UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Mr Apples on May 05, 2021, 02:30:35 AM
-
seems to be a less salient point of discussion in this case (well, from my 2 months of looking into the case):
This couple (Marion O’Sullivan and her partner Derek Hamilton), whilst driving home to Newtongrange from Dalkeith High Street after some shopping, noticed a suspicious looking youth at a gate on the Newbattle Road, just before 1800 hrs (the gate at the path entrance to RDP, presumably). Anyway, these two defence witnesses said in court, unequivocally, that it wasn’t Luke they saw (they even admitted to having seen images of Luke numerous times in the media after the murder). So, while these testimonies work in Luke’s favour, they also cast doubt as well. Why? Because, unlike the all the other eyewitnesses, this couple stated that the youth they saw that evening was wearing a green bomber jacket — the green bomber jacket that Luke said he had on at school that day and the same jacket he wore all that evening, until he was questioned by police at Dalkeith police station on the early hours of 01.07.03 where it was taken from him and never returned to this day. They seem unique in this respect, as every other witness in the case says Luke was wearing a hip-length green parka/fisherman’s jacket.
What this sighting proves, imo, is that case is messy and extremely complex, forever to remain a mystery. Having said that, I’m fairly new to this case (only began taking an interest about 2 months ago, after the C5 doco), so perhaps when I eventually finish reading Sandra’s book and read more forums that discuss this case, I might have a better idea as regards who I think the killer was/is.
Anyway, what did you take from MO & DH’s sighting?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-defence-2509118
-
seems to be a less salient point of discussion in this case (well, from my 2 months of looking into the case):
This couple (Marion O’Sullivan and her partner Derek Hamilton), whilst driving home to Newtongrange from Dalkeith High Street after some shopping, noticed a suspicious looking youth at a gate on the Newbattle Road, just before 1800 hrs (the gate at the path entrance to RDP, presumably). Anyway, these two defence witnesses said in court, unequivocally, that it wasn’t Luke they saw (they even admitted to having seen images of Luke numerous times in the media after the murder). So, while these testimonies work in Luke’s favour, they also cast doubt as well. Why? Because, unlike the all the other eyewitnesses, this couple stated that the youth they saw that evening was wearing a green bomber jacket — the green bomber jacket that Luke said he had on at school that day and the same jacket he wore all that evening, until he was questioned by police at Dalkeith police station on the early hours of 01.07.03 where it was taken from him and never returned to this day. They seem unique in this respect, as every other witness in the case says Luke was wearing a hip-length green parka/fisherman’s jacket.
What this sighting proves, imo, is that case is messy and extremely complex, forever to remain a mystery. Having said that, I’m fairly new to this case (only began taking an interest about 2 months ago, after the C5 doco), so perhaps when I eventually finish reading Sandra’s book and read more forums that discuss this case, I might have a better idea as regards who I think the killer was/is.
Anyway, what did you take from MO & DH’s sighting?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-defence-2509118
At the time this young man, whoever he was, was seen Luke was seen by people who knew him sitting at the end of his road.
Some more about the sighting from the Herald.
‘Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial that she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.
She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw, the witness replied:
"No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the carwith Ms O'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.
Mr Findlay asked whether the accused was the person he had sighted.
"No, it wasn't, no, " Mr Hamilton replied. "How sure are you?" the lawyer went on.
"Positive, " the witness’
-
At the time this young man, whoever he was, was seen Luke was seen by people who knew him sitting at the end of his road.
Some more about the sighting from the Herald.
‘Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial that she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.
She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw, the witness replied:
"No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the carwith Ms O'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.
Mr Findlay asked whether the accused was the person he had sighted.
"No, it wasn't, no, " Mr Hamilton replied. "How sure are you?" the lawyer went on.
"Positive, " the witness’
Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?
I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?
-
Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?
I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?
The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !
Of course there is also the other witness sighting not often talked about, that of the male and female witnesses ( one who knew Jodi ) who saw someone of Jodi’s description walking, alone, down towards Morris Road around 5.05. There was also a man seen walking behind her.
-
The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !
Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:
Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.
So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd.
We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.
-
Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?
I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?
Do you have any links to what QC Alan Turnbull’s line of questioning was when he cross examined these two witnesses? Can you recollect what he was meant to have said to MO & DH?
-
Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:
Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.
So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd.
We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.
IMO, we don't "all know" anything regarding the disposal of a jacket belonging to LM. How can we "all know" that it was this that was being burned in the Mitchells' back garden? There was no evidence found, just evidence that the Mitchells lit their woodburner.
We certainly don't know whether the various sightings of Luke WERE of Luke, apart from the one sighting by someone who actually knew him.
-
The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !
Of course there is also the other witness sighting not often talked about, that of the male and female witnesses ( one who knew Jodi ) who saw someone of Jodi’s description walking, alone, down towards Morris Road around 5.05. There was also a man seen walking behind her.
Were the couple called to give evidence in court? Also, at what time was MK spotted on NB rd? And how does CCTV footage, even when enlarged, rule out one having scratch marks on one’s face?
-
IMO, we don't "all know" anything regarding the disposal of a jacket belonging to LM. How can we "all know" that it was this that was being burned in the Mitchells' back garden? There was no evidence found, just evidence that the Mitchells lit their woodburner.
We certainly don't know whether the various sightings of Luke WERE of Luke, apart from the one sighting by someone who actually knew him.
It was accepted by the court that the woodburner had been used to dispose of Mitchell's jacket. And although it was never determined what had happened to Mitchell's skunking knife in the absence of explanation what happened to it, that was accepted too.
It was accepted that the sightings of Luke introduced by the prosecution were evidence that it was him. I believe because different sightings fitted the jigsaw of timeframe evidence.
Isn't it odd that two vital pieces of evidence vanished to be replaced by Corrine Mitchell with two identical items.
-
It was accepted by the court that the woodburner had been used to dispose of Mitchell's jacket. And although it was never determined what had happened to Mitchell's skunking knife in the absence of explanation what happened to it, that was accepted too.
It was accepted that the sightings of Luke introduced by the prosecution were evidence that it was him. I believe because different sightings fitted the jigsaw of timeframe evidence.
Isn't it odd that two vital pieces of evidence vanished to be replaced by Corrine Mitchell with two identical items.
The matter of the jacket being burned and the sightings may have been accepted in court, but not everything that is accepted in court is accurate.
-
The matter of the jacket being burned and the sightings may have been accepted in court, but not everything that is accepted in court is accurate.
The denial that the woodburner had been lit was outweighed by the evidence of witnesses that it had - one of whom I believe was Luke Mitchell.
-
The denial that the woodburner had been lit was outweighed by the evidence of witnesses that it had - one of whom I believe was Luke Mitchell.
It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.
But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.
Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?
-
It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.
But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.
Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?
And burn it to obliteration with absolutely no material reside on the bricks of the wood burner.
That’s some feat.
-
It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.
But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.
Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?
The point is that a material witness denied that anything had been burned in it.
No it would not be difficult to carefully burn the type of jacket Mitchell was wearing - to collect the detritus after and to remove all trace of it.
-
And burn it to obliteration with absolutely no material reside on the bricks of the wood burner.
That’s some feat.
Maybe there were two fires in the Mitchell garden that evening
‘Mrs Mitchell said she might have burnt some grass at the time but did not use the burner.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4174661.stm
-
Maybe there were two fires in the Mitchell garden that evening
‘Mrs Mitchell said she might have burnt some grass at the time but did not use the burner.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4174661.stm
‘She agreed with a statement which her son later gave to a psychiatrist following Jodi's death in which he said he had a short temper.
‘She also agreed that her son had described himself to the doctor as having a short fuse.’
-
It was accepted by the court that the woodburner had been used to dispose of Mitchell's jacket. And although it was never determined what had happened to Mitchell's skunking knife in the absence of explanation what happened to it, that was accepted too.
It was accepted that the sightings of Luke introduced by the prosecution were evidence that it was him. I believe because different sightings fitted the jigsaw of timeframe evidence.
Isn't it odd that two vital pieces of evidence vanished to be replaced by Corrine Mitchell with two identical items.
Yes it would be really easy to burn a large Parka jacket in a woodburner that was 10-12 inches at each side......if it was a Parka for a 3 year old. Why would he be burning anything anyway, didn't he clean up in the river and throw all the clothes away, then walk back to the house with nothing on?
-
Yes it would be really easy to burn a large Parka jacket in a woodburner that was 10-12 inches at each side......if it was a Parka for a 3 year old. Why would he be burning anything anyway, didn't he clean up in the river and throw all the clothes away, then walk back to the house with nothing on?
Don't be silly ... he might have attracted attention had he tried a naked walk home 😁
Do you think for a millisecond that the jacket was bundled into the burner in one piece? The best way of doing it would to have been to cut it into pieces to feed into the fire piece by piece.
-
Maybe there were two fires in the Mitchell garden that evening
‘Mrs Mitchell said she might have burnt some grass at the time but did not use the burner.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4174661.stm
I think only the woodburner was used.
-
The Mitchell log burner...
-
Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:
Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.
So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd.
We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.
You start on a false premise...RW did not say that the individual she saw was wearing a parka. She said ‘ If I was to describe what type of jacket I’d say a parka but that’s really just because of the length’. LF didn’t mention the type of jacket. She did however say that they left to go shopping at 6.
Just before 6pm MO’S and her partner DH saw a youth wearing a green bomber jacket. He was at a gate on the Newbattle Road.
At 6 or just before Luke was identified sitting at the end of his street by people who knew him wearing a green bomber jacket, baggy jeans and light coloured snowboarding boots.
We were told by CM on the JE podcast that Luke while waiting wondered down to Barondale cottages which are, I believe, just off of the Newbattle Road. The youth was seen “ at a gate on the Newbattle Road, ” Doesn’t Barondale cottages have a gate into the properties?
With the similarity in clothing Luke was more than likely the individual seen by MO’S and DH. What this proves? The fallibility of eyewitness evidence.
What else does the above tell us? Luke would have had no time between the RW and LF sighting to get home, get changed and be at a gate on the Newbattle Road to be seen by MO’S and DH.
If Jodi was murdered at 5.15 I have no idea why you feel Luke needed an alibi beyond 6pm. We know that at 6, if the individual seen by MO’S was Luke, he had the clothes on that would be taken by the police later, bomber jacket etc. Any contact after that with anything from the murder site would risk contaminating the clothes that he was wearing. After, allegedly, being so forensically aware that there was not a spec of Jodi’s DNA on him or his DNA at the murder site, do you really think that he would have risked that?
By 7pm Luke was at Newbattle Abbey where he called his mum to tell her that if Jodi turned up to direct her to the Abbey.
-
Two witnesses see a young man on the Newbattle Road. One with a jacket on that Luke was never seen wearing ‘ not a parka but similar because of the length’ and one a green bomber jacket which we know Luke had worn that evening. Both sightings within minutes of each other.
What are we to make of this?
From the 2008 appeal decision.
‘ 28] The last text was sent at about 1640. The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715. The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.’
This further gives lie to the claim that Luke went further than he claimed....or that he arrived at the Abbey at 7.30.
The sighting by MO’S verifies completely what Luke claimed he had done on the evening of the 30th while waiting for Jodi.
‘ a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.’
There is a small pathway into Barndale cottages with a gate at the end.
And again ‘ She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.’
Just what Luke was wearing.
That she said that it wasn’t Luke, when the resemblance is uncanny, simply proves the fallibility of eyewitness testimony.
-
Two witnesses see a young man on the Newbattle Road. One with a jacket on that Luke was never seen wearing ‘ not a parka but similar because of the length’ and one a green bomber jacket which we know Luke had worn that evening. Both sightings within minutes of each other.
What are we to make of this?
From the 2008 appeal decision.
‘ 28] The last text was sent at about 1640. The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715. The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.’
This further gives lie to the claim that Luke went further than he claimed....or that he arrived at the Abbey at 7.30.
The sighting by MO’S verifies completely what Luke claimed he had done on the evening of the 30th while waiting for Jodi.
‘ a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.’
There is a small pathway into Barndale cottages with a gate at the end.
And again ‘ She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.’
Just what Luke was wearing.
That she said that it wasn’t Luke, when the resemblance is uncanny, simply proves the fallibility of eyewitness testimony.
He could have had one jacket on top of the other or had one concealed - Didn’t one of the witness say his pockets appeared bulging or something ?
‘She described the male as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She subsequently picked out a photograph of Mitchell although did not identify him at court. https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/
-
Two witnesses see a young man on the Newbattle Road. One with a jacket on that Luke was never seen wearing ‘ not a parka but similar because of the length’ and one a green bomber jacket which we know Luke had worn that evening. Both sightings within minutes of each other.
This further gives lie to the claim that Luke went further than he claimed....or that he arrived at the Abbey at 7.30.
The sighting by MO’S verifies completely what Luke claimed he had done on the evening of the 30th while waiting for Jodi.
‘ a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.’
There is a small pathway into Barndale cottages with a gate at the end.
And again ‘ She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.’
Just what Luke was wearing.
That she said that it wasn’t Luke, when the resemblance is uncanny, simply proves the fallibility of eyewitness testimony
Firstly from what you first stated - this just minutes between. These sightings were anywhere in the region of 17-20mins between. They were never inclusive of the sighting by F&W. You really need to make your mind up about this Parka - it was or it wasn't. - The trouble with these multiple areas of reasoning - they are as hot as a cat's paws on a tin roof. As was LM's testimony from the early hours of July 1st. - One needs to be consistent. And at no point have I, or anyone else claimed, that I have seen - That LM arrived at the Abbey at 7.30pm. What has always been maintained by myself, is this time period of 5.32pm until 7.30pm when he met with the boys in the Abbey grounds.
That LM in that split moment of having just crossed Newbattle R'd was spotted once by F&W, at around 5.40pm at thee gate.
You either accept the parka here or you don't - you either agree with SL or you don't. That MK was out jogging with a parka on and that he was LM's twin - which gives us two people who looked identical on Newbattle Road at the same time. Or you twist this sighting to 'if is was to choose a Jacket I'd pick the parka' as meaning it was not.
Of these sightings multiple times - in that small frame of time. From around 6pm until 6.15pm. - That when he needed to be seen, to be waiting for Jodi, he was seen multiple times in and around 15-20mins, from around 6pm. That's quite some some doing is it not? To be seen that many times, twice by the same boys - yet nothing, by his reckoning from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm. - and around 6.15pm until in the boys company at 7.30pm.
He is (claiming) on this road, at it's busiest time. And by your reckoning seen by no-one until nearly 6pm, not even his own brother. And we know that he, by his admission was at the entrance of this estate, when he made the call to the Jones's, at 5.32pm. And we know by the above, by the boys from school etc - That he did not go near Barondale Cottages until between 6pm until 6.15pm. (at Barondale and the entrance of the estate) And there is no gate at these cottages visible from the Road? So please, do not attempt to tie these sightings together. It was not an entrance, pathway and a gate rolled into one. So we have no sighting by SM when he left his house, not on his drive to the entrance and upon his exit onto Newbattle R'd did he see his brother LM. LM was not at the entrance of his estate and from his house at 5.30pm until around 6pm. And outwith this sighting by F&W there is nothing that puts him on Newbattle R'd until around 6pm.
*The trouble with this ambiguity of changing from a path (Mr Apples and RDP), the gate (F&W) First there is no gate at Barondale cottage. There is a drive/ entrance. This pathway is the continuation of the Esk Walk way.This entrance is just down from the gate by F&W and between the entrance to the cottage and here. Clearly signposted with the usual walkway, green sign. As it is at the West End of RDP itself.
This tells us how busy this R'd was at this time of day. That from around 6.15pm until he was actually in the presence of these boys in the Abbey - there is nothing, not a snifter of LM. - Nothing on Newbattle R'd, nothing in the Abbey. This is not only a residential college it is also an industrial estate. Cars and people coming and going at all times. - Fluke perhaps? What is a fluke and a blessing was it not - That in that brief moment of having to cross this R'd, of needing to get rid of that clothing. He was spotted by F&W.
From this sighting by F&W, does one imagine that LM would simply doddle home for a change. He needed off this road and out of sight. He could have accessed this woodland from behind the gate. An area he knew like the back of his hand. Just down from this gate and up from Barondale cottages is the continuation of the Esk Walk way. In this wood land there are many smaller paths. There are several entrances along here, into the estate where LM stayed. And one can mock as much as one must - There is nothing better than an area of dense woodland, and a river for initial cleansing. For his feet, hands, face hair. And no one is suggesting that at this point he took the time to do lots of things, time was very much of the essence. LM needed a change of clothing, and he needed to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.When one wants to talk of mere minutes - mere minutes is all that was required - this 17mins plus. To spend a little time at this river, to dash home. To access his back garden - this only becomes undoable when we have these claims, that he was soaked in blood, that he entered his house as such in this state. That he showered to remove this blood he is imagined to be dripping with - He simply was not was he? F&W in that instant picked up on no blood. They did however pick up on how dodgy he appeared. We do not even know if LM had entered his house at all? do we? - We know he needed help, and we know there was burning going on at different intervals, over the course of the evening. That outer clothing very much kept out of the house? Did his mother hand him clean clothing? - This detached home with a garage on one side and a pathway on the other?
And for all of this one can go into Google Earth - they can see this gate (metal now), they can see the Esk walkway sign and entrance and they can see Barondale cottage and they can also see his house - the garage and the path. LM's house pretty sheltered at the front also, trees and shrubbery. It would have taken LM less than a minute to dash from this woodland to his front garden. - What is interesting however, is this sighting at this path entrance around 6pm. Back through the woods? Planking the knife? - however, those timings. We know at a brisk walk only, it takes less than 7mins to get from LM's house to this path. One can cut this time considerably when one is running, through this woodland, can they not. By quite a bit. Half the time. - And it was doable, as LM did it - he was certainly proven to have. But most came after this did it not? - that missing time frame, from around 6.15pm. Of getting the story set in motion. Of this claimed arrival home at around 9pm. Of being seen entering his house at 10pm. Of Jodi not being discovered over the course of this evening. Of it getting to a certain time then setting this search story in place. - scuppered by the meet of the search trio - on this path. As stated also. It is one thing going into a rage and killing someone in that heat of the moment - it is entirely different covering up - So many factors were already set firmly in motion - That earlier meet, only the beginning.
And we are also forgetting all and everything else - Those lies, that story of alibi, of claiming to have been meeting with Jodi at 6pm. Of not calling back. Of in reality being on this Road for nearly 90mins waiting not 45mins. Of calling the boys back, of looking cleaner than usual. Of this isolated path he claimed she was walking and did not appear at the other end of. Of Jodi leaving at a much earlier time for this meet. And this is only a fraction of the information - of AB, of the male looking confrontational. These palms out turned beckoning the girl. Of the missing knife with the brown handle -- and so much more. And of these claims in recent times, of LM not wearing jackets, he hated them. Of the picture with multiple jackets on his bedroom door. Of wearing this thick blouson jkt on this 'sunny warm summers night' Of not just wanting any old jacket, it had to be a parka, bought due to it being in a sale. Of the cock and bull story of the knife handed into Beumont - that CM claimed was in a bag under the dog stand - of this professional search team, running their fingers through the dogs dinner, and missing the bag beside them. That this knife was a replacement bought online. Did they not have any brown handled ones in stock? - Of trying to replace these items in some vain hope that this would go unnoticed - of the vixen in the hen house. Of the police watching the Mitchells, Of being there to ask what shopping had been bought - Oh, guess what, it's a parka. See the trouble with this Faithlilly - is the police had not asked LM about a parka jacket by this point. LM knew however he needed to replace it.
And as stated, there is so much more - tunnel vision indeed? And we can see clearly why, he remained suspect. Why one family was believed over the other. - For one was clearly lying from the start.
-
IMO, we don't "all know" anything regarding the disposal of a jacket belonging to LM. How can we "all know" that it was this that was being burned in the Mitchells' back garden? There was no evidence found, just evidence that the Mitchells lit their woodburner.
We certainly don't know whether the various sightings of Luke WERE of Luke, apart from the one sighting by someone who actually knew him.
Agreed. Do you know what destroys this forum? People who are not only obsessed with trying to prove LM is guilty. but equally obsessed with posting "poppycock" such as he disposed of the jacket. If people would stick to facts and not their one sided opinion based on speculation the debate would be much healthier. Nobody really wants to hear the..........disposed of the jacket, burnt the jacket, cleaned himself in the river, Marilyn Manson fan yaya yada. All of that has already been proven to be FALSE, so you lot who keep doing it, give us a rest eh?
-
The point is that a material witness denied that anything had been burned in it.
No it would not be difficult to carefully burn the type of jacket Mitchell was wearing - to collect the detritus after and to remove all trace of it.
@)(++(* The woodburner was 12 inches by 10 inches. You couldn't burn a pair of shorts in that I'm afraid.
-
Don't be silly ... he might have attracted attention had he tried a naked walk home 😁
Do you think for a millisecond that the jacket was bundled into the burner in one piece? The best way of doing it would to have been to cut it into pieces to feed into the fire piece by piece.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
-
Agreed. Do you know what destroys this forum? People who are not only obsessed with trying to prove LM is guilty. but equally obsessed with posting "poppycock" such as he disposed of the jacket. If people would stick to facts and not their one sided opinion based on speculation the debate would be much healthier. Nobody really wants to hear the..........disposed of the jacket, burnt the jacket, cleaned himself in the river, Marilyn Manson fan yaya yada. All of that has already been proven to be FALSE, so you lot who keep doing it, give us a rest eh?
No-one on this forum is "trying to prove Mitchell guilty" of murdering Jodi. That has already been achieved in the properly constituted legal setting of a court with judge and jury - and appeal courts in front of law lords - not in the kangaroo setting of the internet where anything goes.
Nothing destroys a forum more than unadulterated rudeness - perhaps it behoves you to give that some thought particularly as it also breaks forum protocol.
-
@)(++(* The woodburner was 12 inches by 10 inches. You couldn't burn a pair of shorts in that I'm afraid.
No-one claimed he burned shorts although he might very well have done so. The issue is that a particular jacket he was known to possess vanished as if in a puff of smoke and independent witnesses with no axe to grind confirmed that the log burner was used that night but emitting an odd smell - therefore definitely not logs.
-
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
Merely pointing out that your suggestion that Mitchell walked naked to his house after murdering Jodi is a non starter and would definitely have attracted unwanted attention.
-
No-one on this forum is "trying to prove Mitchell guilty" of murdering Jodi. That has already been achieved in the properly constituted legal setting of a court with judge and jury - and appeal courts in front of law lords - not in the kangaroo setting of the internet where anything goes.
Nothing destroys a forum more than unadulterated rudeness - perhaps it behoves you to give that some thought particularly as it also breaks forum protocol.
No it doesn't break forum protocol. Nothing rude about it. Stating facts only breaks protocol in communist China. This "devil worshipper", "he burned the jacket", "he washed in the river" nonsense has been going on since the Daily Star first printed it in July 2003. Do you not think that's long enough to talk about something that was invented to sell newspapers? This tends to come from the same people who know nothing about the case except what they've swallowed from the media, who then post comments referring to Mitchell's interest in Satanism, and in such things as Manson and his music which are just fabrications. Then they use these to say he is guilty. That's not a forum for opinions it's just a boring dictatorship controlled by people forcing their own agenda down other people's throats. Pointless.
-
Firstly from what you first stated - this just minutes between. These sightings were anywhere in the region of 17-20mins between. They were never inclusive of the sighting by F&W. You really need to make your mind up about this Parka - it was or it wasn't. - The trouble with these multiple areas of reasoning - they are as hot as a cat's paws on a tin roof. As was LM's testimony from the early hours of July 1st. - One needs to be consistent. And at no point have I, or anyone else claimed, that I have seen - That LM arrived at the Abbey at 7.30pm. What has always been maintained by myself, is this time period of 5.32pm until 7.30pm when he met with the boys in the Abbey grounds.
That LM in that split moment of having just crossed Newbattle R'd was spotted once by F&W, at around 5.40pm at thee gate.
You either accept the parka here or you don't - you either agree with SL or you don't. That MK was out jogging with a parka on and that he was LM's twin - which gives us two people who looked identical on Newbattle Road at the same time. Or you twist this sighting to 'if is was to choose a Jacket I'd pick the parka' as meaning it was not.
Of these sightings multiple times - in that small frame of time. From around 6pm until 6.15pm. - That when he needed to be seen, to be waiting for Jodi, he was seen multiple times in and around 15-20mins, from around 6pm. That's quite some some doing is it not? To be seen that many times, twice by the same boys - yet nothing, by his reckoning from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm. - and around 6.15pm until in the boys company at 7.30pm.
He is (claiming) on this road, at it's busiest time. And by your reckoning seen by no-one until nearly 6pm, not even his own brother. And we know that he, by his admission was at the entrance of this estate, when he made the call to the Jones's, at 5.32pm. And we know by the above, by the boys from school etc - That he did not go near Barondale Cottages until between 6pm until 6.15pm. (at Barondale and the entrance of the estate) And there is no gate at these cottages visible from the Road? So please, do not attempt to tie these sightings together. It was not an entrance, pathway and a gate rolled into one. So we have no sighting by SM when he left his house, not on his drive to the entrance and upon his exit onto Newbattle R'd did he see his brother LM. LM was not at the entrance of his estate and from his house at 5.30pm until around 6pm. And outwith this sighting by F&W there is nothing that puts him on Newbattle R'd until around 6pm.
*The trouble with this ambiguity of changing from a path (Mr Apples and RDP), the gate (F&W) First there is no gate at Barondale cottage. There is a drive/ entrance. This pathway is the continuation of the Esk Walk way.This entrance is just down from the gate by F&W and between the entrance to the cottage and here. Clearly signposted with the usual walkway, green sign. As it is at the West End of RDP itself.
This tells us how busy this R'd was at this time of day. That from around 6.15pm until he was actually in the presence of these boys in the Abbey - there is nothing, not a snifter of LM. - Nothing on Newbattle R'd, nothing in the Abbey. This is not only a residential college it is also an industrial estate. Cars and people coming and going at all times. - Fluke perhaps? What is a fluke and a blessing was it not - That in that brief moment of having to cross this R'd, of needing to get rid of that clothing. He was spotted by F&W.
From this sighting by F&W, does one imagine that LM would simply doddle home for a change. He needed off this road and out of sight. He could have accessed this woodland from behind the gate. An area he knew like the back of his hand. Just down from this gate and up from Barondale cottages is the continuation of the Esk Walk way. In this wood land there are many smaller paths. There are several entrances along here, into the estate where LM stayed. And one can mock as much as one must - There is nothing better than an area of dense woodland, and a river for initial cleansing. For his feet, hands, face hair. And no one is suggesting that at this point he took the time to do lots of things, time was very much of the essence. LM needed a change of clothing, and he needed to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.When one wants to talk of mere minutes - mere minutes is all that was required - this 17mins plus. To spend a little time at this river, to dash home. To access his back garden - this only becomes undoable when we have these claims, that he was soaked in blood, that he entered his house as such in this state. That he showered to remove this blood he is imagined to be dripping with - He simply was not was he? F&W in that instant picked up on no blood. They did however pick up on how dodgy he appeared. We do not even know if LM had entered his house at all? do we? - We know he needed help, and we know there was burning going on at different intervals, over the course of the evening. That outer clothing very much kept out of the house? Did his mother hand him clean clothing? - This detached home with a garage on one side and a pathway on the other?
And for all of this one can go into Google Earth - they can see this gate (metal now), they can see the Esk walkway sign and entrance and they can see Barondale cottage and they can also see his house - the garage and the path. LM's house pretty sheltered at the front also, trees and shrubbery. It would have taken LM less than a minute to dash from this woodland to his front garden. - What is interesting however, is this sighting at this path entrance around 6pm. Back through the woods? Planking the knife? - however, those timings. We know at a brisk walk only, it takes less than 7mins to get from LM's house to this path. One can cut this time considerably when one is running, through this woodland, can they not. By quite a bit. Half the time. - And it was doable, as LM did it - he was certainly proven to have. But most came after this did it not? - that missing time frame, from around 6.15pm. Of getting the story set in motion. Of this claimed arrival home at around 9pm. Of being seen entering his house at 10pm. Of Jodi not being discovered over the course of this evening. Of it getting to a certain time then setting this search story in place. - scuppered by the meet of the search trio - on this path. As stated also. It is one thing going into a rage and killing someone in that heat of the moment - it is entirely different covering up - So many factors were already set firmly in motion - That earlier meet, only the beginning.
And we are also forgetting all and everything else - Those lies, that story of alibi, of claiming to have been meeting with Jodi at 6pm. Of not calling back. Of in reality being on this Road for nearly 90mins waiting not 45mins. Of calling the boys back, of looking cleaner than usual. Of this isolated path he claimed she was walking and did not appear at the other end of. Of Jodi leaving at a much earlier time for this meet. And this is only a fraction of the information - of AB, of the male looking confrontational. These palms out turned beckoning the girl. Of the missing knife with the brown handle -- and so much more. And of these claims in recent times, of LM not wearing jackets, he hated them. Of the picture with multiple jackets on his bedroom door. Of wearing this thick blouson jkt on this 'sunny warm summers night' Of not just wanting any old jacket, it had to be a parka, bought due to it being in a sale. Of the cock and bull story of the knife handed into Beumont - that CM claimed was in a bag under the dog stand - of this professional search team, running their fingers through the dogs dinner, and missing the bag beside them. That this knife was a replacement bought online. Did they not have any brown handled ones in stock? - Of trying to replace these items in some vain hope that this would go unnoticed - of the vixen in the hen house. Of the police watching the Mitchells, Of being there to ask what shopping had been bought - Oh, guess what, it's a parka. See the trouble with this Faithlilly - is the police had not asked LM about a parka jacket by this point. LM knew however he needed to replace it.
And as stated, there is so much more - tunnel vision indeed? And we can see clearly why, he remained suspect. Why one family was believed over the other. - For one was clearly lying from the start.
Not the "he cleaned up in the river" old chestnut again, with the "he changed his clothes in the garden" added on now?? @)(++(*. This is someone of 14 you're talking about not Peter Tobin.
If you actually want to really figure this out you will need to remove all knowledge of what Mitchell may have done or not done, because it wasn't him that did it. I'm not leaving breadcrumbs because even that would probably get me banned. The key word is "motive". Nothing else I can say.
-
Merely pointing out that your suggestion that Mitchell walked naked to his house after murdering Jodi is a non starter and would definitely have attracted unwanted attention.
That was a joke to highlight the stupidity of claims he chucked his clothes in the river.
-
No-one claimed he burned shorts although he might very well have done so. The issue is that a particular jacket he was known to possess vanished as if in a puff of smoke and independent witnesses with no axe to grind confirmed that the log burner was used that night but emitting an odd smell - therefore definitely not logs.
The vanishing jacket vanished because it never existed. The only trace of anything being burnt in that log burner was....logs. Why do people still talk about that (serious question) when it was forensically tested and not even 1 fibre from clothing found? Has he now found a way of beating forensic science in log burners as well as murder scenes and in houses? Who is this guy? Is he Superman or Merlin the Magician?
-
The vanishing jacket vanished because it never existed.
and those multiple people that gave statements to the police saying otherwise were all lying? people whod spent time at his house, in his room, over the new year 6 months or so before and seen it?
-
It's been said before - a cut from behind or at an angle could lessen the chances of being hit by any arterial spray.
LM carried a knife, presumably for use for whatever reason - it went missing around the time of the murder - is that right? Is that not a concern?
-
No it doesn't break forum protocol. Nothing rude about it. Stating facts only breaks protocol in communist China. This "devil worshipper", "he burned the jacket", "he washed in the river" nonsense has been going on since the Daily Star first printed it in July 2003. Do you not think that's long enough to talk about something that was invented to sell newspapers? This tends to come from the same people who know nothing about the case except what they've swallowed from the media, who then post comments referring to Mitchell's interest in Satanism, and in such things as Manson and his music which are just fabrications. Then they use these to say he is guilty. That's not a forum for opinions it's just a boring dictatorship controlled by people forcing their own agenda down other people's throats. Pointless.
Jodi Jones's horrible death was not invented to sell newspapers. Nor was the police investigation into her death which resulted in the emergence of a prime suspect or the subsequent trial by jury invented to sell newspapers.
There are indeed one or two posters here intent on "forcing their own agenda down other people's throats" - I suggest you give consideration to that observation and analyse your posts before pressing the 'post' button not after.
-
Not the "he cleaned up in the river" old chestnut again, with the "he changed his clothes in the garden" added on now?? @)(++(*. This is someone of 14 you're talking about not Peter Tobin.
If you actually want to really figure this out you will need to remove all knowledge of what Mitchell may have done or not done, because it wasn't him that did it. I'm not leaving breadcrumbs because even that would probably get me banned. The key word is "motive". Nothing else I can say.
Peter Tobin was fourteen once.
-
That was a joke to highlight the stupidity of claims he chucked his clothes in the river.
I found your 'joke' rude and since I was responding to your post perhaps you should take a bit more care how you phrase content.
-
The vanishing jacket vanished because it never existed. The only trace of anything being burnt in that log burner was....logs. Why do people still talk about that (serious question) when it was forensically tested and not even 1 fibre from clothing found? Has he now found a way of beating forensic science in log burners as well as murder scenes and in houses? Who is this guy? Is he Superman or Merlin the Magician?
Don't you ever stop to wonder why witnesses who have testified under oath are all liars if their testimony fails to agree with your narrative.
There are independent witnesses to the fact that Mitchell owned a parka which was exactly the same as the replacement bought by his mother after Jodi's murder.
At least you have moved on from denial that the log burner was - as witnesses testified - in use the night Jodi was murdered, I suppose that is something.
-
It's been said before - a cut from behind or at an angle could lessen the chances of being hit by any arterial spray.
LM carried a knife, presumably for use for whatever reason - it went missing around the time of the murder - is that right? Is that not a concern?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm doing this from memory.
I believe Jodi's blood had sprayed on the wall. The killer stroke was the one which severed her carotid artery and forensics suggested that she was kneeling facing the wall when it was delivered and that her killer must have been behind her when it was delivered.
Thus minimising contamination from arterial spray and the other savage slashes to her neck.
I don't think Mitchell would have presented as blood soaked as we are led to believe if the penetrating wounds on Jodi's living body had been delivered from behind.
-
and those multiple people that gave statements to the police saying otherwise were all lying? people whod spent time at his house, in his room, over the new year 6 months or so before and seen it?
Interesting. Do you have a cite for this? A link? Did these people testify in court for the prosecution? I remember reading in an article that a former teacher of LM’s said Luke owned a green parka jacket prior to the murder and that he used to joke about it, saying it made LM look akin to a monk. More incriminating evidence, if this is all true.
-
and those multiple people that gave statements to the police saying otherwise were all lying? people whod spent time at his house, in his room, over the new year 6 months or so before and seen it?
Who are these witnesses or is it just a vague ‘they’?
-
and those multiple people that gave statements to the police saying otherwise were all lying? people whod spent time at his house, in his room, over the new year 6 months or so before and seen it?
Who were these people? Names? Sources? Did they give evidence in court?
-
Don't you ever stop to wonder why witnesses who have testified under oath are all liars if their testimony fails to agree with your narrative.
There are independent witnesses to the fact that Mitchell owned a parka which was exactly the same as the replacement bought by his mother after Jodi's murder.
At least you have moved on from denial that the log burner was - as witnesses testified - in use the night Jodi was murdered, I suppose that is something.
I heard about a teacher who said that LM had previously owned a parka. Who were the other witnesses?
-
I heard about a teacher who said that LM had previously owned a parka. Who were the other witnesses?
The parka really is a puzzle as it’s not entirely clear when or why it became important. AB categorically stated that the jacket that the person was wearing who she saw was not a parka. RW said she she only mentioned a parka in relation to the jacket saw saw her sighting wearing was because of it’s length. It was not mentioned by the police in at least the first three interviews conducted with Luke. There has never been a shred of evidence supporting the police’s opinion that Luke wore a parka before the murder, no photographs, no video...absolutely nothing.
So how did the parka become so important in the narrative?
-
LM carried a knife, presumably for use for whatever reason - it went missing around the time of the murder - is that right? Is that not a concern?
Was this the skunting knife? The same sc..ting knife presumed to be the murder weapon? Wasn’t it proven that the pouch it was supposedly missing from — the pouch that had a self-made epitaph on it inscribed by LM himself (Jodi’s dob & dod accompanied with Nirvana lyrics) — was too small to be knife’s pouch?
Also, what about the knife found some years after the murder, as below:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131
-
Was this the skunting knife? The same sc..ting knife presumed to be the murder weapon? Wasn’t it proven that the pouch it was supposedly missing from — the pouch that had a self-made epitaph on it inscribed by LM himself (Jodi’s dob & dod accompanied with Nirvana lyrics) — was too small to be knife’s pouch?
Also, what about the knife found some years after the murder, as below:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131
What about it?
-
Was this the skunting knife? The same sc..ting knife presumed to be the murder weapon? Wasn’t it proven that the pouch it was supposedly missing from — the pouch that had a self-made epitaph on it inscribed by LM himself (Jodi’s dob & dod accompanied with Nirvana lyrics) — was too small to be knife’s pouch?
Also, what about the knife found some years after the murder, as below:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131
You tell me.
What is skunting, btw?
-
You tell me.
What is skunting, btw?
Corine Mitchell’s catalogue receipt refers to a ‘skunking knife’ costing £8.95
-
You tell me.
What is skunting, btw?
Portmanteau for skinning and hunting probably and foldable so that it would fit into the leather sheath...
-
Was this the skunting knife? The same sc..ting knife presumed to be the murder weapon? Wasn’t it proven that the pouch it was supposedly missing from — the pouch that had a self-made epitaph on it inscribed by LM himself (Jodi’s dob & dod accompanied with Nirvana lyrics) — was too small to be knife’s pouch?
Also, what about the knife found some years after the murder, as below:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131
The knife found years later was nothing to do with the murder. And a skunting knife would be perfectly capable of inflicting wounds of the type inflicted on Jodie.
-
Portmanteau for skinning and hunting probably and foldable so that it would fit into the leather sheath...
I notice a Talon multipurpose tool was also ordered. Could that also have been, along with the knife, for the survival trip Luke was going to take?
-
I notice a Talon multipurpose tool was also ordered. Could that also have been, along with the knife, for the survival trip Luke was going to take?
Who knows, but just another boy's toy it seems... https://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/wear/acessories/talon-pocket-multitool/ (https://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/wear/acessories/talon-pocket-multitool/)
-
Who knows, but just another boy's toy it seems... https://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/wear/acessories/talon-pocket-multitool/ (https://www.blessthisstuff.com/stuff/wear/acessories/talon-pocket-multitool/)
Or girl’s. I can certainly think of loads of uses for it.
-
Firstly from what you first stated - this just minutes between. These sightings were anywhere in the region of 17-20mins between. They were never inclusive of the sighting by F&W. You really need to make your mind up about this Parka - it was or it wasn't. - The trouble with these multiple areas of reasoning - they are as hot as a cat's paws on a tin roof. As was LM's testimony from the early hours of July 1st. - One needs to be consistent. And at no point have I, or anyone else claimed, that I have seen - That LM arrived at the Abbey at 7.30pm. What has always been maintained by myself, is this time period of 5.32pm until 7.30pm when he met with the boys in the Abbey grounds.
So let’s break those golden moments down to get as full a picture as possible of Luke’s movements from 5.32pm to 7.30pm. Luke calls Jodi’s house twice at 5.32pm and 5.40pm. He is told Jodi has left. He loiters around the bottom of his crescent and walks down the Newbattle Road to Barondale Cottages trying to see if he can see Jodi. Three cyclists, two of who attend school with Luke, describe seeing Luke ‘ standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent,’ ( Barondale Cottages has just such a driveway) at 5.55pm. They also describe him as wearing a bomber jacket.. Carol Heatlie, a Scottish Executive employee, sees an individual who she identifies as Luke as she drives down Newbattle Road at about 6.05pm.
That LM in that split moment of having just crossed Newbattle R'd was spotted once by F&W, at around 5.40pm at thee gate.
You either accept the parka here or you don't - you either agree with SL or you don't. That MK was out jogging with a parka on and that he was LM's twin - which gives us two people who looked identical on Newbattle Road at the same time. Or you twist this sighting to 'if is was to choose a Jacket I'd pick the parka' as meaning it was not.
Of these sightings multiple times - in that small frame of time. From around 6pm until 6.15pm. - That when he needed to be seen, to be waiting for Jodi, he was seen multiple times in and around 15-20mins, from around 6pm. That's quite some some doing is it not? To be seen that many times, twice by the same boys - yet nothing, by his reckoning from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm. - and around 6.15pm until in the boys company at 7.30pm.
He is (claiming) on this road, at it's busiest time. And by your reckoning seen by no-one until nearly 6pm, not even his own brother. And we know that he, by his admission was at the entrance of this estate, when he made the call to the Jones's, at 5.32pm. And we know by the above, by the boys from school etc - That he did not go near Barondale Cottages until between 6pm until 6.15pm. (at Barondale and the entrance of the estate) And there is no gate at these cottages visible from the Road? So please, do not attempt to tie these sightings together. It was not an entrance, pathway and a gate rolled into one. So we have no sighting by SM when he left his house, not on his drive to the entrance and upon his exit onto Newbattle R'd did he see his brother LM. LM was not at the entrance of his estate and from his house at 5.30pm until around 6pm. And outwith this sighting by F&W there is nothing that puts him on Newbattle R'd until around 6pm.
*The trouble with this ambiguity of changing from a path (Mr Apples and RDP), the gate (F&W) First there is no gate at Barondale cottage. There is a drive/ entrance. This pathway is the continuation of the Esk Walk way.This entrance is just down from the gate by F&W and between the entrance to the cottage and here. Clearly signposted with the usual walkway, green sign. As it is at the West End of RDP itself.
This tells us how busy this R'd was at this time of day. That from around 6.15pm until he was actually in the presence of these boys in the Abbey - there is nothing, not a snifter of LM. - Nothing on Newbattle R'd, nothing in the Abbey. This is not only a residential college it is also an industrial estate. Cars and people coming and going at all times. - Fluke perhaps? What is a fluke and a blessing was it not - That in that brief moment of having to cross this R'd, of needing to get rid of that clothing. He was spotted by F&W.
