"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Mr Apples]

So only Shane was in the know? Didn’t Corrine come home at 17.15? Are you saying that, if AB’s testimony in court is true, that Luke murdered Jodi, got back to his home and cleaned up completely, with not a jot of forensic transfer, in under 20 minutes?

Do you not think the Corrine was bamboozled because she knew that it was impossible for her son to have committed the crime in the time suggested? Further if you think Corrine knew nothing then you must believe that she didn’t burn Luke’s clothes or buy another parka to replace the one that was burned?

Things don’t really fit together, do they?

I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental  and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).

Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?

FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together? 

Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.

[faithlilly]

I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental  and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).

Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?

FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together? 

Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.

You have clarified your opinion on the case and thank you, it certainly was a gargantuan effort.

Unfortunately when individuals resort to inventing scenarios to justify their uninformed opinion I tend to disengage.

[Parky41]

What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.

That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.

The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.

What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.

The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.

LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.

A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.

The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.

The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.

The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.

[faithlilly]

What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.

I notice that you have stopped describing the jacket worn by Luke as a parka. I suppose it’s progress of a sort. Of course the rest of you post is, to most right thinking people, nonsense. The road you describe is a busy road, especially at between 5 and 6pm on a weekday, yet not one solitary individual except F and W, whose ‘recollections’were, let us not forget, destroyed by Findlay in court, saw Luke cross that road. Further Luke had allegedly reached the gate by the time F and W saw him so why wouldn’t he go a few steps further, past the gate and into heavy vegetation where he would definitely not be seen? Why hang about at the gate in, we are lead to believe, a heavily bloodstained jacket? A much more logical explanation for F & W’s sighting is that they saw Luke, as others who knew him had, further up towards the college and his home, at just the point that the jogger came onto Newbattle Road and where Luke said he had been standing. Why F & W changed their testimony can only be guessed at but sometimes the need to help can leave witnesses uniquely open to manipulation.

That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.

I’m not sure why you are claiming that Luke still had himself at home. That is simply nonsense. The jogger who F & W claim seeing, had herself leaving Newbattle Abbey Cresent at around 5.45pm, at a time when Luke had certainly left home. Therefore it’s only logical to extrapolate that F &W did see Luke and the jogger but further up Newbattle Road than they recollected.  Why their recollection was at odds with my hypothesis I have dealt with in my last paragraph. Of course it is also worth remembering that LF couldn’t positively identify Luke in court either. Further RW described her sighting’s jacket as ‘hip length’, more the length of a bomber jacket. When asked what type of jacket it was she said ‘parka but only because of the length’….of course we all know that parkas are almost exclusively mid thigh length, as can be seen in the now famous photo of Luke in his .

The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.

What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.

Was that before or after the mobile shampooing unit came to give him a wash and blow dry? Of course it’s easy to simply make things up to substantiate your beliefs and that might be enough for some but there simply is no evidence of the above, not one jot. Further your claim makes no sense. Why wouldn’t there be a noisy motorbike in the vicinity of where Luke claims he made the call from? Was the street where he was waiting inaccessible to motorbikes?  When time, you would have thought, was of the essence why wait 8 minutes to call Jodi’s house again?

The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.

Again are there no motorbikes on Luke’s road?

LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.

A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.

The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.

The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.

The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.

Such clever criminals yet when the police took almost every stitch of clothing Luke had directly after the murder his mother is stupid enough to buy him a parka exactly like the one he had used during the murder, supposedly not realising the stupidity of flagging up the fact that the parka Luke had regularly been seen wearing, and that they didn’t find in the search, had been replaced. Rookie error eh !

[faithlilly]

BTW Parky Mr Apples mentioned a forum you were a member of which had members who attended the trial. I’ve never heard in all the time I’ve been studying the case of such a forum. I’m sure it would be especially helpful for all the members here if you could post a link to this forum.

[Mr Apples]

AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings, LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely). He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo. But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling. His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe. So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi), is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home,  and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . . LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!), but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily. Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy? Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!), those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi, and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court), he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours, coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show? She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting? He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him? Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose, LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded (his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew), giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).

As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03). That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point). Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps? Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid? Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously? One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.

Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.
 

[faithlilly]

 
AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings,

Doesn’t it concern you that neither Bryson or Fleming could positively identify Luke in court? That the timings in Bryson’s initial statements were completely at odds with the prosecution’s timescale? That Bryson stated in court  that the jacket worn by her sighting was, categorically, not a parka but simply of the photos she was shown the parka was closest? That proper police procedures hadn’t been followed regarding an identification parade? That Fleming and Walsh directly contradicted each other in court when Walsh was asked about showing her sil the 15th of August newspaper photo of Luke?  Further you mention that the three eyewitnesses were drawn to their sighting’s ‘strange behaviour’ yet nowhere in any of those witness’s statements do they mention any kind of strange behaviour….although it was added by both Fleming and Walsh in court.

Eyewitness identification can be problematic especially in a circumstantial case. That’s why in English law we have the Turnbull directions.

“  In criminal cases, the case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA) provides that whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of an identification of the accused that the defence alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification. The judge should also direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification was made. When the quality of the identification evidence is good, the jury can be left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it. However, when the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence that goes to support the correctness of the identification.”

By any standard the identification of the witnesses sighting as Luke were flawed under the above guidelines as, as you said, they were gleaned only after a fleeting glance and in difficult conditions ie when driving. 

LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely).

Kelly did not mention a choking sound in his first statement. This is what he said under questioning by DF “ Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.

He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'

"Why did you not describe it as a strangling noise?"

Mr Kelly replied: "I can only put it down to nerves at the time.“

Of course there is also talk that Kelly changed his testimony under duress but I was unable to verify this.

He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo.

It makes absolute sense. From the appeal papers

“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived.”

If we take the earliest time it makes absolute sense for Luke to call Jodi to tell her that he was out of the house and to see where she was. I’m really not sure why you find it odd.



But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling.

And also not true, as posted before:

“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived”..

His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe.

I notice you failed to add context to all of Shane’s dealings with the police and the court. Why do you think that the judge said that the way in which Shane’s interrogation was carried out was unfair? Why do you think he was charged with perverting the course of justice and then the charges dropped at trial? Imagine it was one of your children being treated in this way. Would you expect their answers not to be affected by such duress and intimidation? Be honest.

“
So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi),

Bryson never claimed that she thought that the couple were having a dispute and you have never been able to provide a cite for your claim. The only time I have heard this ‘argument’ mentioned was by Parky. Is that where you got it from?

is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home,  and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . .



Again neither Walsh or Fleming mentioned their sighting ‘acting strangely’ in any of their statements. He was described as simply standing by a wooden gate.

LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!),

Agreed if the sighting had been the murderer he would be trying to get home quickly and with the least people noticing him so wh6 do you think that he was simply standing at a gate on the edge of a busy road with no sign that he was in a hurry and, of course no sign of blood on his clothes, the reason, allegedly, for burning his clothes.

but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily.

Why would he stop for Walsh and Fleming to get a better look at him? Surely is he knew that he’d been seen his main concern would be limiting what the witnesses saw not giving them more time to gat a better description ? Can’t you see why that would make no sense?

Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy?

No.

Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!),

Was it uncharacteristic? Why would it be unusual to phone a friend to keep you company if you thought that you’d been stood up by your girlfriend or, indeed, asking him to hurry up? Their meetings might have been infrequent but  not unusual. Would you like to hang about unnecessarily waiting for a friend?

those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi,

I’m sure they did if he and Jodi were together most of the time but it’s not in itself suspicious.

and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court),

Then you can provide a cite? BTW it is common knowledge that when Luke was forensically examined at the police station in the early hours of the 1st of July his hair hadn’t been washed and there was dirt around his neck and ankles. He was also wearing the same clothes that he had worn at school.

 he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours,


He left the house at 17.30, was seen on the Newbattle Road between 17.45 and 18.15 and then met his friends at the Abbey at 19.00.

coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show?


If she hadn’t shown it was all the more understandable that he waited about on the Newbattle Road. She didn’t have a phone so he couldn’t contact her.

She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting?

He knew that she wasn’t at her house, Ovens had told him that, so what would have been the point?

