A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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?

And did Corrine Mitchell initially refuse to allow Luke to go out and search for Jodi ‘not at this time of night you’re not young man’ (JE podcast) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12003.msg646005#msg646005

or did Corrine send him out looking for Jodi - as Luke claimed? ⬇️

“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm

[faithlilly]

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.


Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.


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.

Therefore SK had the same alibi as Luke, family. Out of interest, when did SK’s father give his statement?

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.

The question is not why Luke would be coming along Lady Path but why were AW, JaJ and SK on the Roan’s Dyke path at all if Jodi was forbidden to go along the path alone and was thought to be ‘mucking about up here’ ? Further why when they knew that Luke had just come down the path did AW insist on going back up it again?

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?


The lack of evidence of cell site analysis done by the police? Care to comment?   Or missing CCTV? Or missing texts that Jodi may have deleted to stop her mother finding out that she was going to Newbattle? Did the police question Luke’s friends and teachers to find out what Luke was wearing that day to school? Did it match what he was wearing that night? If they didn’t, why not? Could it be because from the very first hour after Jodi’s body was discovered there only ever was one suspect, Luke.

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?

Conspiracies do happen, look at Hillsborough. Who’d have thought so many policemen could have covered up such a huge lie.....but they did.

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?

Even Jodi’s time of death was calculated around Luke. That tells you all you need to know.

Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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.

 

When will the Mitchell’s and Sandra Lean publish the SCCRC’s statement of reasons - apparently it amounted to 200 pages?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-17490661

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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.l

 

[Nicholas]

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.

 

[Nicholas]

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?

 

[Nicholas]

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

 

[Parky41]

In reply to, that Ms Lean would not use her own name on this forum.

You are of course correct - the one forum she will not use her own name, is this one. However this is Ms Lean we are talking about. She is renowned for having to be the lead in all discussion of LM. I do not believe she readily sits aside, one will be and is chapping at the proverbial bit continuously? She has a certain way with her, a trade mark. One which is this desire to mock, especially when one is unable to prove a point, the ridicule comes in and the lies - Any means used, to score. This dreek to dreich, pulpit to parapet, poured to pored? rags to broadsheets? The latest lie is that of JuJ, Ms Leans? favourite line of attack. If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie? - Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so. And again we can ask those questions, that will not be answered - What did Jodi's mother say about this path? Why had she banned her daughter? when was this ban put in place? - These are standard questions that would have been asked and answers given - what we get instead is that repetitive empty bias. That 5%.

Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan’s Dyke path alone, Janine, under oath, testified that her motherknew fine well that she did. When DF asked her if she was sure she simply answered ‘yes’....so not quiet as honest as you’d have us believe. As an aside did Judith never ask the three searchers why they were searching the path as Jodi wasn’t allowed to walk there alone?

Those lies to cover up more lies - that misinformation pushed to add weight to the lies?

And that revolving door of nothing - Of every single piece of information in those statements - of why Jodi's family were on Roansdyke path - to meet with LM. Of this period of around 30mins. From LM being on this path to LM shouting out he had found something. - Of this mother and the police filling in this missing person report at the same time. And bang - Jodi is found. Within 10mins of this meet.

And we are being asked - Did Judith never ask the searchers why they were on this path? - Really? if Jodi had been banned from using it? Let's think of those calls - of the police and the report. And of time and communication - One minute we know this mother has been told LM is on this path, looking? heading to Jodi's house. The search trio are also heading to Easthouse's - a search is to be organised. The problem with this, is - When, where, how? JuJ is busy with the police. And Bang - a body has been found. - And you want to ask this ridiculous question, of why she had not asked the searchers why they were on a path Jodi was not supposed to walk? When we know why they were on the path. We know why they headed there. - We know without a shadow of a doubt that this mother had barely time to draw breath, as did the police as did the three members of Jodi's family - All at this point franticly worried about Jodi, after being told she had not been with LM all evening. - Your conspiracy theories have no room here Faithlilly?

No one conspired to put LM on this path - he did that.
No one conspired to make LM climb the wall at the Gino spot - he did that
No one conspired to make LM go over this V upon reaching it - he did that
No one conspired to make LM, with the greatest of ease shout out he had found something - he did that
No one conspired to make up a completely false claim of his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay - he did that
No one made LM and co lie about all and everything - they did that. And that is everything. From that very moment he had stated he had walked some distance passed this V - around 40-60ft. From that moment he made claim to not knowing of it's existence -------------------

The list yet again is endless - And one wants to speed one party up whilst slowing the other down - in an attempt to show that there was more time for LM to have done all he claimed. But one can no slow it down and one can not slow down how ready and prepped LM was. That call at 10.51pm where he offered to search and being on this path by 10.59pm.

Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.

More lies, more misinformation - you are fooling no-one here. It is a well known fact that the Jones family moved to Easthouse's - after the death of Jodi's father. Do you simply just choose to make all and everything up as you go along? - One minute you are reciting Ms Lean to the letter T whilst in the next breath, choosing to leave out the masses of information she has already put out over these years? So we do not buy this "as far as we are aware" Or the missing calls, or the statements or just about much of anything at all - those wares that are peddled continuously? The trouble with lies, with the consistent changes in story and fallacy of reasoning - they just keep coming back to bite you.

[Nicholas]

In reply to, that Ms Lean would not use her own name on this forum.

You are of course correct - the one forum she will not use her own name, is this one. However this is Ms Lean we are talking about. She is renowned for having to be the lead in all discussion of LM. I do not believe she readily sits aside, one will be and is chapping at the proverbial bit continuously?