From this sighting by F&W, does one imagine that LM would simply doddle home for a change. He needed off this road and out of sight. He could have accessed this woodland from behind the gate. An area he knew like the back of his hand. Just down from this gate and up from Barondale cottages is the continuation of the Esk Walk way. In this wood land there are many smaller paths. There are several entrances along here, into the estate where LM stayed. And one can mock as much as one must - There is nothing better than an area of dense woodland, and a river for initial cleansing. For his feet, hands, face hair. And no one is suggesting that at this point he took the time to do lots of things, time was very much of the essence. LM needed a change of clothing, and he needed to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.When one wants to talk of mere minutes - mere minutes is all that was required - this 17mins plus. To spend a little time at this river, to dash home. To access his back garden - this only becomes undoable when we have these claims, that he was soaked in blood, that he entered his house as such in this state. That he showered to remove this blood he is imagined to be dripping with - He simply was not was he? F&W in that instant picked up on no blood. They did however pick up on how dodgy he appeared. We do not even know if LM had entered his house at all? do we? - We know he needed help, and we know there was burning going on at different intervals, over the course of the evening. That outer clothing very much kept out of the house? Did his mother hand him clean clothing? - This detached home with a garage on one side and a pathway on the other?
And for all of this one can go into Google Earth - they can see this gate (metal now), they can see the Esk walkway sign and entrance and they can see Barondale cottage and they can also see his house - the garage and the path. LM's house pretty sheltered at the front also, trees and shrubbery. It would have taken LM less than a minute to dash from this woodland to his front garden. - What is interesting however, is this sighting at this path entrance around 6pm. Back through the woods? Planking the knife? - however, those timings. We know at a brisk walk only, it takes less than 7mins to get from LM's house to this path. One can cut this time considerably when one is running, through this woodland, can they not. By quite a bit. Half the time. - And it was doable, as LM did it - he was certainly proven to have. But most came after this did it not? - that missing time frame, from around 6.15pm. Of getting the story set in motion. Of this claimed arrival home at around 9pm. Of being seen entering his house at 10pm. Of Jodi not being discovered over the course of this evening. Of it getting to a certain time then setting this search story in place. - scuppered by the meet of the search trio - on this path. As stated also. It is one thing going into a rage and killing someone in that heat of the moment - it is entirely different covering up - So many factors were already set firmly in motion - That earlier meet, only the beginning.
And we are also forgetting all and everything else - Those lies, that story of alibi, of claiming to have been meeting with Jodi at 6pm. Of not calling back. Of in reality being on this Road for nearly 90mins waiting not 45mins. Of calling the boys back, of looking cleaner than usual. Of this isolated path he claimed she was walking and did not appear at the other end of. Of Jodi leaving at a much earlier time for this meet. And this is only a fraction of the information - of AB, of the male looking confrontational. These palms out turned beckoning the girl. Of the missing knife with the brown handle -- and so much more. And of these claims in recent times, of LM not wearing jackets, he hated them. Of the picture with multiple jackets on his bedroom door. Of wearing this thick blouson jkt on this 'sunny warm summers night' Of not just wanting any old jacket, it had to be a parka, bought due to it being in a sale. Of the cock and bull story of the knife handed into Beumont - that CM claimed was in a bag under the dog stand - of this professional search team, running their fingers through the dogs dinner, and missing the bag beside them. That this knife was a replacement bought online. Did they not have any brown handled ones in stock? - Of trying to replace these items in some vain hope that this would go unnoticed - of the vixen in the hen house. Of the police watching the Mitchells, Of being there to ask what shopping had been bought - Oh, guess what, it's a parka. See the trouble with this Faithlilly - is the police had not asked LM about a parka jacket by this point. LM knew however he needed to replace it.
And as stated, there is so much more - tunnel vision indeed? And we can see clearly why, he remained suspect. Why one family was believed over the other. - For one was clearly lying from the start.
-
So there we have it - LM was regularly in the habit of carrying and using knives, CM has to buy him a replacement knife in the aftermath of the murder, and everyone thinks this is all absolutely fine.
-
That knife sheath is very sinister. How do Mitchell’s apologists excuse it?
-
That Nirvana lyric is written from the point of view of someone relishing the prospect of being dead, how is that in anyway appropriate wrt to Jodi’s memory? She wanted tomorrow to come, it was her murderer who didn’t want her to live to see it.
-
So let’s break those golden moments down to get as full a picture as possible of Luke’s movements from 5.32pm to 7.30pm. Luke calls Jodi’s house twice at 5.32pm and 5.40pm. He is told Jodi has left. He loiters around the bottom of his crescent and walks down the Newbattle Road to Barondale Cottages trying to see if he can see Jodi. Three cyclists, two of who attend school with Luke, describe seeing Luke ‘ standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent,’ ( Barondale Cottages has just such a driveway) at 5.55pm. They also describe him as wearing a bomber jacket.. Carol Heatlie, a Scottish Executive employee, sees an individual who she identifies as Luke as she drives down Newbattle Road at about 6.05pm.
What did Luke Mitchell tell police he was doing from 6.05pm till 7.30pm ?
-
What about it?
Firstly, didn’t CM hand the missing knife in to police? There was also a story about a knife being in a lawyer’s office (apologies for the vagueness here).
Re the discovery of another knife circa 2016 in the DR link I posted upthread, was it ever forensically tested?
-
Firstly from what you first stated - this just minutes between. These sightings were anywhere in the region of 17-20mins between. They were never inclusive of the sighting by F&W. You really need to make your mind up about this Parka - it was or it wasn't. - The trouble with these multiple areas of reasoning - they are as hot as a cat's paws on a tin roof. As was LM's testimony from the early hours of July 1st. - One needs to be consistent. And at no point have I, or anyone else claimed, that I have seen - That LM arrived at the Abbey at 7.30pm. What has always been maintained by myself, is this time period of 5.32pm until 7.30pm when he met with the boys in the Abbey grounds.
So let’s break those golden moments down to get as full a picture as possible of Luke’s movements from 5.32pm to 7.30pm. Luke calls Jodi’s house twice at 5.32pm and 5.40pm. He is told Jodi has left. He loiters around the bottom of his crescent and walks down the Newbattle Road to Barondale Cottages trying to see if he can see Jodi.
Three cyclists, two of who attend school with Luke, describe seeing Luke ‘ standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent,’ ( Barondale Cottages has just such a driveway) on their way to the Jewel and Esk college at 5.55pm. They also describe him as wearing a bomber jacket.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner also describe seeing a young man wearing a bomber jacket standing at a gate/path on the Newbattle Road at 6pm.
Carol Heatlie, a Scottish Executive employee, sees an individual who she identifies as Luke as she drove down Newbattle Road at about 6.05pm.
The two cyclists, discussed earlier, again see Luke 30 minutes later standing at the same place as their previous sighting as they return home.
By 7pm Luke has wondered down to Newbattle Abbey where he calls his mum to ask if Jodi has been at the house and if she arrives could she direct her to the Abbey. He also phones David High to tell him that he’s at the Abbey.
RW and LF’s estimates of the timings of their sighting vary but let’s take the earliest estimate of 5.40pm for them leaving home. The sisters-in-law drive from Newtongrange, where RW lived, to Newbattle Road which would have taken about 3 minutes, depending on traffic ( there were roadworks on the Newbattle Road that night ) giving Luke, if the cyclist’s timings are correct, only 10 to 12 minutes to get home, get showered, tell his mum that he’s murdered his girlfriend and formulate a plan to dispose of his bloodstained parka ( bloodstains that neither RW or LF saw ) and be back on the Newbattle Road for 5.55pm.
Is that really plausible?
That LM in that split moment of having just crossed Newbattle R'd was spotted once by F&W, at around 5.40pm at thee gate.
You either accept the parka here or you don't - you either agree with SL or you don't. That MK was out jogging with a parka on and that he was LM's twin - which gives us two people who looked identical on Newbattle Road at the same time. Or you twist this sighting to 'if is was to choose a Jacket I'd pick the parka' as meaning it was not.
MK has no place in my narrative. To prove Luke was not wearing a parka I’m under no obligation to prove someone else was. Of the three eye witnesses you rely on not one said categorically that their sighting was wearing a parka...AB” not a parka, just most like”..RW “ a parka but that’s really just because of the length” and LF “ the jacket was dark green and went down to his bum”.
Of these sightings multiple times - in that small frame of time. From around 6pm until 6.15pm. - That when he needed to be seen, to be waiting for Jodi, he was seen multiple times in and around 15-20mins, from around 6pm. That's quite some some doing is it not? To be seen that many times, twice by the same boys - yet nothing, by his reckoning from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm. - and around 6.15pm until in the boys company at 7.30pm.
He is (claiming) on this road, at it's busiest time. And by your reckoning seen by no-one until nearly 6pm, not even his own brother. And we know that he, by his admission was at the entrance of this estate, when he made the call to the Jones's, at 5.32pm. And we know by the above, by the boys from school etc - That he did not go near Barondale Cottages until between 6pm until 6.15pm. (at Barondale and the entrance of the estate) And there is no gate at these cottages visible from the Road? So please, do not attempt to tie these sightings together. It was not an entrance, pathway and a gate rolled into one. So we have no sighting by SM when he left his house, not on his drive to the entrance and upon his exit onto Newbattle R'd did he see his brother LM. LM was not at the entrance of his estate and from his house at 5.30pm until around 6pm. And outwith this sighting by F&W there is nothing that puts him on Newbattle R'd until around 6pm.
The road may be busy but was there ever an appeal for drivers to come forward if they’d seen a youth on the Newbattle Road from 5.30pm to 6pm? If not then how will we ever know if anyone else saw Luke?
As to the layout of the approach to Barondale Cottages can I suggest the reader utilises google earth to verify what I have described.
As to SM not seeing his brother could that be because SM left the house before Luke?
*The trouble with this ambiguity of changing from a path (Mr Apples and RDP), the gate (F&W) First there is no gate at Barondale cottage. There is a drive/ entrance. This pathway is the continuation of the Esk Walk way.This entrance is just down from the gate by F&W and between the entrance to the cottage and here. Clearly signposted with the usual walkway, green sign. As it is at the West End of RDP itself.
This tells us how busy this R'd was at this time of day. That from around 6.15pm until he was actually in the presence of these boys in the Abbey - there is nothing, not a snifter of LM. - Nothing on Newbattle R'd, nothing in the Abbey. This is not only a residential college it is also an industrial estate. Cars and people coming and going at all times. - Fluke perhaps? What is a fluke and a blessing was it not - That in that brief moment of having to cross this R'd, of needing to get rid of that clothing. He was spotted by F&W.
From this sighting by F&W, does one imagine that LM would simply doddle home for a change. He needed off this road and out of sight. He could have accessed this woodland from behind the gate. An area he knew like the back of his hand. Just down from this gate and up from Barondale cottages is the continuation of the Esk Walk way. In this wood land there are many smaller paths. There are several entrances along here, into the estate where LM stayed. And one can mock as much as one must - There is nothing better than an area of dense woodland, and a river for initial cleansing. For his feet, hands, face hair. And no one is suggesting that at this point he took the time to do lots of things, time was very much of the essence. LM needed a change of clothing, and he needed to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.When one wants to talk of mere minutes - mere minutes is all that was required - this 17mins plus. To spend a little time at this river, to dash home. To access his back garden - this only becomes undoable when we have these claims, that he was soaked in blood, that he entered his house as such in this state. That he showered to remove this blood he is imagined to be dripping with - He simply was not was he? F&W in that instant picked up on no blood. They did however pick up on how dodgy he appeared. We do not even know if LM had entered his house at all? do we? - We know he needed help, and we know there was burning going on at different intervals, over the course of the evening. That outer clothing very much kept out of the house? Did his mother hand him clean clothing? - This detached home with a garage on one side and a pathway on the other?
And for all of this one can go into Google Earth - they can see this gate (metal now), they can see the Esk walkway sign and entrance and they can see Barondale cottage and they can also see his house - the garage and the path. LM's house pretty sheltered at the front also, trees and shrubbery. It would have taken LM less than a minute to dash from this woodland to his front garden. - What is interesting however, is this sighting at this path entrance around 6pm. Back through the woods? Planking the knife? - however, those timings. We know at a brisk walk only, it takes less than 7mins to get from LM's house to this path. One can cut this time considerably when one is running, through this woodland, can they not. By quite a bit. Half the time. - And it was doable, as LM did it - he was certainly proven to have. But most came after this did it not? - that missing time frame, from around 6.15pm. Of getting the story set in motion. Of this claimed arrival home at around 9pm. Of being seen entering his house at 10pm. Of Jodi not being discovered over the course of this evening. Of it getting to a certain time then setting this search story in place. - scuppered by the meet of the search trio - on this path. As stated also. It is one thing going into a rage and killing someone in that heat of the moment - it is entirely different covering up - So many factors were already set firmly in motion - That earlier meet, only the beginning.
And we are also forgetting all and everything else - Those lies, that story of alibi, of claiming to have been meeting with Jodi at 6pm. Of not calling back. Of in reality being on this Road for nearly 90mins waiting not 45mins. Of calling the boys back, of looking cleaner than usual. Of this isolated path he claimed she was walking and did not appear at the other end of. Of Jodi leaving at a much earlier time for this meet. And this is only a fraction of the information - of AB, of the male looking confrontational. These palms out turned beckoning the girl. Of the missing knife with the brown handle -- and so much more. And of these claims in recent times, of LM not wearing jackets, he hated them. Of the picture with multiple jackets on his bedroom door. Of wearing this thick blouson jkt on this 'sunny warm summers night' Of not just wanting any old jacket, it had to be a parka, bought due to it being in a sale. Of the cock and bull story of the knife handed into Beumont - that CM claimed was in a bag under the dog stand - of this professional search team, running their fingers through the dogs dinner, and missing the bag beside them. That this knife was a replacement bought online. Did they not have any brown handled ones in stock? - Of trying to replace these items in some vain hope that this would go unnoticed - of the vixen in the hen house. Of the police watching the Mitchells, Of being there to ask what shopping had been bought - Oh, guess what, it's a parka. See the trouble with this Faithlilly - is the police had not asked LM about a parka jacket by this point. LM knew however he needed to replace it.
And as stated, there is so much more - tunnel vision indeed? And we can see clearly why, he remained suspect. Why one family was believed over the other. - For one was clearly lying from the start.
More speculative nonsense. Two questions though :
A) You describe this busy, busy road where Luke, if he was there, should have been seen by many more people. Why then wasn’t the ‘Luke’ seen by RW and LF, just standing at the gate as if he had all the time in the world, seen by no one but RW and LF? Same road, same traffic.
B)Luke would have known that he’d be seen standing at that gate at RDP, in that parka with all that traffic driving by on that busy, busy road. Why, if he had got rid of the parka, would he buy another identical one that could tie him to the murder?
-
Luke would have known that he’d be seen standing at that gate at RDP, in that parka with all that traffic driving by on that busy, busy road. Why, if he had got rid of the parka, would he buy another identical one that could tie him to the murder?
I’ve been wondering about the purchase of that second parka, bought allegedly to replace the old one. It’s possible that, at the time Corinne bought it for Luke, the parka was not yet a focal point of the investigation or not yet significant, and perhaps Corinne was confident of Luke literally getting away with murder at this stage. Of course, it could’ve just been completely innocent and coincidental. There are so many coincidences, anomalies and discrepancies in this case that it renders making inferences very difficult. As I said, I’m merely at the beginning of the odyssey that is the Luke Mitchell case. I’m hoping some clarity will eventually come the more I read about it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, paradoxically, the case becomes more nebulous and confusing the more I read about it.
-
More speculative nonsense. Two questions though :
A) You describe this busy, busy road where Luke, if he was there, should have been seen by many more people. Why then wasn’t the ‘Luke’ seen by RW and LF, just standing at the gate as if he had all the time in the world, seen by no one but RW and LF? Same road, same traffic.
Was the source for this ‘busy, busy’ road Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s?
How did RW & LF describe the road conditions at the time?
-
By 7pm Luke has wondered down to Newbattle Abbey where he calls his mum to ask if Jodi has been at the house and if she arrives could she direct her to the Abbey. He also phones David High to tell him that he’s at the Abbey.
Where’s the evidence to prove this is where he was
-
Was the source for this ‘busy, busy’ road Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s?
How did RW & LF describe the road conditions at the time?
No, it’s Parky.
-
Where’s the evidence to prove this is where he was
Where’s the evidence to prove he wasn’t?
-
By 7pm Luke has wondered down to Newbattle Abbey where he calls his mum to ask if Jodi has been at the house and if she arrives could she direct her to the Abbey. He also phones David High to tell him that he’s at the Abbey.
Why did he phone his mum and not phone the Jones house ?
Corrine said Luke told her Jodi had left her house saying to her mum ‘save me some dinner’
⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644079#msg644079
-
I’ve been wondering about the purchase of that second parka, bought allegedly to replace the old one. It’s possible that, at the time Corinne bought it for Luke, the parka was not yet a focal point of the investigation or not yet significant, and perhaps Corinne was confident of Luke literally getting away with murder at this stage. Of course, it could’ve just been completely innocent and coincidental. There are so many coincidences, anomalies and discrepancies in this case that it renders making inferences very difficult. As I said, I’m merely at the beginning of the odyssey that is the Luke Mitchell case. I’m hoping some clarity will eventually come the more I read about it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, paradoxically, the case becomes more nebulous and confusing the more I read about it.
I think you can be sure of that Mr Apples.
The parka certainly is a conundrum. The fact that when forensically examined there was a small number of fabric traces found in the burner but none of them could be linked to any item connected to the case is odd. How can you get rid of the fabric traces from the parka but leave those connected to other items?
If there was blood all over the murder site, there was certainly enough blood to have been deposited on nearby branches, there must certainly have been blood on the soles of Luke’s shoes so why weren’t they burned in the wood burner too, if that’s what happened?
Of course it could
-
So let’s break those golden moments down to get as full a picture as possible of Luke’s movements from 5.32pm to 7.30pm. Luke calls Jodi’s house twice at 5.32pm and 5.40pm. He is told Jodi has left. He loiters around the bottom of his crescent and walks down the Newbattle Road to Barondale Cottages trying to see if he can see Jodi.
Three cyclists, two of who attend school with Luke, describe seeing Luke ‘ standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent,’ ( Barondale Cottages has just such a driveway) on their way to the Jewel and Esk college at 5.55pm.They also describe him as wearing a bomber jacket.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner also describe seeing a young man wearing a bomber jacket standing at a gate/path on the Newbattle Road at 6pm.
Carol Heatlie, a Scottish Executive employee, sees an individual who she identifies as Luke as she drove down Newbattle Road at about 6.05pm.
The two cyclists, discussed earlier, again see Luke 30 minutes later standing at the same place as their previous sighting as they return home.
Sandra Lean states,
‘Luke was positively identified, by some school boys who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street in Newbattle, at approximately 5.45pm, and again some ten minutes later
(Source: ‘No Smoke’ p.85)
-
Why did he phone his mum and not phone the Jones house ?
Corrine said Luke told her Jodi had left her house saying to her mum ‘save me some dinner’
⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644079#msg644079
This is what you posted.
‘
"save me some dinner" was said to Jodis mother, not Luke. Jodi didn't speak to Luke she texted him.
Judy (Jodis mum) went into great detail about that evening and one of the things were saying how Jodi had asked her to save her some dinner’
So are you contradicting your own post?
-
This is what you posted.
‘
"save me some dinner" was said to Jodis mother, not Luke. Jodi didn't speak to Luke she texted him.
Judy (Jodis mum) went into great detail about that evening and one of the things were saying how Jodi had asked her to save her some dinner’
So are you contradicting your own post?
I didn’t say it Corrine Mitchell did in 2010
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644079#msg644079
-
I didn’t say it Corrine Mitchell did in 2010
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644079#msg644079
The source of the information wasn’t Luke but JuJ so, yet again, the point that you are trying to make evades me.
-
The problem I have with Parky41’s theory is Luke being able to surreptitiously get back in the house without being seen — even if he was using the erskbank (sp?) river path route. I had a look on google earth and, contrary to what Parky41 said, this isn’t a route directly to Luke’s front door and nor would it take 2 mins to reach his house once he emerged from the woodland area; it would be more like 5-10 minutes (even when running). Furthermore, even though he would be off the main road, I doubt Luke would not have been seen by his neighbours or someone in the adjacent houses from the adjacent streets in that housing scheme where he lived at the time.
I suppose there’s the possibility that Luke could’ve hid the parka jacket somewhere (away from the locus — perhaps somewhere west at the erskbank river path after the F & W sighting) and went back later that night between 2130-2230 and collected it or collected it in the next couple of days before the FLO was appointed and then disposed of it by whatever means. The reason I say disposed of the jacket after the f & w sighting is because MO & DH & boys who knew Luke all said he was wearing a bomber jacket and not a parka when they all saw him on Newbattle Road rd between 1745 and 1815.
Btw, who said that Luke was looking ‘cleaner than normal’ during 1900 hrs and 2130 that fateful night? Parky41 said this in one of his posts.
-
By 7pm Luke has wondered down to Newbattle Abbey where he calls his mum to ask if Jodi has been at the house and if she arrives could she direct her to the Abbey. He also phones David High to tell him that he’s at the Abbey.
Jodi appears to have left her home in a rush to meet with Luke - she hadn’t eaten
So why didn’t he phone Jodi’s house back given she’s left to meet him in such a hurry ?
-
The problem I have with Parky41’s theory is Luke being able to surreptitiously get back in the house without being seen — even if he was using the erskbank (sp?) river path route. I had a look on google earth and, contrary to what Parky41 said, this isn’t a route directly to Luke’s front door and nor would it take 2 mins to reach his house once he emerged from the woodland area; it would be more like 5-10 minutes (even when running). Furthermore, even though he would be off the main road, I doubt Luke would not have been seen by his neighbours or someone in the adjacent houses from the adjacent streets in that housing scheme where he lived at the time.
I suppose there’s the possibility that Luke could’ve hid the parka jacket somewhere (away from the locus — perhaps somewhere west at the erskbank river path after the F & W sighting) and went back later that night between 2130-2230 and collected it or collected it in the next couple of days before the FLO was appointed and then disposed of it by whatever means. The reason I say disposed of the jacket after the f & w sighting is because MO & DH & boys who knew Luke all said he was wearing a bomber jacket and not a parka when they all saw him on Newbattle Road rd between 1745 and 1815.
Btw, who said that Luke was looking ‘cleaner than normal’ during 1900 hrs and 2130 that fateful night? Parky41 said this in one of his posts.
Sandra Lean had those timing at 5.45pm ‘and again some 10 minutes later’ - making it 5.55pm
⬇️
‘Luke was positively identified, by some school boys who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street in Newbattle, at approximately 5.45pm, and again some ten minutes later
(Source: ‘No Smoke’ p.85)
-
The problem I have with Parky41’s theory is Luke being able to surreptitiously get back in the house without being seen — even if he was using the erskbank (sp?) river path route. I had a look on google earth and, contrary to what Parky41 said, this isn’t a route directly to Luke’s front door and nor would it take 2 mins to reach his house once he emerged from the woodland area; it would be more like 5-10 minutes (even when running). Furthermore, even though he would be off the main road, I doubt Luke would not have been seen by his neighbours or someone in the adjacent houses from the adjacent streets in that housing scheme where he lived at the time.
I suppose there’s the possibility that Luke could’ve hid the parka jacket somewhere (away from the locus — perhaps somewhere west at the erskbank river path after the F & W sighting) and went back later that night between 2130-2230 and collected it or collected it in the next couple of days before the FLO was appointed and then disposed of it by whatever means. The reason I say disposed of the jacket after the f & w sighting is because MO & DH & boys who knew Luke all said he was wearing a bomber jacket and not a parka when they all saw him on Newbattle Road rd between 1745 and 1815.
Btw, who said that Luke was looking ‘cleaner than normal’ during 1900 hrs and 2130 that fateful night? Parky41 said this in one of his posts.
It’s funny you bring Luke’s route back to his house up. I was just looking at google earth myself tonight and as you say although the woodland may have concealed Luke some of the way he would have to have broken cover at some point to get to his house which is surrounded by other houses.
As to the RW and LF sighting, neither in their statements claimed categorically that the youth had a parka on, the jacket was simply green and the same length as a parka. Further if Luke knew that the parka might incriminate him why did he stand, nonchalantly, at a gate by a busy road with it on for the whole world to see? Which raises yet another question..why didn’t anyone but RW and LF report seeing him, on that busy road at one of it’s busiest times?
The only time I’ve heard the ‘cleaner than normal’ claim is from Parky. I believe he/she thinks Luke washed himself after the murder but got dirty mucking about with his mates in the Abbey. This, I believe, explains why there was dirt found on his body and in his hair when he was forensically examined. Of course he could make his hair dirty again but it was also greasy. I wonder how he managed that in less than 8 hours?
-
It’s funny you bring Luke’s route back to his house up. I was just looking at google earth myself tonight and as you say although the woodland may have concealed Luke some of the way he would have to have broken cover at some point to get to his house which is surrounded by other houses.
As to the RW and LF sighting, neither in their statements claimed categorically that the youth had a parka on, the jacket was simply green and the same length as a parka. Further if Luke knew that the parka might incriminate him why did he stand, nonchalantly, at a gate by a busy road with it on for the whole world to see? Which raises yet another question..why didn’t anyone but RW and LF report seeing him, on that busy road at one of it’s busiest times?
Was Parky being sarky
-
Jodi Jones's horrible death was not invented to sell newspapers. Nor was the police investigation into her death which resulted in the emergence of a prime suspect or the subsequent trial by jury invented to sell newspapers.
There are indeed one or two posters here intent on "forcing their own agenda down other people's throats" - I suggest you give consideration to that observation and analyse your posts before pressing the 'post' button not after.
I don't have an agenda. I have merely exposed gaping holes in the case against Mitchell. I even created a thread with 12 points needing explained by people who persist in saying he did it. I'm still waiting on credible explanations after about 2 weeks. Why would that be? Answer - there are no credible explanations for any of the 12. The fairy stories about Manson and clothes being burnt were fed to the media by the Police. Those stories were printed to sell newspapers even although there was no proof they were true. Did the media ask the Police what proof they had? They probably did, but received none but printed it anyway. So yes, those fairy stories WERE printed to sell newspapers.
-
I have merely exposed gaping holes in the case against Mitchell.
Post the full trial transcripts of the case against Mitchell - all 42 days worth - and then we can all be the judge as to whether or not there are ‘gaping holes”
-
I don't have an agenda. I have merely exposed gaping holes in the case against Mitchell. I even created a thread with 12 points needing explained by people who persist in saying he did it. I'm still waiting on credible explanations after about 2 weeks. Why would that be? Answer - there are no credible explanations for any of the 12. The fairy stories about Manson and clothes being burnt were fed to the media by the Police. Those stories were printed to sell newspapers even although there was no proof they were true. Did the media ask the Police what proof they had? They probably did, but received none but printed it anyway. So yes, those fairy stories WERE printed to sell newspapers.
The police made it clear it wasn’t a ritualistic murder
July 2003
‘DETECTIVES today ruled out a link with Satanism or black magic in the hunt for the killer of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones. https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-murder-police-rule-out-ritual-killing-2508436
That was possibly after they consulted with Richard Hoskins
According to Richard Hoskins, Craig Dobbie consulted with him in order to help him understand why Luke Mitchell murdered [Name removed].
"Whilst working at Bath Spa University, Richard Hoskins was called upon by the Metropolitan Police Service to work as an expert witness in the Torso in the Thames case.[2] He has since been called as an expert witness in over a hundred criminal cases, including numerous high-profile murders, such as those of Victoria Climbié,[4] Jodi Jones and the Eric Bikubi and Magalie Bamu case.[5][6][7][8] Hoskins has been called upon to provide commentary on these cases and the related field by numerous press organisations.[9][10][11][12][13] He is an expert on African religions.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] He is the only registered multi-cultural expert on the UK national police SOCA database.[2][21][22][23] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Richard_Hoskins.html
He claims to have been profoundly affected by the [Name removed]'s case
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DyyAmjhB-koC&pg=PT207&lpg=PT207&dq=richard+hoskins+jodi+jones+murder&source=bl&ots=hsAyk5XLGi&sig=Hvf223lApZ2GelCI_ezF_sbyWaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA6ZSLw87dAhVBCuwKHVG1DWkQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=richard%20hoskins%20jodi%20jones%20murder&f=false
-
Post the full trial transcripts of the case against Mitchell - all 42 days worth - and then we can all be the judge as to whether or not there are ‘gaping holes”
It's not my job to post them, but as you say, if someone did.... "then we can all judge". Until someone does, we are stuck with those that say he did it and those who will pick gaping holes in the case against him.
-
The police made it clear it wasn’t a ritualistic murder
They did, but who fed the media with stories that Mitchell was a Satanist and a fan of Manson? They did.
-
I have merely exposed gaping holes in the case against Mitchell.
No you haven't - you listed 12 points that everyone already knew about.
-
They did, but who fed the media with stories that Mitchell was a Satanist and a fan of Manson? They did.
Maybe it was some of the same people who are now campaigning for his release?
-
The police made it clear it wasn’t a ritualistic murder
July 2003
‘DETECTIVES today ruled out a link with Satanism or black magic in the hunt for the killer of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones. https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-murder-police-rule-out-ritual-killing-2508436
That was possibly after they consulted with Richard Hoskins
Richard Hoskins stated,
‘The Jodi Jones case affected me profoundly and I began to think about turning away from this wrenching line of work altogether’
-
Sandra Lean states,
‘Luke was positively identified, by some school boys who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street in Newbattle, at approximately 5.45pm, and again some ten minutes later
(Source: ‘No Smoke’ p.85)
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
‘oh dear! You have no intentions of reading "No Smoke"........what is your problem with Sandra Lean....every single one of your posts slate her.
She didn't write a novel....Everything in the book is from documents,statements, court hearings etc.etc.
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
"No smoke"....well I'm not reading the same reviews as you then!The reviews I read were excellent and complimentary. It also comes recommended by the c.c.r.c.!......cant get much higher than that then!
Sandra received an e~mail from a female saying the c.c.r.c. had recommended her book and could she get a copy.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s250.html
-
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
‘oh dear! You have no intentions of reading "No Smoke"........what is your problem with Sandra Lean....every single one of your posts slate her.
She didn't write a novel....Everything in the book is from documents,statements, court hearings etc.etc.
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
"No smoke"....well I'm not reading the same reviews as you then!The reviews I read were excellent and complimentary. It also comes recommended by the c.c.r.c.!......cant get much higher than that then!
Sandra received an e~mail from a female saying the c.c.r.c. had recommended her book and could she get a copy.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s250.html
Stephen T Manning stated (https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-innocent-prisoner-stephen-manning)
‘Hi Folks - as the publisher of Ms Sandra Lean's book - 'No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice' - I thought I should help clarify a couple of points of possible misinformation here.
I wish to make it clear that I do not wish to cause any offence, nor am I qualified to comment on the intricacies of any of the seven cases covered in Ms Lean's book, but I do think the following facts need to be stated for the record.
Firstly, 'No Smoke' (2nd edition) was published by CheckPoint Press under our 'Traditional Contract' terms. This means that the manuscript qualified for publication 'on merit' [for content, theme, and quality of writing]. Ms Lean did NOT pay us anything towards the costs of publication. Therefore, her book cannot be described as either 'self-published' or 'vanity publishing'. (Please see this link for a sample 'look inside' of the book, and judge the quality for yourself).
http://checkpointpress.com/NS28pageSample.pdf
Secondly, although admittedly not our current bestseller, 'No Smoke' not only continues to sell in steady numbers, but has also received many glowing reviews from respectable sources. (Please see link below for some examples).
http://checkpointpress.com/NSNewTitleIn ... eviews.pdf
Thirdly, and given the central theme of 'No Smoke' is to expose the many flaws and weaknesses in the British Justice System, I believe it is somewhat inappropriate to target Ms Lean or her work based on anyone's own (arguably subjective) opinion of any specific case covered in the book. Ms Lean has invested literally years of her life, unpaid, in direct support of many of the victims of these miscarriages of justice, and for that I believe she deserves our respect and admiration.
Whatever one's views of any specific case covered in the book, the overall message of 'No Smoke' is that many innocent people fall afoul of a highly dysfunctional justice system. Those who have been brought together by such calamities in their own lives, should surely be working together in this cause - and not finding reasons to criticise other activists? I personally believe that 'No Smoke' is a courageous and insightful piece of research that does much to raise general awareness amongst the public - and gives specific support to the seven cases covered in the book.
Ms Lean has made this her life's work, and is currently working on a doctorate in the area of criminal justice, after gaining which, she will surely be a more powerful advocate for reform. May I respectfully suggest therefore, that it is our support and gratitude we need to be expressing to her - not unhelpful criticisms.
Thank you for allowing me to post this comment here.
I sincerely hope those who have been betrayed by the justice system eventually find some peace in their endeavours..
Kind regards to all
Stephen
CheckPoint Press
'Books With Something To Say'
Corrine Mitchell
to stephen@checkpoint press
WOW! on behalf of Sandra Lean, myself (Luke Mitchells mum) and the rest of the people she has helped with her book......a big THANK YOU xx
........maybe that will make a couple of certain people re~think their comments!!!!!
-
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
‘oh dear! You have no intentions of reading "No Smoke"........what is your problem with Sandra Lean....every single one of your posts slate her.
She didn't write a novel....Everything in the book is from documents,statements, court hearings etc.etc.
Corrine Mitchell - April 2010
"No smoke"....well I'm not reading the same reviews as you then!The reviews I read were excellent and complimentary. It also comes recommended by the c.c.r.c.!......cant get much higher than that then!
Sandra received an e~mail from a female saying the c.c.r.c. had recommended her book and could she get a copy.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s250.html
‘Well I have contacted the CCRC and they do not recommend it.
I asked: "Could you please tell me if CCRC recommends a book named No Smoke by Sandra Lean to its clients?"
The reply was
The answer to your question is no, the Commission does not recommend this book to its applicants.
Justin Hawkins
Head of Communication
Criminal Cases Review Commission
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s260.html
Corrine Mitchell
‘to con
...................maybe it was the Sccrc..........whatever! did you not read the post from checkpoint press.....LET IT GO!
‘No I will not let out and out lies go. I will check with the SCCRC also. It is a gross misrepresentation to tell people something is endorsed by official bodies when it is not.
William (Wullie) Neck
‘If it helps readers Jigsawman is Sandra Lean, Wonder if she recalls how many people she told this to.
-
Don't you ever stop to wonder why witnesses who have testified under oath are all liars if their testimony fails to agree with your narrative.
There are independent witnesses to the fact that Mitchell owned a parka which was exactly the same as the replacement bought by his mother after Jodi's murder.
At least you have moved on from denial that the log burner was - as witnesses testified - in use the night Jodi was murdered, I suppose that is something.
Testified what? Nobody saw clothes being burnt. There's no proof he owned a a parka. Same as there's no proof of hanging dogs from front doors or being a Satanist. It was all just made up by the Police and drip fed to the media.
-
No you haven't - you listed 12 points that everyone already knew about.
That nobody can answer.
-
Testified what? Nobody saw clothes being burnt. There's no proof he owned a a parka. Same as there's no proof of hanging dogs from front doors or being a Satanist. It was all just made up by the Police and drip fed to the media.
There is witness testimony not just to the parka but to his possession of the skunting knife, both of which vanished from the face of the earth after Jodi's murder.
A replacement parka was bought, as was a replacement knife.
Witnesses testified the log burner was used to burn something which smelled odd. Mitchell said the log burner had been used ~ his mother and brother said it hadn't.
I have no idea what your reference to 'hanging dogs from front doors' is and I don't really care unless you can give me a cite for it being said in court.
Please allow me to remind you of his demand for satanic books on the grounds of his religion - nothing made up by the police about that was there - it was the real deal.
You really are in denial about all of this.
-
That nobody can answer.
Glad you agree that you haven't 'exposed gaping holes in the case.'
You were always going to do this - post the questions, wait for no-one to bother answering, then claim some sort of Pyrrhic victory.
No one is obliged to address your points - all of which have been debated countless times already.
-
The problem I have with Parky41’s theory is Luke being able to surreptitiously get back in the house without being seen — even if he was using the erskbank (sp?) river path route. I had a look on google earth and, contrary to what Parky41 said, this isn’t a route directly to Luke’s front door and nor would it take 2 mins to reach his house once he emerged from the woodland area; it would be more like 5-10 minutes (even when running). Furthermore, even though he would be off the main road, I doubt Luke would not have been seen by his neighbours or someone in the adjacent houses from the adjacent streets in that housing scheme where he lived at the time.
I suppose there’s the possibility that Luke could’ve hid the parka jacket somewhere (away from the locus — perhaps somewhere west at the erskbank river path after the F & W sighting) and went back later that night between 2130-2230 and collected it or collected it in the next couple of days before the FLO was appointed and then disposed of it by whatever means. The reason I say disposed of the jacket after the f & w sighting is because MO & DH & boys who knew Luke all said he was wearing a bomber jacket and not a parka when they all saw him on Newbattle Road rd between 1745 and 1815.
Btw, who said that Luke was looking ‘cleaner than normal’ during 1900 hrs and 2130 that fateful night? Parky41 said this in one of his posts.
This is absolute nonsense - All you are looking at is the actual Esk Walkway path that is highlighted on Google Earth. There are many smaller trodden paths. Much like the Woodland Jodi was murdered in Mr Apples. What paths do you see in this woodland and further into the Golf course on Google Earth?? Google Earth pathways in woods have nothing to do with the LM's entry and access points. Much like the narrow trampled passageway down the inside of the wall. And I never said there was one that landed LM right at his front door. And where is this 5-10mins running after emerging from this woodland directly into Newbattle Abbey Cres. Think here carefully? For we know it was timed at approx: two mins for LM to walk from his front door - to the entrance of this estate where he claimed he phoned the Jones landline? It is ludicrous to suggest here that it would have taken LM 5-10mins to get from the woodland at Newbattle Abbey Cres to his door even walking at a snails pace, far less in haste. - when it takes 7mins to get from his door to RDP? Walking. And LM had at the very least - 15mins to get through this woodland and back - to change his clothing. Then no sightings of him for 75mins. From 6.15 until 7.30pm
And for being seen? - After emerging from this woodland? That would have taken him seconds at haste. Less than a minute to reach the hidden area of his front garden (completely surrounded in trees and high hedges.) Remember here, 2mins walking from door to Newbattle R'd. And you claim it is highly unlikely that he would not have been seen? And of using this woodland as a means to being seen - perfect is it not? For getting off the main R'd. and not being seen.
Two mins where he claimed to walk from his house to the entrance - unseen. 5.32pm until almost 6pm (your timings are completely wrong.) LM was not seen by the boys, by the motorist until just after 5.55pm through to 6.15pm. That is the official timings. Ms Lean or yourself - may wish to jump from their first given estimate to official timings when suit - From No Smoke to IB and to every discussion had on these forums. There was not half an hour between the boys sightings. It was timed at under 15mins. and from around 6pm.
And exactly what I have been saying - LM whilst crossing the Road from RDP stopped in his tracks at the gate when F&W's car came along. Then nothing until almost 6pm. Until he was first seen with the bomber jacket on - Where, If he was on Newbattle R'd from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm are the sightings? Where from 6.15pm until he is in the company of the boys at 7.30pm - are these sightings? From Newbattle R'd, from this Abbey which is rife with dog walkers, employees from the industrial estate and students? Oh and joggers? And of course his own brother?
But mostly - This 7mins walking from his door to RDP. If you double this/walking it is 14mins. Through the woodland at haste knocks more than enough time off. For him to have gotten changed and back onto the road to be seen. For no more than 20mins. - which was to tie in with his later claims of waiting a short while for Jodi - on the premise of course - that there had been no firm plans to meet?? Yet here he was, claiming to wait for someone -which turned into an expansive amount of time - on the basis that they had not planned to meet anyway?
Just before 6pm MO’S and her partner DH saw a youth wearing a green bomber jacket. He was at a gate on the Newbattle Road.
At 6 or just before Luke was identified sitting at the end of his street by people who knew him wearing a green bomber jacket, baggy jeans and light coloured snowboarding boots.
Interesting - the times are correct, the gate? but these light coloured snowboarding boots - really, did the boys say this? - LM of course did own snowboarding boots, several pairs - what happened to them?
And of your question of LM looking more kempt than usual - you are asking me? tsk. You should know this - you seem pretty well versed on the usual ?'s and misinformation?
-
That nobody can answer.
The 12 questions are nonsense - as are the poster ones doing the rounds. One of which is the data being scrubbed from LM's phone - claiming that the police did this after putting LM in the police car - to go to the station. Utter nonsense yet again - People are readily accepting this nonsense. Again this extraordinary obtuse reasoning - That the police would scrub this data due to it proving LM innocent in some way. As it shows the data was scrubbed whilst LM was in the company of these officers - whilst he was texting away on it? These brain cells don't stop for one moment and think - At this point the police did not know when Jodi died, they did not know the details of timing of meeting and so forth, or much of anything at all. But the conspiracy is that they needed to scrub this data? LM scrubbed the data from his phone - pure and simple. He scrubbed it for that very reason, as it would show clearly those texts and so forth. Of all communication with Jodi, KT and his mother. And he was fortunate that Jodi, using her mothers phone had deleted her messages - private correspondence - there was no innocent reason for LM to scrub his. And certainly no cause for the police to do this. - But as Faithlilly says - there are those who eagerly sook on the gristle. The likes of SD? - a nasty sort with many run ins with the law. Long spells in prison for crimes he certainly did commit. - And lots for which he got away with it would seem. These criminals who blame others for their own crimes - exactly what we see over and over with this case. The narcissist in them?
One must ignore all and everything to do with the Mitchells, clear their minds and use only the word of Lean and the Mitchells. to not be "willfully ignorant" - What a recipe that has turned out to be? They can't even sing from the same hymn sheet anymore - continuously tripping the other up. And tripping themselves up as the answers change over and over. That is why it is important to free your mind from them, to not ask questions - as one continuously forgets their previous answers. erm erm! - the classic signs of manipulators and liars - zone yourself in, don't think the Mitchells - think about the others! - What a lot of nonsense. Of course people have to think about the Mitchells - and the first thing they should be thinking of, is - Why are we not seeing much more of their evidence, their plight/story. Where is CM, where are her many talks over the years? JE podcast perhaps answers this - what a shambles, one dreads to imagine, If this case were ever to reach the courts again - the field day the prosecution would have with these lies. But of course they are not worried - as they know the strength of the evidence. They know that the only thing that would gain LM freedom is a technicality of law not of innocence itself. 18yrs over the media we have consistently heard these claims of startling 'new evidence' A smokescreen to draw support. And here we have it again on the back of C5 based on Ms Leans evidence - There is no evidence to show LM to be innocent - never has been.