He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him?

On the contrary, if he was guilty surely phoning the Jones’s landline again to distance himself from the crime would exactly what he would have done?

Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose,

Yes let’s not. Even the BBC has pointed out how Jodi’s families recollections changed from their initial statements to their court testimony. Shameful business.

LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded


I have never heard about the joke text. Do you have a cite? As I have said before there was no use Luke deleting ‘incriminating’ texts as the recipients would also have a copy of the texts. Of course the phone was also in the hands of the police from very early on.

(his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew),

Do you mean the emergency services? The services whose operator who stated how upset the boy on the other end was?

giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).

Buying more time? For what reason?

As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03).

I’m sure they didn’t because of course they weren’t as not one witness had mentioned a parka by that point ( of course Bryson never did). Further if it  wasn’t there when the police searched and it ‘appeared’ several days later that would look suspicious. A rather rookie error by arch criminals Luke and his mother to buy an identical jacket to the one used in the murder when they would have known it would flag up it’s absence in the first search.

That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point).


The Mitchell’s didn’t anticipate the jacket being a problem? Really? Of course, according to your good self, Luke knew he had been seen in that very same parka by Walsh and Fleming and surely that must have, in no small part, informed his decision to get rid of it. How do you square that circle?


Okay
Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?


How does that work then?

Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid?


The police never underestimate the stupidity of criminals, believe me.Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously?

And Corrine, a mature adult, went along with this plan, knowing it could result in her son being suspected of murder, why?

One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.

Or perhaps that it had never existed?

Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming.

Not that overwhelming as according to your good self the jury was split 9/6.

It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.

Such as? If it was not reported in the MSM where did you find out about it?

[Chris_Halkides]

Hi Mr. Apples,

"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"

And in another thread:  "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."

As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere.  There are other indications that he was fairly normal:  A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example.  Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime.  I have substantial doubt.

[Parky41]

Hi Mr. Apples,

"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"

And in another thread:  "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."

As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere.  There are other indications that he was fairly normal:  A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example.  Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime.  I have substantial doubt.

Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.

What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?

Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:

A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.

There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:

Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.

This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.

Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.

Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.

This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.

Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.

So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang.  The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.

LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.

[faithlilly]

Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.

What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?

Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:

A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.

There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:

Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.

This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.

Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.

Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.

This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.

Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.

So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang.  The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.

LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.

After Janine’s and Steven’s testimony changed so did the weight that we can attach to it. So unless you were there there is absolutely no way that you can know how the finding of the body played out. Further your narrative is further compromised by the fact that you were never in the courtroom, never heard a word of direct testimony and, from what you’ve intimated, everything has been gleaned from press reports and forums like this….hardly the most authoritative of sources.

[Mr Apples]

SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this  jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy  -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.

Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?

[Mr Apples]

SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this  jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy  -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.

Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?

It was John [Name removed] who said initially that it was Mark Bill Bryson who said (in Alice Walker's house on the afternoon of 01.07.03) his brother (AB's  husband) had spotted the youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots at the Easthouses end of the path. Also according to [Name removed], there waa a general agreement that this sighting was Luke on the basis of his Army Cadet membership.

SL tries to make a big deal out of a photograph that was taken -- 6 weeks after the murder -- of Mark Bill Bryson & his brother (AB's husband) in the house of a close relative of Jodi's with other members of Jodi's family. Also, she tries to imply that there could have been collusion between the Brysons and the Jones & Walker families as Mark Bill Bryson's girlfriend started cutting Judith's hair at the Joneses' family home after 30.06.03. Clutching at straws, imo.

[Nicholas]

I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.

‘Everything pertaining to this case’ isn’t in the public domain

And [moderated] didn’t attend the 42 day trial so she doesn’t have a clue about the ‘everything’ to do with the case against killer Luke Mitchell

Also there wasn’t a single journo who covered the trial in its entirety

[Nicholas]

SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point).

What about the yellow framed bike?

Did grifter Sandra Lean ‘craftily’ omit details of this too. What exactly did she state in her second book about what John F (JOF) said about killer Luke Mitchell’s push bike?

[Nicholas]

This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting.

How did con artist Sandra Lean form this tale?