Well a very warm welcome back to you Larue the instigator of this thread, and thank you so much for that,
A brilliant post if I may say so.
You might want to see my recent post regarding the experiment that I also carried out with my wife in the car when I tried to establish her eye colour. Then again perhaps not.
Anyway looking at your two photographs of the lay-by one thing strikes me:
If the car was facing down hill as you say, and I think that is generally accepted by all, then Mike would have been sat in the driver’s seat which would have been close to the middle of the lay-by which appears to be a two lane lay-by.
When Valerie and the gunman pulled Mike out of the car did they carry him right around the car?
From your photos I think I can see an incident tent right at the top of the lay-by where the body was placed and the cut hedge is seen behind meaning he must have been either dragged out of the passenger seat or taken from the driver’s seat and carried right around the car.
Why was this?
Also do you know what the two objects are beside the body?
I also agree with you that if a car came from behind (that is down the hill) how could it have illuminated the gunman’s face? The only possible explanation is that Valerie saw the face while she was in the front seat through the rear view mirror but she could only have done that if she had either been in the driving seat or had adjusted the mirror so that the passenger seat occupant could see behind. Both seem a bit far fetched to me. She could have meant that a car coming from the front lit up the man’s face. I think she got a bit mixed up quite a lot really and when you look at her evidence in total it really is a wonder how the prosecution succeeded.
Tony.
A brilliant post if I may say so.
You might want to see my recent post regarding the experiment that I also carried out with my wife in the car when I tried to establish her eye colour. Then again perhaps not.
Anyway looking at your two photographs of the lay-by one thing strikes me:
If the car was facing down hill as you say, and I think that is generally accepted by all, then Mike would have been sat in the driver’s seat which would have been close to the middle of the lay-by which appears to be a two lane lay-by.
When Valerie and the gunman pulled Mike out of the car did they carry him right around the car?
From your photos I think I can see an incident tent right at the top of the lay-by where the body was placed and the cut hedge is seen behind meaning he must have been either dragged out of the passenger seat or taken from the driver’s seat and carried right around the car.
Why was this?
Also do you know what the two objects are beside the body?
I also agree with you that if a car came from behind (that is down the hill) how could it have illuminated the gunman’s face? The only possible explanation is that Valerie saw the face while she was in the front seat through the rear view mirror but she could only have done that if she had either been in the driving seat or had adjusted the mirror so that the passenger seat occupant could see behind. Both seem a bit far fetched to me. She could have meant that a car coming from the front lit up the man’s face. I think she got a bit mixed up quite a lot really and when you look at her evidence in total it really is a wonder how the prosecution succeeded.
Tony.
Comment