Let us take this brother - of Ms Leans claims if that the Jury had heard information on this dubious character - would they still have reached a beyond reasonable doubt verdict? - Well they heard about these boys whom were there, they heard about SK with his sperm and semen present. And of course we do have DF in all of this (I know, like everyone and all else, he was useless) We know Lean mentions this brother as he was mentioned in court by his mother. - And she uses whatever information and extracts to let us know what DF knew. What we do know where this Jury is concerned, is it still would not and could not disprove the actual evidence that brought about LM's conviction. You can not change the evidence against him on the basis of ? around others, Attempt to disperse doubt yes, as was done with the actual presence of DNA of Kelly and the lies and presence of the boys on the bike. And if Ms Lean wishes to include any information on others, hear say or otherwise - all that has not been proven - should this Jury have heard the very same of LM.? Claimed hearsay or otherwise - perhaps this free for all should be allowed - And what an even sorrier state of affairs that would have been for LM. Not forgetting his brother - every dubious, shady thing about him also - slapped before this Jury. - It, on this basis would only have added to the evidence against LM himself.
-
The 12 questions are nonsense - as are the poster ones doing the rounds. One of which is the data being scrubbed from LM's phone - claiming that the police did this after putting LM in the police car - to go to the station. Utter nonsense yet again - People are readily accepting this nonsense. Again this extraordinary obtuse reasoning - That the police would scrub this data due to it proving LM innocent in some way. As it shows the data was scrubbed whilst LM was in the company of these officers - whilst he was texting away on it?
[Name removed]’s body has just been found and he’s busy deleting her text messages - along with all others
Text message from Corinne to Luke Mitchell - 1st July 12.29am
You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you
LM scrubbed the data from his phone - pure and simple. He scrubbed it for that very reason, as it would show clearly those texts and so forth. Of all communication with Jodi, KT and his mother.
-
They know that the only thing that would gain LM freedom is a technicality of law not of innocence itself. 18yrs over the media we have consistently heard these claims of startling 'new evidence' A smokescreen to draw support. And here we have it again on the back of C5 based on Ms Leans evidence - There is no evidence to show LM to be innocent - never has been.
Nope - the classic innocence fraud case
-
This is absolute nonsense - All you are looking at is the actual Esk Walkway path that is highlighted on Google Earth. There are many smaller trodden paths. Much like the Woodland Jodi was murdered in Mr Apples. What paths do you see in this woodland and further into the Golf course on Google Earth?? Google Earth pathways in woods have nothing to do with the LM's entry and access points. Much like the narrow trampled passageway down the inside of the wall. And I never said there was one that landed LM right at his front door. And where is this 5-10mins running after emerging from this woodland directly into Newbattle Abbey Cres. Think here carefully? For we know it was timed at approx: two mins for LM to walk from his front door - to the entrance of this estate where he claimed he phoned the Jones landline? It is ludicrous to suggest here that it would have taken LM 5-10mins to get from the woodland at Newbattle Abbey Cres to his door even walking at a snails pace, far less in haste. - when it takes 7mins to get from his door to RDP? Walking. And LM had at the very least - 15mins to get through this woodland and back - to change his clothing. Then no sightings of him for 75mins. From 6.15 until 7.30pm
And for being seen? - After emerging from this woodland? That would have taken him seconds at haste. Less than a minute to reach the hidden area of his front garden (completely surrounded in trees and high hedges.) Remember here, 2mins walking from door to Newbattle R'd. And you claim it is highly unlikely that he would not have been seen? And of using this woodland as a means to being seen - perfect is it not? For getting off the main R'd. and not being seen.
Two mins where he claimed to walk from his house to the entrance - unseen. 5.32pm until almost 6pm (your timings are completely wrong.) LM was not seen by the boys, by the motorist until just after 5.55pm through to 6.15pm. That is the official timings. Ms Lean or yourself - may wish to jump from their first given estimate to official timings when suit - From No Smoke to IB and to every discussion had on these forums. There was not half an hour between the boys sightings. It was timed at under 15mins. and from around 6pm.
And exactly what I have been saying - LM whilst crossing the Road from RDP stopped in his tracks at the gate when F&W's car came along. Then nothing until almost 6pm. Until he was first seen with the bomber jacket on - Where, If he was on Newbattle R'd from 5.32pm until nearly 6pm are the sightings? Where from 6.15pm until he is in the company of the boys at 7.30pm - are these sightings? From Newbattle R'd, from this Abbey which is rife with dog walkers, employees from the industrial estate and students? Oh and joggers? And of course his own brother?
But mostly - This 7mins walking from his door to RDP. If you double this/walking it is 14mins. Through the woodland at haste knocks more than enough time off. For him to have gotten changed and back onto the road to be seen. For no more than 20mins. - which was to tie in with his later claims of waiting a short while for Jodi - on the premise of course - that there had been no firm plans to meet?? Yet here he was, claiming to wait for someone -which turned into an expansive amount of time - on the basis that they had not planned to meet anyway?
Interesting - the times are correct, the gate? but these light coloured snowboarding boots - really, did the boys say this? - LM of course did own snowboarding boots, several pairs - what happened to them?
And of your question of LM looking more kempt than usual - you are asking me? tsk. You should know this - you seem pretty well versed on the usual ?'s and misinformation?
Was there ever an appeal for witnesses who had seen Luke in the places he said he’d been to come forward? Those dog walkers, those estate workers, joggers etc, etc etc? Would they have known one blonde lad from another? Absence of evidence, as they say, isn’t always evidence of absence.
-
The walk from Jodi's house to the V is 9 minutes.
The walk from the V to the entrance of Newbattle Abbey Crescent is 11 minutes - going down RDP, and straight along Newbattle Road.
Both walks are downhill - I walk it often.
Could be done faster if you were in a hurry, of course.
-
The walk from Jodi's house to the V is 9 minutes.
The walk from the V to the entrance of Newbattle Abbey Crescent is 11 minutes - going down RDP, and straight along Newbattle Road.
Both walks are downhill - I walk it often.
Could be done faster if you were in a hurry, of course.
And fast through those woods.
Quite so: - None faster than LM according his mother. Amazingly fit lad in tow behind his pooch.
Do you walk often from where the granny stayed to this path? - I'm led to believe it's a 10-15min walk at a brisk pace - which is of course what we are told the search party walked, until they were actually on this path. Of marching down, not turning torches on searching - even though they were "armed" with the knowledge that Jodi was to be "up here" We know they were coming out the complex around 11.18pm when JaJ was speaking with LM on the phone - one of those mysterious calls that Ms Lean does not have in her defence files. And one which LM denies? And we know the only knowledge they were "armed with" was of Jodi failing to meet Luke, that he was on this path looking, not running, claiming Jodi had failed to arrive on the other side earlier.
We know there was no time for an organised search to be arranged. We know Jodi was reported missing at 10.50pm. We know the police attended in person after 11pm, that they had barely written the report when Jodi was found. We know LM claimed to be out his door at 11.52pm tearing up this path and so forth (by his mother) and that he was still on it? We know he had nothing for his dog to scent with. We know he had climbed the wall at the Gino spot. And we know without a shadow of doubt that this search part had not walked passed this V. And we know that they have never claimed to, not from that first statement until being on the stand.
And of just recently - SL claiming Jodi was found just before 11.38pm? - the first call to the emergency services at 11.34pm. Is Ms Lean now trying to add time to the other end? And of CM saying Jodi was found at 11pm - where she works from this to put the search party - already out searching. Having posted before that the search trio were at the top of this path at 11pm? - such a mess. Super fast son in this scenario - out his house at 10.52 and at the top of the path by 11pm - no consistency, tangling themselves up repeatedly - trying to work around the lies first told, and of LM of where he actually was and all he said?
What is clear - is these campaigners need to start singing in harmony, - What a mess. Most of whom are not interested in the slightest of evidence where the Mitchells are concerned - busy working their way through the corrupt conspiracy theories of the police. Whilst others are franticly vying for first spot on the who done it part of the book. Mr Apples whom pretends to only be working his way through the case and the book - to say "I'll have a better idea who the killer/s are at the end of it?"
Will there be a prize for top pupil? Some posters are even commenting now - Of SL being of no further use? All the questions have been answered. Leave her alone and "buy the book, buy the book, buy the book" If one did not get the impression money was involved, money trail and profits (don't buy from Amazon, they have served their purpose). It was after all Faithlilly who suggested it, of money to be made from this case - perhaps once funds are ample enough the book will replace the Gideon in hotel rooms? - We already have the ridiculous fliers? - Of police deleting data and so forth - Which will work of course - lots of people out there with just the correct amount of brain cells, it would seem?
These people should be aware of the Mitchell story, ever changing from 4.25 - 5.45. From 5.32 - 7.30. from 9-10.40. from 11.20. ------- And every bit of LM's actions along with his mother. That if they actually did have an interest in any justice. They would first and foremost seek to know this case. Not the bullet points and opinionated answers of obtuse explanation given by Ms Lean. - These absurd claims that this search trio should have been looking anywhere else - rather than that plain and simple basis of reality and fact - the couple had not met according to LM, in Newbattle. That this family had barely drawn breath when LM led them to her body. - they won't as it is boring. Far better to have police corruption and conspiracy theories. Of a who done it avenue. - Juicy. The crooks and the braindead (maybe all the drugs?) - in their hero worship of the bad amongst us?
-
10.52
-
10.52
Can you imagine the embarrassment of a young man’s solitary pursuits being bandied about the courtroom and on the pages of the next days newspapers for all to see? He agreed ? Of course he did. What did you expect him to say...’of yes I pleasure myself regularly when the family are home‘ ! It’s like the seminal question when did you stop beating your wife. There is no answering it well.
But more about Shane’s statements later.
-
And fast through those woods.
Quite so: - None faster than LM according his mother. Amazingly fit lad in tow behind his pooch.
Do you walk often from where the granny stayed to this path? - I'm led to believe it's a 10-15min walk at a brisk pace - which is of course what we are told the search party walked, until they were actually on this path. Of marching down, not turning torches on searching - even though they were "armed" with the knowledge that Jodi was to be "up here" We know they were coming out the complex around 11.18pm when JaJ was speaking with LM on the phone - one of those mysterious calls that Ms Lean does not have in her defence files. And one which LM denies? And we know the only knowledge they were "armed with" was of Jodi failing to meet Luke, that he was on this path looking, not running, claiming Jodi had failed to arrive on the other side earlier.
We know there was no time for an organised search to be arranged. We know Jodi was reported missing at 10.50pm. We know the police attended in person after 11pm, that they had barely written the report when Jodi was found. We know LM claimed to be out his door at 11.52pm tearing up this path and so forth (by his mother) and that he was still on it? We know he had nothing for his dog to scent with. We know he had climbed the wall at the Gino spot. And we know without a shadow of doubt that this search part had not walked passed this V. And we know that they have never claimed to, not from that first statement until being on the stand.
And of just recently - SL claiming Jodi was found just before 11.38pm? - the first call to the emergency services at 11.34pm. Is Ms Lean now trying to add time to the other end? And of CM saying Jodi was found at 11pm - where she works from this to put the search party - already out searching. Having posted before that the search trio were at the top of this path at 11pm? - such a mess. Super fast son in this scenario - out his house at 10.52 and at the top of the path by 11pm - no consistency, tangling themselves up repeatedly - trying to work around the lies first told, and of LM of where he actually was and all he said?
What is clear - is these campaigners need to start singing in harmony, - What a mess. Most of whom are not interested in the slightest of evidence where the Mitchells are concerned - busy working their way through the corrupt conspiracy theories of the police. Whilst others are franticly vying for first spot on the who done it part of the book. Mr Apples whom pretends to only be working his way through the case and the book - to say "I'll have a better idea who the killer/s are at the end of it?"
Will there be a prize for top pupil? Some posters are even commenting now - Of SL being of no further use? All the questions have been answered. Leave her alone and "buy the book, buy the book, buy the book" If one did not get the impression money was involved, money trail and profits (don't buy from Amazon, they have served their purpose). It was after all Faithlilly who suggested it, of money to be made from this case - perhaps once funds are ample enough the book will replace the Gideon in hotel rooms? - We already have the ridiculous fliers? - Of police deleting data and so forth - Which will work of course - lots of people out there with just the correct amount of brain cells, it would seem?
These people should be aware of the Mitchell story, ever changing from 4.25 - 5.45. From 5.32 - 7.30. from 9-10.40. from 11.20. ------- And every bit of LM's actions along with his mother. That if they actually did have an interest in any justice. They would first and foremost seek to know this case. Not the bullet points and opinionated answers of obtuse explanation given by Ms Lean. - These absurd claims that this search trio should have been looking anywhere else - rather than that plain and simple basis of reality and fact - the couple had not met according to LM, in Newbattle. That this family had barely drawn breath when LM led them to her body. - they won't as it is boring. Far better to have police corruption and conspiracy theories. Of a who done it avenue. - Juicy. The crooks and the braindead (maybe all the drugs?) - in their hero worship of the bad amongst us?
Were you in court for the trial, Parky?
If not, you don't KNOW what happened, any more than the rest of us do.
-
Were you in court for the trial, Parky?
If not, you don't KNOW what happened, any more than the rest of us do.
There is little in the way of information from the original trial. I have seen many claims made 'quoting' witness statements - which of course they do not.
Have you ever clapped eyes on a bona fide witness statement cos I haven't. There has to be a little balance somewhere and I think Parky is one of those providing that balance usually with well thought out posts backed up with what we know are on record accurate timelines of events.
I have seen a load of ill researched nonsense put about much of it at variance with the facts.
Was Sandra Lean at the trial ~ she certainly has taken her part in shaping her interpretation of it into a career ~ but it seems you accept her interpretation as gospel.
What didn't you agree with in Parky's post.
Neither timelines or local knowledge are my forte but I followed the post quite well because it was so clearly thought out and well presented. What am I missing here?
-
There is little in the way of information from the original trial. I have seen many claims made 'quoting' witness statements - which of course they do not.
Have you ever clapped eyes on a bona fide witness statement cos I haven't. There has to be a little balance somewhere and I think Parky is one of those providing that balance usually with well thought out posts backed up with what we know are on record accurate timelines of events.
I have seen a load of ill researched nonsense put about much of it at variance with the facts.
Was Sandra Lean at the trial ~ she certainly has taken her part in shaping her interpretation of it into a career ~ but it seems you accept her interpretation as gospel.
What didn't you agree with in Parky's post.
Neither timelines or local knowledge are my forte but I followed the post quite well because it was so clearly thought out and well presented. What am I missing here?
Not as gospel, no, but I think she has researched the case as well, if not better, than anyone.
I asked Parky if he had been at the trial, because, if he had, I would be more likely to accept what he says. If he hadn't, he is no more credible than Sandra Lean (and no, she wasn't at the trial, as far as I know).
-
Do you walk often from where the granny stayed to this path? - I'm led to believe it's a 10-15min walk at a brisk pace
Not sure where the granny stayed, but, if you're saying she came out of the complex, that would suggest Mayfield or Old Easthouses, which is tiny, and just on the other side of the park. Would the granny have walked through the complex/park in the dark on her own? Mayfield is much bigger than Easthouses, so the time taken would depend on which part of Mayfield she started from.
If LM was in such a hurry to get the the path, it seems odd to me that CM wouldn't have run him up - could've been there in a minute.
-
Not as gospel, no, but I think she has researched the case as well, if not better, than anyone.
I asked Parky if he had been at the trial, because, if he had, I would be more likely to accept what he says. If he hadn't, he is no more credible than Sandra Lean (and no, she wasn't at the trial, as far as I know).
What evidence from her research does she promote to justify that Mitchell suffered a miscarriage of justice?
-
There is little in the way of information from the original trial. I have seen many claims made 'quoting' witness statements - which of course they do not.
Have you ever clapped eyes on a bona fide witness statement cos I haven't. There has to be a little balance somewhere and I think Parky is one of those providing that balance usually with well thought out posts backed up with what we know are on record accurate timelines of events.
I have seen a load of ill researched nonsense put about much of it at variance with the facts.
Was Sandra Lean at the trial ~ she certainly has taken her part in shaping her interpretation of it into a career ~ but it seems you accept her interpretation as gospel.
What didn't you agree with in Parky's post.
Neither timelines or local knowledge are my forte but I followed the post quite well because it was so clearly thought out and well presented. What am I missing here?
Sandra Lean was at the trial.
And I have not seen Parky provide one verifiable cite.
Interesting though that you jump to his/ her defence considering that you admit that you know little about the case.
-
Not as gospel, no, but I think she has researched the case as well, if not better, than anyone.
I asked Parky if he had been at the trial, because, if he had, I would be more likely to accept what he says. If he hadn't, he is no more credible than Sandra Lean (and no, she wasn't at the trial, as far as I know).
The photograph of Corrine and Sandra was taken outside the court I believe. Sandra met Corrine ten weeks after Jodi’s murder.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6794260/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-documentary-delight/
-
There is witness testimony not just to the parka but to his possession of the skunting knife, both of which vanished from the face of the earth after Jodi's murder.
A replacement parka was bought, as was a replacement knife.
Witnesses testified the log burner was used to burn something which smelled odd. Mitchell said the log burner had been used ~ his mother and brother said it hadn't.
I have no idea what your reference to 'hanging dogs from front doors' is and I don't really care unless you can give me a cite for it being said in court.
Please allow me to remind you of his demand for satanic books on the grounds of his religion - nothing made up by the police about that was there - it was the real deal.
You really are in denial about all of this.
A story that Mitchell killed his previous dog and hung it from his front door frame appeared in a Scottish newspaper. It wasn't mentioned in Court because it was yet another stupid media story. The request for those books was made in 2014. They didn't find any such books before he was jailed did they? I've read some of those books too as have millions of people. The Satanic Bible for example has sold over 1 million copies since it's release and has been published in 8 different languages. Mitchell reading such a book thus proves nothing.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7061338/dna-found-emma-faulds-car-murder-accused-ross-willox/
Note in that case - the accused's DNA was found on a seat lever because he drove her car, but no DNA of Mitchell is found at a murder scene or in his house???
A seat lever. Think about that..................he lowered the seat probably and they got his DNA off the seat lever.
-
The photograph of Corrine and Sandra was taken outside the court I believe. Sandra met Corrine ten weeks after Jodi’s murder.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6794260/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-documentary-delight/
If Sandra attended the trial, I stand corrected !
-
A story that Mitchell killed his previous dog and hung it from his front door frame appeared in a Scottish newspaper. It wasn't mentioned in Court because it was yet another stupid media story. The request for those books was made in 2014. They didn't find any such books before he was jailed did they? I've read some of those books too as have millions of people. The Satanic Bible for example has sold over 1 million copies since it's release and has been published in 8 different languages. Mitchell reading such a book thus proves nothing.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7061338/dna-found-emma-faulds-car-murder-accused-ross-willox/
Note in that case - the accused's DNA was found on a seat lever because he drove her car, but no DNA of Mitchell is found at a murder scene or in his house???
A seat lever. Think about that..................he lowered the seat probably and they got his DNA off the seat lever.
I read that it was not Luke, but S---- who killed the family pet, but this may well be just gossip!
-
What evidence from her research does she promote to justify that Mitchell suffered a miscarriage of justice?
I recommend that you read the book, if only to "balance out" the information you are getting from the opposition!!
-
Is it really appropriate for a Senior Forum Moderator to be constantly promoting Dr Lean's book?
-
FAO Ms Lean: -and Faithlilly and to whom ever else requires it:
Are you saying that the finger is not being pointed by way of suspicion towards this girls family Faithlilly. Did I forget to put IMO
Here it is loud and clear, IMO this is exactly what I feel Ms Lean does. Apologies Ms Lean - I am not directly accusing you of anything - I am merely pointing out, that whilst one may, in one breath say "I am not directly accusing anyone" then pointing out many areas of doubt you have towards Jodi's family. And by the very response given by multiple people - who are trying this girls family for her murder - in some witch hunt, that come directly on the back of the book, the forum discussions and the C5 documentary - is it not just a little ironic - to sit back and say, on the basis of liable only IMO, that these trials by your followers do stem from the information you give out? - Is that better? You are not directly accusing anyone - everyone else is doing a startling Job of that for you - Is that better Faithlilly.
Directly saying I am not accusing Ms Lean - I am giving an opinion. And apologies should it have been taken the wrong way.
Ms Lean attended the trial - did she? Was she of such an affluent state or living off the state for 9 weeks that one could sit through this? - taking 9 weeks off work?
Does Ms Lean have all the court transcripts? - highly unlikely is it not? She has the defence papers and of evidence led from these at trial. She has never had everything of this case in it's entirety but has always made claim to having it. Of "No Smoke" of careful examination of witness statements - who's exactly?
The book/s - They do not give you any insight into the case - they give you Ms Leans reasoning to her claimed flaws. Of tunnel vision, of changing witness testimony, of forensics and so forth and of course - her more suitable candidates for the role of murderer.
An accusation has been levelled at me, time and again, that telling this story is disrespectful to the victim and her family. I disagree. What is disrespectful to anyone is accepting, at face value, information which is demonstrably false, scenarios which make no logical sense and gaping holes covered over to shore up weak and questionable explanations, especially when that information, those scenarios and explanations, are used to bring a false sense of closure to the bereaving and bereft and, at the same time, to rob innocent people of their freedom.
Ms Leans book - She does exactly what she claims this case was - That she is indeed disrespectful in asking anyone to accept, at face value - information from her which is demonstrably false. ("the willfully ignorant") - she gives us scenarios which make no logical sense - she attempts to cover up those gaping holes in the Mitchells testimony by way of excessively weak and questionable explanations. - she uses these scenarios and explanations to attack the bereaving and bereft, by being disrespectful, not only to their intelligence, or by way of keeping grieving wounds open and raw - she also attacks the bereaving and bereft continuously in the case of LM V HMA, by way of pointing the finger directly at them -
Ms Lean since day dot has infamously made claim that one family was treated differently to the other. That one's testimony was simply believed whilst the others was not. She talks constantly of double standards. - What Ms Lean fails to do is provide anything of any solidity to show this to be the case. - What she most certainly does do, is air brush completely over the investigation into the Mitchells - and there is very good reason for that. As those intricate details from the investigation, answer clearly why the police had no tunnel vision, why there was solid reason as to why LM could not be eliminated. Why there was neither reason or evidence to doubt the word of Jodi's immediate family. Both families gave testimony. One's simply continued to fall apart, expanding those gaping holes and continually trying to shore them over with those extremely weak and questionable explanations.
One family strived to give an alibi for that exact time needed around when Jodi had been murdered. It was never the case of the police fitting it into this timeframe, of shoe horning evidence into anything - It was the Mitchells who pushed this alibi in their face. They knew exactly when they needed it for. There is that stark reality. One family striving to give an alibi, whilst the other were simply given an account of the previous day. That clear difference in those personally pushing to give one, and of those the police would be seeking to obtain from the very accounts given.
You will not get to neither see nor figure out - That relaxed dinner tale. Of that very first account given that fitted nicely into around 45mins. You will be told SM was traumatised. That he simply forgot and was not believed. That his mother did not coerce him, that they were simply discussing it and he remembered. You will be told of police brutality and excessive Crown techniques - You will not be told SM's first account was within 24hrs, You will not be told that he contacted the police to change it within hours of arriving home. You will not be told that this account also tied in nicely with his mother arriving home at 5.05pm, and of LM claiming to have left around 5.45pm. You will be giving weak and questionable explanation of 'someone had to have cooked dinner - What you will not be told is that this relaxed dinner tale, fitted into less than 15mins. And of every detail in it. Of LM's clothing and so forth. It was their very alibi they pushed to give - that ended up being shoe horned tightly.
You will be told that the Jones account was all over the place - rightly so is it not? This family was only hours from finding out that Jodi was dead, that she had been murdered. That when the police checked their account there were no lies found. That AO had done exactly as he stated. That Jodi had left shortly after his arrival home. That her mother could not remember what her daughter had been wearing - only that she had gotten changed. Ms Lean does not tell you that, what she does, is attempt to give reason as to why Jodi did not change as we know LM described her clothing. Ms Lean will tell you in one breath that St Davids high had no strict dress code - yet in the next breath we hear that LM got into trouble for not wearing school colours. We do not hear of Jodi getting into trouble for this. St Davids did have a dress code. You will be shown absolutely nothing from those statements - that showed this family were attempting to put an alibi in place, not for one moment of that day and evening - they did not know when Jodi died - LM did. They had no reason to concoct stories and they did not.
You will be led to believe everything that Ms Lean feels this search trio should have done - this nonsense about searching "up here" You will not be told that the police had barely left Jodi's house, when the call came through that a body had been found. You will not be told that LM had barely come off the phone before he is on this very path. You will be told of this search trio agreeing with LM that the dog found Jodi, that they changed their statements around the dog. You will not be told that not once, did this search party make any ref to the dog, neither leading LM to finding Jodi, or of them being under the impression that his dog had done any such thing - That the only thing this search trio gave reference to, was of how this dog was acting upon reaching this V and at it - You will not be shown anything from their statements, that tie nicely with LM's, but will be led a merry dance of weak and questionable explanation. This same weak and questionable explanation of searching caravan parks and the such like. Not that this search party were heading to meet with LM. That it was LM who led them to this path. That LM should have been off this path.
You will be led a merry dance of weak and questionable explanation to distract away from this remarkable find. Of that short time frame - that showed without a shadow of a doubt - That Jodi's mother had barely had time to report her daughter missing before she found out she was dead. There was no opportunity to arrange an extensive search. To go through phone numbers, to even think of looking other places. Around 50mins from knowing she was missing, to reporting her missing, to the police attending at her house to Jodi being found dead. - And Ms Lean wants people to think of reasons why this family did not do X,Y and Z? Anything other than LM still being on this path. Of the search trio only heading out to organise a search. To sit and think about what to do - when they spoke with LM and headed to RDP. That they were barely on this path 10mins when he shouted out. - That he had introduced the woodland at the Gino spot. That he had most definitely not walked passed this V break - and there is nothing and will be nothing produced to show, any of this search party made any such claim of this. That it all happened at this V. That they most definitely did not say - Mia found Jodi, or that Mia led Luke to find Jodi - this is assumption and manipulation - Ms Leans take, her very questionable weak explanations.
And you will not be told of the lies heaped upon this - of LM denying the existence of this V and of frequenting this woodland. - these crazy questions of when the initials were carved? - Well they were found when the area was cordoned off - that tells you clearly when they were carved - prior to Jodi being murdered. You will be asked to think of the call to the speaking clock, of AB seeing LM at the exact same time? - and this really is how weak these explanations are -
You will not even be given LM's evidence you will be given Ms Leans narrative and explanation of it - her continuous excuses for him? - Maybe Luke thought this, maybe he did that etc - Ms Lean should have it precise and to the letter T exactly what LM said - not her assumptions on his behalf. - But that is pretty what Ms Lean does with everything is it not?
She states it makes no logical sense for the killer to phone the Jones landline as it may have raised alarm bells? - LM had not choice but to phone them. That is makes not sense for him to lead the family to her - LM thought he had it all covered, that he could not cover it anymore. - Plain and simple.
Often the case with a warped mind is it not - that they inadvertently speak too much, do too much - pointing the finger directly at themselves. Letting too much out. The hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. That they need the attention and they need control - Of LM telling the police how they should do their job?
So, yes the book is a great way to not learn of the actual investigation into LM. Of the massive holes in his testimony and of shoring these over, with very weak and questionable explanations.
You do very little in the way of speaking of what is in the book Mr Swah? - All of these timings, those small excerpts and many cites I use come directly from Ms Lean - And using these to show what she actually does not do. By means of 5% usage and a whole lot of assumption - She uses nothing that clearly proves any point made. Hopping from one statement to the next, hopping from one time to the next - each to suit the narrative given at the time.
She does not have all of the evidence, she has the defence files. She had not sat through 9 weeks of a trial. She writes on behalf of the Mitchells - such a very honest bunch - were/are they not?
PA - What exactly is it I have said that is not viable - it is direct from the evidence, from Ms Lean from the most part - I do trust those tiny excerpts verbatim, and i do trust the phone records she shows. It would be legally liable to change those. These accounts from the Mitchells, of those first statements have been gleamed from her on these forums - thus why I mention tripping oneself up. That dinner story did go from around 45 mins to just 15. The search party - have you seen anywhere, where they stated they had all walked passed this V when the dog was jumping anywhere. No. And it is clear and precise that Jodi was known to be missing at 10.40, reported missing at 10.50, LM speaking to JuJ at 10.59 at the path, of the police attending after 11 and of Jodi being found at 11.30. This is hard evidence.
When you take all of the information you do have - it is easy to work out those gaping hole and weak explanations. I have only touched on a fraction of it - Ms Lean holds no more power than anyone else - she does not use all has - she uses the same as other, around 5% direct from those case files - And it is common sense to know that one should look for the opposite of what a defence may say.
Lots of IMO to add to the above - should they be needed?
-
PA - What exactly is it I have said that is not viable.
Not sure what you're on about here, Parky - where have I said that?
-
One question was asked but never satisfactorily answered yet is central to every aspect of this case....when did Jodi actually die?
We assume that it was shortly after she left her house. The police used that timeframe too because that was the only timeframe where Luke could possibly, while ignoring pertinent witnesses, have committed the murder but what evidence is there for it?
-
Not sure what you're on about here, Parky - where have I said that?
Apologies - not explained properly. Meant in ref to, alongside what Ms Leans states or produces. Rushed in at the end of the post. Missus giving me grief to move my butt, I've been left behind!
As I have highlighted on previous posts. Whatever Ms Lean does hold, she does not use all of it. If is completely of a defence point of view. Extracting around 5% verbatim from statements of what must be 1000's of words. That it is both futile and pointless - to dismiss all that others may say, on the basis that they can not pull out cites from court transcripts and so forth, or from statements - Ms Lean does little in the way of this herself - That she can't. But she most certainly can should the need arise, personally to go against any points she may make. But misses out those vital areas to show clearly - i.e. that this search party walked passed this V with LM prior to him accessing this woodland. She doesn't as they did not. - I can not pull up what is not there, Ms Lean does not pull it up either - for it is not there.
And I have never suggested Ms Lean may lie directly in her book - on forums is different. What I most certainly do not believe, is that Ms Lean would tamper with direct evidence - liable to the max? Thus why she can only produce very little - for more would and does invalidate what she claims
-
Apologies - not explained properly. Meant in ref to, alongside what Ms Leans states or produces. Rushed in at the end of the post. Missus giving me grief to move my butt, I've been left behind!
As I have highlighted on previous posts. Whatever Ms Lean does hold, she does not use all of it. If is completely of a defence point of view. Extracting around 5% verbatim from statements of what must be 1000's of words. That it is both futile and pointless - to dismiss all that others may say, on the basis that they can not pull out cites from court transcripts and so forth, or from statements - Ms Lean does little in the way of this herself - That she can't. But she most certainly can should the need arise, personally to go against any points she may make. But misses out those vital areas to show clearly - i.e. that this search party walked passed this V with LM prior to him accessing this woodland. She doesn't as they did not. - I can not pull up what is not there, Ms Lean does not pull it up either - for it is not there.
And I have never suggested Ms Lean may lie directly in her book - on forums is different. What I most certainly do not believe, is that Ms Lean would tamper with direct evidence - liable to the max? Thus why she can only produce very little - for more would and does invalidate what she claims
What access do you have to the police statements and trial transcripts?
A direct question that’s been asked of you several times without success. Perhaps before you libel others again your access should be clarified.
-
One question was asked but never satisfactorily answered yet is central to every aspect of this case....when did Jodi actually die?
We assume that it was shortly after she left her house. The police used that timeframe too because that was the only timeframe where Luke could possibly, while ignoring pertinent witnesses, have committed the murder but what evidence is there for it?
Let's turn that around - It could not be shown that Jodi did not die at this time - could it? And that here is what is extremely relevant. - And one does have to take all of the evidence into account. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jodi had went elsewhere. That she was not leaving to meet with LM. We know Ms Lean has tried to shoe horn her death into other areas, that she claims the police could not use - thus picked her time of death? Nonsense.
The evidence is in abundance towards LM. You can not simply say the police chose this time due to his false alibi? Which in itself speaks volumes. That they could not squeeze it into 6.15 until 7.30. Nor 9 until 11.20.
It was all of the evidence that brought about this TOD. Not simply squeezing it into a suitable time. And that TOD can not be disproven. - And you can not keep air brushing over the very evidence that came directly from the Mitchells. By these continuous attempts to shift the goal post onto others - Their actions need explained with precision and clarity, first and foremos - the book most certainly won't do that.
-
What access do you have to the police statements and trial transcripts?
A direct question that’s been asked of you several times without success. Perhaps before you libel others again your access should be clarified.
Libel others? I stated clearly that I do not believe Ms Lean would alter direct evidence. Has she lied?
And I clearly state that she produces nothing more than others with this 5%. That this 5% can be disproved easily with the very absence of directness - as opposed to multiple obtuse areas of reasoning.
And you are at it again - taking this stance of knowledge is power - I can't cite more so I do not know more. Absolute nonsense - I have clearly shown, for the most part it is direct from Ms lean, from Crown evidence and so forth.
And this futile belief that people know far more about this case than what Ms Lean may bank on - of those many people who did sit through this trial - The legal professionals, the students, the media spectators and so forth.
Of the many discussions not infiltrated by trolls spreading the word!
You suggested I should read statements - Have you? Think carefully, again before you answer that?
-
Let's turn that around - It could not be shown that Jodi did not die at this time - could it? And that here is what is extremely relevant. - And one does have to take all of the evidence into account. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Jodi had went elsewhere. That she was not leaving to meet with LM. We know Ms Lean has tried to shoe horn her death into other areas, that she claims the police could not use - thus picked her time of death? Nonsense.
The evidence is in abundance towards LM. You can not simply say the police chose this time due to his false alibi? Which in itself speaks volumes. That they could not squeeze it into 6.15 until 7.30. Nor 9 until 11.20.
It was all of the evidence that brought about this TOD. Not simply squeezing it into a suitable time. And that TOD can not be disproven. - And you can not keep air brushing over the very evidence that came directly from the Mitchells. By these continuous attempts to shift the goal post onto others - Their actions need explained with precision and clarity, first and foremos - the book most certainly won't do that.
No let’s not turn it around. What is the evidence that Jodi died at 5.15? It really is simple enough.
The truth you are trying furiously to avoid is that there is absolutely no evidence, forensic or circumstantial, that categorically puts Jodi’s death at 5.15. The timeframe was plucked from thin air because that is the time Luke had no one but his family as an alibi. That’s the truth of it. Smear the family, charge them with a crime that there is no evidence the police had any intention of going ahead with...remember your questions about SM and the bike etc that were never investigated...and it really is job done.
So again....what evidence is there for the TOD?
-
Libel others? I stated clearly that I do not believe Ms Lean would alter direct evidence. Has she lied?
And I clearly state that she produces nothing more than others with this 5%. That this 5% can be disproved easily with the very absence of directness - as opposed to multiple obtuse areas of reasoning.
And you are at it again - taking this stance of knowledge is power - I can't cite more so I do not know more. Absolute nonsense - I have clearly shown, for the most part it is direct from Ms lean, from Crown evidence and so forth.
And this futile belief that people know far more about this case than what Ms Lean may bank on - of those many people who did sit through this trial - The legal professionals, the students, the media spectators and so forth.
Of the many discussions not infiltrated by trolls spreading the word!
You suggested I should read statements - Have you? Think carefully, again before you answer that?
Please just answer the question.
What access do you have to witness statements and trial transcripts?
-
Please just answer the question.
What access do you have to witness statements and trial transcripts?
You first - go on?, have you read the statements, all of them. Have you read all of the court transcripts? And If you have, then we know you are Ms Lean and if you have not - on either personality there, it matters not - for only around 5% of it is actually used - that is not rocket science, is it? 9 weeks of a trial hundreds of witness statements, consisting of 1000 upon 1000's of words - Hardly surprising DF had his highly trained, expansive legal team going through everything - neither you nor Ms Lean has everything.
-
Is it really appropriate for a Senior Forum Moderator to be constantly promoting Dr Lean's book?
I think it is fine for the simple reason that mods are allowed to take part in discussions and voice opinions and the other side of the coin is that I am allowed to rubbish a book I think is badly researched rubbish.
Please be assured that when she has her mod's hat on Mrswah does the job fairly and without bias
-
Libel others? I stated clearly that I do not believe Ms Lean would alter direct evidence. Has she lied?
And I clearly state that she produces nothing more than others with this 5%. That this 5% can be disproved easily with the very absence of directness - as opposed to multiple obtuse areas of reasoning.
And you are at it again - taking this stance of knowledge is power - I can't cite more so I do not know more. Absolute nonsense - I have clearly shown, for the most part it is direct from Ms lean, from Crown evidence and so forth.
And this futile belief that people know far more about this case than what Ms Lean may bank on - of those many people who did sit through this trial - The legal professionals, the students, the media spectators and so forth.
Of the many discussions not infiltrated by trolls spreading the word!
You suggested I should read statements - Have you? Think carefully, again before you answer that?
Of course Sandra Lean has lied
There are different types of lies and of lying
Lies by omission are one
-
I view Sandra Lean as a duplicitous and deceitful liar
‘There are various ways of classifying lies: by their consequences, by the importance of their subject matters, by the speakers’ motives, and by the nature or context of the utterance.
Perhaps the most useful way to classify lies is by to the people who tell them. Understanding lies and liars can help us avoid getting duped as well as protect us from drifting into dishonesty ourselves.
https://www.nirandfar.com/types-of-liars/
-
You first - go on?, have you read the statements, all of them. Have you read all of the court transcripts? And If you have, then we know you are Ms Lean and if you have not - on either personality there, it matters not - for only around 5% of it is actually used - that is not rocket science, is it? 9 weeks of a trial hundreds of witness statements, consisting of 1000 upon 1000's of words - Hardly surprising DF had his highly trained, expansive legal team going through everything - neither you nor Ms Lean has everything.
Have you read all the witness statements and court transcripts? A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
Members are under no obligation to answer questions neither should members harass others to do so.
-
I think it is fine for the simple reason that mods are allowed to take part in discussions and voice opinions and the other side of the coin is that I am allowed to rubbish a book I think is badly researched rubbish.
Please be assured that when she has her mod's hat on Mrswah does the job fairly and without bias
I agree, but how many times has it been posted in the last few days on this very thread?
If there's one thing we've learned from this forum, it's that SL has a book out - even to the extent that we're asked not to buy it from Amazon, as that source doesn't bring Dr Lean top dolla.
We know she's written a book, and we know where we can get hold of a copy if we want one - there's a thread dedicated to it.
-
Members are under no obligation to answer questions neither should members harass others to do so.
Of course they are under no obligation to answer any question but an inference can and will be drawn from their silence.
-
No let’s not turn it around. What is the evidence that Jodi died at 5.15? It really is simple enough.
The truth you are trying furiously to avoid is that there is absolutely no evidence, forensic or circumstantial, that categorically puts Jodi’s death at 5.15. The timeframe was plucked from thin air because that is the time Luke had no one but his family as an alibi. That’s the truth of it. Smear the family, charge them with a crime that there is no evidence the police had any intention of going ahead with...remember your questions about SM and the bike etc that were never investigated...and it really is job done.
So again....what evidence is there for the TOD?
Absolute rubbish - plucking out of thin air. Smear the family?
You can airbrush this family as much as you care to. I am not smearing them, I am saying it exactly how it was. You want a repeat of this: - ok
CM told the police she arrived home around 5.05pm That this Monday was no different to any other. That Luke was in the kitchen brandishing brocolli, that the dinner was not ready. That LM asked his mother "was Shane home", clearly at this point that he had not been included in the dinner. His brother had not seen him. That they finished dinner. That LM had left around 5.45pm to wait for Jodi arriving around 6. - true? yes it is. Skip the t-shirt, the sunshine and all else.
That within 24hrs SM gave his account. That this day was like any other Monday. That he arrived home at his usual time, around 3.30pm He could not remember what he had for dinner or of seeing his brother.
That after speaking with his mother - he remembered her coming home, at her usual time of around 5.05pm. That he spoke with her. That he then got shouted for dinner some ten mins later. Ate it and went out just after 5.30pm.
That he contacted the police to let them know that he then remembered the above - and it fitted in exactly with CM arriving home at her usual time.
Two statements in less than 36hrs - is this correct? See I do not know everything. But if one was within 24hrs then the change shortly after - I'm doing basic math here.
Then by the Friday - it all changed again. SM had not arrived home at his usual time. Two statements tied to one. That he then did not see his brother still on his arrival home contrary to what Ms Lean changes around, from my post yesterday and her quotes. That CM had not arrived home until 5.15 or just after. That LM had left home no later than 5.30pm
Smearing them, no - clear to see, yes.
And further to this we have to add in more evidence do we not? - Those further claims of no fixed meet. Of phoning the landline, why? - we do not want assumptions made for him - what did he say? As it made no sense to phone if Jodi was not supposed to arrive until 6pm - Such a tangled web all of this. And of course walking this isolated path alone - and of claiming to be waiting until around 7pm to then phone the boys - We are not interested in passing the buck but we shall yet again highlight the Jones household:
That they had lost track of time. Not idling away. Concocted story - no? That they did not know where this meet was to be, they did not know if Luke was late - they knew nothing. Other than what they claimed. That it did not seem that long. That they were not worried and that we know if he had phoned back they would have been alerted/worried. What is blatantly obvious from all we do know - is her parents did not for one moment - think she had been walking to Newbattle on her own. Then they would have had cause to be worried. It could have been the grans, the caravan park anything - see we do not know, do we? But we do know not this path, and not alone - we know there was a ban. What we also know is, that as soon as Jodi's mother realised her daughter had not been with LM - she did not for one moment believe she had simply went elsewhere. She reported her missing in around 10mins. - We can see clearly from this, with pretty much a very fair assumption - that this mother was frantic - she knew something was wrong. And I ask again - did the penny drop, from the earlier call and so forth - we need to see this do we not, rather than these useless areas of 5%- as, as stated, showing more would no doubt show just how much manipulation is going on. We know how it works in a court room - with two sides and fair play.
We know JuJ asked LM when visiting their home that very question - "why did you not call back?" And he said "I thought you had grounded her" - Is this where she became suspicious? Again, those very relevant parts, that context, is always missing.
And we know that this ban, of walking this path alone, of "mucking around up here" - had absolutely no time to be thought of in detail, did it? - ridiculous to attempt to tie this in - From barely one moment to realising her daughter was missing, to barely drawing breath never mind thought - to bang, she is found dead - By LM, not his dog -which has also being showing with the utmost clarity. - None of this search party walked passed this V prior to him going over. It matters not one iota what the dam dog was jumping about at here. It was no where near Jodi - And not only that - the lies that LM told around this, that were never in agreement at any time with this girls family - he had not been some 40ft passed this V
And again - you want us to believe the police plucked this time out of thin air - nonsense and you know. On par with these ridiculous claims that AB drove a couple of hundred yards from the lane, passed this house she looked at for a second - turning it into nearly an hour?? - to ignore all an everything on the basis that AB had said she was not long home, when her husband phoned. - nonsense.
