I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.
In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591
Well isn't that just outstanding reason for believing it is the same in this case, on par with saying MOJ happen! But again, those consistent lies being told, morphed from the self professed 'truthseeker'
No Holly, the search party did not all say the same thing, they did no agree with Luke Mitchells claims of the dog leading to finding the body. That blatant misrepresentation of the truth by Lean in her section "The agreed facts" - when she has the search party had all "walked several meters past the V break".
So this claimed "truthseeker" knows if she were actually to tell the truth, it would destroy one of the strongest areas she depends upon for support!! As above. But lets add the truth here! JaJ and SK stated clearly that they walked past the V break around 10ft or more AFTER LM went over not before. That none of the search party including Mitchell walked past prior to him entering the woodland. Does it matter? Well all round it certainly does, for one would just tell the bloody truth would they not?! If it didn't matter, don't you think?
Does it matter to this miraculous find? - most definitely for it showed clearly just how easy Mitchell would lie. But let's talk of that dog on it's harness on a short reign here. Being guided by it's master! One jerk, one movement and the animal is going to go in the direction he prompts, in this case to the wall, AT the V break. This is what was CLARIFIED, that it was not of the dogs own free will so to speak, of leading his master to the V but of Luke Mitchell leading the dog. When one by one the members of that search party were taken back to that path to go over the events. That is why the clarification came about, they had to re- live that evening whilst actually walking RDP again. As with Mitchell, they did not change their mind, they clarified. And Mitchells clarification was that it was around 40ft past not 60ft. - All several meters, isn't it? With two members being around 3 meters AFTER Mitchel was in the woodland, and one claiming "they" had walked around 40ft past prior to him going over into the woods.
Which showed, that he had only walked around the same, and this is why the police knew it was impossible for him to have seen what he later stated! More so as Kelly and Jones had dashed back that 10ft or so and Mitchell was at the V again.
It does not matter, certainly not where truth is concerned, these continuous lies and misrepresentation of the facts where Mitchell is concerned, in keeping him behind bars. - As I stated to Ms Lean before - Lies do not pose a threat to a killer walking the streets! In answer to her question "why would she lie and risk a killer on the streets?"
This book, which is in effect a complete dishonor to the victim herself, where the author and her hypothesis and conclusions leave the distinct impression with people - that Jodi was raped and murdered! Another vlog by some "Christine" - Who states that this boy was questioned repeatedly without his mother, a responsible adult or lawyer. A murder where she fought and attacked here assailant with nothing of Mitchell on her. Where she was raped and again nothing of Mitchell upon her!! - Job done, and the comments are screaming, release him and "buy the book!" Where does the rape come from? - from Lean!?
For she states in her book, just because there is no evidence of rape, does not mean that rape did not take place! Reason and explanation for this! She claims that if the victim was almost dead or dead then there would have been no need for force! Thus no signs of rape and forced sex! To further this, she adds in one of her "only conclusions" , that semen and sperm had to have been deposited at or after death! - implication again that sex acts took place with an almost or dead person! That lubricants used on condoms were tested, with that usual? Heavy inference in the air, and of course "nothing in the defence papers!" - That is ok then, let's add the authors lack of anything, add all these possibilities to draw the reader, nothing better than some added spice to an already horrific murder, is there? - Keeps that attention off Mitchell, I mean, no evidence of him (or anyone) raping Jodi, no evidence of rape, does not mean it did not happen, as we had with the murder taken place elsewhere!?
And this is born from those defunct heads and one a profile obtained from, and that minute stain, NOT visible. But she uses "appears" just in case! to strengthen her nonsense. So one sperm head on a shoe, not Kelly's and not Mitchells. Those minute left overs and trace transferal, survival of washing cycle and rainwater - belonged to two males. One Kelly and one Mitchell. And people are scratching their heads, and listening to Lean saying If, IF, IF around when or how the clothing moved, when it rained and all else - But what of Mitchells? and more importantly of Mitchell and trace transferal? Of touching, cutting and removing all the clothing! Where the most likeliest transferal took place, by the killers own touching and movement of the clothing and all else! - For that is the stark reality! Not this nonsense that it all could be put against 10% of the male population guff! Two donors, Mitchell and Kelly. The dregs from millions upon millions of sperm remaining from some previous encounter. - Or is Ms Lean suggesting that Kelly and Mitchell had sex with Jodi both at the time or after her death! - can't have one without the other now, can we? Can't just have Mitchells odd little bit surviving for multiple partial profiles and one of Kellys now - can we? If nothing survives as she suggests (which we know it does, science tells us this) then LM was present and performing a sex act also!
But of course Ms Lean is "only saying" - that all of this could not have been investigated properly, if it had surely it would be in those defence papers! and Ms Lean would not have all of her questions needing appeased! - BS. Ms Lean knows exactly the aim, and that level of intellect required , who makes statements such as " lot's of dog walkers find bodies" Or list all of her other killers as possibilities. To hang with forensics and clear cut DNA from a killer, as long as it is not Mitchell! eh? Anyone is up for the role here, to hang with forensics, but she does of course have an answer here also, does she not? - "we will never know" "the wrong testing was asked for" "only testing for Mitchell" " the murder happened elsewhere" - Poppycock, she is expert in BS plain and simple. - and it does take a certain lack of much upstairs to go along with this nonsense.
And these claimed experts agreeing! - No they do not, they do exactly as Lean professes may have happened with others. Ask a question a certain way to get the answer one wants. - perfect, and the Likes of Jamieson give the answer sought. Hypothetically of course!
So yes to these dogs walkers, outstanding proof that this happened here. Case solved. Back to a goth [ censored word ] being the culprit! The significance in LM finding the body is because he did not find Jodi! He had left her there, and he led her family directly to her. From the moment that curfew time came, he was prepped and ready. Led the search and the notion of RDP from the moment he said he would look there.