. What a cluster****! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, theshed said: Did the ex police guy in the car not tell her to go faster when approaching the roundabout? Anyway as other have said that part was a waste of time and surely the ex police would have known this Some people, my partner for example can remember the smallest details of a person. She’s amazing at it. I’m terrible. I’d probably forget the colour of someone’s skin 5 minutes after meeting them. The girl driving the car clearly falls in to the latter category. Their little test didn’t prove anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Fredrickson Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 17 minutes ago, Carl Fredrickson said: I havent watched the show yet but was the roundabout there at the time of the murder? I think it was made when the "new" houses were built next to the school. Not sure when they were built. To answer my own question the houses at the round about were on sale in 2007 so it is possible that with no roundabout the car may have been going faster but you still have the bend to slow down for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, His name is said: A quick Google search shows that the trial lasted 3 months, enough time to lead vast amounts of evidence, circumstantial or not. The jury took only 5hrs to deliberate their unanimous guilty verdict. Since the conviction, Mitchell has lodged 4 appeals, the conviction was upheld each time. I'd suggest that the legal system and the people who are aware of the full circumstances of the case made the correct decision. It has been repeatedly stated that it was unanimous, it was not, he was found guilty by a majority verdict http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4194463.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 47 minutes ago, Carl Fredrickson said: To answer my own question the houses at the round about were on sale in 2007 so it is possible that with no roundabout the car may have been going faster but you still have the bend to slow down for. And she could have been behind other traffic. And who says she was driving at 30mph. And she knew the road and the female in the programme didn’t. And you don’t have to see anything out of the ordinary to have your attention drawn to something. The whole re-construction of that was a joke. Ultimately the programme was the case for the defence. Those that have heard all the evidence, the original judge, jury, appeal Judges, the police and review bodies are all satisfied with the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weakened Offender Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, theshed said: Regards the women who drove past in the car not pointing him out in court might that be because his appearance had changed in a couple of years? When you see him coming out of court his hair is longer and tied back, fatter about the face and looks much older compared to how he’d have looked the day the women said she’d seen him Also any idea why his brother wasn’t on that programme along side the mum? His brother is alleged to have told the police he did it whilst receiving treatment for being mentally unwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmxweeman Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Where can I find the original court transcripts? I can only find the appeal ones. I’m looking for a piece of evidence I know exists but can’t find it mentioned anywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.