For you are ignoring and air brushing, consistently over - those clear, well founded areas of suspicion brought from LM himself. That there was no tunnel vision - we know who has this, don't we? - zoned completely on irrelevant matters, wafer thin as you say.
The police had every reason to be suspicious - and we know clearly and precisely why LM could not be eliminated whilst these others could. You can not change the evidence against LM. You do not even want to discuss his own account with rational.
-
I agree, but how many times has it been posted in the last few days on this very thread?
If there's one thing we've learned from this forum, it's that SL has a book out - even to the extent that we're asked not to buy it from Amazon, as that source doesn't bring Dr Lean top dolla.
We know she's written a book, and we know where we can get hold of a copy if we want one - there's a thread dedicated to it.
Excellent reviews too.
If only there was a book detailing the evidence against Luke to compare.
-
Of course Sandra Lean has lied
There are different types of lies and of lying
Lies by omission are one
I know - Just making it clear to them?? together. Faithlilly/Lean - around the liable in her book. Of not messing with altering actual evidence - statement wording.
The lies I have seen many times on these forums and quoted some of them.
-
Absolute rubbish - plucking out of thin air. Smear the family?
You can airbrush this family as much as you care to. I am not smearing them, I am saying it exactly how it was. You want a repeat of this: - ok
CM told the police she arrived home around 5.05pm That this Monday was no different to any other. That Luke was in the kitchen brandishing brocolli, that the dinner was not ready. That LM asked his mother "was Shane home", clearly at this point that he had not been included in the dinner. His brother had not seen him. That they finished dinner. That LM had left around 5.45pm to wait for Jodi arriving around 6. - true? yes it is. Skip the t-shirt, the sunshine and all else.
That within 24hrs SM gave his account. That this day was like any other Monday. That he arrived home at his usual time, around 3.30pm He could not remember what he had for dinner or of seeing his brother.
That after speaking with his mother - he remembered her coming home, at her usual time of around 5.05pm. That he spoke with her. That he then got shouted for dinner some ten mins later. Ate it and went out just after 5.30pm.
That he contacted the police to let them know that he then remembered the above - and it fitted in exactly with CM arriving home at her usual time.
Two statements in less than 36hrs - is this correct? See I do not know everything. But if one was within 24hrs then the change shortly after - I'm doing basic math here.
Then by the Friday - it all changed again. SM had not arrived home at his usual time. Two statements tied to one. That he then did not see his brother still on his arrival home contrary to what Ms Lean changes around, from my post yesterday and her quotes. That CM had not arrived home until 5.15 or just after. That LM had left home no later than 5.30pm
Smearing them, no - clear to see, yes.
And further to this we have to add in more evidence do we not? - Those further claims of no fixed meet. Of phoning the landline, why? - we do not want assumptions made for him - what did he say? As it made no sense to phone if Jodi was not supposed to arrive until 6pm - Such a tangled web all of this. And of course walking this isolated path alone - and of claiming to be waiting until around 7pm to then phone the boys - We are not interested in passing the buck but we shall yet again highlight the Jones household:
That they had lost track of time. Not idling away. Concocted story - no? That they did not know where this meet was to be, they did not know if Luke was late - they knew nothing. Other than what they claimed. That it did not seem that long. That they were not worried and that we know if he had phoned back they would have been alerted/worried. What is blatantly obvious from all we do know - is her parents did not for one moment - think she had been walking to Newbattle on her own. Then they would have had cause to be worried. It could have been the grans, the caravan park anything - see we do not know, do we? But we do know not this path, and not alone - we know there was a ban. What we also know is, that as soon as Jodi's mother realised her daughter had not been with LM - she did not for one moment believe she had simply went elsewhere. She reported her missing in around 10mins. - We can see clearly from this, with pretty much a very fair assumption - that this mother was frantic - she knew something was wrong. And I ask again - did the penny drop, from the earlier call and so forth - we need to see this do we not, rather than these useless areas of 5%- as, as stated, showing more would no doubt show just how much manipulation is going on. We know how it works in a court room - with two sides and fair play.
We know JuJ asked LM when visiting their home that very question - "why did you not call back?" And he said "I thought you had grounded her" - Is this where she became suspicious? Again, those very relevant parts, that context, is always missing.
And we know that this ban, of walking this path alone, of "mucking around up here" - had absolutely no time to be thought of in detail, did it? - ridiculous to attempt to tie this in - From barely one moment to realising her daughter was missing, to barely drawing breath never mind thought - to bang, she is found dead - By LM, not his dog -which has also being showing with the utmost clarity. - None of this search party walked passed this V prior to him going over. It matters not one iota what the dam dog was jumping about at here. It was no where near Jodi - And not only that - the lies that LM told around this, that were never in agreement at any time with this girls family - he had not been some 40ft passed this V
And again - you want us to believe the police plucked this time out of thin air - nonsense and you know. On par with these ridiculous claims that AB drove a couple of hundred yards from the lane, passed this house she looked at for a second - turning it into nearly an hour?? - to ignore all an everything on the basis that AB had said she was not long home, when her husband phoned. - nonsense.
For you are ignoring and air brushing, consistently over - those clear, well founded areas of suspicion brought from LM himself. That there was no tunnel vision - we know who has this, don't we? - zoned completely on irrelevant matters, wafer thin as you say.
The police had every reason to be suspicious - and we know clearly and precisely why LM could not be eliminated whilst these others could. You can not change the evidence against LM. You do not even want to discuss his own account with rational.
You have shown that you have no more access to information on this case than that which is already in the public domain and have, obviously, based your opinion on that. How do you know that that information is any more credible than that put forward by Dr Lean?
-
Excellent reviews too.
If only there was a book detailing the evidence against Luke to compare.
Another money maker? - We have had plenty of detailing of the evidence without the need of money?
-
I agree, but how many times has it been posted in the last few days on this very thread?
If there's one thing we've learned from this forum, it's that SL has a book out - even to the extent that we're asked not to buy it from Amazon, as that source doesn't bring Dr Lean top dolla.
We know she's written a book, and we know where we can get hold of a copy if we want one - there's a thread dedicated to it.
Fair comment; but it cannot be denied that the forum is giving everyone a fair crack of the whip. I think members are making an excellent case on promoting the evidence which actually convicted Mitchell.
It is all being presented in a pretty no-nonsense factual way which totally refutes much of the factoids prevalent on internet sources.
Mitchell's defence was 'alibi' and 'a big boy dunnit and ran away' ~ I think the court addressed that and members have reinforced that.
How did Mitchell know what hair scrunchie and clothes Jodi was wearing when she was murdered. Her mother said she had changed clothes before going out he said he hadn't seen her until he 'found' her naked body lying on her back with her red bauble hidden in her hair.
And so it continues ~ I don't think there is much that members have missed and I think just stating the facts plainly and simply as they were presented in court differentiates between the truth and inconsistent bluster.
I think members are doing a great job of rebuttal which is important when no doubt there are very real instances of miscarriage which could and should be addressed which don't have the same dynamics supporting them as Mitchell has.
-
Absolute rubbish - plucking out of thin air. Smear the family?
You can airbrush this family as much as you care to. I am not smearing them, I am saying it exactly how it was. You want a repeat of this: - ok
CM told the police she arrived home around 5.05pm That this Monday was no different to any other. That Luke was in the kitchen brandishing brocolli, that the dinner was not ready. That LM asked his mother "was Shane home", clearly at this point that he had not been included in the dinner. His brother had not seen him. That they finished dinner. That LM had left around 5.45pm to wait for Jodi arriving around 6. - true? yes it is. Skip the t-shirt, the sunshine and all else.
That within 24hrs SM gave his account. That this day was like any other Monday. That he arrived home at his usual time, around 3.30pm He could not remember what he had for dinner or of seeing his brother.
That after speaking with his mother - he remembered her coming home, at her usual time of around 5.05pm. That he spoke with her. That he then got shouted for dinner some ten mins later. Ate it and went out just after 5.30pm.
That he contacted the police to let them know that he then remembered the above - and it fitted in exactly with CM arriving home at her usual time.
Two statements in less than 36hrs - is this correct? See I do not know everything. But if one was within 24hrs then the change shortly after - I'm doing basic math here.
Then by the Friday - it all changed again. SM had not arrived home at his usual time. Two statements tied to one. That he then did not see his brother still on his arrival home contrary to what Ms Lean changes around, from my post yesterday and her quotes. That CM had not arrived home until 5.15 or just after. That LM had left home no later than 5.30pm
Smearing them, no - clear to see, yes.
And further to this we have to add in more evidence do we not? - Those further claims of no fixed meet. Of phoning the landline, why? - we do not want assumptions made for him - what did he say? As it made no sense to phone if Jodi was not supposed to arrive until 6pm - Such a tangled web all of this. And of course walking this isolated path alone - and of claiming to be waiting until around 7pm to then phone the boys - We are not interested in passing the buck but we shall yet again highlight the Jones household:
That they had lost track of time. Not idling away. Concocted story - no? That they did not know where this meet was to be, they did not know if Luke was late - they knew nothing. Other than what they claimed. That it did not seem that long. That they were not worried and that we know if he had phoned back they would have been alerted/worried. What is blatantly obvious from all we do know - is her parents did not for one moment - think she had been walking to Newbattle on her own. Then they would have had cause to be worried. It could have been the grans, the caravan park anything - see we do not know, do we? But we do know not this path, and not alone - we know there was a ban. What we also know is, that as soon as Jodi's mother realised her daughter had not been with LM - she did not for one moment believe she had simply went elsewhere. She reported her missing in around 10mins. - We can see clearly from this, with pretty much a very fair assumption - that this mother was frantic - she knew something was wrong. And I ask again - did the penny drop, from the earlier call and so forth - we need to see this do we not, rather than these useless areas of 5%- as, as stated, showing more would no doubt show just how much manipulation is going on. We know how it works in a court room - with two sides and fair play.
We know JuJ asked LM when visiting their home that very question - "why did you not call back?" And he said "I thought you had grounded her" - Is this where she became suspicious? Again, those very relevant parts, that context, is always missing.
And we know that this ban, of walking this path alone, of "mucking around up here" - had absolutely no time to be thought of in detail, did it? - ridiculous to attempt to tie this in - From barely one moment to realising her daughter was missing, to barely drawing breath never mind thought - to bang, she is found dead - By LM, not his dog -which has also being showing with the utmost clarity. - None of this search party walked passed this V prior to him going over. It matters not one iota what the dam dog was jumping about at here. It was no where near Jodi - And not only that - the lies that LM told around this, that were never in agreement at any time with this girls family - he had not been some 40ft passed this V
And again - you want us to believe the police plucked this time out of thin air - nonsense and you know. On par with these ridiculous claims that AB drove a couple of hundred yards from the lane, passed this house she looked at for a second - turning it into nearly an hour?? - to ignore all an everything on the basis that AB had said she was not long home, when her husband phoned. - nonsense.
For you are ignoring and air brushing, consistently over - those clear, well founded areas of suspicion brought from LM himself. That there was no tunnel vision - we know who has this, don't we? - zoned completely on irrelevant matters, wafer thin as you say.
The police had every reason to be suspicious - and we know clearly and precisely why LM could not be eliminated whilst these others could. You can not change the evidence against LM. You do not even want to discuss his own account with rational.
Poor Shane’s who had no more memory of fixing his friend’s car and returning home later than usual, only a couple of days later, than he did of his brother making the dinner. Fixing a car, that technical, hands on act. Buying the parts and fitting them....those actions should have left a vivid memory so soon after the event. The very act of recalling the series of events on that day for an official document should have brought it back to him....an important business, he needed to get it right. All that oil, wrenching, washing up thoroughly afterwards....but no, not a spark of remembrance in that first statement, not until he was reminded.
That tells us all we need to know about Shane’s power of recall.
-
Another money maker? - We have had plenty of detailing of the evidence without the need of money?
Whether money is made doesn’t change the content.
I presume you have the book as you seem rather disparaging of it’s content. Did you mind enriching Dr Lean when buying it?
-
I think it is fine for the simple reason that mods are allowed to take part in discussions and voice opinions and the other side of the coin is that I am allowed to rubbish a book I think is badly researched rubbish.
Please be assured that when she has her mod's hat on Mrswah does the job fairly and without bias
Thank you for that, Brietta. I do try to be fair !
My reason for promoting the book (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly, I do think it's a well written and well researched book. Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people. I have looked at other forums, where SL actually takes part in the discussion and answers people's questions. It's interesting that she doesn't post on here, and, to be honest, I don't blame her.
I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to have been wrong.
If there was a book setting out the case for Luke's guilt, I would read that too, but it seems that SL is the only person who has written a book about this case.
And anyway, I like books!
-
Thank you for that, Brietta. I do try to be fair !
My reason for promoting the book (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly, I do think it's a well written and well researched book. Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people. I have looked at other forums, where SL actually takes part in the discussion and answers people's questions. It's interesting that she doesn't post on here, and, to be honest, I don't blame her.
I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to have been wrong.
If there was a book setting out the case for Luke's guilt, I would read that too, but it seems that SL is the only person who has written a book about this case.
And anyway, I like books!
I don't think a book needs to be written about Mitchell's guilt. It has been proven by the facts as presented in the court according to the law.
In eighteen years there has been no new evidence to support that his trial was a miscarriage of justice. Not one iota.
The present furore has been as a result of a biased tv programme packed with misinformation and innuendo. Which I think will do him no good whatsoever but has the potential to cause him great harm.
His twenty years will soon be up and now would be an opportune time for thought to be given to preparing him for release. I do not think this new notoriety is going to enhance his chances of that. I think it may very well have the opposite effect.
I could be wrong in thinking that but I think this is a huge miscalculation (unless his 'campaign' team fancy keeping their jobs for a bit longer) at precisely the wrong time for him. I'm quite happy for Mitchell never to see the light of freedom but I think those who 'support' him really need to give a bit more lucid thought to the wisdom of graffitiing public areas etc and the impression that tends to give.
-
Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?
-
Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?
Luke Mitchell won’t be paroled because of his dangerousness
-
Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?
I've no idea. But one of the judges at one of his failed appeals was of the opinion that because of his youth he ought to be given the opportunity for rehabilitation and his 20yr sentence reduced to 15.
The other two appeal court judges disagreed.
But the impression I am given is that in all probability once his tariff was up Mitchell would have been eligible for parole without too much bother.
He's only two years away from that now ... but I think the present shenanigans will not have gone unnoticed and might well prejudice his chances.
I don't think he or his supporters have thought this through.
I think it is an interesting document which shows the thinking of the highest judges in the land. Mitchell's advocate Donald Findlay understood the law and how it works, none better. I think it is risible that lay people think they know better than a legal mind like his. I think if there had been a get out clause Findley would have found it. It just didn't exist to be found.
[2011] HCJAC 10
Appeal No: XC90/05
[2] On 11 February 2005 he was sentenced to detention without limit of time, with a punishment part of 20 years, the sentence being backdated to 14 April 2004. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was refused on 16 May 2008. We have now heard his appeal against sentence.
[8] In fixing the punishment part of 20 years, the trial judge said that he took into account principally the seriousness of the offence. The deceased had looked upon the appellant with affection and trust, yet he had inflicted a horrible death on her and mutilated her body. In the trial judge's opinion, this was one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the court in recent years. If the appellant had been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited the imposition of a punishment part among the longest that there had been. Only the appellant's age persuaded him to fix a lesser period.
[15] Sentencing guidelines are subject always to the discretion of the sentencing judge and, on appeal, to the discretion of this court. Experience shows that there are frequently special factors in individual cases that are not expressly dealt with in guidelines. In many cases, the special factor is that the accused is a young offender, and often a first offender too. In such cases, the exercise of discretion presents the court with a particularly anxious and demanding problem. My own view is that in a case of that kind the court should take particular care to fix a sentence that, while marking the gravity of the offence and its effects, will leave hope that the young person can be rehabilitated as a useful member of society and achieve some positive outcome in his life.
[16] The sentencing judge has taken into account the gravity of the deed itself and indirectly, I am sure, the effect of the death on the victim's family. He has also looked to the elements of denunciation and retribution that are appropriate in a case of this kind.
[17] This murder involved extreme violence, the use of a knife, the mutilation of the body and the abandonment of the victim at the scene. On any view, therefore, the gravity of the case was obvious.
[23] There is no doubt that the appellant is an unsympathetic individual. There is also no doubt as to the strength of public outrage in Dalkeith and beyond. But it is important to keep in mind that the appellant was a first offender who was just under 15 years old at the time of the offence. The punishment part appealed against is longer than he had lived at the date of the sentence. Since the appellant will not even be considered for parole until he is almost 36, the chances of his being rehabilitated and making something of his life will be gravely prejudiced. The prospects of his becoming institutionalised beyond hope of recall will be significant.
[24] I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and I understand entirely why this murder should have caused public revulsion. Nevertheless, I think that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
I've no idea. But one of the judges at one of his failed appeals was of the opinion that because of his youth he ought to be given the opportunity for rehabilitation and his 20yr sentence reduced to 15.
The other two appeal court judges disagreed.
But the impression I am given is that in all probability once his tariff was up Mitchell would have been eligible for parole without too much bother.
He's only two years away from that now ... but I think the present shenanigans will not have gone unnoticed and might well prejudice his chances.
I don't think he or his supporters have thought this through.
I think it is an interesting document which shows the thinking of the highest judges in the land. Mitchell's advocate Donald Findlay understood the law and how it works, none better. I think it is risible that lay people think they know better than a legal mind like his. I think if there had been a get out clause Findley would have found it. It just didn't exist to be found.
[2011] HCJAC 10
Appeal No: XC90/05
[2] On 11 February 2005 he was sentenced to detention without limit of time, with a punishment part of 20 years, the sentence being backdated to 14 April 2004. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was refused on 16 May 2008. We have now heard his appeal against sentence.
[8] In fixing the punishment part of 20 years, the trial judge said that he took into account principally the seriousness of the offence. The deceased had looked upon the appellant with affection and trust, yet he had inflicted a horrible death on her and mutilated her body. In the trial judge's opinion, this was one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the court in recent years. If the appellant had been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited the imposition of a punishment part among the longest that there had been. Only the appellant's age persuaded him to fix a lesser period.
[15] Sentencing guidelines are subject always to the discretion of the sentencing judge and, on appeal, to the discretion of this court. Experience shows that there are frequently special factors in individual cases that are not expressly dealt with in guidelines. In many cases, the special factor is that the accused is a young offender, and often a first offender too. In such cases, the exercise of discretion presents the court with a particularly anxious and demanding problem. My own view is that in a case of that kind the court should take particular care to fix a sentence that, while marking the gravity of the offence and its effects, will leave hope that the young person can be rehabilitated as a useful member of society and achieve some positive outcome in his life.
[16] The sentencing judge has taken into account the gravity of the deed itself and indirectly, I am sure, the effect of the death on the victim's family. He has also looked to the elements of denunciation and retribution that are appropriate in a case of this kind.
[17] This murder involved extreme violence, the use of a knife, the mutilation of the body and the abandonment of the victim at the scene. On any view, therefore, the gravity of the case was obvious.
[23] There is no doubt that the appellant is an unsympathetic individual. There is also no doubt as to the strength of public outrage in Dalkeith and beyond. But it is important to keep in mind that the appellant was a first offender who was just under 15 years old at the time of the offence. The punishment part appealed against is longer than he had lived at the date of the sentence. Since the appellant will not even be considered for parole until he is almost 36, the chances of his being rehabilitated and making something of his life will be gravely prejudiced. The prospects of his becoming institutionalised beyond hope of recall will be significant.
[24] I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and I understand entirely why this murder should have caused public revulsion. Nevertheless, I think that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
It’s very possible he could end up serving a full life tariff like Bamber
-
My reason for promoting the book (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly,
I'm glad you're acknowledging the fact that you're promoting the book.
You may not have mentioned the Amazon thing, but others have.
I really don't think this forum is meant to be an income stream for Dr Lean.
-
Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?
No chance. He would murder again, and the authorities know it.
-
It’s very possible he could end up serving a full life tariff like Bamber
I think there is a fair chance he will.
-
I'm glad you're acknowledging the fact that you're promoting the book.
You may not have mentioned the Amazon thing, but others have.
I really don't think this forum is meant to be an income stream for Dr Lean.
Neither do I.
I "promote" the book (I actually prefer the term "recommend") because it is thought provoking, and, IMO, well researched and detailed.
-
Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people.
Apologies for quoting you twice, but Dr Lean has plenty of support on here.
-
It’s very possible he could end up serving a full life tariff like Bamber
He would have been released already if he wasn't deemed to pose a continuing threat. Convicted persons can still achieve parole on the first application regardless of whether they accept their guilt or not. Many factors have to be considered by the parole board but I fear Jeremy Bamber's crimes are so despicable that their very nature will deny him parole ultimately.
-
He would have been released already if he wasn't deemed to pose a continuing threat. Convicted persons can still achieve parole on the first application regardless of whether they accept their guilt or not. Many factors have to be considered by the parole board but I fear Jeremy Bamber's crimes are so despicable that their very nature will deny him parole ultimately.
He wouldn't already have been released. He has to serve minimum of 20 years before before he can apply for parole. He hasn't served 20 years yet.
-
He would have been released already if he wasn't deemed to pose a continuing threat. Convicted persons can still achieve parole on the first application regardless of whether they accept their guilt or not. Many factors have to be considered by the parole board but I fear Jeremy Bamber's crimes are so despicable that their very nature will deny him parole ultimately.
As far as I'm aware, Bamber's whole life tariff will automatically deny him parole, unless new evidence is found that proves him innocent.
Luke Mitchell, on the other hand, is not on a whole life tariff.( Do they exist in Scotland?? )
-
No chance. He would murder again, and the authorities know it.
Then it seems strange that the original investigation let Luke roam free for 10 months before charging him, doesn’t it...him being so dangerous and all?
-
Fair comment; but it cannot be denied that the forum is giving everyone a fair crack of the whip. I think members are making an excellent case on promoting the evidence which actually convicted Mitchell.
It is all being presented in a pretty no-nonsense factual way which totally refutes much of the factoids prevalent on internet sources.
Mitchell's defence was 'alibi' and 'a big boy dunnit and ran away' ~ I think the court addressed that and members have reinforced that.
How did Mitchell know what hair scrunchie and clothes Jodi was wearing when she was murdered. Her mother said she had changed clothes before going out he said he hadn't seen her until he 'found' her naked body lying on her back with her red bauble hidden in her hair.
And so it continues ~ I don't think there is much that members have missed and I think just stating the facts plainly and simply as they were presented in court differentiates between the truth and inconsistent bluster.
I think members are doing a great job of rebuttal which is important when no doubt there are very real instances of miscarriage which could and should be addressed which don't have the same dynamics supporting them as Mitchell has.
Pity they're all wrong doing this 'great job'.
-
Pity they're all wrong doing this 'great job'.
Jodi was naked - she was lying on her back with her arms bound behind her and the rest of her clothing scattered around but for her socks. She had changed clothes before leaving to meet up with Mitchell which meeting Mitchell claimed didn't happen.
It was dark. So how was Mitchell able to describe what she was wearing down to the red bauble in her hair?
I think members are doing a great job exposing anomalies such as that.
-
The denial that the woodburner had been lit was outweighed by the evidence of witnesses that it had - one of whom I believe was Luke Mitchell.
What is your source for Luke saying the woodburner had been lit? I think I read that as well, but can’t find the link. Do you have a cite or link?
Strange that Corinne denied that the burner had been lit. Anyone have a cite for this, with context and where and when it was said and under which circumstances?
-
Pity they're all wrong doing this 'great job'.
Thing is, you don't KNOW they are all wrong. It can only be your opinion.
Same with those who KNOW Luke is guilty. They can't be one hundred per cent sure: not even all the jurors were.
My own opinion is that it's a dodgy case, and that Luke was certainly not found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it's possible that he killed Jodi while under the influence of cannabis.
I suspect he didn't do it, but I may well be wrong. The only person who really knows is Luke-----and, of course, the real killer , if it wasn't Luke.
-
Then it seems strange that the original investigation let Luke roam free for 10 months before charging him, doesn’t it...him being so dangerous and all?
What if he was under surveillance?
-
What if he was under surveillance?
Is there any evidence that he was?
-
What if he was under surveillance?
Yes - the shopping trip and of the Flo waiting on them. Internet activity of buying the knife? The tattoo parlour - did they come forward or did the police visit here? After knowing that they had visited? But ultimately, as you say - they had their sights on LM, as the killer and he would naturally be under surveillance would he not? - for gathering evidence and that of safety of others? - But how much of threat is someone when they know they are already suspect in a murder. - Disturbed - yes? daft - no, extremely intelligent and devious - most definitely?
-
Yes - the shopping trip and of the Flo waiting on them. Internet activity of buying the knife? The tattoo parlour - did they come forward or did the police visit here? After knowing that they had visited? But ultimately, as you say - they had their sights on LM, as the killer and he would naturally be under surveillance would he not? - for gathering evidence and that of safety of others? - But how much of threat is someone when they know they are already suspect in a murder. - Disturbed - yes? daft - no, extremely intelligent and devious - most definitely?
I actually have some knowledge on this, but I'm choosing not to share here.
-
I actually have some knowledge on this, but I'm choosing not to share here.
Then why allude to it?
Was there any evidence presented in court that Luke and his family were under surveillance apart from, of course, the FLO? Of course they could have been, anything is possible, but is there any evidence that they were?
-
Yes - the shopping trip and of the Flo waiting on them. Internet activity of buying the knife? The tattoo parlour - did they come forward or did the police visit here? After knowing that they had visited? But ultimately, as you say - they had their sights on LM, as the killer and he would naturally be under surveillance would he not? - for gathering evidence and that of safety of others? - But how much of threat is someone when they know they are already suspect in a murder. - Disturbed - yes? daft - no, extremely intelligent and devious - most definitely?
So many unanswered questions....so many alternative scenarios but, sod it, let’s go with the answer that’s most detrimental to Luke.
You’re exposing your bias Mr Parky !
-
What is your source for Luke saying the woodburner had been lit? I think I read that as well, but can’t find the link. Do you have a cite or link?
Strange that Corinne denied that the burner had been lit. Anyone have a cite for this, with context and where and when it was said and under which circumstances?
There are many sources one of which I believe was said in evidence given at Mitchell's trial.
Snip
Mitchell told police that his mother Corinne and brother Shane were using the stove that night. Corinne said it was not being used and Shane was not able to say either way. "We also had reports from neighbours saying they had smelled burning coming from the Mitchell’s back garden that night," said Mr Dobbie.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
-
There are many sources one of which I believe was said in evidence given at Mitchell's trial.
Snip
Mitchell told police that his mother Corinne and brother Shane were using the stove that night. Corinne said it was not being used and Shane was not able to say either way. "We also had reports from neighbours saying they had smelled burning coming from the Mitchell’s back garden that night," said Mr Dobbie.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415
Thanks. It’s interesting she said that it wasn’t used that evening and Luke said it was . . . will need to do some further reading on that. Also interesting is that the article indicates that family members of Luke’s said he owned a parka jacket before the murder, though I suspect this to be either erroneous info or a misquote.
-
Absolutely zero point in posting anything that Lean's Rottweiler will twist.
Then why allude to knowledge you have no intention of revealing? How does it progress the debate?
-
So many unanswered questions....so many alternative scenarios but, sod it, let’s go with the answer that’s most detrimental to Luke.
You’re exposing your bias Mr Parky !
When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now.
Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category.
That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so. I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.
So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.
That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.
And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.
Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.
Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?
-
When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now.
Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category.
That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so. I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.
So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.
That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.
And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.
Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.
Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?
Apologies if you feel that my first posts to you were too aggressive. I had seen you debating on the blue forum with Dr Lean and assumed you were used to the rough and tumble of lively debate...that your opinions were robust enough to take the clinical dissection that is commonplace in such forums. It was my mistake.
-
Then why allude to knowledge you have no intention of revealing? How does it progress the debate?
I'll progress the debate by confirming that the Mitchells were under surveillance.
You now no longer have to worry that LM was free between the murder and being banged up.
-
I'll progress the debate by confirming that the Mitchell's were under surveillance.
You now no longer have to worry that LM was free between the murder and being banged up.
And I’ll continue the debate by asking you how you can be certain ?
-
When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now.
Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category.
That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so. I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.
So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.
That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.
And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.
Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.
Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?
I’m not sure what you are referring to saying I instantly jumped on your post, I’m sorry if you feel like that. I believe Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say what they believe, you included, I do not ridicule or attack in my posts, but if I see someone else being unfairly treated I will speak out. I also have been ridiculed and attacked as I think alot of us here have, but I think we need to stick to what we each believe and accept when we are wrong, which I have been on a few thing regards this case but that’s why these discussions are important. If I see something I think is incorrect or misconstrued I try to make it a bit clearer for new readers or ask further questions as I’ve found it difficult to work out what it true and what is not over the years. There is so much mis information out there on both sides. Also I seem to be slotted into the innocent camp, which I am not. Imo so far I’ve just not seen anything that convinced me of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of evidence against him, added to the news reports at the time I can totally see why he was found guilty. I personally just think it’s worth a look at dna after all these years. But IMO it could very well have been Luke, probably was but probably is not enough for me. Hope to god it was him!
-
I’m not sure what you are referring to saying I instantly jumped on your post, I’m sorry if you feel like that. I believe Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say what they believe, you included, I do not ridicule or attack in my posts, but if I see someone else being unfairly treated I will speak out. I also have been ridiculed and attacked as I think alot of us here have, but I think we need to stick to what we each believe and accept when we are wrong, which I have been on a few thing regards this case but that’s why these discussions are important. If I see something I think is incorrect or misconstrued I try to make it a bit clearer for new readers or ask further questions as I’ve found it difficult to work out what it true and what is not over the years. There is so much mis information out there on both sides. Also I seem to be slotted into the innocent camp, which I am not. Imo so far I’ve just not seen anything that convinced me of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of evidence against him, added to the news reports at the time I can totally see why he was found guilty. I personally just think it’s worth a look at dna after all these years. But IMO it could very well have been Luke, probably was but probably is not enough for me. Hope to god it was him!
Apologies Bullseye - I did not mean myself personally but what I had actually posted. It was a very strong post in reference to LM and of him murdering Jodi. To do with animals - it was not what I believed, just showing how I could post if I was the guilter I was being labelled as at the time- Done and dusted and I meant no offence.
-
Apologies Bullseye - I did not mean myself personally but what I had actually posted. It was a very strong post in reference to LM and of him murdering Jodi. To do with animals - it was not what I believed, just showing how I could post if I was the guilter I was being labelled as at the time- Done and dusted and I meant no offence.
Thanks Parky, I remember a post that said something about Luke hurting animals and I did jump on this as that’s something I had not heard over the years I’ve been looking at the case, and it’s something, if true, would have been thrown around all the time and tbh would push me to the guilty camp if true. Stuff like that I will post as soon as I see it as I think it’s important to try to keep to facts but granted in this case that’s the hard part, working out what is fact or fiction.
-
We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.
No, we all don’t know — for none of us are omniscient. Besides, I don’t think it would have been feasible for Luke to have went home, clean up further, change clothing and be back on the newbattle rd for the sightings of the 3 cyclists, the Scottish Executive employee and the couple MO’S & DH (if that’s what you were inferring, of course). All of these people saw LM between 1755 & 1805 on N’battle rd, and then 1 of the 3 cyclists said he saw LM again, 20/30 mins later, standing at the exact same spot as he was when he had seen him the first time with his 2 other cyclist pals travelling north to the Jewel and Esk college at just before 1800, putting that final sighting of LM on the N’battle rd at 1815 at the earliest and 1830 at the latest. It’s more likely that LM went home via a secluded route south of the Eskbank river shortly after that final sighting on the N’battle rd by the cyclist going home between 1815-1830. This, of course, ties in with the wood-burner being used that night, between 1830-2200 that same night, and the comments made by one of LM’s friends who met up with him that evening after 1900 with David High. LM’s other friend, David Tulloch, indicated that Luke was ‘less unkempt than usual’ (I forgot to save or bookmark the online article featuring the interview with David Tulloch . . . anyone else have it?).
So, there you have it: a plausible theory that LM did, in fact, murder Jodi Jones. He left the house just after Jodi text him at 1630 to say she was ungrounded (hence why Shane never saw him when he got in from work and ultimately couldn’t provide an alibi for Luke). Met up at usual rendezvous point at the lane at the Easthouses end of RDP about 1650. An argument ensued (possibly about Kimberley Thomson, but could’ve been about a myriad of other things). The argument continued and intensified during walking along RDP towards the N’battle end. After a possible cannabis-induced psychotic episode wherein he carried out the heinous deeds in the woodland between 1710 - 1725, he subsequently walked down to the Newbattle road, skulking around there between 1740-1830, hatching a plan to defeat the ends of justice and not believing his luck that he had very little blood on him. Began to feel uncomfortable on the N’battle rd with all the busy traffic passing by at peak time (was seen looking ‘suspicious’ by eyewitnesses F & W & MO’S & DH). Hid the slightly blood-stained parka in the woodlands at the south Eskbank river woodland area, but went back on the road again wearing only the bomber jacket which was underneath the parka (think LM hoped that the presence of 2 jackets would confuse eyewitnesses on the road and deflect any guilt from him, thinking ahead in case of any questions in future from police regarding a girl’s — his girlfriend’s — disappearance). Yeah, Luke was not seen by anyone between 1830 until he met up with David High and David Tulloch, among others, at 1930 in the abbey, so it was possible he had washed thoroughly at home and changed clothing during this timeframe of an hour. Also noteworthy of this timeframe of an hour was the lack of concern or indifference to his girlfriend Jodi (I know he wasn’t an adult in a long-term relationship, but they were not young children, were above age of criminal responsibility, and had been dating for at least 3 months and were keen on one another and had been spending most of their recreation time together since dating; they were close, keen on one another and were having intercourse). I think the fact that he didn’t go to Easthouses or Jodi’s house between 1830 and 1930 is troubling, especially as AO had told him earlier at 1740 she’d left to meet HIM — no one else. And also because he had phoned his friends & hurried them up to meet him, at 1900. Why so keen to see his friends all of a sudden? For the last 3 months he and Jodi were inseparable, had been with each other most nights since dating (they kept religiously to their meeting arrangements, it being said that Jodi had only missed a meet-up with Luke only once in all their time of dating). Telling David High ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Of David Tulloch commenting that Luke was less unkempt than normal. Alarm bells ringing? You bet! Luke had walked the path (Roan’s Dyke) to Jodi’s frequently in the past, so why all the dilly-dallying that night between 1745 - 1930?
And as for LM phoning AO at 1732 & 1740, and phoning his mum at 1900, these calls, imo, served a dual purpose: to give a facade of being the concerned boyfriend and, more significantly, to reassure Luke that no one had yet found Jodi’s body and a murder investigation was not yet underway; it bought him time think further about what he was going to do next, what his next move would be.
I am not saying this is definitely what happened — and I still have little doubts regarding Luke’s guilt — but this is currently my stance on the case after 2 months of research. This opinion/theory could, of course, change.
What do you think?
-
No, we all don’t know — for none of us are omniscient. Besides, I don’t think it would have been feasible for Luke to have went home, clean up further, change clothing and be back on the newbattle rd for the sightings of the 3 cyclists, the Scottish Executive employee and the couple MO’S & DH (if that’s what you were inferring, of course). All of these people saw LM between 1740 & 1800 on N’battle rd, and then 1 of the 3 cyclists said he saw LM again, 20/30 mins later, standing at the exact same spot as he was when he had seen him the first time with his 2 other cyclist pals travelling north to the Jewel and Esk college at just before 1800, putting that final sighting of LM on the N’battle rd at 1815 at the earliest and 1830 at the latest. It’s more likely that LM went home via a secluded route south of the Eskbank river shortly after that final sighting on the N’battle rd by the cyclist going home between 1815-1830. This, of course, ties in with the wood-burner being used that night, between 1830-2200 that same night, and the comments made by one of LM’s friends who met up with him that evening after 1900 with David High. LM’s other friend, David Tulloch, indicated that Luke was ‘less unkempt than usual’ (I forgot to save or bookmark the online article featuring the interview with David Tulloch . . . anyone else have it?).
Nope - They saw LM just short of 6pm and some 10-15 mins later. Now if you wish to disregard completely the official timings of everything - sought after these witnesses came forward - then there is no point in discussing anything - is there? The first sighting was by F&W not the ones you mention. So by your reckoning no other discussion is necessary - as if you claim he was seen with this bomber jacket on at 17.40pm - then it was not him that killed Jodi. Plain and simple. - But if one goes with the actual timing of these sightings, of F&W then that missing period of time until he was seen with the bomber jacket on just short of 6pm. And one would have to wonder quite rightly why it even went to court. if any of the people you mention saw LM at 17.40pm with his bomber jacket on? Not forgetting here of course that LM at his point was not anywhere up near this gate or Barondale cottages at 17.40pm. As he claimed he made both calls to the Jones household at 17.32 and 17.38 from the Abbey entrance? That he himself stated it was some time after these calls, that he then wandered up to the bend in the road. .
So I was not inferring these people, I was inferring the time difference between the F&W sighting and when he was first witnessed with the bomber on. Thus why I have mentioned multiple times of it took LM 7-mins to get from his house onto RDP. From the sighting by F&W to his house, via this woodland at haste, would be a considerably less amount of time, and to be back out to be sighted by these other witnesses. That from this woodland, after exiting it through the cul-de-sac into his garden takes less than a minute at haste. It was timed at approx two minutes, idly walking to get from his house onto Newbattle Road. And that the last thing LM wanted was to be seen until he had changed that clothing. I do not believe for one moment he had some hidden in the woodland. That he did have on average around 15mins to get home and changed and back out onto Newbattle road. - thus the 7mins itself from his house to the path. Easily halved at haste from the gate sighting by F&W. - And ultimately it was shown and believed to be the case - before this Jury. There was definitely no sighting of LM in a bomber jacket at 17.40pm. And from this he had to dispose of the parka, until after he disappeared again around 6.15pm - this is the time for setting things properly in motion. For the story and disposal properly of the evidence. And he had scrubbed up a bit by the time he met with the boys. As you say "less unkempt than usual".
And as I have stated before - it is one thing going into a rage and killing someone then becoming calm. It is something else covering it up. That wheels were already spinning. Jodi had left to meet with LM and everything else that entailed - could never match the story he was to tell, of setting that alibi in place. The disposal of evidence was the easy part.
-
Nope - They saw LM just short of 6pm and some 10-15 mins later.
Let me just stop you there.
“ Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.
He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”
And
“ Dean said that he occasionally cycled to school with Mr Mitchell, and Grant said the accused was still standing at the same spot as he made his return journey home some 20 minutes to half-an-hour later”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410701.cyclists-tell-trial-of-seeing-jodi-accused/
And this
“ Mr Findlay opened his submissions on Thursday by dealing with what he termed the more "peripheral" evidence led in the case.
He told the court Ms Walsh and Ms Fleming both described seeing a young man in the vicinity of a gate on a main road at about 1745 GMT on the day Jodi died.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7232548.stm
-
Parky41 — I agree that F&W saw him before the others mentioned, though I recall 1745 in SL’s book. How do you know the ‘official’ timinigs? I also agree that F&W were the last witnesses to see him in the parka. Where I disagree is that you think LM hid/went home, washed and got changed and was back on n’battle road for the MO’S & DH sighting at 1755 (they said they saw someone wearing a bomber jacket, but it was categorically not Luke Mitchell). Ten minutes to do all that? Unlikely, imo. The cyclists said they saw LM on N’battle rd just before 6 (positively identified him as they went to school with him and cycled with him to school occasionally. 1 of the cyclists said when he was cycling back home, LM was still at the exact same spot some 20/30 mins later ... so, that is 1815 at the earliest & 1830 at the latest). I think LM went home shortly after that sighting and then disposed of the parka and got washed at home. Btw, did the cyclists say what LM was wearing? Don’t think the article I read mentioned them giving a description of LM’s clothing.
-
Let me just stop you there.
“ Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.
He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”
And
“ Dean said that he occasionally cycled to school with Mr Mitchell, and Grant said the accused was still standing at the same spot as he made his return journey home some 20 minutes to half-an-hour later”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410701.cyclists-tell-trial-of-seeing-jodi-accused/
And what exactly have i said that is so different --- around 6pm. And it was timed at around 10-15mins later on the return. Of what I have always said. These sightings in and around 15-20mins from them all. Lots of sightings yet no others for the remainder of that claimed remarkable time out and about?
-
Parky41 — I agree that F&W saw him before the others mentioned, though I recall 1745 in SL’s book. How do you know the ‘official’ timinigs? I also agree that F&W were the last witnesses to see him in the parka. Where I disagree is that you think LM hid/went home, washed and got changed and was back on n’battle road for the MO’S & DH sighting at 1755 (they said they saw someone wearing a bomber jacket, but it was categorically not Luke Mitchell). Ten minutes to do all that? Unlikely, imo. The cyclists said they saw LM on N’battle rd just before 6 (positively identified him as they went to school with him and cycled with him to school occasionally. 1 of the cyclists said when he was cycling back home, LM was still at the exact same spot some 20/30 mins later (so, that is 1815 at the earliest & 1830 at the latest. I think LM went home shortly after that sighting and then disposed of the parka and got washed at home. Btw, did the cyclists saw what LM was wearing? Don’t think the article I read mentioned them giving a description of the LM’s clothing.
We will have to agree to disagree - Ample time IMO for the first immediate change. No massive clean up required. An assumption made perhaps only on the basis of him being soaked in blood. I see no evidence that he had to be at all. He was wearing this parka, long and with a hood. Which was down for the sighting by F&W. There is a huge difference between splatter, and some transfer to being covered. This would have come after his disappearance again from sight. He initially had to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.
-
We will have to agree to disagree - Ample time IMO for the first immediate change. No massive clean up required. An assumption made perhaps only on the basis of him being soaked in blood. I see no evidence that he had to be at all. He was wearing this parka, long and with a hood. Which was down for the sighting by F&W. There is a huge difference between splatter, and some transfer to being covered. This would have come after his disappearance again from sight. He initially had to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.
Lots of options and of different intervals of time - easily left the jacket in the woodland prior to going home for the other jacket and of changing trousers and shoes. Ample time to retrieve the jacket to dispose of properly.
-
And what exactly have i said that is so different --- around 6pm. And it was timed at around 10-15mins later on the return. Of what I have always said. These sightings in and around 15-20mins from them all. Lots of sightings yet no others for the remainder of that claimed remarkable time out and about?
