What do you mean "Ja J was unsure which path ??" Everyone that lives in Easthouses knows the path including all the dogs, everyone who lives there knows it and could find it and negotiate it with a black bin liner over their heads. Do you actually know anything about that area at all? It appears not. AW knew the area lol? There wasn't and still isn't one person in that area that doesn't know Roan's Dyke Path. Why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path. Honestly, I give up.
Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog" - We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so? And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place. So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.
The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying. As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path? What is evident from this is JaJ, must not have known the area, contrary to your opinion. What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.
And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC?
And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance. - There are of course lots of questions to be answered around the information Ms Lean has touted out is there not?
All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial. The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless. -She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?
And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?
Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying
