- Oct 12, 2017
- AFL Club
Don't think it matters. Facts are that there were one set of tire prints and no room to turn the car around. I think the point of contention was that the middle bollard which had been under repair may have been known and the bollard was removed. However there seems to be a lump of concrete or wood that the car then ran over (either going forwards or backwards) that pieced underneath the car and cause an engine oil leak.Can I just ask, what are the theories behind the differences in whether the car was travelling forwards or backwards to the gravesite? Have just read through the thread with a large dedication to this point, but unsure why, as the car was found around the corner and involved in dumping the body. Just struggling to see the relevance. Am I missing something???
If the answer is within the 60 Minutes episode, please don't make me watch it. I don't like watching the Sunday version of A Current Affair.....
There was much expert evidence given about the size capacity of the oil and how fast it would flow and run out, and plausible that the car could be driven and disposed of in the Kershaw St, Subiaco with the oil trail then leading back to the disposal site.
A point of contention was when the car was disposed of as one witness said she heard a car schreeching when she was in bed around 2.20 am (she looked at clock radio) and another witness who said he saw a car matching the description driving erratically and schreeching on Thomas St driving towards Kershaw St at around 5.20 am when he had woken up. T
he latter did not fit the prosecution story that Lloyd had disposed of the body, then driven in the opposite direction to home ditched the car and walked home in time for the children not to notice and him not being seen.