Did you read my quote?
As early as 5.55 and 20-30 minutes later not 15 to 20.
-
Did you read my quote?
As early as 5.55 and 20-30 minutes later not 15 to 20.
I'm not sure there is much to trust in your take on anything. - Of course you will naturally want to expand that to the max time. And not of the timings determined for cycling back and forth - Does not matter if if took them until after 6.15pm. The point being discussed was LM's time from the F&W sighting, and yes we know - that first estimate was from 5.40-6pm. We know everything was shoe horned in and we know there was no evidence whatsoever to bring LM to trial. What I also know is you made me choke on my coffee - when you stated you vaguely remembered a Gordo.
It was actually a mixture, I had a little chuckle also at omitting the quote. I'm not really sure who you were meaning when you claimed Judith said Jodi never walked the RDP alone? to whom? Or of when and in what context, in fact of her actually using those actual words at all. We know she had forbade her daughter to walk this path. We know that JaJ's was mixed up about paths. And we are in no doubt that Jodi had obviously, at some point been using this path alone. So when did Judith Jones state "Jodi never walked the Roan's Dyke Path alone?"- we know you already had JaJ as being 9 when she moved to Easthouses, making claim that she could not have failed to know of this path. Then to 14 to then just actually staying there for around a year - and still you state, she must have known of this path? - determined to prove her to be a liar - consistently scraping away to bring up even one direct lie - to combat the abundance of lies from the Mitchells? - for this need to show some form of double standards, as to why one family was treated differently to the other - because one family just kept on lying. -They are not the same in any way. And you are doing a bloody miserable job of explaining the Mitchells lies - whilst scraping to find lies from this girls family? Jodi's family are not responsible for LM lying, nor for him murdering Jodi.
So can you explain how you jump to the conclusion and slight on Jodi's mother, that "so not quiet as honest as you'd have us believe" - As above, we know she had placed a ban and so forth. You have already asked me to read her statements? care to show us them? for us to do so. Where Jodi's mother was lying? - you want to make this family the same as the Mitchells - so show us how they were? Show us where she was lying? Show us that she was stating Jodi never walked the RDP alone? And of Rachel Jodi's friend - are you saying Jodi lied to her? That she told Rachel of this ban, was Jodi making it up? O perhaps the police put it in her head? Or the press? Or anyone other than it actually being the truth of course - for by your reckoning, the only honest people in any of this is the Mitchells - but then your memory is not so good, is it?
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?
-
I'm not sure there is much to trust in your take on anything.
Not to worry I provided a link to the court testimony of the cyclists so there was no doubt.
And not of the timings determined for cycling back and forth -
According to maps on my iPad Newbattle College to Jewell and Esk Valley college would take around 14 minutes each way in a car....no timings are given for cyclists....but I’m not sure how accurate that is. Perhaps someone local can verify it ?
Does not matter if if took them until after 6.15pm.
It does matter or you wouldn’t keep misrepresenting what the witness said.
The point being discussed was LM's time from the F&W sighting, and yes we know - that first estimate was from 5.40-6pm. We know everything was shoe horned in and we know there was no evidence whatsoever to bring LM to trial. What I also know is you made me choke on my coffee - when you stated you vaguely remembered a Gordo.
If LF and RW saw the youth at 5.45pm as stated in the appeal papers and the cyclists saw Luke at 5.55pm that gives Luke just ten minutes to get home, get washed, get dressed, confess to his mum that he’d committed a murder and be back on the Newbattle Road near Barondale cottages in 10 minutes without any sign that he was flustered. I think it’s also worth remembering that the youth LF saw didn’t seem in a hurry to be anywhere and was simply leaning on the gate.
It was actually a mixture, I had a little chuckle also at omitting the quote. I'm not really sure who you were meaning when you claimed Judith said Jodi never walked the RDP alone? to whom? Or of when and in what context, in fact of her actually using those actual words at all. We know she had forbade her daughter to walk this path. We know that JaJ's was mixed up about paths. And we are in no doubt that Jodi had obviously, at some point been using this path alone. So when did Judith Jones state "Jodi never walked the Roan's Dyke Path alone?"- we know you already had JaJ as being 9 when she moved to Easthouses, making claim that she could not have failed to know of this path. Then to 14 to then just actually staying there for around a year - and still you state, she must have known of this path? - determined to prove her to be a liar - consistently scraping away to bring up even one direct lie - to combat the abundance of lies from the Mitchells? - for this need to show some form of double standards, as to why one family was treated differently to the other - because one family just kept on lying. -They are not the same in any way. And you are doing a bloody miserable job of explaining the Mitchells lies - whilst scraping to find lies from this girls family? Jodi's family are not responsible for LM lying, nor for him murdering Jodi.
Dear oh dear, you really are tying yourself up in knots. I’m really at a loss to the point you’re trying to make. Jodi’s mother had banned Jodi from walking RDP alone, her sister, in court, verified that Jodi still walked the path alone and her mum knew it ‘perfectly well’.
“Jodi's mother said they saw each other a couple of times a week at first, before Jodi began to see him "most nights".
The two teenagers would sometimes meet up at the entrance of the Roan's Dyke path.
However, Mrs Jones said her daughter was not allowed to use the short-cut on her own“
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4045025.stm
So can you explain how you jump to the conclusion and slight on Jodi's mother, that "so not quiet as honest as you'd have us believe" - As above, we know she had placed a ban and so forth. You have already asked me to read her statements? care to show us them? for us to do so. Where Jodi's mother was lying? - you want to make this family the same as the Mitchells - so show us how they were? Show us where she was lying? Show us that she was stating Jodi never walked the RDP alone? And of Rachel Jodi's friend - are you saying Jodi lied to her? That she told Rachel of this ban, was Jodi making it up? O perhaps the police put it in her head? Or the press? Or anyone other than it actually being the truth of course - for by your reckoning, the only honest people in any of this is the Mitchells - but then your memory is not so good, is it?
Judith said that there was a ban in place and Jodi wouldn’t have walked the path alone. Janine, under oath, said that her mum knew perfectly well that Jodi did not adhere to the ban and used the path alone. Those two claims can’t both be true. I have now said all I’m going to say on this topic as I simply can’t make things any clearer.
On a different note while looking for something else I came across an interesting interview with Donald Findlay about his life and career. This part especially peaked my interest.
‘ I ask about Luke Mitchell, who in 2005 was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his 14-year-old girlfriend, Jodi Jones. Mitchell’s appeal is scheduled for January 8 next year. It is thought that Findlay takes the case very personally.
“Of course it’s an important case,” he says. “There was an appalling loss of life. That young girl had done nobody any harm and had her whole life ahead of her. But equally, he’s a young boy who had his whole life ahead of him, and you want to be pretty sure that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt before you convict on that evidence. I get the sense that there is an air of disquiet about the verdict that wasn’t there at the time of the trial, and with some justification.”
https://peterross.scot/articles/donald-findlay-qc/
-
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?
And that evasion, tying yourself continuously up in knots - You were implying that this girls mother was a liar. As with SL, as with CM and as with yourself - you can not prove the evidence against LM to be wrong. From the investigation to trial and to the present day. One attempts continuously to divert away from the Mitchells from the lies they told over and over. Then one to tries desperately and shamefully to show that Jodi's immediate family lied. Or show evidence to be wrong from them, by lying yourselves. CM/SL - "the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield" SL "the search party walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path" You "Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan's Dyke path alone" then "so not quiet as honest as you'd have us believe" The evasion that comes from people who are less than honest - "vaguely remember" And you yet again bend things blatantly, JaJ did not say in court "Jodi still walked the path" - hard pushed to say that, the girl was dead.
And the actual truth. SL stays in what is classed as the 'top of Mayfield' a good ten minutes walk uphill from where AW stays. There is a whole ten mins of a walk that CM/SL attempt to add on to this search trio reaching RDP. YW stays in the opposite direction, the search party would have had to divert away from this direct walk to the path. Walk backwards. Again adding time on to reach the path. Judith Jones had never stated that Jodi never walked this path alone - which completely wipes out you point. For Judith Jones would have had to say, categorically that Jodi did not walk this path alone, which is worlds apart from what she did actually say, which was she had banned her daughter from doing so. No lies. And of course, that complete irrelevance yet again, used to cover up LM's lies - for he was the one stating that there was no ban in place. So scrape away Faithlilly, you have still to give reason as to why, you are bending the truth? in your attempt to cover up LM's lies. Whether this girl may or not have walked this path alone at some point in time, has nothing to do with LM's lies. And that DF's attempt to show she may have walked it alone that day - was a far cry from showing that she actually had. For she did meet with LM, and they did go into the woods together and he did murder her.
Important to keep the split there. Jodi had not walked the path alone, she met Luke. Luke denied a ban had been in place, he was lying.
-
There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone. Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this? Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?
-
There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone. Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this? Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?
It could simply be due to isolation. That like most parents, they would not wish for their children/daughters to be exposed to any type of danger. It could be that something had happened before to another person due to the isolation of it. - But ultimately the ban was in place and LM denied all knowledge of this ban. I have asked Ms Lean before of why the ban was put in place, what reasons were given - Blanked. Of the continuous attempt to show that Jodi may have walked it alone that day. Which is understandable, as DF needed to show that it may not have been with LM. But it did not explain why he lied, nor of why he would claim to wait this ridiculous time on her - rather than walking to meet with her, of his claim of not being concerned when she did not appear at the other side - Of course we know why.
-
There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone. Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this? Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?
I don't think so Angelo. Certainly not as far as Jodi's murder is concerned. It is just common sense for a mother to ban a child from walking secluded paths on their own.
Anyway on the evening of her murder, she wasn't alone. Isn't there a witness statement putting individuals dressed as Mitchell and Jodi were together on the path?
-
This is the trouble, is it not? - Far too caught up in irrelevance of lies and if she may have walked this path - Faithlilly appears to know these statements. When and why, as you say, was this ban put in place? I have asked Ms Lean this before and been blanked. It will say in those statements why this ban was put in place.
According to SL, Jodi's mum had said she wasn't allowed to walk the path alone, but , according to Janine, Jodi sometimes did, anyway.
Why wasn't Jodi supposed to walk that path alone? I would imagine, because Mrs Jones felt it was potentially too dangerous for a young girl on her own . We have a similar path very close to us, and , when my daughters were teenagers, I told them not to walk it alone-----whether they obeyed me, was another matter (I know full well that one of them didnt)!
Parky, who may or may not have lied, is your opinion. Unless you are closely acquainted with the families, you don't know who lied, when and where, any more than the rest of us do.
-
I don't think so Angelo. Certainly not as far as Jodi's murder is concerned. It is just common sense for a mother to ban a child from walking secluded paths on their own.
Anyway on the evening of her murder, she wasn't alone. Isn't there a witness statement putting individuals dressed as Mitchell and Jodi were together on the path?
We don't know, for sure, whether Jodi was walking the path alone on the evening of her murder.
-
There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone. Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this? Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?
Don't think there had been any incidents, but you just wouldn't want a young girl walking alone in such a remote area.
-
It could simply be due to isolation. That like most parents, they would not wish for their children/daughters to be exposed to any type of danger. It could be that something had happened before to another person due to the isolation of it. - But ultimately the ban was in place and LM denied all knowledge of this ban. I have asked Ms Lean before of why the ban was put in place, what reasons were given - Blanked. Of the continuous attempt to show that Jodi may have walked it alone that day. Which is understandable, as DF needed to show that it may not have been with LM. But it did not explain why he lied, nor of why he would claim to wait this ridiculous time on her - rather than walking to meet with her, of his claim of not being concerned when she did not appear at the other side - Of course we know why.
If Luke Mitchell was innocent he would have phoned Jodi much sooner to find out where she was. But he didn't do this because he knew she was dead. His protracted walk about on the main road was nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect the blame and establish an alibi.
-
If Luke Mitchell was innocent he would have phoned Jodi much sooner to find out where she was. But he didn't do this because he knew she was dead. His protracted walk about on the main road was nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect the blame and establish an alibi.
In your opinion!
-
According to SL, Jodi's mum had said she wasn't allowed to walk the path alone, but , according to Janine, Jodi sometimes did, anyway.
Why wasn't Jodi supposed to walk that path alone? I would imagine, because Mrs Jones felt it was potentially too dangerous for a young girl on her own . We have a similar path very close to us, and , when my daughters were teenagers, I told them not to walk it alone-----whether they obeyed me, was another matter (I know full well that one of them didnt)!
Parky, who may or may not have lied, is your opinion. Unless you are closely acquainted with the families, you don't know who lied, when and where, any more than the rest of us do.
I'm sorry but I disagree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. My point was that. SL and CM have lied. I put two blatant lies up. My point was that Faithlilly had also lied, had she not? whilst trying to show that Jodi's mother had lied. - She stated something as fact which was not. Given that distinct impression that Jodi's mother had lied - when all we know as a fact, is what you state - that this girls mother had put a ban in place. That JaJ's had given the impression that Jodi may have walked this path alone, at some point in time. - No one is disputing this in the slightest. And as you rightly say - children will disobey. We know that his girl was smoking cannabis, that she had just been released from punishment for using it. And my point was also to do with - that LM had denied that any such ban was in place - that he way lying, not this girls family. And that he has been shown to lie completely on everything.
And I do think it is morally wrong, for those to preach for 'Truth and Justice' - to lie, more so when one of these people is the convicted persons mother. So no, I am not claiming these people lied - I am stating that they lied. This search party did not have to come from the top of Mayfield, they did not walk passed anyone's house whilst heading directly to this path - and nowhere have we seen, any verbatim used in the slightest - that Jodi's mother stated, that Jodi did not walk this path alone - Watch CM's podcast and you will see the abundance of lies she tells. She states that none of the boys from the Abbey gave testimony in court - a blatant lie. Of this search trio from the top of Mayfield of having to walk a much further length - a blatant lie. Of this ancient arthritic granny - a blatant misrepresentation of what this woman was.
So it has nothing to do with knowing families - it has everything to do with the actual facts, the truth. That this granny stays next to Scotts Caravan park. Which is in the bottom of Mayfield. A couple of minutes walk to the actual complex they walked through. And for the reasons that these people lie - to add time on them getting to this actual path. And of this girls mother and of this girls friends - stating there was a ban in place - and of LM denying this.
So all is very well Mrswah - if you wish to believe these lies - as stated, you have every right to do so - If you choose to believe these lies from the Mitchells, from those spearheading any campaign. - Over all else who gave testimony. Then so be it. I can not change that. - But if I see blatant lies, I will most definitely pick up on them - One of the very reasons I started to look into this case. For I saw those blatant lies, and it got me into thinking - what else is being lied about, misrepresented and so forth - and this whole campaign is wrought with it. - we will have to agree to disagree.
If you wish me to stop posting - that is also fine by me. For if it means you wish me not to mention lies - then I have to choice, but to stop posting. Back those who blatantly lie if you must - I certainly won't.
-
We don't know, for sure, whether Jodi was walking the path alone on the evening of her murder.
Andrina Bryson testified that she had seen a young couple in the lane leading to the murder site; she positively identified Mitchell; her description of the girl matched Jodi; Ms Bryson's sighting tied in with the evidence led that Mitchell had arranged to meet with Jodi at that place and was accepted by the court.
Therefore Jodi and Mitchell met as arranged and he walked her up that path - through the break in the wall - to the place where he murdered her.
-
In your opinion!
I think it was also the opinion of the court which found Mitchell guilty of Jodi's particularly brutal murder.
-
I think it was also the opinion of the court which found Mitchell guilty of Jodi's particularly brutal murder.
Of course, but juries don't always get it right, do they?
-
Of course, but juries don't always get it right, do they?
In eighteen years there has been absolutely nothing to show that this jury didn't get it right.
-
Don't think there had been any incidents, but you just wouldn't want a young girl walking alone in such a remote area.
Absolutely. I can fully understand why JuJ didn’t want Jodi walking that path alone.
-
If Luke Mitchell was innocent he would have phoned Jodi much sooner to find out where she was. But he didn't do this because he knew she was dead. His protracted walk about on the main road was nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect the blame and establish an alibi.
On the other hand he is being painted as clever and cunning so surely phoning again would have been exactly what he’d have done...to establish and alibi ?
-
In eighteen years there has been absolutely nothing to show that this jury didn't get it right.
Many people disagree !
As for the jury, it was a majority verdict, so not even they all agreed.
-
Many people disagree !
As for the jury, it was a majority verdict, so not even they all agreed.
Are you advocating a Kangaroo court in preference to a court properly constituted by the law of the land where evidence is presented and witnesses heard from both sides before decisions are made.
-
Are you advocating a Kangaroo court in preference to a court properly constituted by the law of the land where evidence is presented and witnesses heard from both sides before decisions are made.
Not at all, just saying that juries dont always get it right, and I'm by no means confident that it did in this case.
-
Not at all, just saying that juries dont always get it right, and I'm by no means confident that it did in this case.
Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court. He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned. He has tried. He has failed.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.
The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination. Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.
What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.
-
Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court. He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned. He has tried. He has failed.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.
The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination. Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.
What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.
Nicely put Brietta. If Luke Mitchell had been home until 5.30pm with both his mother and brother then all they had to do was to say so. There was no need for bluster or dramatics. Apparently that wasn't the case though. His mother and his brother couldn't agree so one of them is an out and out liar
-
Mitchell was tried in a properly constituted court. He has had the opportunity to take all legal steps to have that verdict overturned. He has tried. He has failed.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' has already been covered in the 42 days it took to cover it all in his trial.
Much of what I have seen on the internet masquerading as 'evidence' is at variance with the evidence presented at Mitchell's trial.
If it is good enough to convince people who only know of the case through partisan presentations on the internet - why wasn't it good enough to assure his acquittal at trial.
The main plank of Mitchell's defence was alibi the other was incrimination. Both of which were featured at his trial and both of which were found to be wanting.
What I really find the pits is the way in which Mitchell supporters have impugned Jodi's family and Jodi's mother - if that is the best they can come up with - they really don't have anything at all going for them and neither has Mitchell.
I can't say I know much about "Mitchell supporters" speaking against Jodi's mother or her family. I don't take much notice of the "campaign team" (as I don't in the Bamber case either). I don't really like campaigns or demos. Probably, I'm too old: the last time I went on a demo, was in the 1970's ("Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out) !!
However, I do like Sandra Lean's book, and I can't believe it's full of lies. She might have made some mistakes, and got some things wrong, but, if she was lying all the way through, she would have been called out by now. I know I get criticised for "promoting" her book (I call it "recommending"), but I happen to believe there is a lot in it that is worth considering.
i don't have a lot of faith in juries either. Jurors are ordinary people, just like us lot on this forum. They have their agendas and prejudices.
Perhaps, i'm just a lost cause!
-
There must have been an issue if Judy banned Jodi from walking Roan's Dyke alone. Maybe something had happened in the past to another girl, anyone shed any light on this? Had it anything to do with its proximity to Newbattle College?
As others have said, I don’t think Judith’s concerns were the result of anything bad that had happened to someone in the past on the path . . . just a mother’s natural protective instincts kicking in to a mile-long secluded path punctuated with woodland, crumbling stone walls & open fields. I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter walking any such path, and having recently watched a video on YT of the actual path itself this opinion is reinforced considerably; said video was shot in March when the trees, plants and vegetation were quite bare, so when Jodi was murdered (in the height of summer) the area would have been a lot more denser, thicker and in full bloom. Ideal conditions for a local to murder, conceal a body and get away and hide. But, it wasn’t Luke Mitchell who made the path dangerous — its location and natural terrain did.
-
Just while I’m here, can someone answer these quick questions:
The carving in the woodland of LM & [Name removed]’s initials on the tree ... was it ascertained if the carving was done prior to the murder? Is it possible that LM did it after the murder, as a tribute, like he did with the knife pouch?
Was it ascertained/confirmed if LM was definitely wearing a green bomber jacket on the 30.06.03, both at school and later in the evening? What did the search trio say he was wearing that night? What did police, teachers and classmates say of this bomber jacket? Did this bomber jacket have a hood?
-
The carving in the woodland of LM & [Name removed]’s initials on the tree ... was it ascertained if the carving was done prior to the murder? Is it possible that LM did it after the murder, as a tribute, like he did with the knife pouch?
Good question - would be good to know when this was carved, and also the knife that was used to carve it.
-
Good question - would be good to know when this was carved, and also the knife that was used to carve it.
Firstly - the area was cordoned off - the whole strip of woodland and the path for some time. Scouring for evidence. One would imagine if this carving was found some time after this murder, then it would have been used at trial to show this - Something the defence would have held onto. It was barely into any interviews with LM was it not? - that he was asked about this, and he then admitted to only being in the top of the woodland. Absolutely nothing to show that this happened after this murder. Another red herring, for what purpose - to say yet again that LM lied when he then admitted to frequenting the top of the woodland - prior to Jodi's murder?
-
Firstly - the area was cordoned off - the whole strip of woodland and the path for some time. Scouring for evidence. One would imagine if this carving was found some time after this murder, then it would have been used at trial to show this - Something the defence would have held onto. It was barely into any interviews with LM was it not? - that he was asked about this, and he then admitted to only being in the top of the woodland. Absolutely nothing to show that this happened after this murder. Another red herring, for what purpose - to say yet again that LM lied when he then admitted to frequenting the top of the woodland - prior to Jodi's murder?
Among the photographs taken at the murder scene and vicinity was there any of the carved tree?
-
I can't say I know much about "Mitchell supporters" speaking against Jodi's mother or her family. I don't take much notice of the "campaign team" (as I don't in the Bamber case either). I don't really like campaigns or demos. Probably, I'm too old: the last time I went on a demo, was in the 1970's ("Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out) !!
However, I do like Sandra Lean's book, and I can't believe it's full of lies. She might have made some mistakes, and got some things wrong, but, if she was lying all the way through, she would have been called out by now. I know I get criticised for "promoting" her book (I call it "recommending"), but I happen to believe there is a lot in it that is worth considering.
i don't have a lot of faith in juries either. Jurors are ordinary people, just like us lot on this forum. They have their agendas and prejudices.
Perhaps, i'm just a lost cause!
I don't have to read Sandra Lean's book to know it contains inaccuracies; questions witness testimony; and suggests official corruption all based on her interpretation and initially I think a misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence is.
Quite often have I vehemently disagreed with a jury's verdict particularly that of 'not proven' in the trial of Francis Auld who stood trial accused of the 1992 rape and murder of Amanda Duffy.
I have probably mentioned before that I strongly thought that Hanratty was innocent and had suffered a miscarriage of justice. I was proved wrong on that one. I still don't think that Amanda received justice.
But that is our justice system and one we are stuck with until guilty people hold up their hands and confess to their crimes and answer questions truthfully.
I think the circumstantial evidence which convicted Mitchell - part of which was a video of his appearance in a Sky News interview on the day of Jodi's funeral - was certainly strong enough to be considered safe. It has been scrutinised on appeal and no new rebuttal evidence has been found to challenge it.
-
Good question - would be good to know when this was carved, and also the knife that was used to carve it.
JODI JONES MURDER TRIAL OPENS.
At the start of Mitchell's trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, the jury were shown a photograph of initials carved into a tree in the woods where Jodi met her death.
The letters [Name removed] had been cut into the bark along with the letters LM.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL+OPENS.-a0124546866#:~:text=Luke%20Mitchell%2C%2016%2C%20claimed%20he%20was%20at%20home,in%20the%20woods%20where%20Jodi%20met%20her%20death.
-
Firstly - the area was cordoned off - the whole strip of woodland and the path for some time. Scouring for evidence. One would imagine if this carving was found some time after this murder, then it would have been used at trial to show this - Something the defence would have held onto. It was barely into any interviews with LM was it not? - that he was asked about this, and he then admitted to only being in the top of the woodland. Absolutely nothing to show that this happened after this murder. Another red herring, for what purpose - to say yet again that LM lied when he then admitted to frequenting the top of the woodland - prior to Jodi's murder?
if it was introduced into evidence it must have been a crime scene photograph. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12080.msg652441#msg652441
-
JODI JONES MURDER TRIAL OPENS.
At the start of Mitchell's trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, the jury were shown a photograph of initials carved into a tree in the woods where Jodi met her death.
The letters [Name removed] had been cut into the bark along with the letters LM.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL+OPENS.-a0124546866#:~:text=Luke%20Mitchell%2C%2016%2C%20claimed%20he%20was%20at%20home,in%20the%20woods%20where%20Jodi%20met%20her%20death.
Thank you Brietta but when were the photographs ?
-
if it was introduced into evidence it must have been a crime scene photograph. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12080.msg652441#msg652441
Not necessarily.
-
And that evasion, tying yourself continuously up in knots - You were implying that this girls mother was a liar. As with SL, as with CM and as with yourself - you can not prove the evidence against LM to be wrong. From the investigation to trial and to the present day. One attempts continuously to divert away from the Mitchells from the lies they told over and over. Then one to tries desperately and shamefully to show that Jodi's immediate family lied. Or show evidence to be wrong from them, by lying yourselves. CM/SL - "the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield" SL "the search party walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path" You "Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan's Dyke path alone" then "so not quiet as honest as you'd have us believe" The evasion that comes from people who are less than honest - "vaguely remember" And you yet again bend things blatantly, JaJ did not say in court "Jodi still walked the path" - hard pushed to say that, the girl was dead.
I’d rather discuss facts than trade insults.
Janine testified in court that the search party had taken the RDP because that was the route Jodi would have taken to Luke’s. Donald Findlay reminded her that her mother had testified that Jodi was not allowed to use the path alone and why would the search party have thought that she had done so? Janine admitted that her mother knew perfectly well that Jodi used the path alone. “Really” DP asked,”yes” replied Janine.
The above is, partially, backed up from a report from the BBC.
“Jodi's mother said they saw each other a couple of times a week at first, before Jodi began to see him "most nights".
The two teenagers would sometimes meet up at the entrance of the Roan's Dyke path.
However, Mrs Jones said her daughter was not allowed to use the short-cut on her own“
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4045025.stm [/b]
-
I can't say I know much about "Mitchell supporters" speaking against Jodi's mother or her family. I don't take much notice of the "campaign team" (as I don't in the Bamber case either). I don't really like campaigns or demos. Probably, I'm too old: the last time I went on a demo, was in the 1970's ("Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out) !!
However, I do like Sandra Lean's book, and I can't believe it's full of lies. She might have made some mistakes, and got some things wrong, but, if she was lying all the way through, she would have been called out by now. I know I get criticised for "promoting" her book (I call it "recommending"), but I happen to believe there is a lot in it that is worth considering.
i don't have a lot of faith in juries either. Jurors are ordinary people, just like us lot on this forum. They have their agendas and prejudices.
Perhaps, i'm just a lost cause!
The book - written on the false premise that one holds everything ?- they do not.? Written as supposedly being the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones - again a false premise. Can not be a true story when the first premise is wrong. The book uses around 5% verbatim to back up a whole lot of assumption and narrative does it not? The truth from the book is anything that is directly used from the case files Ms Lean holds. The exact extracts are the only clear truths - anything added to this is Ms Lean assumptions, her question and narrative. Is the book full of lies? - Not where the anything that is directly taken and quoted from the files she does have - no. Are there lies by omittance - yes, for the context and truth lies in everything? Ms Lean is in possession of only what DF used for the build of his case in defence of LM - Of what he kept in those files. - The book is about Ms Leans version of corruption, her deciphering of those case files - and she assumes a hell of a lot - around things such as missing phone logs, missing witness statements, of knowing nothing that actually went into the investigation in it's entirety - all of these things that both the prosecution and defence had access to a the time. The book does not tell you everything that Ms Lean has discussed and answered on forums - where you get a real insight into the manipulation -when one has been able to directly question all she writes. - to which a lot of the time she ignores the direct questions and diverts from the lies. As with the the search trio, and her claiming they walked directly passed YW's. When pulled up on this - completely ignores the lie she told, and goes straight to her assumptions - that it does not matter what the search trio did - they should have went into YW's house to check. -Therefore, the lie is alright to use, if it is used to back up what Ms Lean feels anyone should have done.
The phone logs - the classic one. There is no log of AW's call to her daughter, Jodi's aunt in DF's case files. Ms Lean has used this to push out a whole lot of assumption. To have it as a driving point question of why they were there. That due to no log being there, then the aunts must have already been in the Easthouses area. If they were already there, then it was not to do with the search trio and LM together. They must have been there for another reason entirely. And the obtuse reasoning that then comes forward from others. Such as these aunts having connections in high places. Friends with someone in the police and so forth. Then there is talk of missing logs from JuJ directly to her mother and again these are put out, as AW being out searching before she even knew that Jodi had been reported missing? - now Ms Lean is not daft. A very intelligent woman. She knows the exact reason why these are not there. That some things were completely irrelevant for Findalys team to use. But due to the absence of these, it then gives the person a free reign to push out any narrative around it. Another classic being that of Mr Kelly. Of Ms Leans lifelong claims that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend. As she claims also that his fathers statement was not in the defence papers. Now she knew for a fact as with the phone logs - all were mentioned in the witness statements and precognitions, but this only added to the power of writing and assumption did it not? - for it gives the person a free reign to state - the person says one thing but there is nothing else in the case papers she holds to back it up. i.e the phone log or statement from the Mr Kelly and so forth. - Therefore, ultimately, whatever Ms Lean does write upon, if she were to be pulled up on this - she can state, clearly and truthfully, they are not here, I did not know for sure if they existed or not?! - And even after, as with the YW scenario - Ms Lean was told clearly by the SCCRC that these all existed - They were not missing, They are there in all that went into the investigation that both the Crown and Defence had access to, whilst building their cases. Of all they took from the investigation files. - She then stated that it does not matter about Sk's alibi as he did not have one for around 10 days? - which is what I highlighted before. Mr Kelly was always alibied. He was not striving to give one, to have some concocted story in place. But interestingly it was around day 10 when the statement was taken from his father? -So she knew this, she saw it in the defence files, but due to the actual physical absence of it - it gives the writer a free reign? - to use anything other than Occam's Razor. - Masses amount of assumptions, obtuse reasoning other than the straightforward truth.
Below are two different time lines from Ms Lean - used depending on what point is pushed at the time. Firstly from where Jodi and Luke were witnessed by AB in the lane, It takes around 15 seconds to reach the junction of the actual paths. Lady Path and RDP. Where she states clearly it would take around 12 mins to reach the V break. Used to lesson time that LM would have to murder Jodi. The other is from the search at night. The correct timing done. The search trio slightly down from here, walking as LM was approaching by torchlight. However, irrelevant to the point I'm making. The shifting of feet, depending on which point is being made
From all of that, the police were left with a window of 4.45m - 5.32pm, from which they had to subtract enough time for Jodi to get to the V point (almost 12 mins) and still leave enough time for the attack etc before Luke's first phone call to the landline.
In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes.
-
The book - written on the false premise that one holds everything ?- they do not.? Written as supposedly being the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones - again a false premise. Can not be a true story when the first premise is wrong. The book uses around 5% verbatim to back up a whole lot of assumption and narrative does it not? The truth from the book is anything that is directly used from the case files Ms Lean holds. The exact extracts are the only clear truths - anything added to this is Ms Lean assumptions, her question and narrative. Is the book full of lies? - Not where the anything that is directly taken and quoted from the files she does have - no. Are there lies by omittance - yes, for the context and truth lies in everything? Ms Lean is in possession of only what DF used for the build of his case in defence of LM - Of what he kept in those files. - The book is about Ms Leans version of corruption, her deciphering of those case files - and she assumes a hell of a lot - around things such as missing phone logs, missing witness statements, of knowing nothing that actually went into the investigation in it's entirety - all of these things that both the prosecution and defence had access to a the time. The book does not tell you everything that Ms Lean has discussed and answered on forums - where you get a real insight into the manipulation -when one has been able to directly question all she writes. - to which a lot of the time she ignores the direct questions and diverts from the lies. As with the the search trio, and her claiming they walked directly passed YW's. When pulled up on this - completely ignores the lie she told, and goes straight to her assumptions - that it does not matter what the search trio did - they should have went into YW's house to check. -Therefore, the lie is alright to use, if it is used to back up what Ms Lean feels anyone should have done.
The phone logs - the classic one. There is no log of AW's call to her daughter, Jodi's aunt in DF's case files. Ms Lean has used this to push out a whole lot of assumption. To have it as a driving point question of why they were there. That due to no log being there, then the aunts must have already been in the Easthouses area. If they were already there, then it was not to do with the search trio and LM together. They must have been there for another reason entirely. And the obtuse reasoning that then comes forward from others. Such as these aunts having connections in high places. Friends with someone in the police and so forth. Then there is talk of missing logs from JuJ directly to her mother and again these are put out, as AW being out searching before she even knew that Jodi had been reported missing? - now Ms Lean is not daft. A very intelligent woman. She knows the exact reason why these are not there. That some things were completely irrelevant for Findalys team to use. But due to the absence of these, it then gives the person a free reign to push out any narrative around it. Another classic being that of Mr Kelly. Of Ms Leans lifelong claims that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend. As she claims also that his fathers statement was not in the defence papers. Now she knew for a fact as with the phone logs - all were mentioned in the witness statements and precognitions, but this only added to the power of writing and assumption did it not? - for it gives the person a free reign to state - the person says one thing but there is nothing else in the case papers she holds to back it up. i.e the phone log or statement from the Mr Kelly and so forth. - Therefore, ultimately, whatever Ms Lean does write upon, if she were to be pulled up on this - she can state, clearly and truthfully, they are not here, I did not know for sure if they existed or not?! - And even after, as with the YW scenario - Ms Lean was told clearly by the SCCRC that these all existed - They were not missing, They are there in all that went into the investigation that both the Crown and Defence had access to, whilst building their cases. Of all they took from the investigation files. - She then stated that it does not matter about Sk's alibi as he did not have one for around 10 days? - which is what I highlighted before. Mr Kelly was always alibied. He was not striving to give one, to have some concocted story in place. But interestingly it was around day 10 when the statement was taken from his father? -So she knew this, she saw it in the defence files, but due to the actual physical absence of it - it gives the writer a free reign? - to use anything other than Occam's Razor. - Masses amount of assumptions, obtuse reasoning other than the straightforward truth.
Below are two different time lines from Ms Lean - used depending on what point is pushed at the time. Firstly from where Jodi and Luke were witnessed by AB in the lane, It takes around 15 seconds to reach the junction of the actual paths. Lady Path and RDP. Where she states clearly it would take around 12 mins to reach the V break. Used to lesson time that LM would have to murder Jodi. The other is from the search at night. The correct timing done. The search trio slightly down from here, walking as LM was approaching by torchlight. However, irrelevant to the point I'm making. The shifting of feet, depending on which point is being made
The window of opportunity was 16.50, not 16.45, when Jodi left the house and 17.32...so even if Dr Lean was wrong the window of opportunity doesn’t change.
-
The book - written on the false premise that one holds everything ?- they do not.? Written as supposedly being the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones - again a false premise. Can not be a true story when the first premise is wrong. The book uses around 5% verbatim to back up a whole lot of assumption and narrative does it not? The truth from the book is anything that is directly used from the case files Ms Lean holds. The exact extracts are the only clear truths - anything added to this is Ms Lean assumptions, her question and narrative. Is the book full of lies? - Not where the anything that is directly taken and quoted from the files she does have - no. Are there lies by omittance - yes, for the context and truth lies in everything? Ms Lean is in possession of only what DF used for the build of his case in defence of LM - Of what he kept in those files. - The book is about Ms Leans version of corruption, her deciphering of those case files - and she assumes a hell of a lot - around things such as missing phone logs, missing witness statements, of knowing nothing that actually went into the investigation in it's entirety - all of these things that both the prosecution and defence had access to a the time. The book does not tell you everything that Ms Lean has discussed and answered on forums - where you get a real insight into the manipulation -when one has been able to directly question all she writes. - to which a lot of the time she ignores the direct questions and diverts from the lies. As with the the search trio, and her claiming they walked directly passed YW's. When pulled up on this - completely ignores the lie she told, and goes straight to her assumptions - that it does not matter what the search trio did - they should have went into YW's house to check. -Therefore, the lie is alright to use, if it is used to back up what Ms Lean feels anyone should have done.
The phone logs - the classic one. There is no log of AW's call to her daughter, Jodi's aunt in DF's case files. Ms Lean has used this to push out a whole lot of assumption. To have it as a driving point question of why they were there. That due to no log being there, then the aunts must have already been in the Easthouses area. If they were already there, then it was not to do with the search trio and LM together. They must have been there for another reason entirely. And the obtuse reasoning that then comes forward from others. Such as these aunts having connections in high places. Friends with someone in the police and so forth. Then there is talk of missing logs from JuJ directly to her mother and again these are put out, as AW being out searching before she even knew that Jodi had been reported missing? - now Ms Lean is not daft. A very intelligent woman. She knows the exact reason why these are not there. That some things were completely irrelevant for Findalys team to use. But due to the absence of these, it then gives the person a free reign to push out any narrative around it. Another classic being that of Mr Kelly. Of Ms Leans lifelong claims that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend. As she claims also that his fathers statement was not in the defence papers. Now she knew for a fact as with the phone logs - all were mentioned in the witness statements and precognitions, but this only added to the power of writing and assumption did it not? - for it gives the person a free reign to state - the person says one thing but there is nothing else in the case papers she holds to back it up. i.e the phone log or statement from the Mr Kelly and so forth. - Therefore, ultimately, whatever Ms Lean does write upon, if she were to be pulled up on this - she can state, clearly and truthfully, they are not here, I did not know for sure if they existed or not?! - And even after, as with the YW scenario - Ms Lean was told clearly by the SCCRC that these all existed - They were not missing, They are there in all that went into the investigation that both the Crown and Defence had access to, whilst building their cases. Of all they took from the investigation files. - She then stated that it does not matter about Sk's alibi as he did not have one for around 10 days? - which is what I highlighted before. Mr Kelly was always alibied. He was not striving to give one, to have some concocted story in place. But interestingly it was around day 10 when the statement was taken from his father? -So she knew this, she saw it in the defence files, but due to the actual physical absence of it - it gives the writer a free reign? - to use anything other than Occam's Razor. - Masses amount of assumptions, obtuse reasoning other than the straightforward truth.
Below are two different time lines from Ms Lean - used depending on what point is pushed at the time. Firstly from where Jodi and Luke were witnessed by AB in the lane, It takes around 15 seconds to reach the junction of the actual paths. Lady Path and RDP. Where she states clearly it would take around 12 mins to reach the V break. Used to lesson time that LM would have to murder Jodi. The other is from the search at night. The correct timing done. The search trio slightly down from here, walking as LM was approaching by torchlight. However, irrelevant to the point I'm making. The shifting of feet, depending on which point is being made
For me her behaviour says otherwise
-
For me her behaviour says otherwise
I think she is intelligent ... but I think she is cunning with it. I think she has made some horrendous mistakes too, so maybe that brings a lack of common sense into the equation.
Anyway, I think she and the Mitchells combine to make the perfect storm.
-
The book - written on the false premise that one holds everything ?- they do not.? Written as supposedly being the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones - again a false premise. Can not be a true story when the first premise is wrong. The book uses around 5% verbatim to back up a whole lot of assumption and narrative does it not? The truth from the book is anything that is directly used from the case files Ms Lean holds. The exact extracts are the only clear truths - anything added to this is Ms Lean assumptions, her question and narrative. Is the book full of lies? - Not where the anything that is directly taken and quoted from the files she does have - no. Are there lies by omittance - yes, for the context and truth lies in everything? Ms Lean is in possession of only what DF used for the build of his case in defence of LM - Of what he kept in those files. - The book is about Ms Leans version of corruption, her deciphering of those case files - and she assumes a hell of a lot - around things such as missing phone logs, missing witness statements, of knowing nothing that actually went into the investigation in it's entirety - all of these things that both the prosecution and defence had access to a the time. The book does not tell you everything that Ms Lean has discussed and answered on forums - where you get a real insight into the manipulation -when one has been able to directly question all she writes. - to which a lot of the time she ignores the direct questions and diverts from the lies. As with the the search trio, and her claiming they walked directly passed YW's. When pulled up on this - completely ignores the lie she told, and goes straight to her assumptions - that it does not matter what the search trio did - they should have went into YW's house to check. -Therefore, the lie is alright to use, if it is used to back up what Ms Lean feels anyone should have done.
The phone logs - the classic one. There is no log of AW's call to her daughter, Jodi's aunt in DF's case files. Ms Lean has used this to push out a whole lot of assumption. To have it as a driving point question of why they were there. That due to no log being there, then the aunts must have already been in the Easthouses area. If they were already there, then it was not to do with the search trio and LM together. They must have been there for another reason entirely. And the obtuse reasoning that then comes forward from others. Such as these aunts having connections in high places. Friends with someone in the police and so forth. Then there is talk of missing logs from JuJ directly to her mother and again these are put out, as AW being out searching before she even knew that Jodi had been reported missing? - now Ms Lean is not daft. A very intelligent woman. She knows the exact reason why these are not there. That some things were completely irrelevant for Findalys team to use. But due to the absence of these, it then gives the person a free reign to push out any narrative around it. Another classic being that of Mr Kelly. Of Ms Leans lifelong claims that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend. As she claims also that his fathers statement was not in the defence papers. Now she knew for a fact as with the phone logs - all were mentioned in the witness statements and precognitions, but this only added to the power of writing and assumption did it not? - for it gives the person a free reign to state - the person says one thing but there is nothing else in the case papers she holds to back it up. i.e the phone log or statement from the Mr Kelly and so forth. - Therefore, ultimately, whatever Ms Lean does write upon, if she were to be pulled up on this - she can state, clearly and truthfully, they are not here, I did not know for sure if they existed or not?! - And even after, as with the YW scenario - Ms Lean was told clearly by the SCCRC that these all existed - They were not missing, They are there in all that went into the investigation that both the Crown and Defence had access to, whilst building their cases. Of all they took from the investigation files. - She then stated that it does not matter about Sk's alibi as he did not have one for around 10 days? - which is what I highlighted before. Mr Kelly was always alibied. He was not striving to give one, to have some concocted story in place. But interestingly it was around day 10 when the statement was taken from his father? -So she knew this, she saw it in the defence files, but due to the actual physical absence of it - it gives the writer a free reign? - to use anything other than Occam's Razor. - Masses amount of assumptions, obtuse reasoning other than the straightforward truth.
Below are two different time lines from Ms Lean - used depending on what point is pushed at the time. Firstly from where Jodi and Luke were witnessed by AB in the lane, It takes around 15 seconds to reach the junction of the actual paths. Lady Path and RDP. Where she states clearly it would take around 12 mins to reach the V break. Used to lesson time that LM would have to murder Jodi. The other is from the search at night. The correct timing done. The search trio slightly down from here, walking as LM was approaching by torchlight. However, irrelevant to the point I'm making. The shifting of feet, depending on which point is being made
Do you mean Sandra Lean is ‘word smart’? (Howard Gardener 1983)
-
I think she is intelligent ...
