And what about, crucially, what Sandra Lean refers to was in the case files — that he was spotted, specifically, running on Newbattle rd on the early evening of 30.06.03? Not just before 2200 hrs, buying booze at Haddows? Two separate sightings. Well, that’s what I infer from the ‘Mistaken Identity’ portion of ‘IB’ (starting p.233).
Drawing from my own personal understanding of the case, and my own instinct, I think it’s very unlikely that Mark Kane had anything to do with it, but it’s these messy little facets that prevent me from saying, categorically, that Luke is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
*Guest Blog*
No – there is no witness, here is what passes for the arms and legs of Mark Kane being on Newbattle Road. Innocents Betrayed. P.235 by Sandra Lean. Under “Mistaken Identity.
One witness said in a statement that Mr Kane told him police had spoken to him (Mark Kane) because he had been seen running on the Newbattle Road on the evening of the murder. He had gone to one of the local stores to buy alcohol – either Morning Noon and Night (the store where Corinne stopped to buy cigarettes on her way home and where the boys on the pushbikes, who recognized Luke sitting on the wall at the end of his street, were captured on CCTV footage around ten to six), or Eskbank Trading, a convenience store in the opposite direction. Both of these stores would require Mr Kane to traverse the Newbattle Road in order to get them and return to the Abbey.”
Sandra Lean – IB page 235
Ok, where to start.
Firstly it would appear that Mark Kane is his own witness!!
It is him (claimed) telling someone, that he had been seen running on this road.
There is no actual witness statement from anyone seeing him running on the road.
The, this, “he had gone to one of the local stores” and the supposition and assumption of it being either the one in Newtongrange or in Eskbank.
Let us stop there, now Mark Kane is stating he was spoken to by the police.
So it is ok to state that everything he therefore said was true, but not that he had been spoken to by the police!!
Now add the actual reality, whatever may have been said to the police, Mark Kane was spoken to.
And whatever was put to Mark Kane he told them exactly where he had went for alcohol and they checked, and he had indeed and was on CCTV confirming this.
And the contradiction –
of Mark Kane stating someone saw him running on the road and the insert of both these local stores would merit him traversing onto this road.
Now the truth and the reality –
Mark Kane had said he had been seen running for alcohol to a local store.
Running to catch it before it closed for the evening.
This “local store” to the Abbey is in numerous directions.
In 2003 the one in Newtongrange used to close by 9pm.
As did all Scotmids at the time, did they not?
Now the short distance from his student room, is through the Golf house onto Abbey Road and into Dalkeith.
Now, as I have been stating several times, the author whilst attempting to show different points, consistently contradicts herself with others!
She claims that Mark Kane was not checked for using either the store in Newtongrange or the one in Eskbank – and think.
The boys on the pushbikes, she claims, and love the “around ten to six” were seen on the CCTV footage.
And of course Corinne Mitchell.
And think again, that sighting by Loraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh and this claimed “mistaken Identity” –
Did they just miss out the areas of that CCTV footage then!!
That had this twin of Luke Mitchell in a parka jacket in that store –
No of course they did not.
What is shows, without a shadow of a doubt, is that Mark Kane was not in that store buying booze.
Thus Mark Kane was not on that stretch of road and there was no “Mistaken Identity”
And to draw your attention, to just how much any information has been manipulated and morphed as above.
Stemming from, “running to a local store to buy booze” then inserting it had to have been one of only two stores if “local”
And this does work across the board, as we had with the bike at the break in the wall – morphed from “close to“, to at and at the V – when the break can not be seen from anywhere other than directly beside it.
And we know it was a motorist, and we know they were from Basic tool hire – and the author knows all of this, and it is morphed into something else, and used, even though she can not fail to know that it is categorically wrong!!
(Original forum post here)
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 