The dock identification not mentioned in Innocents Betrayed

-

 


From Innocents Betrayed page 129:

Lorraine Fleming’s dock identification was particularly outrageous. Asked by the prosecution QC if she could identify, in the court, the person she saw that day, she said: “Not sure.” Encouraged by the same QC to say if she could recognise someone in court who resembled him, perhaps from a different angle or perspective, she replied: “Yes, but his head is completely different.”. Unbelievably, that was accepted as a positive identification.

It was not witness Lorraine Fleming who said "Yes, but his head is completely different", it was Rosemary Walsh (transcript page 492, 02/12/04).

Lorraine Fleming did believe she could positively identify Luke in court - transcript page 335 (01/12/04)

Asked by the Advocate Depute if she had had a chance to look around, she responds "yes".

And do you recognise the person you saw again? - yes

Where is he? (incomprehensible)

Do you mean between the two gentlemen in the white shirts? - Yeah

Did he still look the same as he did that day? - His eyes do

The witness went on to say that his hair looked different and that he may have gained some weight. 


As well as the dock identification in Innocents Betrayed being attached to the wrong witness, the positive identification (whether the witness was correct or not) was completely omitted altogether.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Luke Mitchell campaign - how have things deteriorated to this?

-
Image
  There was a time when campaigners fighting the claimed wrongful conviction of Luke Mitchell raged against the vilification of a 14 year old boy, who they shouted, had not been proven to have committed the crime. Their fight fueled by the abhorrent public denigration of an individual, by a media who cared not for facts, only sensationalism. While the campaign has evolved from the 2021 documentary, in to a petition and protests - recent online presence from campaign leaders, one in particular, seems to be well represented in the screen shots below.  This online torrent of personal attacks appears to come as a response to campaigners highlighting discrepancies between newly released transcripts, and freedom of information responses - and 'case facts' provided by the two main campaign leaders.  Some of the people asking questions are individuals who have dedicated the past few years of their lives to fighting for the truth and believing that a miscarriage of justi...
Read more

Transcript comparisons

-
Image
   A comparison is made between the information in the transcripts from Luke Mitchell's trial - and information out there in the public domain - particularly books written about the case such as Innocents Betrayed, by Sandra Lean. The purpose of this is not to argue guilt or innocence but to compare information and highlight misinformation. (IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean) Luke's other girlfriend - Page 169 IB "The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl" Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264 P2263 :   Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at...
Read more

I used to believe Luke Mitchell was innocent - now I have questions

-
Image
So far, I've refrained from commenting on the matter of guilt or innocence and focused primarily on trying to highlight misinformation in the Luke Mitchell campaign - which unfortunately, there is a lot of. However, through stripping away the misinformation and lies about the victim's family, I inevitably do now have questions. Here are some of them:  Number 1: Luke knew to turn left immediately after climbing through the V break One of the biggest grievances for campaigners in support of Luke Mitchell's innocence, was that the other three members of the search party (Jodi's gran, sister and sister's then partner, often referred to as the search 'trio') present when Luke found the body, changed their statements. It was said that they all agreed with Luke in their first statements, that his dog had found the body, but later changed this to say that he had walked straight to the wall. We were told that the jury knew nothing of it. This can be found in various ...
Read more