I don’t
-
I think she is intelligent ... but I think she is cunning with it.
Sounds like you are referring to ‘machiavellian intelligence’?
-
But if I see blatant lies, I will most definitely pick up on them - One of the very reasons I started to look into this case. For I saw those blatant lies, and it got me into thinking
That’s strange, me too. Take this one for example.
“Mr Turnbull asked the jury to consider the evidence about the night Jodi's body was found. The accused, he said, was able to find the body in the dark.
'Mutilated body'
"That night, Luke Mitchell is able to find the mutilated body of Jodi Jones in a wood behind a wall.
"I ask you to accept from the evidence that Luke Mitchell knew where to find the body," he told the jury.
The advocate depute said the cornerstone of the Crown's case was the evidence given by the Jones family about the search for Jodi on the night she died.
They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.
Family's account
The accused told the police he had walked past the "v" but had returned to it after his dog reacted.
Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184101.stm
Looks like Luke was telling the truth all along.
From the BBC’s Frontline Scotland at approx 21.40.
A verbatim quote from JaJ’s initial statement.
“Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”
And a summary of part of SK’s
‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
-
That’s strange, me too. Take this one for example.
“Mr Turnbull asked the jury to consider the evidence about the night Jodi's body was found. The accused, he said, was able to find the body in the dark.
'Mutilated body'
"That night, Luke Mitchell is able to find the mutilated body of Jodi Jones in a wood behind a wall.
"I ask you to accept from the evidence that Luke Mitchell knew where to find the body," he told the jury.
The advocate depute said the cornerstone of the Crown's case was the evidence given by the Jones family about the search for Jodi on the night she died.
They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.
Family's account
The accused told the police he had walked past the "v" but had returned to it after his dog reacted.
Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184101.stm
Looks like Luke was telling the truth all along.
From the BBC’s Frontline Scotland at approx 21.40.
A verbatim quote from JaJ’s initial statement.
“Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”
And a summary of part of SK’s
‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
Exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for pulling it up from those statements. - pull up what was said just before this too. Coming to this V. And of the dogs head being level with the V. And of Luke in this woodland.
But mostly Faithlilly - pull up LM's statements. And of Kelly. Just below. Under? Just by - bust mostly this Just anything? And of what you already attempted to do and of what SL attempts to do - when she attempts to bring LM right back to this V break. She attempts to tie LM in with the search party, and she attempts to have LM's dog just a foot or inches passed this V break. Any scraping of left, even by a mere inches. - to explain every piece of nonsense as to why LM turned left.
Then pull up those clarifications in statements. Pull up what this search party said - when they were taken to RDP to go over their statements - when they walked this path?
Let us have a picture of LM's clarification of this, where this search trio where? The diagram where x marked the spot, exactly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woodland.
Then you can explain to anyone, how any of that tied with LM? We know the dog was at the V. We know it was pulling. We know it was standing up at the V and we know LM then entered this woodland.We know LM told of his dog reacting at the wall. Of it jumping at the wall and of the dog "air sniffing" and of his words "leading them to Jodi". And it was some 40ft down from this V break - there was no "Just" - Let us not forget here, LM's dog was on a lead. Whilst the dogs bloody head and half it's body may have appeared "just" inches next this V - LM is at this V.
I'll highlight that massive difference yet again. LM in his first statement said, that "not even 20yrds passed" which was around 40-60ft by his meaning. Then when he clarified this by diagram it was exactly the 40ft - tying in with what he had first claimed. and exactly "parallel to Jodi". That he then and only him doubled back to the V break in the wall, where he gained access to the woodland. He doubled back from some distance passed this V - and it could only have been some distance passed this V - for him to have entered this woodland and walk immediately to his left and the claim of where he said he walked to, in the woodland. - For at this V. A foot to the left or the right - LM would simply have entered this woodland - He would have shone his torch about there. He would have saw nothing and he would have went back onto the path. For he would have had absolutely no reason to continue down to his left. His dog could have been reacting, "air sniffing" - class words, to absolutely anything in this woodland. Around this V break. That "Just" of anything. Was the dog just below the V as in the undergrowth - for it certainly was not where LM said it was. Not even 10ft passed, but he did not even say this did he? - it was "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods.
First account again - That the search party gave an account of AW getting the lead off LM. That they saw him in the woodland and they saw him turn left. That they then and only then continued to walk down this path except AW. That they had barely walked around 10ft when LM shouted he had found something. That they returned to this V after being shouted back. - and LM was again at this V.
Of how clearly it was shown - that LM could have walked no more than 10ft on the inside of this wall in line with the search trio - and from here he gave a description of the tree, of the red bobble, the socks and clothing.
Therefore NO - LM did know where Jodi lay - every single part of those search parties statements, except LM's gave claim, always to being at this V break in the wall. It was only LM that ever made claim to his dog being anywhere near and then to say exactly "parallel" to Jodi.
Now that you have, yet again tried to bring LM back to this V break - to be "just" by it. Which explains every bit of truth from this search trio - and not LM. Explain why he entered this woodland with no trepidation, no unfamiliarity, of why he had already introduced the woodland into the search. That without a shadow of a doubt the search party where being honest. When they made claim to being at this V, only before LM entered the woodland, of everything they gave testimony to. Of the dogs head being level. Of the lead being handed over and of him turning left. And of those clarifications - around what the dog was doing - at the V. Was it the dog leading LM to the V or LM? - and do we even need to go into every possibility of what LM may have been doing on the way up this path - At this V break, for him to be leading his dog to anything - at this V.
So grasp away - scrape away as much as you must. - to show that this dog doing anything, at this V break - is the same in the slightest to LM's claim of his dog at the wall - some 40ft - exactly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? They were miles apart (well 39.11inches) in what you are now stating is the same. That you are ignoring LM's testimony, that you are bringing him right back to this V break - to tie in with the truthful account of the search trio. They were always in complete contrast. The gaping holes are what the police found suspicious. That clarity yet again - That LM, had to have been some distance passed this V, to have entered this woodland with even the slightest bit of ease. To go exactly left, right away. Rather than look around him and so forth - he was lying , from the first - and the complete contrast in accounts are what raised flags. The police had it in for no-one. They knew LM was lying. That LM had already introduced the woodland, that he had scaled the wall at the Gino spot - and he had shone his torch "around" the woodland.
The only thing, as I have always stated - being the same in those statements - is a dog at a wall. You can not change what LM said to fit in with the search party.That it was upon reaching this V, that LM entered this woodland. His dog could have been doing summersaults at this wall, going absolutely crazy, barking and so forth - It was at the V. -They were never, where LM claimed they had been.
-
Had the dog scented something she would have done so on the way to meet up with the Jones family yet no mention of that by Luke Mitchell. It wasn't in Mitchell's interest to find the body on his own ergo the initial scenting was conveniently ignored. No wonder the police caught on so quickly.
-
Had the dog scented something she would have done so on the way to meet up with the Jones family yet no mention of that by Luke Mitchell. It wasn't in Mitchell's interest to find the body on his own ergo the initial scenting was conveniently ignored. No wonder the police caught on so quickly.
The wall was obviously of great significance to the prosecution. They went to the bother of having a replica of the area with the break in it constructed in the court room. The court was convened at the actual location for the jurors to see for themselves as well as where Jodi's remains had been left lying.
It is interesting that Mitchell's defence had nothing to say about all of that but to raise the objection that one of the jurors might have had a personal grievance with the person taking the measurement; not a thing about the testimony given or anything else about the dog.
Someone help me out here please ~ exactly which side of the wall was the dog located prior to Jodi's mutilated body being found. Was the dog at the crime scene ~ or did it never cross over the V.
-
Exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for pulling it up from those statements. - pull up what was said just before this too. Coming to this V. And of the dogs head being level with the V. And of Luke in this woodland.
But mostly Faithlilly - pull up LM's statements. And of Kelly. Just below. Under? Just by - bust mostly this Just anything? And of what you already attempted to do and of what SL attempts to do - when she attempts to bring LM right back to this V break. She attempts to tie LM in with the search party, and she attempts to have LM's dog just a foot or inches passed this V break. Any scraping of left, even by a mere inches. - to explain every piece of nonsense as to why LM turned left.
Then pull up those clarifications in statements. Pull up what this search party said - when they were taken to RDP to go over their statements - when they walked this path?
Let us have a picture of LM's clarification of this, where this search trio where? The diagram where x marked the spot, exactly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woodland.
Then you can explain to anyone, how any of that tied with LM? We know the dog was at the V. We know it was pulling. We know it was standing up at the V and we know LM then entered this woodland.We know LM told of his dog reacting at the wall. Of it jumping at the wall and of the dog "air sniffing" and of his words "leading them to Jodi". And it was some 40ft down from this V break - there was no "Just" - Let us not forget here, LM's dog was on a lead. Whilst the dogs bloody head and half it's body may have appeared "just" inches next this V - LM is at this V.
I'll highlight that massive difference yet again. LM in his first statement said, that "not even 20yrds passed" which was around 40-60ft by his meaning. Then when he clarified this by diagram it was exactly the 40ft - tying in with what he had first claimed. and exactly "parallel to Jodi". That he then and only him doubled back to the V break in the wall, where he gained access to the woodland. He doubled back from some distance passed this V - and it could only have been some distance passed this V - for him to have entered this woodland and walk immediately to his left and the claim of where he said he walked to, in the woodland. - For at this V. A foot to the left or the right - LM would simply have entered this woodland - He would have shone his torch about there. He would have saw nothing and he would have went back onto the path. For he would have had absolutely no reason to continue down to his left. His dog could have been reacting, "air sniffing" - class words, to absolutely anything in this woodland. Around this V break. That "Just" of anything. Was the dog just below the V as in the undergrowth - for it certainly was not where LM said it was. Not even 10ft passed, but he did not even say this did he? - it was "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods.
First account again - That the search party gave an account of AW getting the lead off LM. That they saw him in the woodland and they saw him turn left. That they then and only then continued to walk down this path except AW. That they had barely walked around 10ft when LM shouted he had found something. That they returned to this V after being shouted back. - and LM was again at this V.
Of how clearly it was shown - that LM could have walked no more than 10ft on the inside of this wall in line with the search trio - and from here he gave a description of the tree, of the red bobble, the socks and clothing.
Therefore NO - LM did know where Jodi lay - every single part of those search parties statements, except LM's gave claim, always to being at this V break in the wall. It was only LM that ever made claim to his dog being anywhere near and then to say exactly "parallel" to Jodi.
Now that you have, yet again tried to bring LM back to this V break - to be "just" by it. Which explains every bit of truth from this search trio - and not LM. Explain why he entered this woodland with no trepidation, no unfamiliarity, of why he had already introduced the woodland into the search. That without a shadow of a doubt the search party where being honest. When they made claim to being at this V, only before LM entered the woodland, of everything they gave testimony to. Of the dogs head being level. Of the lead being handed over and of him turning left. And of those clarifications - around what the dog was doing - at the V. Was it the dog leading LM to the V or LM? - and do we even need to go into every possibility of what LM may have been doing on the way up this path - At this V break, for him to be leading his dog to anything - at this V.
So grasp away - scrape away as much as you must. - to show that this dog doing anything, at this V break - is the same in the slightest to LM's claim of his dog at the wall - some 40ft - exactly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? They were miles apart (well 39.11inches) in what you are now stating is the same. That you are ignoring LM's testimony, that you are bringing him right back to this V break - to tie in with the truthful account of the search trio. They were always in complete contrast. The gaping holes are what the police found suspicious. That clarity yet again - That LM, had to have been some distance passed this V, to have entered this woodland with even the slightest bit of ease. To go exactly left, right away. Rather than look around him and so forth - he was lying , from the first - and the complete contrast in accounts are what raised flags. The police had it in for no-one. They knew LM was lying. That LM had already introduced the woodland, that he had scaled the wall at the Gino spot - and he had shone his torch "around" the woodland.
The only thing, as I have always stated - being the same in those statements - is a dog at a wall. You can not change what LM said to fit in with the search party.That it was upon reaching this V, that LM entered this woodland. His dog could have been doing summersaults at this wall, going absolutely crazy, barking and so forth - It was at the V. -They were never, where LM claimed they had been.
Those first statements, denied on oath by the protagonists, of Luke not ‘just going over the wall’, but of being lead there by his dog. Of SK’s observation of Luke’s dog ‘ pulling Luke to the wall’, suggesting that he was some way away from it. Of those lies under oath being the cornerstone of the Crown’s case. What a tawdry deception against a child.
“Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”
That was the truth, wasn’t it.. not this :
“ They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.”
Never that.
Of Mr Turnbull telling the jury that if the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.
But it wasn’t right, was it? It wasn’t consistent, was it?
‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’
That’s what Luke had also said, wasn’t it? That the dog had pulled him to the wall and started jumping just below the v. That’s consistent...that matched the first statements of those who lied under oath.
That cornerstone built on sand.
And that other cornerstone, the Andrina Bryson sighting. What of it ?
Certainly a very truthful witness, as most were at the beginning, and certainly sure of her actions in those first statements.
Of her children arriving home from school and immediately bundling them into the car for a trip to the supermarket at 4.05. Of the arrival of that supermarket at 4.15 and checkout at 4.45. Of her arrival in Easthouses at around 5.10 and, as she admitted later that she didn’t know Easthouses well, the search for the house for sale. Of having a quick look at the house and making her way back home. Of seeing the young couple at the entrance to the Roan’s Dyke path at 5.45 and finally her arrival home at around 5.50...gauging this by a phone call from her husband.
Of her categorical repudiation that the youth she saw had been wearing a parka. ‘Most like it ‘ was as far as she’d admit and even then that she’d pointed out the differences to the police at the time.
And of the bungled identification which broke all the rules.
Of course there was the bank statement bearing a different time than than that of Andrina’s supermarket receipt, held aloft by the prosecution like the correct answers to some confusing puzzle, but that raised more questions than it ever answered. Working backwards from Andrina’s phone call from her husband, logged at 6.17, to her departure from her house at 4.05 there was a huge hole of 45 minutes unaccounted for if the sighting of the couple was as early as the prosecution was desperate to suggest. Unfortunately an explanation for it’s absence was never sought, or given, and the chance was forfeited to provide an answer for the huge hole at the heart of the prosecution’s narrative.
Of course Andrina did try to redeem if not herself then certainly those who had put her in this terrible position.
“Did she see the youth she’d seen that day in court” she was asked.
She didn’t.
Of course some will argue that by the time Andrina saw Luke in court he had filled out, his hair was different but this was also true if Luke was the youth seen by Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh yet they identified him in court when, arguably, they had seen less of his face.
Another cornerstone imperceptibly shifts.
-
It does not matter in the slightest how much you pull up this dog being at the V - you are only proving the point that LM went straight over at the V. The path is not directly an inch from the wall. There is undergrowth and the such like. You can ignore LM's testimony as much as you like - He claimed and maintained that the search party were some 40ft passed this V break "parallel" - those are not the words of the child you make him out to be. So stop talking nonsense. It does not matter how much you miss out the other 99% of the statements from all of the search party - to zone in on this dog at the V break, at the wall here. - And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember. In fact by enforcing - the distance from the actual path to the wall - you are only showing a further distance for this dogs remarkable sniffer abilities. That it pulled to this V, what some 2-3 ft from the actual path - who would have thought eh? That it was heading to this V by whatever prompt from it's master. It was not pulling LM down the path, it was not pulling LM in the direction where Jodi lay - It was going to this V with LM. You can not change LM's testimony to suit yourself!
And no Brietta:
-
The dog was never in the woods. The dog was on a path, on a lead. Cut off completely from the woodland by a high dry stane dyke. The only accessible point was were the wall had been broken into the shape of the V. Where the base was around 4-41/2 ft from the ground on the path side. As Angelo points out, the ridiculous claims that if this dog had any amazing capabilities it would have scented whilst LM was traversing this path. LM waited until he was in company. Jodi was left 40ft down from this V towards the west end of the path (Newbattle) - LM went through the V whilst coming from the East end of the path (Easthouses). You could not see into the woods from the path due to the height of the wall. No fencing, nothing. Just this high thick wall. So, no dog roaming free in a woodland, picking up scents. And most definitely no dog some 40ft passed this V "parallel" to where Jodi lay, as LM claimed - where he said the search party were on the path side. Thus why the Jury were taken to the locus. They were taken in winter time when growth was at it's lowest. And long after greenery etc had been cut back. Shown pictures to compare however. And they were taken in daytime not the dark.
That LM claimed he had never seen this V before that night - ridiculous claim. That he had never been in the woodland before - lots of evidence to the contrary. That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks. (Peter Manual, taking control and given too much detail) That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out. That there was complete familiarity of the woodland. No trepidation - nothing.
-
Interesting to read the contrasting opinions. May I suggest that it was entirely possible that the dog was air sniffing to the left when at the V-break at the wall (and hence why Luke went in that direction once he himself climbed over the V)? Just the same as it was possible that LM, innocently, discovered Jodi’s body when travelling back down the path, towards N’battle? Perhaps Luke did only instruct Mia to go into ‘tracker mode’ on the way back west, purely because he was thinking more clearly and confidently when he met up with the trio? (It’s possible he was a little frightened and apprehensive walking the path himself to Easthouses as darkness fell — not thinking clearly and rushing — and only had confidence, and, in turn, clarity of thought, when the other 3 showed up; a ‘strength in numbers’ mentality.) I also think that Luke would have been aware that, wether he had killed Jodi or not, it would have been very unwise to seek out Jodi and find her when by himself, as it would’ve incriminated him substantially. But, in the instance of him not having killed Jodi, I don’t think he would have been interested or motivated in finding her body as he walked over to meet the search party at Easthouses, but most likely would have been once he joined the other 3 (as I said, strength in numbers). And he sure as hell wouldn’t have been stupid enough to find it himself if he had done it. As for the carving in the tree, well, is it possible JOF or GD did it? Highly unlikely, but, you never know.
As I said, I am beginning to think Luke Mitchell did murder Jodi — and, as such, think he had guilty knowledge of where her body lay — but I cannot say his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime.
-
Interesting to read the contrasting opinions. May I suggest that it was entirely possible that the dog was air sniffing to the left when at the V-break at the wall
Have you considered what the weather was like that evening? Which direction was the wind blowing?
Also something I never seem to get answered. Maybe you know, since you seem to think the dog was trained to track & that of Luke trained to handle, who trained them? And where is their certificates?
-
Have you considered what the weather was like that evening? Which direction was the wind blowing?
Also something I never seem to get answered. Maybe you know, since you seem to think the dog was trained to track & that of Luke trained to handle, who trained them? And where is their certificates?
I don’t think there would have been much of a wind at 2315 hrs at the height of summer, even in east central Scotland. Besides, a dog’s sense of smell is considerably more powerful than that of humans, to the extent that even a moderate wind wouldn’t throw an alsatian/German shepherd off its scent. I think it would have to have been severe winds in order for that to have happened, and, like I said, don’t think they would have been present in Dalkeith at that particular time of the search (at 2300-2340 on 30.06.03).
As regards a tracker dog certificate for Mia, my understanding is that Luke was training the dog with the help of an ex-policeman who was a friend of the family. Don’t think the training was fully completed or even assessed.
Btw, on another forum, it was mentioned that upon Luke finding the body, he screamed and then said, “I think I’ve found something!” Was it the case that he did, in fact, scream? I know AW screamed and then JANJ did, SK retched (and was swearing down the phone, becoming impatient with the emergency services phone operators) and of LM, according to emergency services phone operators, ‘being in a bit of a state’. They were ‘all in hysterics’, according to JANJ.
-
It does not matter in the slightest how much you pull up this dog being at the V - you are only proving the point that LM went straight over at the V. The path is not directly an inch from the wall. There is undergrowth and the such like. You can ignore LM's testimony as much as you like - He claimed and maintained that the search party were some 40ft passed this V break "parallel" - those are not the words of the child you make him out to be. So stop talking nonsense. It does not matter how much you miss out the other 99% of the statements from all of the search party - to zone in on this dog at the V break, at the wall here. - And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember. In fact by enforcing - the distance from the actual path to the wall - you are only showing a further distance for this dogs remarkable sniffer abilities. That it pulled to this V, what some 2-3 ft from the actual path - who would have thought eh? That it was heading to this V by whatever prompt from it's master. It was not pulling LM down the path, it was not pulling LM in the direction where Jodi lay - It was going to this V with LM. You can not change LM's testimony to suit yourself!
And no Brietta:
-
The dog was never in the woods. The dog was on a path, on a lead. Cut off completely from the woodland by a high dry stane dyke. The only accessible point was were the wall had been broken into the shape of the V. Where the base was around 4-41/2 ft from the ground on the path side. As Angelo points out, the ridiculous claims that if this dog had any amazing capabilities it would have scented whilst LM was traversing this path. LM waited until he was in company. Jodi was left 40ft down from this V towards the west end of the path (Newbattle) - LM went through the V whilst coming from the East end of the path (Easthouses). You could not see into the woods from the path due to the height of the wall. No fencing, nothing. Just this high thick wall. So, no dog roaming free in a woodland, picking up scents. And most definitely no dog some 40ft passed this V "parallel" to where Jodi lay, as LM claimed - where he said the search party were on the path side. Thus why the Jury were taken to the locus. They were taken in winter time when growth was at it's lowest. And long after greenery etc had been cut back. Shown pictures to compare however. And they were taken in daytime not the dark.
That LM claimed he had never seen this V before that night - ridiculous claim. That he had never been in the woodland before - lots of evidence to the contrary. That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks. (Peter Manual, taking control and given too much detail) That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out. That there was complete familiarity of the woodland. No trepidation - nothing.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Parky.
Jodi was left 40ft down from this V
Feet to steps converter puts that at appx 16 steps- Step:
The distance covered by a single step assuming a stride length of 0.762 meters or 2.5 feet. Although stride length will vary by person and activity this may be useful in estimating distance traveled from the reading on a pedometer. Feet to Steps | Kyle's Converter (kylesconverter.com)
That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out.
Mitchell jumped the wall into the darkness with only a torch for company. He was sixteen footsteps away from where Jodi lay.
Even with a torch in his hand he must have needed time to establish his bearings and to have a look around him to see where he was going before deciding where to put his feet in this overgrown area.
That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks.
That he was mere seconds before calling out.
With unerring precision he was able to walk directly to where Jodi lay, was able to identify the type of tree obscuring sight of Jodi’s body, what jodi had been wearing down to the red bauble in her hair which could not be seen.
All in a flash
Mitchell went over.
Ms Jones said: "We heard Luke shouting there was something there or he had found something."
She said she and Mr Kelly ran back and saw Mr Mitchell standing on the other side.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4082427.stm
Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.
Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."
The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
"A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm
What was significant about Jodi’s body being discovered by Mitchell and the search party?
Mitchell discovered Jodi’s body, which was hidden behind a wall on the path, after claiming his dog led him to the scent. Family members with him said he appeared to know where the body was. They contradicted his evidence the dog had led them to the wall. He also showed no emotion at the horrifying find.
When he was later questioned he mentioned a distinctive hair clasp which was not readily visible on Jodi’s body and his description of her clothing implied he had seen her much later than just at school as he had claimed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-hard-facts-that-prove-luke-mitchell-murdered-jodi-jones-in-cold-blood/ar-BB1e8qbH
I think it is obvious why the court and the jury were brought to the crime scene - they would be able to see for themselves that when investigators subjected it to close scrutiny - Mitchell's narrative of events just didn't pass muster
I think the logistics determine that he wasn't looking for Jodi because he already knew exactly where to find her.
-
I don’t think there would have been much of a wind at 2315 hrs at the height of summer, even in east central Scotland. Besides, a dog’s sense of smell is considerably more powerful than that of humans, to the extent that even a moderate wind wouldn’t throw an alsatian/German shepherd off its scent. I think it would have to have been severe winds in order for that to have happened, and, like I said, don’t think they would have been present in Dalkeith at that particular time of the search (at 2300-2340 on 30.06.03).
As regards a tracker dog certificate for Mia, my understanding is that Luke was training the dog with the help of an ex-policeman who was a friend of the family. Don’t think the training was fully completed or even assessed.
Btw, on another forum, it was mentioned that upon Luke finding the body, he screamed and then said, “I think I’ve found something!” Was it the case that he did, in fact, scream? I know AW screamed and then JANJ did, SK retched (and was swearing down the phone, becoming impatient with the emergency services phone operators) and of LM, according to emergency services phone operators, ‘being in a bit of a state’. They were ‘all in hysterics’, according to JANJ.
You don't think, or you don't know? It is easy to find out historical weather.
I also find it fascinating, that you just say dog. Was Mia male? Or a bitch? Do you know the capabilities between a bitch & male dog, in terms of its capabilities to track & train? And why you will find that most services that use dogs to work, are male dogs.
What exactly was Mia scenting?
What i think you mean is, Luke trained the dog to play fetch, just like all dog owners tend to do & the ex-police has just been thrown in, to add that bit of spice to the tale?
So what i have gathered so far in my quest over the years to find out who trained Mia. It was uncle, ex-army dude, some official dog training place in perthshire, now we have ex-police. I vaguely remember someone mentioning the dog came trained righto oh.
Luke most certainly did not scream, he was as calm as they come, in fact he was so calm at finding his very own GF's mutilated body, you would have thought he's done it & was showing the dead girl's family his prize. Oh wait.
-
You don't think, or you don't know? It is easy to find out historical weather.
I also find it fascinating, that you just say dog. Was Mia male? Or a bitch? Do you know the capabilities between a bitch & male dog, in terms of its capabilities to track & train? And why you will find that most services that use dogs to work, are male dogs.
What exactly was Mia scenting?
What i think you mean is, Luke trained the dog to play fetch, just like all dog owners tend to do & the ex-police has just been thrown in, to add that bit of spice to the tale?
So what i have gathered so far in my quest over the years to find out who trained Mia. It was uncle, ex-army dude, some official dog training place in perthshire, now we have ex-police. I vaguely remember someone mentioning the dog came trained righto oh.
Luke most certainly did not scream, he was as calm as they come, in fact he was so calm at finding his very own GF's mutilated body, you would have thought he's done it & was showing the dead girl's family his prize. Oh wait.
I sometimes feel that those who think Luke guilty could be shown a video of anyone other than Luke killing poor Jodi and you’d still post that Luke paid them to do it.
-
- And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember it.
What did SK not remember ? It certainly wasn’t the dog pulling Luke towards the wall and alerting him to something over it as he remembered that in his signed statement. So was it this?
“Questioned by Donald Findlay QC, defending Mr Mitchell, Mr Kelly was asked how close he had been to the tree he described when he saw the body.
After a long pause, Mr Kelly replied: "I cannot remember how far I was from the tree."
Or was it something else? He certainly seemed to have a painfully bad memory for someone so young.
Talking of Peter Manuel, he broke into my granny’s house in Birkenshaw when my papa was in the navy. As was his want he tipped out tinned peaches on the living room carpet. My granny, mum and her siblings were lucky not to have all been murdered in their beds. His sister worked as a nurse in Bellshill maternity when I was born. Lovely girl so I’m told.
“And of bringing in no dog expert, why? “
A question from you a while back. Perhaps this explains why no dog evidence was presented.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html
Some info re the dog.
So, apparently, the police knew the dog was being trained as a tracker . Mind you, since Sandra Lean said it, some of you aren't going to believe it!
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html
Some info re the dog.
So, apparently, the police knew the dog was being trained as a tracker . Mind you, since Sandra Lean said it, some of you aren't going to believe it!
Sorry Mrswah, you've lost me there.
What I got from that link was Sandra Lean confirming the lack of provenance of professional training and the fact that - the dog's alleged skills were checked out by Mitchell's defence team
- who didn't use the results as rebuttal evidence at Mitchell's trial
Sandra Lean posts ...
"Lukes dog, Mia, was a natural tracker, a point picked up by a friend of the Mitchells, who had trained tracker dogs in the army. The decision to train Mia was purely as a hobby, and to provide a stimulating pastime for her.
Lukes defence team had a specialist team brought in to put the dog through her paces, to prove that she would have done exactly as Luke and the others said she did. For reasons which were never explained, their evidence was never used in court, even though they did, in fact, find that she was properly trained, and would have been expected to react as she did at the wall."
That post speaks volumes for me.
Perhaps the fact you see what happened here as positive information while I see the opposite is an indicator of why there is so much misunderstanding about the guilt of this man.
One of the main planks of his defence did not meet a standard which enabled it to be used in court to confirm his narrative when checked by experts acting on his behalf.
I think that is damning.
-
Sorry Mrswah, you've lost me there.
What I got from that link was Sandra Lean confirming the lack of provenance of professional training and the fact that - the dog's alleged skills were checked out by Mitchell's defence team
- who didn't use the results as rebuttal evidence at Mitchell's trial
Sandra Lean posts ...
"Lukes dog, Mia, was a natural tracker, a point picked up by a friend of the Mitchells, who had trained tracker dogs in the army. The decision to train Mia was purely as a hobby, and to provide a stimulating pastime for her.
Lukes defence team had a specialist team brought in to put the dog through her paces, to prove that she would have done exactly as Luke and the others said she did. For reasons which were never explained, their evidence was never used in court, even though they did, in fact, find that she was properly trained, and would have been expected to react as she did at the wall."
That post speaks volumes for me.
Perhaps the fact you see what happened here as positive information while I see the opposite is an indicator of why there is so much misunderstanding about the guilt of this man.
One of the main planks of his defence did not meet a standard which enabled it to be used in court to confirm his narrative when checked by experts acting on his behalf.
I think that is damning.
The above is absolutely not true as I posted last night.
In case any one missed it here it is again.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460
-
The above is absolutely not true as I posted last night. There really is no excuse for this kind of ignorance other than obtuseness when the information has been posted already.
In case any one missed it here it is again.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460
So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away - his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?
So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.
-
So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away - his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?
So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.
And so in control of himself - what was it he said about allegedly not wanting to upset AW?
-
‘Mitchell was later spotted walking back in the direction of his own home at 10pm, after, the Crown alleged, he hid the murder weapon.
Jodi's mother said she "just knew there was something really wrong" when Jodi had failed to return home by that time.
She called Mitchell's mobile phone four times between 10.49pm and 11.17pm on the day she died. He told her he was "at the bottom of the path" and would go looking for Jodi.[/b]
Did Luke Mitchell hide the murder weapon and/or go back to the crime scene?
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/teenager-killed-jodi-7246942.html
-
So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away - his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?
So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.
There was absolutely no need to overegg the pudding by claiming that Mitchell's dog had training as a sniffer dog particularly as no trainer or training programme has ever been produced in confirmation.
Pet dogs walking with their owners frequently find human remains: I am a dog walker and I have anecdotal of this happening over the years to other local dog walkers on at least five separate occasions; in fact I narrowly missed joining their ranks a couple of years ago only as a result of deciding a last minute change of route.
There were no murder victims but the finders remained traumatised many years after the event despite the deceased being unknown to them. Making Mitchell's reaction (or lack of) to finding Jodi's deliberately slashed and disfigured remains all the more extraordinary as far as I am concerned.
All Mitchell had to do was report that the dog was acting in strange and unusual manner and go on to find Jodi. I don't think anyone would have blinked at that. I think it was the fairy tale about training and tracking which initially raised suspicion.
And it was all so unnecessary. Much as I think it was unnecessary for Jodi to be found by him that night - I wonder what the thinking behind that might have been.
-
And so in control of himself - what was it he said about allegedly not wanting to upset AW?
‘Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'How did he look?' and she says: 'He was fine.'
'Did he seem different from normal in any way?' the advocate depute asks, Janine replies: 'No.'
She says when he came back: 'He seemed shocked. He said he didn't know what it was.' [/b]
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
-
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html
Some info re the dog.
So, apparently, the police knew the dog was being trained as a tracker . Mind you, since Sandra Lean said it, some of you aren't going to believe it!
You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?
Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.
-
You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?
Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.
I think it’s a stretch to say that bitches are not natural trackers but it is true that males seem to be better at finding trails. Other factors such as the age of the dog and their personality also seem to have an effect on how good a tracker an individual dog might be.
-
It’s very possible if Luke Mitchell went back to the crime scene later on with Mia - he had a large window of opportunity to do so - the saliva could have linked back to his dog
-
You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?
Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.
I agree with you re no name of the person doing the training, and although I have a dog, I have no idea what a "natural tracker "is. All my dog wants to track is paper, particularly Times 2, before I have done the crossword!!
But, it does seem that the police accepted that Mia had received some training. Would the Mitchells have lied to the police? Would they not have been found out?
-
It’s very possible if Luke Mitchell went back to the crime scene later on with Mia - he had a large window of opportunity to do so - the saliva could have linked back to his dog
Agree with this 8((()*/
-
Agree with this 8((()*/
It’s very possible he’d got rid of the knife beforehand and this trip back was an attempt to stage the CS and/or carry out further PM injuries
JaJ
He said he didn't know what it was
Yet via jail on a prison phone - 17 years or so later Luke Mitchell tells the public he did know *&^^&
⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12093.msg652610#msg652610
-
I agree with you re no name of the person doing the training, and although I have a dog, I have no idea what a "natural tracker "is. All my dog wants to track is paper, particularly Times 2, before I have done the crossword!!
But, it does seem that the police accepted that Mia had received some training. Would the Mitchells have lied to the police? Would they not have been found out?
You're having a laugh, right? On the wind up? It was proved in court the Mitchell's lied, that is all they did was lie.
Who's says the police accepted Mia had some training? Unless you can source a statement from the police themselves saying so, then I think we can put this down as another lie.
I agree, what exactly is a natural tracking dog? Or is it just some wording to add that bit of spice? But male dogs olfactory abilities are far superior to females. That does not mean females cannot sniff things out, but they are most certainly not the natural of the two. I find it highly unlikely, Mia was able to track by using the words "seek jodi" we are in a woodland, with all sorts of smells, nature smells, human, other animal smells, bacteria, you name it. It was damp, dark and the wind blowing from the south/south-east. With all that hurdles in the way, I find it hard to believe the dog found the body with-in what 10 minutes? Of the seek jodi command? The only thing the dog did, was follow it and its handlers fresh footsteps back down the path, they just walked up. Which then begs the question, did Luke react to the wall on the way up, before meeting the search party, leaving a stench of himself? But lets be honest here, the dog never lead them all to the body, Luke did, he wanted to see the reactions.
-
So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead.
The gentleman who suggested the exercise and supplied the dogs explains in the article why the exercise was carried out and why a dead carcass was needed.
LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not.
Do you mean cadaver dogs?
Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. -
The exercise didn’t happen. How are we to know how it would have been carried out or, indeed, the weather conditions at the time?
the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented,
Yes it was.
this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night.
Indeed, in the woodland strip and through the v after Jodi’s alleged TOD. Strange Mr [Name removed] didn’t see anything. Strange also that Mr [Name removed]’s dogs didn’t not smell anything. Who hasn’t heard of the dog of a dog walker finding a body. What attracts them? Blood? Cadaver odour? Both would have been well established by 10pm that night.
Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away - his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?
So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.
Someone was lying, and under oath, but it wasn’t Luke.
-
The above is absolutely not true as I posted last night.
In case any one missed it here it is again.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460
Just more excuses and basically hogwash imo. The entire thing falls down because the supposedly trained dog would have scented the dead body on the way up the path. Mitchell never responded to that alert for very obvious reasons.
-
Just more excuses and basically hogwash imo. The entire thing falls down because the supposedly trained dog would have scented the dead body on the way up the path. Mitchell never responded to that alert for very obvious reasons.
I know nothing about tracker dogs, but I did read that they have to be put into "tracker mode" before they will track. Not sure what that is, though!
-
Just more excuses and basically hogwash imo. The entire thing falls down because the supposedly trained dog would have scented the dead body on the way up the path. Mitchell never responded to that alert for very obvious reasons.
So do you think that the dog alerted on the way up the path?
Interesting.
-
It's an obvious question, surely - if the dog alerted LM on the way down, why not on the way up?
-
It's an obvious question, surely - if the dog alerted LM on the way down, why not on the way up?
There was no alert on the way down either. LM was very precise in the lies he told. Of where he was, of that choice of words - And of digging that hole deeper when he drew his diagram. - Therefore it was all lies, plain and simple. The search trio where always telling the truth. They were at the V, they were always at the V. The only thing they clarified was of whom was leading who - LM or his dog. The debate is aimed at centering around that dog on a wall. Of Kelly not remembering. The plain simple reality is LM was lying about the whole scenario - And scenario is what is relevant, nothing more. - his whole scenario was lies, like everything else - lies.
-
There was no alert on the way down either. LM was very precise in the lies he told. Of where he was, of that choice of words - And of digging that hole deeper when he drew his diagram. - Therefore it was all lies, plain and simple. The search trio where always telling the truth. They were at the V, they were always at the V. The only thing they clarified was of whom was leading who - LM or his dog. The debate is aimed at centering around that dog on a wall. Of Kelly not remembering. The plain simple reality is LM was lying about the whole scenario - And scenario is what is relevant, nothing more. - his whole scenario was lies, like everything else - lies.
How can you be so sure, Parky?
-
It’s very possible he’d got rid of the knife beforehand and this trip back was an attempt to stage the CS and/or carry out further PM injuries
This IMO is exactly what he did. Much of his timeline that evening has been unaccounted for.
-
It’s very possible he’d got rid of the knife beforehand and this trip back was an attempt to stage the CS and/or carry out further PM injuries
I may regret asking this, but how could he have committed post mortem injuries without a knife?
-
It’s very possible he’d got rid of the knife beforehand and this trip back was an attempt to stage the CS and/or carry out further PM injuries
I may regret asking this, but how could he have committed post mortem injuries without a knife?
It’s a fair question and unless Luke Mitchell decides to confess and go into the detail of his brutal crimes we can only speculate
-
This IMO is exactly what he did. Much of his timeline that evening has been unaccounted for.
Luke Mitchell hasn’t accounted for what he did and didn’t do that evening and I find it interesting how Sandra Lean chooses to avoid this fact
He appears to have spent just over an hour with the lads at the Abbey
Didn’t he meet them at approximately around 7.30pm and claim to be home by 9.00pm-9.10pm
How long did it take him to walk home and how long did he usually spend there?
-
Luke Mitchell hasn’t accounted for what he did and didn’t do that evening and I find it interesting how Sandra Lean chooses to avoid this fact
In fact he has accounted for exactly what he did that evening and has witnesses for a large part of it. You just refuse to believe it.
-
In fact he has accounted for exactly what he did that evening and has witnesses for a large part of it. You just refuse to believe it.
No he hasn’t
Where was he at 8.30pm?
8.45pm?
Where was he at 10.30pm?
What time did he really get home ? 9pm or 10pm?
What time did he take Mia out for a walk?
Where was he exactly when he received JuJ first text message?
-
How can you be so sure, Parky?
Jodi's body was found 16.3m from the V point - that's 53.5 feet. Luke said the search party had passed the V point and he'd gone "a few yards ... not even twenty yards" (roughly 50 feet maximum) ... about 10 or fifteen feet ..." when the dog reacted on the path side. Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted, only that she did, and they continued on down the path while Luke doubled back - they were, they said, brought running back to the V point when Luke called out that he thought there was something there.
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
Luke said the search party had passed the V point and he'd gone "a few yards ... not even twenty yards" (roughly 50 feet maximum)
[/b]
Take a good look at this from SL: Ignore the 16.3 meters, it should have been 13.6. Which is fine, the odd thing about it however is that figure in feet should be well implanted in ones mind. These details are very important. However we have Luke's first statement, that verbatim used. "a few yards...not even twenty yards" But of the 50ft maximum. Now with the 13.6 meters it is 44ft. So not at the maximum given of 50ft. Then she cleverly and intentionally drops in this 10-15ft. Not full verbatim, not part of the first account and not from LM. Lots of missing parts and..... - stop and - when the dog reacted on the path side. And of Kelly and Janine not saying how far past the V point the dog reacted - stop - only that she did. How clever is this worded. As they did not say the dog had "reacted" first of all, and they most definitely gave no indication of it, them and LM doing anything passed this V. Nothing at all at this point, from those first statements, no estimates of how many feet passed and so forth - for they did not. And of they continued down this path while Luke doubled back - wrong again. Luke claimed to double back not the trio. And onto the truthful part - that they did run back when Luke shouted out.
Then to the theatrics of the prosecution - Of this 40-50ft past the V - as LM used yards, but as Ms Lean already highlighted - no more that 50ft with LM's estimate of how far he had went. Then, so it is relevant to the Crowns case if it had been 40-50ft passed the V that he was lying as this is not where the search party or the dog were. But highlights that if the dog had reacted say 10-15ft passed the V then it is not irrelevant, note the IF, as LM did not say this. - and skips to tying it in with Janine and Kelly. As they did say in their initial statements that they had walked around 10-15ft passed this V break. But this extract from their statement is taken from after LM went over the V break, that they then continued down the path, that they had walked no more that around 10 -15ft when they ran back to the V after LM shouted out.
So again - note that wording, "Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted" as they did not say at all, of them being past the V at this point. Not asked how far past as there was nothing to ask. They were not asked how far at this point as they gave no indication of being past it. And onto "only that she did" - Only that she, the dog had did something.
And this is how I am sure. That minute area of verbatim used from LM's statement, which has to be used, as it was used against him. Not one estimate of feet past this V from the search trio at this point as they were not past the V. None of them. Neither did DF manage to pull up anything from their statements to suggest they had indicated even 1.2 or 3 ft passed this V break. - only that he tried to pick up on them mentioning about the dog pulling at the V and of standing up at it. Of the change from this to saying it was LM who led his dog to the V. That the dog was standing directly next to this V, the left and of it's head being level with said V.
And the last part of it tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice. Stories, see, one has to say this as we know that JaJ, AW and Luke gave an account of the lead being handed to Alice. This is one of those clearest points that we can see of manipulation, of attempting to tie in this 10-15ft in reference to walking past, as she states they then continued to walk down this path - but we know this is demonstrably wrong as one could not see the lead being handed over, or the dog pulling at this V, nor the dog standing up at the V and of LM turning to his left. - and that AW was a couple of ft behind - all in sequence. They stopped at the V, AW right behind them. Looking to the side rather than to her front.? And they watch LM going over, and they see which way he turned - and they only then continue to walk, and this is were they were asked and gave that estimate - of around 10-15ft when he shouted out. That they then ran back to this V and LM was yet again on the other side.
And that he did clarify this more - that he drew this diagram for his Flo of X marks the spot. And he did use that word "parallel" to where Jodi lay. So from that first to clarification, LM most definitely did, dig that hole deeper. He was not just saying past, nor staying 10-15ft. He used yards not feet. LM from the off was given that distinct impression, that they had been at the spot where Jodi lay on the woodside and further clarified this - he was not saying exactly as in given the correct measurements. He had not measured how far down from this V he had left her hidden - but he most definitely was given enough distance, by that estimate of "a few yards....not even twenty yards" Then his diagram to show them exactly where he meant.
And from this we can tell the search trio where being honest from the off. That LM had climbed the wall where a few stones are missing along the top (Gino). That they came to another break in the wall, this time down the way (V) That upon reaching here, they mentioned the dog, they mentioned of him again looking into the woodland, by accessing it fully. That after he started to walk to his left, that AW remained at this V. That they (SK and JaJ) had walked a few feet, around 10 not more than 15 when LM shouted out.
Therefore, yes the whole scenario is completely relevant. From leading them to the path. From introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. And from the lies LM told. That complete contrast in accounts. That everything that LM claimed, about where they were, of choosing those words, led to Jodi, alerted to Jodi, air sniffing and so forth - where lies. There was no alert from his dog to where Jodi was. Neither him, the search party or his dog, were where he claimed them to be.
And he did enter this woodland with ease, no trepidation, no unfamiliarity - straight to the point.
-
Take a good look at this from SL: Ignore the 16.3 meters, it should have been 13.6. Which is fine, the odd thing about it however is that figure in feet should be well implanted in ones mind. These details are very important. However we have Luke's first statement, that verbatim used. "a few yards...not even twenty yards" But of the 50ft maximum. Now with the 13.6 meters it is 44ft. So not at the maximum given of 50ft. Then she cleverly and intentionally drops in this 10-15ft. Not full verbatim, not part of the first account and not from LM. Lots of missing parts and..... - stop and - when the dog reacted on the path side. And of Kelly and Janine not saying how far past the V point the dog reacted - stop - only that she did. How clever is this worded. As they did not say the dog had "reacted" first of all, and they most definitely gave no indication of it, them and LM doing anything passed this V. Nothing at all at this point, from those first statements, no estimates of how many feet passed and so forth - for they did not. And of they continued down this path while Luke doubled back - wrong again. Luke claimed to double back not the trio. And onto the truthful part - that they did run back when Luke shouted out.
Then to the theatrics of the prosecution - Of this 40-50ft past the V - as LM used yards, but as Ms Lean already highlighted - no more that 50ft with LM's estimate of how far he had went. Then, so it is relevant to the Crowns case if it had been 40-50ft passed the V that he was lying as this is not where the search party or the dog were. But highlights that if the dog had reacted say 10-15ft passed the V then it is not irrelevant, note the IF, as LM did not say this. - and skips to tying it in with Janine and Kelly. As they did say in their initial statements that they had walked around 10-15ft passed this V break. But this extract from their statement is taken from after LM went over the V break, that they then continued down the path, that they had walked no more that around 10 -15ft when they ran back to the V after LM shouted out.
So again - note that wording, "Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted" as they did not say at all, of them being past the V at this point. Not asked how far past as there was nothing to ask. They were not asked how far at this point as they gave no indication of being past it. And onto "only that she did" - Only that she, the dog had did something.
And this is how I am sure. That minute area of verbatim used from LM's statement, which has to be used, as it was used against him. Not one estimate of feet past this V from the search trio at this point as they were not past the V. None of them. Neither did DF manage to pull up anything from their statements to suggest they had indicated even 1.2 or 3 ft passed this V break. - only that he tried to pick up on them mentioning about the dog pulling at the V and of standing up at it. Of the change from this to saying it was LM who led his dog to the V. That the dog was standing directly next to this V, the left and of it's head being level with said V.
And the last part of it tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice. Stories, see, one has to say this as we know that JaJ, AW and Luke gave an account of the lead being handed to Alice. This is one of those clearest points that we can see of manipulation, of attempting to tie in this 10-15ft in reference to walking past, as she states they then continued to walk down this path - but we know this is demonstrably wrong as one could not see the lead being handed over, or the dog pulling at this V, nor the dog standing up at the V and of LM turning to his left. - and that AW was a couple of ft behind - all in sequence. They stopped at the V, AW right behind them. Looking to the side rather than to her front.? And they watch LM going over, and they see which way he turned - and they only then continue to walk, and this is were they were asked and gave that estimate - of around 10-15ft when he shouted out. That they then ran back to this V and LM was yet again on the other side.
And that he did clarify this more - that he drew this diagram for his Flo of X marks the spot. And he did use that word "parallel" to where Jodi lay. So from that first to clarification, LM most definitely did, dig that hole deeper. He was not just saying past, nor staying 10-15ft. He used yards not feet. LM from the off was given that distinct impression, that they had been at the spot where Jodi lay on the woodside and further clarified this - he was not saying exactly as in given the correct measurements. He had not measured how far down from this V he had left her hidden - but he most definitely was given enough distance, by that estimate of "a few yards....not even twenty yards" Then his diagram to show them exactly where he meant.
And from this we can tell the search trio where being honest from the off. That LM had climbed the wall where a few stones are missing along the top (Gino). That they came to another break in the wall, this time down the way (V) That upon reaching here, they mentioned the dog, they mentioned of him again looking into the woodland, by accessing it fully. That after he started to walk to his left, that AW remained at this V. That they (SK and JaJ) had walked a few feet, around 10 not more than 15 when LM shouted out.
Therefore, yes the whole scenario is completely relevant. From leading them to the path. From introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. And from the lies LM told. That complete contrast in accounts. That everything that LM claimed, about where they were, of choosing those words, led to Jodi, alerted to Jodi, air sniffing and so forth - where lies. There was no alert from his dog to where Jodi was. Neither him, the search party or his dog, were where he claimed them to be.
And he did enter this woodland with ease, no trepidation, no unfamiliarity - straight to the point.
And so in control - once he was over the V - he didn’t shout out because he allegedly didn’t want to upset AW 🙄
-
Take a good look at this from SL: Ignore the 16.3 meters, it should have been 13.6. Which is fine, the odd thing about it however is that figure in feet should be well implanted in ones mind. These details are very important. However we have Luke's first statement, that verbatim used. "a few yards...not even twenty yards" But of the 50ft maximum. Now with the 13.6 meters it is 44ft. So not at the maximum given of 50ft. Then she cleverly and intentionally drops in this 10-15ft. Not full verbatim, not part of the first account and not from LM. Lots of missing parts and..... - stop and - when the dog reacted on the path side. And of Kelly and Janine not saying how far past the V point the dog reacted - stop - only that she did. How clever is this worded. As they did not say the dog had "reacted" first of all, and they most definitely gave no indication of it, them and LM doing anything passed this V. Nothing at all at this point, from those first statements, no estimates of how many feet passed and so forth - for they did not. And of they continued down this path while Luke doubled back - wrong again. Luke claimed to double back not the trio. And onto the truthful part - that they did run back when Luke shouted out.
Then to the theatrics of the prosecution - Of this 40-50ft past the V - as LM used yards, but as Ms Lean already highlighted - no more that 50ft with LM's estimate of how far he had went. Then, so it is relevant to the Crowns case if it had been 40-50ft passed the V that he was lying as this is not where the search party or the dog were. But highlights that if the dog had reacted say 10-15ft passed the V then it is not irrelevant, note the IF, as LM did not say this. - and skips to tying it in with Janine and Kelly. As they did say in their initial statements that they had walked around 10-15ft passed this V break. But this extract from their statement is taken from after LM went over the V break, that they then continued down the path, that they had walked no more that around 10 -15ft when they ran back to the V after LM shouted out.
So again - note that wording, "Kelly and Janine didn't say how far past the V point the dog reacted" as they did not say at all, of them being past the V at this point. Not asked how far past as there was nothing to ask. They were not asked how far at this point as they gave no indication of being past it. And onto "only that she did" - Only that she, the dog had did something.
And this is how I am sure. That minute area of verbatim used from LM's statement, which has to be used, as it was used against him. Not one estimate of feet past this V from the search trio at this point as they were not past the V. None of them. Neither did DF manage to pull up anything from their statements to suggest they had indicated even 1.2 or 3 ft passed this V break. - only that he tried to pick up on them mentioning about the dog pulling at the V and of standing up at it. Of the change from this to saying it was LM who led his dog to the V. That the dog was standing directly next to this V, the left and of it's head being level with said V.
And the last part of it tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice. Stories, see, one has to say this as we know that JaJ, AW and Luke gave an account of the lead being handed to Alice. This is one of those clearest points that we can see of manipulation, of attempting to tie in this 10-15ft in reference to walking past, as she states they then continued to walk down this path - but we know this is demonstrably wrong as one could not see the lead being handed over, or the dog pulling at this V, nor the dog standing up at the V and of LM turning to his left. - and that AW was a couple of ft behind - all in sequence. They stopped at the V, AW right behind them. Looking to the side rather than to her front.? And they watch LM going over, and they see which way he turned - and they only then continue to walk, and this is were they were asked and gave that estimate - of around 10-15ft when he shouted out. That they then ran back to this V and LM was yet again on the other side.
And that he did clarify this more - that he drew this diagram for his Flo of X marks the spot. And he did use that word "parallel" to where Jodi lay. So from that first to clarification, LM most definitely did, dig that hole deeper. He was not just saying past, nor staying 10-15ft. He used yards not feet. LM from the off was given that distinct impression, that they had been at the spot where Jodi lay on the woodside and further clarified this - he was not saying exactly as in given the correct measurements. He had not measured how far down from this V he had left her hidden - but he most definitely was given enough distance, by that estimate of "a few yards....not even twenty yards" Then his diagram to show them exactly where he meant.
And from this we can tell the search trio where being honest from the off. That LM had climbed the wall where a few stones are missing along the top (Gino). That they came to another break in the wall, this time down the way (V) That upon reaching here, they mentioned the dog, they mentioned of him again looking into the woodland, by accessing it fully. That after he started to walk to his left, that AW remained at this V. That they (SK and JaJ) had walked a few feet, around 10 not more than 15 when LM shouted out.
Therefore, yes the whole scenario is completely relevant. From leading them to the path. From introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. And from the lies LM told. That complete contrast in accounts. That everything that LM claimed, about where they were, of choosing those words, led to Jodi, alerted to Jodi, air sniffing and so forth - where lies. There was no alert from his dog to where Jodi was. Neither him, the search party or his dog, were where he claimed them to be.
And he did enter this woodland with ease, no trepidation, no unfamiliarity - straight to the point.
And to further clarity what I had stated before. Of clear reasons as to why the police were suspicious of LM. That one such area was this contrast in statements. That they were far from being in harmony with that of LM's. That whilst this search trio may have mentioned actions of this dog at this V break, it was LM who was using alert, led to and air sniffing. That his account, his scenario was that his dog had alerted him, pretty much to where Jodi actually lay. That this search trio had given details of his actions upon entering this woodland at this V break. And also that he had looked into the woodland, prior to this at the Gino spot.
That the simplest route, if there had in fact been harmony with LM's account would be showing exactly what this search trio had said, in sequence, in their scenario of what had happened. This has not been shown, for it can not be shown - as they were not saying the same thing as LM, at all.
And this was pretty much the case with that entire evening. We had LM claiming he was at home, that Jodi was coming to his after his dinner, around 6pm. We had Jodi's mother saying that Jodi had left home much earlier than this. That she did not know she was getting out earlier until her arrival home from school. That Jodi had told her mother, that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here". That there had been that exchange of texts, that only LM would have known that Jodi was getting out earlier. She had not contacted anyone else. We have LM who is claiming he was simply waiting around for Jodi to arrive, of walking this path to meet with him. We have Jodi's mother saying that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone. We have LM saying he had left home around 5.45pm to meet with Jodi for 6pm. We have Jodi's parents saying LM had phoned, and we have LM saying he made this call from the Abbey entrance, which put him leaving home around 5.30pm for this meet at 6pm. We have this short time of waiting for her, walking this path alone, and it's isolation - to being from around 5.30pm until he was in the company of the boys around 7.30pm. We have LM being told that Jodi had already left to meet him. We have LM saying "she is not coming out" "thought maybe she had dumped me" and "I thought you had grounded her" We have LM not phoning back when she did not arrive after that long period of time, and we have LM phoning the boys back when they were slightly late.
We already know the ever changing scenario of the alibi. - That there was this relaxed, very detailed dinner account, that had CM home around five past five. We have SM changing his story to fit exactly in with this, of his mother arriving home around five past five. Of speaking with his mother, of waiting around ten mins until dinner was ready and so forth. Which changed to CM being home no earlier than 5.15pm. Of LM leaving home for 5.30pm rather than 5.45pm. Of SM then having to leave earlier than LM, for he did not see his brother on his way out of the estate or at the estate entrance. So every fine detail of this relaxed dinner tale, it's change, had to fit very neatly into less than 15mins. And we know that the dinner was claimed not to ready, further cooking had to be done. Then of course we have the porn, and of listening out for anyone at home. That SM had, as the police knew, had been correct in his first statement and of his testimony in court - that he did not see his brother Luke that day around dinner time at all. - LM was not at home.
And we have his time with the boys. Which was remarkably shorter than usual. LM claimed to be home by 9pm, his mother claimed he was home by then. Therefore LM had left the boys much earlier than this time - being in their actual company for around an hour. That he was looking more kempt than his usual, scruffy, manky self. And he had been smoking dope. And Jodi had ingested cannabis - and that LM was the person with whom she would usually be smoking this with. And contrary to both LM and his mothers claims - LM was seen arriving home around 10pm.
And there was a fire going in the Mitchell garden that evening, evidence of this at different intervals. LM did carry knives, a lot. And there is still a missing knife. There is still a missing jacket - and coincidently, both the new knife and jacket bought - were replicas of the missing items. And there was both a sighting by AB and F&W who ID LM. And these sightings did coincide with the time Jodi left to meet with LM. And they were, at either end of RDP. The Easthouse's end and the Newbattle end - and in the middle, is where this poor girl met sadly met her end. And there were noises heard by LK from behind this wall around 5.15pm.
And we do hear of all these scenarios of what one feels this girls family should have been doing? "armed with this knowledge of being up here" - Which we can see clearly, has neither time nor room for thought in the slightest, to fit into this 50mins. That the only thing that was prominent in this period of time - was that Jodi was missing, her boyfriend was telling her mother that she failed to turn up, turn up in Newbattle. That he did offer to search, that he would look on the this path. That it was him that introduced this path into their thought process. That she had barely been reported missing and he is on this path. That the police then attended at Jodi's house, that they had barely stepped out the door - and bang, Jodi is found dead. And she was found by LM within this very short period of time. (10mins) That he did introduce the woodland in to the search at the first break. Then upon reaching the next break, the accessible one - LM entered this woodland, that he had taken around 10-15 steps in line with the search trio, on the path side - and he shouted out.
And we know he gave testimony to this red hair bobble, the tree, the socks and the clothing - we know Jodi had changed. That she did wear school colours. We do hear each and every extraordinary reasoning for this. Of reporters and the police letting him know. Of items being moved around and bodies being "rolled".
-
And so in control - once he was over the V - he didn’t shout out because he allegedly didn’t want to upset AW 🙄
To show why he had no emotion in his voice, of not wanting to worry AW? Which does tie in with JaJ's clarification, that it was the mere fact of finding something that caused concern, something bad. How loud does a voice sound, in the stillness of the night, away from traffic and so forth? That he did not want to say to AW what he had claimed to just find - LM wanted AW and the others - to see Jodi!
-
To show why he had no emotion in his voice, of not wanting to worry AW? Which does tie in with JaJ's clarification, that it was the mere fact of finding something that caused concern, something bad. How loud does a voice sound, in the stillness of the night, away from traffic and so forth? That he did not want to say to AW what he had claimed to just find - LM wanted AW and the others - to see Jodi!
He did
And what was it he said - or didn’t say - to the 999 operator?
-
And we have his time with the boys. Which was remarkably shorter than usual. LM claimed to be home by 9pm, his mother claimed he was home by then. Therefore LM had left the boys much earlier than this time - being in their actual company for around an hour. That he was looking more kempt than his usual, scruffy, manky self. And he had been smoking dope. And Jodi had ingested cannabis - and that LM was the person with whom she would usually be smoking this with. And contrary to both LM and his mothers claims - LM was seen arriving home around 10pm.
Luke Mitchell was apparently out of the house when he received the first text message from JuJ - so where had he been at 10.39/41pm when this text was received?
He claimed to have been watching TV
So what was he doing out of the house at this time ?
He couldn’t have been walking the dog from 10.00pm to 10.39/41pm because Corinne made claim to James English he was only gone for about 5 minutes
-
And to further clarity what I had stated before. Of clear reasons as to why the police were suspicious of LM. That one such area was this contrast in statements. That they were far from being in harmony with that of LM's. That whilst this search trio may have mentioned actions of this dog at this V break, it was LM who was using alert, led to and air sniffing. That his account, his scenario was that his dog had alerted him, pretty much to where Jodi actually lay. That this search trio had given details of his actions upon entering this woodland at this V break. And also that he had looked into the woodland, prior to this at the Gino spot.
That the simplest route, if there had in fact been harmony with LM's account would be showing exactly what this search trio had said, in sequence, in their scenario of what had happened. This has not been shown, for it can not be shown - as they were not saying the same thing as LM, at all.
And this was pretty much the case with that entire evening. We had LM claiming he was at home, that Jodi was coming to his after his dinner, around 6pm. We had Jodi's mother saying that Jodi had left home much earlier than this. That she did not know she was getting out earlier until her arrival home from school. That Jodi had told her mother, that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here". That there had been that exchange of texts, that only LM would have known that Jodi was getting out earlier. She had not contacted anyone else. We have LM who is claiming he was simply waiting around for Jodi to arrive, of walking this path to meet with him. We have Jodi's mother saying that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone. We have LM saying he had left home around 5.45pm to meet with Jodi for 6pm. We have Jodi's parents saying LM had phoned, and we have LM saying he made this call from the Abbey entrance, which put him leaving home around 5.30pm for this meet at 6pm. We have this short time of waiting for her, walking this path alone, and it's isolation - to being from around 5.30pm until he was in the company of the boys around 7.30pm. We have LM being told that Jodi had already left to meet him. We have LM saying "she is not coming out" "thought maybe she had dumped me" and "I thought you had grounded her" We have LM not phoning back when she did not arrive after that long period of time, and we have LM phoning the boys back when they were slightly late.
We already know the ever changing scenario of the alibi. - That there was this relaxed, very detailed dinner account, that had CM home around five past five. We have SM changing his story to fit exactly in with this, of his mother arriving home around five past five. Of speaking with his mother, of waiting around ten mins until dinner was ready and so forth. Which changed to CM being home no earlier than 5.15pm. Of LM leaving home for 5.30pm rather than 5.45pm. Of SM then having to leave earlier than LM, for he did not see his brother on his way out of the estate or at the estate entrance. So every fine detail of this relaxed dinner tale, it's change, had to fit very neatly into less than 15mins. And we know that the dinner was claimed not to ready, further cooking had to be done. Then of course we have the porn, and of listening out for anyone at home. That SM had, as the police knew, had been correct in his first statement and of his testimony in court - that he did not see his brother Luke that day around dinner time at all. - LM was not at home.
And we have his time with the boys. Which was remarkably shorter than usual. LM claimed to be home by 9pm, his mother claimed he was home by then. Therefore LM had left the boys much earlier than this time - being in their actual company for around an hour. That he was looking more kempt than his usual, scruffy, manky self. And he had been smoking dope. And Jodi had ingested cannabis - and that LM was the person with whom she would usually be smoking this with. And contrary to both LM and his mothers claims - LM was seen arriving home around 10pm.
And there was a fire going in the Mitchell garden that evening, evidence of this at different intervals. LM did carry knives, a lot. And there is still a missing knife. There is still a missing jacket - and coincidently, both the new knife and jacket bought - were replicas of the missing items. And there was both a sighting by AB and F&W who ID LM. And these sightings did coincide with the time Jodi left to meet with LM. And they were, at either end of RDP. The Easthouse's end and the Newbattle end - and in the middle, is where this poor girl met sadly met her end. And there were noises heard by LK from behind this wall around 5.15pm.
And we do hear of all these scenarios of what one feels this girls family should have been doing? "armed with this knowledge of being up here" - Which we can see clearly, has neither time nor room for thought in the slightest, to fit into this 50mins. That the only thing that was prominent in this period of time - was that Jodi was missing, her boyfriend was telling her mother that she failed to turn up, turn up in Newbattle. That he did offer to search, that he would look on the this path. That it was him that introduced this path into their thought process. That she had barely been reported missing and he is on this path. That the police then attended at Jodi's house, that they had barely stepped out the door - and bang, Jodi is found dead. And she was found by LM within this very short period of time. (10mins) That he did introduce the woodland in to the search at the first break. Then upon reaching the next break, the accessible one - LM entered this woodland, that he had taken around 10-15 steps in line with the search trio, on the path side - and he shouted out.
And we know he gave testimony to this red hair bobble, the tree, the socks and the clothing - we know Jodi had changed. That she did wear school colours. We do hear each and every extraordinary reasoning for this. Of reporters and the police letting him know. Of items being moved around and bodies being "rolled".
We have to this point discussed those irrelevant phone calls and the such - which have given room to some pretty extraordinary assumptions. Of attempting to tie LM's version of what happened in this search with that of Jodi's family. Of Ignoring the testimony he gave to bring him back to this V - rather than where he clearly stated, in which he was, without a shadow of a doubt lying. He never claimed to be at this V whilst the search trio always had. Now we move onto the meet. Of Ms Lean attempting to tie the search trio in with LM's version of events. That he had been on/at this path by 10.59pm. That it takes on average around 11mins to walk this path. Therefore she attempts to bring the search trio onto this path by this time. Thus stating they could not have left Mayfield around 11.05pm when JuJ had phoned her mothers landline. And of confusion as to when AW knew that Judith had phoned the police, and of letting her mother know that LM was on RDP. And of this search trio being in the complex at 11.18pm. And of them heading to meet with LM on RDP. What is prominent in what I am going to put up from Ms Lean - is 6mins by her timings that would take the call to the emergency services up to 11.40pm, rather than when it was made at 11.34pm. And of that use of phone logs not tying with the witness accounts - Which has her stating that they were being dishonest - I know, pretty dam ironic is it not?
The straightforward version - Jodi is missing. The police are phoned. Judith speaks with them, with her mother and with LM. The last conversation with LM is 10.59pm he is on/at RDP. AW's landline is phoned at 11.04pm. - The search trio who are ready to leave, to head out to search. Leave Mayfield. There is a further logged call given from the defence papers - of the search trio, of heading from this complex. A call that is relevant to them heading to meet with LM on RDP. As is the one just after 11pm - when they know LM is at this path and on it. AW knows which path he means. It is not simply down to that she knows which path Jodi would have used, it is down to LM being on this path. The path that connects Easthouses to Newbattle. Firstly from this 11.18pm conversation in the complex backwards from the call to the emergency services.
From going over the V and walking this 10-15 ft no more - it takes mere seconds. Ms Lean gives the search party a full two minutes each. LM, SK and AW. LM goes over, JaJ and SK walk this 10-15ft. And run back. This is well under a minute. As with SK. Well under a minute. The only one who takes longer is AW. She needs a helping hand over. And she goes the full 44ft. Contrary to the arms and legs added - AW wants to go close to check for sure that it is Jodi. And it is around this time the call is made to the emergency services, 11.34pm - there were screams heard in the call. We can take this 4mins or so off and we are around 11.30pm. The approx time this search party reached this V break. Ms Lean talks of the slower pace and adds 2 mins onto the 7mins timed from the junction of the paths to this V. This slower pace is in relevance to the brisk pace that this trio had walked to reach the junction of the paths, nothing more. Four people. Walking at an even pace. Every part of that search divided. It is not a difficult search. Shining their torch to the undergrowth on either side of this path and into the field. And the search party were slightly down from the junction of the paths when they met. We take this 7mins off and the time is around 11.23pm. Ms Lean gives a full 5mins to reach the junction from the complex from 11.18pm. This full five mins is all it took for the search trio to reach the junction of the paths. And for every part of those very brief conversations. Of reaching the junction of the paths. Of AW knowing which path, it is RDP, the one to Newbattle. There is no two mins required here at all. Of stepping in this direction and them seeing LM approach by torchlight and him them. They walk to meet. Of this very brief conversation yet again, of LM asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with and, of AW wanting to check the path properly whilst there. She mentions this estimate given by them, which is "no more than two mins" And we can see clearly from this very basic brief discussion - that this again takes mere seconds. And of what it did take, was around 5mins to head out this complex, to reach the junction of the paths, to meet and walk down together.
Of leaving Mayfield. To being in this complex and heading out. - AW stays in a small housing scheme which is directly next to Scotts Caravan park (the Mitchell family business) And nowhere near where Ms Lean bides, which is what is classed as the 'top of Mayfield'. And very much uphill. (top) To the right of this family business is a petrol station. To the right of the petrol station, a minute or twos walk is the start of this complex. It takes a 3/4 minutes to get to this garage from AW's house and little less to be in this complex. It takes around 5mins to walk through this complex to reach Morris R'd where the high school is. Is takes less than 2mins to reach the junction of these paths - Lady Path and RDP. The estimation given was around 10-15mins. The search party left Mayfield around 11.05pm. The call in the complex was 11.18pm. All downhill and they told of the brisk walk they were taking. Which take the search trio to being at the junction of the paths around 11.21. of that very brief discussion of meeting with LM and heading down RDP together.
And we have talk of the search trio stopping and waiting of deciding which path and of being dishonest. Of arguing? They reached the junction of these paths. Neither Kelly or JaJ - knew the path that led to Newbattle. AW did, she knew which one LM would be on. Remember here. This Junction is a path going down and one across (LP) There is no walking anywhere or waiting as such. The had stopped briefly. AW deciding it is down the way and they see LM coming up it. All pretty much happening at the same time - they walk to meet with him. Of shouting "who is that?" They were not considering a different path, there was slight confusion only with JaJ as she did not know these paths. To which path LM was on. Nothing more.
And their "claimed reasons for going straight to the path to look for Jodi do not stand up to scrutiny?" MM, Ms Leans scrutiny, well that is hardly surprising? - we know with this simple choice of words alone - that the family made it perfectly clear why they were heading to the path - to meet with LM. And of course those phone logs - which are on par with the missing one to the aunt from AW's - which Ms Lean has used in a disingenuous fashion - to disperse doubt upon this families honesty - why? To cover up LM's lies. To draw attention away from LM still being on RDP.
I know the timings section of the book is very confusing, but the 11.18 call is disputed, both in where the search trio was when it was answered and what was said in the call. In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes. Allowing a couple of minutes extra for the discussion when the trio met with Luke at the junction of the path (no more than 2 minutes, according to the statements) and another couple of minutes for the slower walk in the darkness (all of the statements referred to the slow pace), the return journey down the path required at least 11 minutes. If the trio were in the "complex" at 11.18, they would not have reached the junction of the paths until 11.23 - add the 11 minutes required to get to the V point and the time is 11.34 - almost the exact time Luke called 999 the first time. But there's no time for the three members of the search party climbing over the wall, one at a time, finding Jodi, getting back to the V point and climbing back over etc. Even allowing 2 minutes each (and all of the searchers spoke of the struggle AW had getting over the wall, so it's likely to be more than that), the first 999 call would have to be around 11.40pm, based on these timings (which are, in turn, based on the search trio's own statements). That's after the police call back to Luke. There's a lot to take in about this aspect of the case - might be better as a stand alone question!
the return journey down the path required at least 11 minutes. If the trio were in the "complex" at 11.18, they would not have reached the junction of the paths until 11.23 - add the 11 minutes required to get to the V point and the time is 11.34.
Why did the search trio stop at the junction of the paths? If, as Alice originally claimed, they intended to meet Luke "halfway," why stop and wait? The argument that they were trying to decide between Roan's Dyke and Lady Path also undermines Alice's claim that they planned to meet Luke "halfway" - why would they consider a different path if the plan was to meet up with him on Roan's Dyke path. Clearly, these claims about an arrangement to meet Luke were dishonest.
At 23:00, Judith was talking to Luke - she hadn't called her mother back yet, her mother hadn't told her to call the police yet and, when she did call her mother back, it was on Alice's landline, so Alice had to still be in her own house after 23.00
The family search trio's account of their movements that evening, and their claimed reasons for going straight to the path to look for Jodi do not stand up to scrutiny - according to phone logs, etc, when compared to statements from the search trio and other members of Jodi's family, the search trio arrived at the start of the path before they actually set out to search, and, by their own admissions, they headed for an area they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening, having been told explicitly that she was expected to be in the opposite direction entirely, and an area which they tried to claim jodi was not allowed to use, and would not have used alone. (At the time they made these claims, they were of the opinion that Jodi had not been with Luke that night, so they had no reason to believe that, had she been on the path with someone, that someone was Luke Mitchell.
We can see clearly the ample time this search trio had to get to RDP. We know there is absolutely nothing that puts them anywhere else, that AW had spoken with her daughter, several times on her landline. We can see clearly from what Ms Lean states, that this search party had told exactly of what had happened. That she attempts to disperse doubt upon this by way of missing phone logs. By attempting to add the maximum times on to take us 6mins over. - What she is not doing is explaining why LM was prepped and ready for the off. Of why he was on/at this path by 10.59pm. Of why he was still on this path by 11.20pm - when she and his mother clearly state. "he wanted up and off this path as quickly as possible" "that he was fit and fast". - Well, he may have been fast - but he was still on this path, but it completely wipes out these claims of looking. And we do not know if LM was home when that text came through - and we do know without a shadow of a doubt - that LM lied about everything. - So this scraping, these attempts to show that this search parties account, had to be false, as Ms lean pushes a whole 6mins onto the time, to the emergency services. -And she clearly attempts to bring this search party to RDP to tie in with LM reaching the top, at the time he should have - not the search trio.
And of this trio reaching the path before they had actually headed out to search? - Confused, I am? - And it is hardly surprising one tangles themselves in knots - when one is clearly attempting to match witness testimony, to the wrong phone logs or ignores the phone logs completely? - And of heading to an area that, that "by their own admission they headed to an area that they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening" - What a tangled web of blatant deceit. Jodi Jones left her house to meet with LM. LM from the off claimed that she was to be going to Newbattle. That she failed to turn up. That he was on RDP looking for her. That he led the search trio to this very path, on this basis. - It could not be any clearer - (Occam's Razor) This girls family were led to this path by LM. They were led directly to her body by LM. - This family did not have time to think of "up here" - their thoughts, in their worry - completely overtaken with LM's claims. She left to meet with him and that they did not meet - In Newbattle.
-
We have to this point discussed those irrelevant phone calls and the such - which have given room to some pretty extraordinary assumptions. Of attempting to tie LM's version of what happened in this search with that of Jodi's family. Of Ignoring the testimony he gave to bring him back to this V - rather than where he clearly stated, in which he was, without a shadow of a doubt lying. He never claimed to be at this V whilst the search trio always had. Now we move onto the meet. Of Ms Lean attempting to tie the search trio in with LM's version of events. That he had been on/at this path by 10.59pm. That it takes on average around 11mins to walk this path. Therefore she attempts to bring the search trio onto this path by this time. Thus stating they could not have left Mayfield around 11.05pm when JuJ had phoned her mothers landline. And of confusion as to when AW knew that Judith had phoned the police, and of letting her mother know that LM was on RDP. And of this search trio being in the complex at 11.18pm. And of them heading to meet with LM on RDP. What is prominent in what I am going to put up from Ms Lean - is 6mins by her timings that would take the call to the emergency services up to 11.40pm, rather than when it was made at 11.34pm. And of that use of phone logs not tying with the witness accounts - Which has her stating that they were being dishonest - I know, pretty dam ironic is it not?
I view it as malicious
She has used similar tactics for years
-
We can see clearly the ample time this search trio had to get to RDP. We know there is absolutely nothing that puts them anywhere else, that AW had spoken with her daughter, several times on her landline. We can see clearly from what Ms Lean states, that this search party had told exactly of what had happened. That she attempts to disperse doubt upon this by way of missing phone logs. By attempting to add the maximum times on to take us 6mins over. - What she is not doing is explaining why LM was prepped and ready for the off. Of why he was on/at this path by 10.59pm. Of why he was still on this path by 11.20pm - when she and his mother clearly state. "he wanted up and off this path as quickly as possible" "that he was fit and fast". - Well, he may have been fast - but he was still on this path, but it completely wipes out these claims of looking. And we do not know if LM was home when that text came through - and we do know without a shadow of a doubt - that LM lied about everything. - So this scraping, these attempts to show that this search parties account, had to be false, as Ms lean pushes a whole 6mins onto the time, to the emergency services. -And she clearly attempts to bring this search party to RDP to tie in with LM reaching the top, at the time he should have - not the search trio.
Based on what has been said on this in the past it appears Luke Mitchell wasn’t in his house when he received the text message from JuJ - to Jodi - telling her to say goodnight to Luke
So where was he and what was he doing?
At 10.00pm Luke was seen by his neighbour returning home
Returning home from where?
There has only ever been mention of an alleged ‘5 minute’ dog walk (Corinne to James English) - so what time did he take Mia out for a walk and where did Luke go on this walk?
-
And of this trio reaching the path before they had actually headed out to search? - Confused, I am? - And it is hardly surprising one tangles themselves in knots - when one is clearly attempting to match witness testimony, to the wrong phone logs or ignores the phone logs completely? - And of heading to an area that, that "by their own admission they headed to an area that they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening" - What a tangled web of blatant deceit. Jodi Jones left her house to meet with LM. LM from the off claimed that she was to be going to Newbattle. That she failed to turn up. That he was on RDP looking for her. That he led the search trio to this very path, on this basis. - It could not be any clearer - (Occam's Razor) This girls family were led to this path by LM. They were led directly to her body by LM. - This family did not have time to think of "up here" - their thoughts, in their worry - completely overtaken with LM's claims. She left to meet with him and that they did not meet - In Newbattle.
What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?
15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’
1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial
‘We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.
Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”
Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”
-
What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?
15th November 2010 - Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’
⬆️ Mixed messages ⬇️
November 2010
‘Incident’ between Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton - Middleton moved back to Shetland
⬇️
23rd November 2010
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383377.html?PHPSESSID=dvneetci1lddlqb21ie9g1l694#msg383377
8th Feb 2011 - Sandra Leans youngest daughter
‘I have been keeping an eye on whats going on on forums, and my mum's facebook page. I would like to speak to you, person to person[/i]’
9th Feb 2011 - Sandra Lean
‘Your partnership with John is as transparent as it is dangerous for you, but you will be unable to see that what I am saying is out of concern. I have worked very hard, for a very long time, to be able to do what I do, and I will not stand by and let you trash that’[/i].
-
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”
"than simply admit we got it wrong"
What is truly abhorrent around Simon's case - Not only for his victim for the family left behind. That once his fight had been lost, that only then was he overcome with guilt in all that he had done. That upon admitting his guilt, and of subsequently taken his life - Is Ms Leans point blank refusal In accepting this guilt. Of every part she played in this and of all she said. Of her simply admitting, she got it wrong. This man did not kill himself through innocence, if he had simply given up - it would have been this message he put out, not of admitting his guilt. -That is the stark reality, and yet she still strives to attempt to disperse doubt. - of blaming the system, of laying blame with others but not upon herself. Of this "we do not know the circumstances" - The circumstance were, that SH was not going to gain his freedom from the crime in which he was guilty of. That it was this guilt that made him confess and end his life.
She has gotten the LM case demonstrably wrong. - Whatever thoughts, whatever manipulation used in those attempts, to stick to her guns from day dot. Of the total pigs ear she has made and the power struggle she has had - upon having those defence case notes placed in her hands. Of that desperate need to be proven right - of manipulating others on board? To hear what she has to say, to plant her questions into their heads. - all based upon wrongful premise?
We know the legal and professional side - the argument for human rights and so forth - The rest of the deciphering, the scrutiny of what she holds - has developed into fantasy. Of using these innocent people in the most appalling manner. And I will highlight these aunts yet again. For every wrongful discussion, for every piece of wrongful accusations placed upon their heads. On the simple basis of irrelevance - That DF chose not to have the actual phone log, of AW's call to her daughter, in his defence of LM V HMA. And we can see clearly from here - of how easy and at will she uses information such as this - across the board. That half of what has been put out, is on the total basis of the factual irrelevance it holds.
Of using the non erection of a tent at the locus - which has gave way to putting the most appalling blame upon the police for all and everything. Of showing this clear error and using it to build upon. Of LM being segregated. Nonsense - LM was sitting with the others, cadging fags and the such, after he had been asked by the police to show them where. Happily texting away on his phone. He and Ms Lean uses this being asked to go over the wall - to incriminate him, to leave his DNA behind. Do they not? - this ludicrous, obtuse thinking. That the police had it in for him from that moment? - Certainly taken note of how he was, his demeanor and the like. Of being whisked away to Dalkeith police station - nonsense. LM still had his phone long before he was taken to Dalkeith police station, and was in his possession when he scrubbed the rest of the data. Around 12.30am. LM was still at RDP at this point. As were the others. And he still had the phone when he eventually was taken to Dalkeith police station - for easy access and location for his mother. He was not stripped of his clothing. He was asked for it. - all of this guilt and suspicion placed upon his head - came from him and from this author. Their thoughts in the mind of the guilty. He suspected everything the police were doing, towards him - as he was guilty and this is what was playing in his head. - Not what was actually./factually happening.
And of this crime scene management. It is dark, it is unfamiliar territory to the police and the emergency services. It is by no means an easy locus to manage. We are being forced to zone in on the negative. Of not erecting a tent, of this obese coroner. Of items being moved and a body being "rolled" - Of bleaching the scene - Stop for a moment and think. This is Ms Leans deciphering remember - this person who has opened up possibilities of Jodi being murdered elsewhere - as nowhere near 5 1/2 litres of blood, was recovered from the crime scene?? - - Not the ground, the wall and so forth. This woodland with wet soil after heavy bouts of rain. Over the course of this evening up until the police attended at the scene. Of showing us that she knows how the crime scene looked prior to moving anything - which tells us clearly, as at trial that photographs were taken - prior to movement, prior to branches being cut back - to allow for the videographer equipment. We know that advice would have been given and acted upon. From the obese coroner until the second one arrived - not in our favour to show us this however, as it would show a completely different account of what is being pushed out. We know CD remarked upon how fine the crime scene was managed - he did not say this falsely and he did not fold under DF's scrutiny. This dark strip of woodland. Who knows what evidence lay amongst it. The one clear area that had already been accessed was via this V, and down that very narrow passage on the inside of this wall - It is ludicrous to suggest, that they should have trampled everywhere in the dark - attempting to access elsewhere - it needed cordoned off, and it needed preserved. "Rolled" indeed. We know the injuries this girl sustained - she was not rolled anywhere. Carefully place upon sheeting yes. Respectively. To preserve evidence, of which we are given no indication of instructions given, to do so. - No tent thus everything else must have been done wrongly? - What we do know, is that whatever actions were taken - were taken with preservation in mind. - We know there was already shelter, from the trees, that large Oak LM described and of the wall itself. - Lots of things to consider, outwith a tent, an obese coroner and gaining access elsewhere - which would have potentially done more harm than
-
"than simply admit we got it wrong"
What is truly abhorrent around Simon's case - Not only for his victim for the family left behind. That once his fight had been lost, that only then was he overcome with guilt in all that he had done. That upon admitting his guilt, and of subsequently taken his life - Is Ms Leans point blank refusal In accepting this guilt. Of every part she played in this and of all she said. Of her simply admitting, she got it wrong. This man did not kill himself through innocence, if he had simply given up - it would have been this message he put out, not of admitting his guilt. -That is the stark reality, and yet she still strives to attempt to disperse doubt. - of blaming the system, of laying blame with others but not upon herself. Of this "we do not know the circumstances" - The circumstance were, that SH was not going to gain his freedom from the crime in which he was guilty of. That it was this guilt that made him confess and end his life.
Simon Hall brutally murdered JA - the women who lost her life at his hands - but by choosing to not admit his guilt Hall created further victims. Some people were prepared to lie for him - including his mother and brother - not dissimilar to the Mitchell’s.
It’s unlikely Hall’s confession was grounded in ‘guilt’ per se, especially given the fact his guilt was already being exposed by those who knew him around the time he murdered.
Killers confess for various reasons and it can be linked to having the power and control of any given situation.
Sandra Lean made a conscious choice to continue with the Luke Mitchell campaign
”The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
But there won’t be any ‘independent inquiry’ because many people are seeing through this charade.
Although it’s not really a ‘charade’ - it’s been thought over in great detail hasn’t it and some ideas have clearly stemmed from the various other cases/campaigns over the years *&^^&
He suspected everything the police were doing, towards him - as he was guilty and this is what was playing in his head. - Not what was actually./factually happening.
Of course he knew. He attempted to out smart everyone, from the search party to the police - who he ‘never did trust’
Why not?
Why did this 14 year old going on 15 never trust the police?
Where did this come from?
I suspect for Sandra Lean to simply admit she ‘got it wrong’ it may be too much for her ego
-
"than simply admit we got it wrong"
What is truly abhorrent around Simon's case - Not only for his victim for the family left behind. That once his fight had been lost, that only then was he overcome with guilt in all that he had done. That upon admitting his guilt, and of subsequently taken his life - Is Ms Leans point blank refusal In accepting this guilt. Of every part she played in this and of all she said. Of her simply admitting, she got it wrong. This man did not kill himself through innocence, if he had simply given up - it would have been this message he put out, not of admitting his guilt. -That is the stark reality, and yet she still strives to attempt to disperse doubt. - of blaming the system, of laying blame with others but not upon herself. Of this "we do not know the circumstances" - The circumstance were, that SH was not going to gain his freedom from the crime in which he was guilty of. That it was this guilt that made him confess and end his life.
She has gotten the LM case demonstrably wrong. - Whatever thoughts, whatever manipulation used in those attempts, to stick to her guns from day dot. Of the total pigs ear she has made and the power struggle she has had - upon having those defence case notes placed in her hands. Of that desperate need to be proven right - of manipulating others on board? To hear what she has to say, to plant her questions into their heads. - all based upon wrongful premise?
We know the legal and professional side - the argument for human rights and so forth - The rest of the deciphering, the scrutiny of what she holds - has developed into fantasy. Of using these innocent people in the most appalling manner. And I will highlight these aunts yet again. For every wrongful discussion, for every piece of wrongful accusations placed upon their heads. On the simple basis of irrelevance - That DF chose not to have the actual phone log, of AW's call to her daughter, in his defence of LM V HMA. And we can see clearly from here - of how easy and at will she uses information such as this - across the board. That half of what has been put out, is on the total basis of the factual irrelevance it holds.
Of using the non erection of a tent at the locus - which has gave way to putting the most appalling blame upon the police for all and everything. Of showing this clear error and using it to build upon. Of LM being segregated. Nonsense - LM was sitting with the others, cadging fags and the such, after he had been asked by the police to show them where. Happily texting away on his phone. He and Ms Lean uses this being asked to go over the wall - to incriminate him, to leave his DNA behind. Do they not? - this ludicrous, obtuse thinking. That the police had it in for him from that moment? - Certainly taken note of how he was, his demeanor and the like. Of being whisked away to Dalkeith police station - nonsense. LM still had his phone long before he was taken to Dalkeith police station, and was in his possession when he scrubbed the rest of the data. Around 12.30am. LM was still at RDP at this point. As were the others. And he still had the phone when he eventually was taken to Dalkeith police station - for easy access and location for his mother. He was not stripped of his clothing. He was asked for it. - all of this guilt and suspicion placed upon his head - came from him and from this author. Their thoughts in the mind of the guilty. He suspected everything the police were doing, towards him - as he was guilty and this is what was playing in his head. - Not what was actually./factually happening.
And of this crime scene management. It is dark, it is unfamiliar territory to the police and the emergency services. It is by no means an easy locus to manage. We are being forced to zone in on the negative. Of not erecting a tent, of this obese coroner. Of items being moved and a body being "rolled" - Of bleaching the scene - Stop for a moment and think. This is Ms Leans deciphering remember - this person who has opened up possibilities of Jodi being murdered elsewhere - as nowhere near 5 1/2 litres of blood, was recovered from the crime scene?? - - Not the ground, the wall and so forth. This woodland with wet soil after heavy bouts of rain. Over the course of this evening up until the police attended at the scene. Of showing us that she knows how the crime scene looked prior to moving anything - which tells us clearly, as at trial that photographs were taken - prior to movement, prior to branches being cut back - to allow for the videographer equipment. We know that advice would have been given and acted upon. From the obese coroner until the second one arrived - not in our favour to show us this however, as it would show a completely different account of what is being pushed out. We know CD remarked upon how fine the crime scene was managed - he did not say this falsely and he did not fold under DF's scrutiny. This dark strip of woodland. Who knows what evidence lay amongst it. The one clear area that had already been accessed was via this V, and down that very narrow passage on the inside of this wall - It is ludicrous to suggest, that they should have trampled everywhere in the dark - attempting to access elsewhere - it needed cordoned off, and it needed preserved. "Rolled" indeed. We know the injuries this girl sustained - she was not rolled anywhere. Carefully place upon sheeting yes. Respectively. To preserve evidence, of which we are given no indication of instructions given, to do so. - No tent thus everything else must have been done wrongly? - What we do know, is that whatever actions were taken - were taken with preservation in mind. - We know there was already shelter, from the trees, that large Oak LM described and of the wall itself. - Lots of things to consider, outwith a tent, an obese coroner and gaining access elsewhere - which would have potentially done more harm than
Initially I was seduced by the "botched" crime scene. But on reflection I think the best that could have been done was to try to preserve as much of the scene as possible and the only way was to stay off it until it was light enough to see what was underfoot.
The crime scene had already been compromised by civilians led to it by Mitchell so no point in making it worse by walking all over it in the dark.
-
"The circumstance were, that SH was not going to gain his freedom from the crime in which he was guilty of. That it was this guilt that made him confess and end his life.
Simon Hall talked of his fantasies of committing further murders upon his release from prison.
Did Hall fantasise about committing murder before his fantasy became reality in December 2001? I suspect it’s very possible he did.
Did Luke Mitchell fantasise about committing murder before he carried out his deadly crimes?
What was it about satanism which appealed to him - a 14 year old? Unless he was younger when he first showed an interest?
Did Luke Mitchell wet the bed regularly as he was growing up? Bed wetting is one of the behaviours to look out for using the ‘Macdonald triad’ apparently https://www.healthline.com/health/macdonald-triad#accuracy
Would Corinne or Philip Mitchell have been aware of what warning signs to look out for in their child’s behaviour?
-
Initially I was seduced by the "botched" crime scene. But on reflection I think the best that could have been done was to try to preserve as much of the scene as possible and the only way was to stay off it until it was light enough to see what was underfoot.
The crime scene had already been compromised by civilians led to it by Mitchell so no point in making it worse by walking all over it in the dark.
The poor child’s body lay naked uncovered in the rain all night. Where was the dignity in that? Imagine it was your daughter?
-
The poor child’s body lay naked uncovered in the rain all night. Where was the dignity in that? Imagine it was your daughter?
Dignity?
Luke Mitchell murdered then mutilated [Name removed]’s body after he killed her!
-
The poor child’s body lay naked uncovered in the rain all night.
Can you show us a sketch of the crime scene as it was on that night and show us where and how a tent could have been erected?
-
Dignity?
Luke Mitchell murdered then mutilated [Name removed]’s body after he killed her!
Even if that was true does that mean that it didn’t matter that Jodi’s body had more indignity heaped on it?
-
Even if that was true does that mean that it didn’t matter that Jodi’s body had more indignity heaped on it?
What is undignified is using this girls death to score some very invalid points towards the police handling of the crime scene. What is undignified is using words such as "rolling the body". What is undignified is using this poor girls dead body as a tool - to beat the police with. What is undignified is making claim to 10 different profiles of DNA, from sperm or semen, with the implication pushed out that it came from 10 different males!? - that it was virtually all over this poor girls dead body. Now we see this as being 5 different males!? - What is totally undignified is the way in which the books are written - that then give cause to people vying about - to see who gang raped her and so forth, of incest and every other piece of vile comments - Turning this poor girls murder by her boyfriend into every horrendous act under the sun - these are the type of things that are undignified - They stem from this very author. Who took no time to do any research - who makes claim to the results being botched up due to the female element of DNA being in semen. - By the very means of manipulating those results. to make them into something they are not - Jodi's death, the horrendous undignified way in which she was murdered. left naked and so forth by her boyfriend - to her poor family having to then see her like this, the impact and shock upon them. And of the police, the emergency services and the pathologist - That is what you class as undignified.
Not your irrational and completely invalid claims - due to no tent being erected. You, and all else who feed from this book, of it's completely undignified handling of this girls very sad death - are a disgrace. Jodi Jones, who we hear of as this lovely young girl. her whole life ahead of her. Was brutally murdered by her boyfriend. And again by these very books and so forth - Has had her family torn to shreds - with these claims of incest and abuse and of murdering her - that is undignified.
-
What is undignified is using this girls death to score some very invalid points towards the police handling of the crime scene. What is undignified is using words such as "rolling the body". What is undignified is using this poor girls dead body as a tool - to beat the police with. What is undignified is making claim to 10 different profiles of DNA, from sperm or semen, with the implication pushed out that it came from 10 different males!? - that it was virtually all over this poor girls dead body. Now we see this as being 5 different males!? - What is totally undignified is the way in which the books are written - that then give cause to people vying about - to see who gang raped her and so forth, of incest and every other piece of vile comments - Turning this poor girls murder by her boyfriend into every horrendous act under the sun - these are the type of things that are undignified - They stem from this very author. Who took no time to do any research - who makes claim to the results being botched up due to the female element of DNA being in semen. - By the very means of manipulating those results. to make them into something they are not - Jodi's death, the horrendous undignified way in which she was murdered. left naked and so forth by her boyfriend - to her poor family having to then see her like this, the impact and shock upon them. And of the police, the emergency services and the pathologist - That is what you class as undignified.
Not your irrational and completely invalid claims - due to no tent being erected. You, and all else who feed from this book, of it's completely undignified handling of this girls very sad death - are a disgrace. Jodi Jones, who we hear of as this lovely young girl. her whole life ahead of her. Was brutally murdered by her boyfriend. And again by these very books and so forth - Has had her family torn to shreds - with these claims of incest and abuse and of murdering her - that is undignified.
What claims of incest and abuse?
-
What is undignified is using this girls death to score some very invalid points towards the police handling of the crime scene. What is undignified is using words such as "rolling the body". What is undignified is using this poor girls dead body as a tool - to beat the police with. What is undignified is making claim to 10 different profiles of DNA, from sperm or semen, with the implication pushed out that it came from 10 different males!? - that it was virtually all over this poor girls dead body. Now we see this as being 5 different males!? - What is totally undignified is the way in which the books are written - that then give cause to people vying about - to see who gang raped her and so forth, of incest and every other piece of vile comments - Turning this poor girls murder by her boyfriend into every horrendous act under the sun - these are the type of things that are undignified - They stem from this very author. Who took no time to do any research - who makes claim to the results being botched up due to the female element of DNA being in semen. - By the very means of manipulating those results. to make them into something they are not - Jodi's death, the horrendous undignified way in which she was murdered. left naked and so forth by her boyfriend - to her poor family having to then see her like this, the impact and shock upon them. And of the police, the emergency services and the pathologist - That is what you class as undignified.
Not your irrational and completely invalid claims - due to no tent being erected. You, and all else who feed from this book, of it's completely undignified handling of this girls very sad death - are a disgrace. Jodi Jones, who we hear of as this lovely young girl. her whole life ahead of her. Was brutally murdered by her boyfriend. And again by these very books and so forth - Has had her family torn to shreds - with these claims of incest and abuse and of murdering her - that is undignified.
Sandra Lean’s behaviour is abhorrent
-
What is undignified is using this girls death to score some very invalid points towards the police handling of the crime scene. What is undignified is using words such as "rolling the body". What is undignified is using this poor girls dead body as a tool - to beat the police with. What is undignified is making claim to 10 different profiles of DNA, from sperm or semen, with the implication pushed out that it came from 10 different males!? - that it was virtually all over this poor girls dead body. Now we see this as being 5 different males!? - What is totally undignified is the way in which the books are written - that then give cause to people vying about - to see who gang raped her and so forth, of incest and every other piece of vile comments - Turning this poor girls murder by her boyfriend into every horrendous act under the sun - these are the type of things that are undignified - They stem from this very author. Who took no time to do any research - who makes claim to the results being botched up due to the female element of DNA being in semen. - By the very means of manipulating those results. to make them into something they are not - Jodi's death, the horrendous undignified way in which she was murdered. left naked and so forth by her boyfriend - to her poor family having to then see her like this, the impact and shock upon them. And of the police, the emergency services and the pathologist - That is what you class as undignified.
Not your irrational and completely invalid claims - due to no tent being erected. You, and all else who feed from this book, of it's completely undignified handling of this girls very sad death - are a disgrace. Jodi Jones, who we hear of as this lovely young girl. her whole life ahead of her. Was brutally murdered by her boyfriend. And again by these very books and so forth - Has had her family torn to shreds - with these claims of incest and abuse and of murdering her - that is undignified.
Aren’t you doing exactly what you accuse me of...using a poor child’s death scene to score points against not the police but obviously someone you clearly despise?
No matter who killed her, whether Luke, someone known to her or an opportunist killer Jodi, in death, deserved to be treated with far more dignity than she was. I have read of many murders where the body was discovered at night and I have never heard of a body laying uncovered for the length of time Jodi’s did, except where incompetence played a part.
I really can’t fathom anyone’s mentality who thinks leaving a young girl’s mutilated body uncovered for the time it was can be justified in any way. The lack of consideration shown to Jodi and her family by L&B’s police that night will leave a stain on their reputation that can never be erased.
-
I have never heard of a body laying uncovered for the length of time Jodi’s did, except where incompetence played a part.
What was said about this during the trial?
-
Aren’t you doing exactly what you accuse me of...using a poor child’s death scene to score points against not the police but obviously someone you clearly despise?
No matter who killed her, whether Luke, someone known to her or an opportunist killer Jodi, in death, deserved to be treated with far more dignity than she was. I have read of many murders where the body was discovered at night and I have never heard of a body laying uncovered for the length of time Jodi’s did, except where incompetence played a part.
I really can’t fathom anyone’s mentality who thinks leaving a young girl’s mutilated body uncovered for the time it was can be justified in any way. The lack of consideration shown to Jodi and her family by L&B’s police that night will leave a stain on their reputation that can never be erased.
Predictive and indicative response yet again - However, two things here. These comments around the handling of the crime scene by this non erecting of a tent is on the basis of preserving evidence. Introducing indignity into leaving this girl uncovered for hours are cheap shots towards the police. Nothing more. Used to make people gasp. Jodi was in a woodland, not in some public thoroughfare with eyes everywhere. She was not exposed to anyone. Other than her poor family and those few people who had to witness what LM had done to her. If we are talking loss of evidence - this is fine, but not bringing in dignity to score points.
And they are cheap shots - In one hand making Jodi the person she was to use against the police and in the other hand talking of "rolling the body". These are your words, and Ms Leans - using them in these false claims of undignified handling by the police - to disperse disgust upon them - the disgust is in the people using them. And utterly ironic. For this author and those who take on board what she says and repeats - by means of manipulation to paint this murder into something it was not. For her to sit back - say "make of that what you will" - Watch the discussion around it - and not to intervene, not to correct - when people are discussing rape and all else. For that is exactly what people are making of her information - and it is wrong. And if you defend it - then ?.
And this nonsense of spite and all else - more cheap tactics. Why? because one is not bowled over and in love with all Ms Lean does? I will repeat again, I make no bones over Ms Lean. - had some spats with her over on another forum, pushed a few buttons to get the answers I was seeking, worked a treat. I find what she has done/does completely false - and overtly ironic. Considering the person/people she is defending. She has told blatant lies, she has then tried to pass the buck onto others - namely JF of all people? - more irony. Blame the liar for her own lies? - When I picked her up on this, guess what? - she told me she had another source for her lies? As I had pointed out to her the irony of believing the very person she makes heaps of assumptions upon, due to lies? - think we call it 'worming' out of being caught. She swiftly removed those comments because she breached herself into troubled waters - by claiming it was in JF's statement. oops! Another lie?
Revolving doors - lies to cover up lies and more needed to keep on covering. -some of her followers, ironically use "truth" quotes - Is that why we have LM's statements being morphed to match others? - completely transformed.
They did not erect a tent. Neither you nor anyone else know the correct context and circumstances around this. We all know and expect this basic protocol - But we do not know the ins and outs of this particular case, reasons a s to why. - What we do know is the repetitive assumption from that missing 99% in this area.
-
Predictive and indicative response yet again - However, two things here. These comments around the handling of the crime scene by this non erecting of a tent is on the basis of preserving evidence. Introducing indignity into leaving this girl uncovered for hours are cheap shots towards the police. Nothing more. Used to make people gasp. Jodi was in a woodland, not in some public thoroughfare with eyes everywhere. She was not exposed to anyone. Other than her poor family and those few people who had to witness what LM had done to her. If we are talking loss of evidence - this is fine, but not bringing in dignity to score points.
And they are cheap shots - In one hand making Jodi the person she was to use against the police and in the other hand talking of "rolling the body". These are your words, and Ms Leans - using them in these false claims of undignified handling by the police - to disperse disgust upon them - the disgust is in the people using them. And utterly ironic. For this author and those who take on board what she says and repeats - by means of manipulation to paint this murder into something it was not. For her to sit back - say "make of that what you will"
She often says this with a smile, or smirk (Or smugness) on her face too - have you noticed that
-
I find what she has done/does completely false - and overtly ironic. Considering the person/people she is defending. She has told blatant lies, she has then tried to pass the buck onto others - namely JF of all people? - more irony. Blame the liar for her own lies? - When I picked her up on this, guess what? - she told me she had another source for her lies? As I had pointed out to her the irony of believing the very person she makes heaps of assumptions upon, due to lies? - think we call it 'worming' out of being caught. She swiftly removed those comments because she breached herself into troubled waters - by claiming it was in JF's statement. oops! Another lie?
I recall one of these ⬇️
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.
I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.
[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
Dr Sandra Lean:
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that [Name removed]'s statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that ([Name removed]'s statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]
Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path? The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.
[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
Dr Sandra Lean
Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John [Name removed] said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]
-
What claims of incest and abuse?
From people over time that I have read on these forums. Stemming from their 'take' on Ms Leans 'take' of the information she holds. Of the information she has and adds to. Of comments of late - "there was five of them, cotter was the lookout" - four being SK, JF,GD and this girls brother - Cotter being JaF. - Scandalous, can we blame them? - And of the condom 'wi Jodies dna aw over the ootside o it' and "knock knock ya beastie b........s" These people adding up Ms Leans wrongful information, her bad stitching , then these others stitching even more - that old saying of 'don't shoot the messenger' - really? She is after all, just putting the information out there?
You said you had read forums. Gordo and incest. - Only recently talking of Jodi's brother getting sent after her? People with some sense do ask the correct questions - the reality of Jodi being followed by a family member and going unnoticed - Ms Lean has been out for this girls family for years has she not?, on the basis of what exactly? Is it personal, due to him arriving at her door one day - whilst Mr Middleton was hiding behind it? - some form of twisted revenge? For it is certainly not down to evidence. One can not scrub the evidence (as much as she feels the SCCRC should have, with her MK's and parkas) against LM by invention of others. And it is invention - innuendo and very much a modern day witch hunt. - It really does make one think - of why? And of LM on that path that evening. Does he blame this girls family for not having something to scent, with them?
Does LM blame Jodi? for causing his actions that day? - is he out to get her family for this? Using whatever puppets he can - namely Ms Lean and his mother and all else who readily jump on board. Certainly something highly suspect - and it is not these others.
-
For this author and those who take on board what she says and repeats - by means of manipulation to paint this murder into something it was not. For her to sit back - say "make of that what you will" - Watch the discussion around it - and not to intervene, not to correct - when people are discussing rape and all else. For that is exactly what people are making of her information - and it is wrong. And if you defend it - then ?.
Her poem reminds me a little of Michael Naughton’s
Sandra Lean - 9th Feb 2021
I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear
It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”
Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame
So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.
Sandra Lean
I'd never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition DW. How they have the time and energy is beyond me!
DW: I h had people that I have been on good terms with suddenly start accusing me of things that I hadn't said or done, some people had been telling stories about me by getting a fact that was true and making up the rest so it sounded believable (sic)
Sandra Lean
‘Oh, yes, that's so impossible to deal with - had it so many times. One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there's no way to counter that - I don't even bother trying. The ones who pretend to be "friends" are the lowest of all.
These ⬆️ are Sandra Lean’s projections
-
Neither you nor anyone else know the correct context and circumstances around this.
No we don’t
And again to re-iterate - anything and everything Sandra Lean says or has said should be questioned - she cannot and should not be trusted
-
From people over time that I have read on these forums. Stemming from their 'take' on Ms Leans 'take' of the information she holds. Of the information she has and adds to. Of comments of late - "there was five of them, cotter was the lookout" - four being SK, JF,GD and this girls brother - Cotter being JaF. - Scandalous, can we blame them? - And of the condom 'wi Jodies dna aw over the ootside o it' and "knock knock ya beastie b........s" These people adding up Ms Leans wrongful information, her bad stitching , then these others stitching even more - that old saying of 'don't shoot the messenger' - really? She is after all, just putting the information out there?
You said you had read forums. Gordo and incest. - Only recently talking of Jodi's brother getting sent after her? People with some sense do ask the correct questions - the reality of Jodi being followed by a family member and going unnoticed - Ms Lean has been out for this girls family for years has she not?, on the basis of what exactly? Is it personal, due to him arriving at her door one day - whilst Mr Middleton was hiding behind it? - some form of twisted revenge? For it is certainly not down to evidence. One can not scrub the evidence (as much as she feels the SCCRC should have, with her MK's and parkas) against LM by invention of others. And it is invention - innuendo and very much a modern day witch hunt. - It really does make one think - of why? And of LM on that path that evening. Does he blame this girls family for not having something to scent, with them?
Does LM blame Jodi? for causing his actions that day? - is he out to get her family for this? Using whatever puppets he can - namely Ms Lean and his mother and all else who readily jump on board. Certainly something highly suspect - and it is not these others.
Ah, forums. Yes, I've read all sorts on forums, and yes, I've come across Gordo. In your previous post, you gave the impression that SL had accused people of incest and abuse in her books. She would probably have been sued for libel if she had done this. People get away with it on forums, because, for the most part, nobody knows who anyone else is. They do like to accuse each other of being certain people, of course.
I was reading a forum the other day, actually. One or two of the most unlikely people used to think Luke was innocent------------------, and, in addition, did not speak against Sandra Lean. Interesting, reading forums!
-
From people over time that I have read on these forums. Stemming from their 'take' on Ms Leans 'take' of the information she holds. Of the information she has and adds to. Of comments of late - "there was five of them, cotter was the lookout" - four being SK, JF,GD and this girls brother - Cotter being JaF. - Scandalous, can we blame them? - And of the condom 'wi Jodies dna aw over the ootside o it' and "knock knock ya beastie b........s" These people adding up Ms Leans wrongful information, her bad stitching , then these others stitching even more - that old saying of 'don't shoot the messenger' - really? She is after all, just putting the information out there?
I see Sandra Lean
As do many many others
-
Ms Lean has been out for this girls family for years has she not?, on the basis of what exactly? Is it personal, due to him arriving at her door one day - whilst Mr Middleton was hiding behind it?
It goes back before Sandra Lean had Billy Middleton move in with her and her daughter
Sandra made claim the family had tied sunflowers or a sunflower to a post on or near her road or house as if indicating to others they knew where she lived or something like that
-
It goes back before Sandra Lean had Billy Middleton move in with her and her daughter
Sandra made claim the family had tied sunflowers or a sunflower to a post on or near her road or house as if indicating to others they knew where she lived or something like that
SL was threatened by a member of the family.
If she doesn't believe Luke killed Jodi, she is going to wonder who did, and everyone knows that most victims of murder are killed by someone they know well.
Of course she is going to wonder whether a family member did it. So do many other people, from what I've been reading. So long as nobody names names, as far as I'm concerned, they can wonder all they like.
-
SL was threatened by a member of the family.
In my view Sandra Lean was in danger from Billy Middleton and it turned out she was
I don’t know what would have happened if her daughter hadn’t of intervened and sent him packing
-
From people over time that I have read on these forums. Stemming from their 'take' on Ms Leans 'take' of the information she holds. Of the information she has and adds to. Of comments of late - "there was five of them, cotter was the lookout" - four being SK, JF,GD and this girls brother - Cotter being JaF. - Scandalous, can we blame them? - And of the condom 'wi Jodies dna aw over the ootside o it' and "knock knock ya beastie b........s" These people adding up Ms Leans wrongful information, her bad stitching , then these others stitching even more - that old saying of 'don't shoot the messenger' - really? She is after all, just putting the information out there?
You said you had read forums. Gordo and incest. - Only recently talking of Jodi's brother getting sent after her? People with some sense do ask the correct questions - the reality of Jodi being followed by a family member and going unnoticed - Ms Lean has been out for this girls family for years has she not?, on the basis of what exactly? Is it personal, due to him arriving at her door one day - whilst Mr Middleton was hiding behind it? - some form of twisted revenge? For it is certainly not down to evidence. One can not scrub the evidence (as much as she feels the SCCRC should have, with her MK's and parkas) against LM by invention of others. And it is invention - innuendo and very much a modern day witch hunt. - It really does make one think - of why? And of LM on that path that evening. Does he blame this girls family for not having something to scent, with them?
Does LM blame Jodi? for causing his actions that day? - is he out to get her family for this? Using whatever puppets he can - namely Ms Lean and his mother and all else who readily jump on board. Certainly something highly suspect - and it is not these others.
And the allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Luke and Corrine?
-
Ah, forums. Yes, I've read all sorts on forums, and yes, I've come across Gordo. In your previous post, you gave the impression that SL had accused people of incest and abuse in her books. She would probably have been sued for libel if she had done this. People get away with it on forums, because, for the most part, nobody knows who anyone else is. They do like to accuse each other of being certain people, of course.
I was reading a forum the other day, actually. One or two of the most unlikely people used to think Luke was innocent------------------, and, in addition, did not speak against Sandra Lean. Interesting, reading forums!
Absolutely not - my post did not say or imply that at all - it was clear, that I was speaking about people making these claims upon taking on board Ms Leans information. That the way in which the information is given across leads into horrendous interpretation of it. - which is exactly the point , is it not? - And of these means being undignified to what had actually happened to Jodi Jones.
Of another discussion. That appeared to go of for some time. Could not quite grasp the beginning of the arms and legs - which stemmed from an ID of this stocky man some 9 weeks after Jodi's death. From a group of people whom all looked the same. The author pushing their information to the extreme, without actually saying the words. This type of manipulation that gave cause to - rightly so, of this girls funeral, which was of course 9 weeks after her death, and of a group of males dressed the same - black. - Where she makes sure those dots are joined correctly without spitting the actual words out. That fine line of liable. - To of course people then stating he was seen carrying this girls coffin, just in-case people were having difficulty joining the dots. Therefore it had to be someone very close to Jodi, if they were carrying her coffin. As it appeared some were having a little difficulty in pin pointing who the male could be?.
To which I pointed out, that any pictures I came across where of the people from the undertakers - as they were the ones carrying the coffin and not Jodi's family. To which Ms Lean then decided to make an appearance - To state clearly that she had never actually mentioned carrying the coffin? - But it was evident that this information, given behind closed doors had been blurted out, that it was hush hush, and that Ms Lean was trying to fix this. - that this witness who ID the stocky man had yet again been wrong. It was a false trail. To which one must use in the proper context in the first instance - The appeal for him, was on the basis of someone who may have seen Jodi as were the boys on the bike, as was the girl with the pushchair. Looking to locate, for further information and elimination if need be. - again an area of being led down that proverbial garden path. Where these highly trained professionals - had every piece of information on this. - But one needs something to distract away from LM, do they not?
It is using this type of tactic to disperse doubt, to distract away from yet again from LM. As with the bike at the V. The minute truthful part, as with above - of someone making a statement/given information - is used which was demonstrably wrong. The witness was someone from Basically Tool Hire. That they had given an indication of where on this path the bike may have been and "close to" this V was used. Whilst driving on the "Beeches". - morphed into a witness stating they saw this bike up against the wall at this V with no boys in sight. - Now Ms Lean knows this is impossible to see, from where they were and so forth - but due to having this small piece of information, the minute truthful part - then one can use this to push it across as something more sinister - to leave the reader thinking one thing only. -That this bike had been seen at this V, with no boys in sight - which is nonsense. Thus why I highlighted the irony in using this whilst on the other hand - Ms Lean states that the V is not easy to see, unless one knows what they are looking for? Whilst actually being on this very path itself - far less in a car, in a national speed limit zone - looking across an expansive field. Hundreds of yards away. - Where it is physically impossible to see this V. Not only at the distance, but behind the trees that are on the field side of this path - sheltering this very V. - it's ok thought is it not - these boys were liars anyway? easy meat to prey on?? As DF used the same tactic in trying to trip them up - by asking them why their bike was spotted at a stand still close to this V "I dunno" replied the rather dim JF. These boys did not, ever admit to their bike being riderless at any point unless they were pushing it, having a rest.They drove up and down this path and were home by 5.30pm. Barley on RDP and LP for around 20mins.
After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home.
-
And the allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Luke and Corrine?
What do you mean by ‘inappropriate’?
There certainly appeared to be boundary issues
Wasn’t it claimed Corinne turned up at the prison in a cropped top - exposing her mid drift ?
I’d call that behaviour ‘inappropriate’ especially for an all male prison
-
Ah, forums. Yes, I've read all sorts on forums, and yes, I've come across Gordo. In your previous post, you gave the impression that SL had accused people of incest and abuse in her books. She would probably have been sued for libel if she had done this. People get away with it on forums, because, for the most part, nobody knows who anyone else is. They do like to accuse each other of being certain people, of course.
I was reading a forum the other day, actually. One or two of the most unlikely people used to think Luke was innocent------------------, and, in addition, did not speak against Sandra Lean. Interesting, reading forums!
I don’t suppose you saw the photos of Billy Middleton when he dyed his hair all different colours in an alleged attempt to raise money for charity ?
We are still none the wiser as to where the money raised went
-
Of another discussion. That appeared to go of for some time. Could not quite grasp the beginning of the arms and legs - which stemmed from an ID of this stocky man some 9 weeks after Jodi's death. From a group of people whom all looked the same. The author pushing their information to the extreme, without actually saying the words. This type of manipulation that gave cause to - rightly so, of this girls funeral, which was of course 9 weeks after her death, and of a group of males dressed the same - black. - Where she makes sure those dots are joined correctly without spitting the actual words out. That fine line of liable. - To of course people then stating he was seen carrying this girls coffin, just in-case people were having difficulty joining the dots. Therefore it had to be someone very close to Jodi, if they were carrying her coffin. As it appeared some were having a little difficulty in pin pointing who the male could be?.
To which I pointed out, that any pictures I came across where of the people from the undertakers - as they were the ones carrying the coffin and not Jodi's family. To which Ms Lean then decided to make an appearance - To state clearly that she had never actually mentioned carrying the coffin? - But it was evident that this information, given behind closed doors had been blurted out, that it was hush hush, and that Ms Lean was trying to fix this. - that this witness who ID the stocky man had yet again been wrong. It was a false trail.
Snide
-
It is using this type of tactic to disperse doubt, to distract away from yet again from LM.
and to distract away from Sandra Lean
-
It is using this type of tactic to disperse doubt, to distract away from yet again from LM. As with the bike at the V. The minute truthful part, as with above - of someone making a statement/given information - is used which was demonstrably wrong. The witness was someone from Basically Tool Hire. That they had given an indication of where on this path the bike may have been and "close to" this V was used. Whilst driving on the "Beeches". - morphed into a witness stating they saw this bike up against the wall at this V with no boys in sight. - Now Ms Lean knows this is impossible to see, from where they were and so forth - but due to having this small piece of information, the minute truthful part - then one can use this to push it across as something more sinister - to leave the reader thinking one thing only. -That this bike had been seen at this V, with no boys in sight - which is nonsense.
I had conversations with Sandra Lean about Simon Hall’s case papers and of his innocence fraud campaign - following his suicide and spoke of how the witness statements can be and are manipulated to give an air of plausible deniability
I fell for it myself before I realised I’d been duped
As did Sandra Lean ⬇️
1st Jan 2011 - Sandra Lean - Conviction Upheld
“This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”
-
Predictive and indicative response yet again - However, two things here. These comments around the handling of the crime scene by this non erecting of a tent is on the basis of preserving evidence. Introducing indignity into leaving this girl uncovered for hours are cheap shots towards the police. Nothing more. Used to make people gasp. Jodi was in a woodland, not in some public thoroughfare with eyes everywhere. She was not exposed to anyone. Other than her poor family and those few people who had to witness what LM had done to her. If we are talking loss of evidence - this is fine, but not bringing in dignity to score points.
Not cheap shots, absolutely relevant and, yes, it should make people gasp. Yes, Jodi was in a woodland, lying on, with the rain that night, a bed of mud....for hours. What a terrible way to treat the body of a young girl who had been robbed of everything but a scintilla of dignity. BTW what was the reason for not erecting a tent?
And they are cheap shots - In one hand making Jodi the person she was to use against the police and in the other hand talking of "rolling the body". These are your words, and Ms Leans - using them in these false claims of undignified handling by the police - to disperse disgust upon them - the disgust is in the people using them. And utterly ironic. For this author and those who take on board what she says and repeats - by means of manipulation to paint this murder into something it was not. For her to sit back - say "make of that what you will" - Watch the discussion around it - and not to intervene, not to correct - when people are discussing rape and all else. For that is exactly what people are making of her information - and it is wrong. And if you defend it - then ?.
Is it just a lack of imagination or laziness that causes you to lump everyone who believe Luke is innocent together?
And this nonsense of spite and all else - more cheap tactics. Why? because one is not bowled over and in love with all Ms Lean does? I will repeat again, I make no bones over Ms Lean. - had some spats with her over on another forum, pushed a few buttons to get the answers I was seeking, worked a treat. I find what she has done/does completely false - and overtly ironic. Considering the person/people she is defending. She has told blatant lies, she has then tried to pass the buck onto others - namely JF of all people? - more irony. Blame the liar for her own lies? - When I picked her up on this, guess what? - she told me she had another source for her lies? As I had pointed out to her the irony of believing the very person she makes heaps of assumptions upon, due to lies? - think we call it 'worming' out of being caught. She swiftly removed those comments because she breached herself into troubled waters - by claiming it was in JF's statement. oops! Another lie?
I’m afraid I find the way you present information on this case every bit as opaque as Dr Lean. You both make claims you fail to provide evidence for. You really are just different sides of the same coin.
Revolving doors - lies to cover up lies and more needed to keep on covering. -some of her followers, ironically use "truth" quotes - Is that why we have LM's statements being morphed to match others? - completely transformed.
They did not erect a tent. Neither you nor anyone else know the correct context and circumstances around this. We all know and expect this basic protocol - But we do not know the ins and outs of this particular case, reasons a s to why. - What we do know is the repetitive assumption from that missing 99% in this area.
If you don’t know the context or circumstances of the non- erection of a tent then there is every chance it could well have been down to incompetence. In fact the moving of the body and bundling up of Jodi’s clothes suggests incompetence was the most likely explanation.
-
Those first statements, denied on oath by the protagonists, of Luke not ‘just going over the wall’, but of being lead there by his dog. Of SK’s observation of Luke’s dog ‘ pulling Luke to the wall’, suggesting that he was some way away from it. Of those lies under oath being the cornerstone of the Crown’s case. What a tawdry deception against a child.
“Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”
That was the truth, wasn’t it.. not this :
“ They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.”
Never that.
Of Mr Turnbull telling the jury that if the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.
But it wasn’t right, was it? It wasn’t consistent, was it?
‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’
That’s what Luke had also said, wasn’t it? That the dog had pulled him to the wall and started jumping just below the v. That’s consistent...that matched the first statements of those who lied under oath.
That cornerstone built on sand.
And that other cornerstone, the Andrina Bryson sighting. What of it ?
Certainly a very truthful witness, as most were at the beginning, and certainly sure of her actions in those first statements.
Of her children arriving home from school and immediately bundling them into the car for a trip to the supermarket at 4.05. Of the arrival of that supermarket at 4.15 and checkout at 4.45. Of her arrival in Easthouses at around 5.10 and, as she admitted later that she didn’t know Easthouses well, the search for the house for sale. Of having a quick look at the house and making her way back home. Of seeing the young couple at the entrance to the Roan’s Dyke path at 5.45 and finally her arrival home at around 5.50...gauging this by a phone call from her husband.
Of her categorical repudiation that the youth she saw had been wearing a parka. ‘Most like it ‘ was as far as she’d admit and even then that she’d pointed out the differences to the police at the time.
And of the bungled identification which broke all the rules.
Of course there was the bank statement bearing a different time than than that of Andrina’s supermarket receipt, held aloft by the prosecution like the correct answers to some confusing puzzle, but that raised more questions than it ever answered. Working backwards from Andrina’s phone call from her husband, logged at 6.17, to her departure from her house at 4.05 there was a huge hole of 45 minutes unaccounted for if the sighting of the couple was as early as the prosecution was desperate to suggest. Unfortunately an explanation for it’s absence was never sought, or given, and the chance was forfeited to provide an answer for the huge hole at the heart of the prosecution’s narrative.
Of course Andrina did try to redeem if not herself then certainly those who had put her in this terrible position.
“Did she see the youth she’d seen that day in court” she was asked.
She didn’t.
Of course some will argue that by the time Andrina saw Luke in court he had filled out, his hair was different but this was also true if Luke was the youth seen by Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh yet they identified him in court when, arguably, they had seen less of his face.
Another cornerstone imperceptibly shifts.
Which couple did Andrina B see if you are claiming it wasn’t Luke and Jodi?
And did any couple ever come forward?
-
Which couple did Andrina B see if you are claiming it wasn’t Luke and Jodi?
And did any couple ever come forward?
The first the public knew of Andrina Bryson’s sighting was when she gave evidence in court. There was no public appeal for the couple to come forward as there was with Stocky Man and the blonde mother pushing a pram and who would remember so many months after the event what exactly they were doing at that time on that day?
The reason why the police all but ignored AB’s sighting for weeks after the murder? The logical reason is the timings in her first statements were too late for the TOD the police had fixed on....a time when Luke had no one but his family as his alibi. If the sighting was Jodi and Luke , and AB’s original timings were correct, as they most certainly were, Luke would have to have been in two places at once, at the Easthouses entrance to RDP and being seen on the Newbattle Road by his friends. He had a cast iron alibi.
Weeks into the case there was nothing to implicate Luke in the murder. There was no sightings of Luke near RDP at the time of the murder and the police had hung their entire case on there being DNA evidence against Luke but when none was found a different direction had to be taken.
I do feel sorry for AB. She gave her evidence in good faith but that she was manipulated into testifying to timings other than those she originally gave is not surprising. She knew that Luke couldn’t have been the youth she saw, the timings were all wrong, and by refusing to identify Luke in the dock she did all she possibly could to rectify the situation.
-
The first the public knew of Andrina Bryson’s sighting was when she gave evidence in court. There was no public appeal for the couple to come forward
And?
-
Which couple did Andrina B see if you are claiming it wasn’t Luke and Jodi?
And did any couple ever come forward?
18 years and no couple has come forward to say they may have been the couple she saw?
-
Weeks into the case there was nothing to implicate Luke in the murder.
Publish his police witness statements so we can all judge whether that’s true or not
-
And?
On hearing of Jodi's murder Andrina Bryson volunteered her sighting of a young couple neither of whom were known to her, in a witness statement which was devoid of knowledge of anything of which we have since become so familiar.
She was the first independent witness. She knew nothing more than what she had seen.
Using her initiative and her civic duty Ms Bryson imparted information to the police which might have been relevant to the investigation or it might not have been.
In the event - her information was crucial in confirming the time line.
-
On hearing of Jodi's murder Andrina Bryson volunteered her sighting of a young couple neither of whom were known to her, in a witness statement which was devoid of knowledge of anything of which we have since become so familiar.
She was the first independent witness. She knew nothing more than what she had seen.
Using her initiative and her civic duty Ms Bryson imparted information to the police which might have been relevant to the investigation or it might not have been.
In the event - her information was crucial in confirming the time line.
No it wasn’t. Her statements, plural, were crucial in confirming exactly the opposite. How does a sighting at 5.45 confirm a timeline where the murder, allegedly, took place at 5.15?
She confirmed in court that the youth she saw was not wearing a parka, as the police claimed, and, when push came to shove, that she couldn’t identify Luke in court as the youth she’d seen.
I’m not sure why you, and others, continue to believe absolute falsehoods in teeth of all the available evidence.
-
The first the public knew of Andrina Bryson’s sighting was when she gave evidence in court. There was no public appeal for the couple to come forward as there was with Stocky Man and the blonde mother pushing a pram and who would remember so many months after the event what exactly they were doing at that time on that day?
The reason why the police all but ignored AB’s sighting for weeks after the murder? The logical reason is the timings in her first statements were too late for the TOD the police had fixed on....a time when Luke had no one but his family as his alibi. If the sighting was Jodi and Luke , and AB’s original timings were correct, as they most certainly were, Luke would have to have been in two places at once, at the Easthouses entrance to RDP and being seen on the Newbattle Road by his friends. He had a cast iron alibi.
Weeks into the case there was nothing to implicate Luke in the murder. There was no sightings of Luke near RDP at the time of the murder and the police had hung their entire case on there being DNA evidence against Luke but when none was found a different direction had to be taken.
I do feel sorry for AB. She gave her evidence in good faith but that she was manipulated into testifying to timings other than those she originally gave is not surprising. She knew that Luke couldn’t have been the youth she saw, the timings were all wrong, and by refusing to identify Luke in the dock she did all she possibly could to rectify the situation.
Nonsense - Almost on par with CM's "the police didn't bank on Luke being Luke though" And considering we have such ridiculous claims of minute areas of truth given, such as this witness seeing any bike parked up against this V break - We are continually swayed to this mystery man and to these times of AB - asked to ignore every single part of LM's original defence - to go in favour of Ms Leans nonsense.
This swayed with the police nonsense - One breath saying they are pushing this parka jacket into her face trying to force her to say it was one of those. But she stuck to her guns and said, it was that colour I can't be sure of jacket. But of all of them, that is the closest. I do remember his face though and his sticky out hair which looked clumped around his neck. Then saying she gave this time but the police managed to to talk her round, tampered with her bank statement and all else - forced her into driving a route and so forth - This witness was honest to the max. Of the girl. Again this desperate need to zone in those colours in the first statement. - by completely manipulating them, to make it sound like she had on, just a blue top and jeans. She was clear when she clarified those colours - Of the top being very dark navy/black and of the bottoms being slightly lighter and loose around the bottom. This desperate need to pick every hole available - of her driving, of her approaching this bend in the road, of saying it was impossible to pick what the male looked like out - yet in the same breath, want every single part of that clothing, colours of hair, the red bobble and all else - down to a fine art - Ridiculous. AB had a voice, and she used it - She was manipulated into nothing. - That bank statement, that time of leaving the store, that route determined, that house just a couple of hundred yards from the sighting, that she drove to, did not hang around, drove out again and drove home - to Newtongrange - facing onto this couple and that boy she saw. - Looking at the female, holding his palms out, beckoning the girl. And she remembered that face - and she was "as sure as she could be that the youth was Luke Mitchell that she saw that day"
And you want to know every second of every minute of everything she did - when she arrived home to her house? Because she had said in her first statement - I thought I had been home X amount of time when my husband phoned me. She did not pick him out in court - he was totally different looking. And of F&W whom admitted to seeing his coupon in the papers. Honest again. Which does not retract from ID him previously at all. They saw him that day, they further saw him in the papers and his mug stayed in their minds.
And of those appeals. For any sighting of Jodi that day and I will revert back to the above - of those minute areas of truth used, to add every assumption under the son. And of Ms Leans blatant misrepresentation of the facts in "No Smoke" Of stating clearly "the mystery man who FOLLOWED Jodi in to the path" and of DD being on this path. To still be saying to this present day - it was a simple typo - nonsense. This is what one is capable of is it not? - and if one can do this then it clearly shows what else can be done - doesn't it?
And of these weeks between statements and so forth - Now I wonder if DF retained them all to use? For we know that he did not keep RK, SK's father in those files. He knew about it, he knew from those precognitions that they were with this man having dinner. So how many other statements - did DF not keep in those defence papers? As with those phone logs. - That are being used to jump between? - So the reality is, you do not know - there could have been another two statements in-between. The amount of stuff that Ms Lean has never had in her possession - has the information around it - but has used it, has she not - to make claim to having everything? For it can not be any clearer, that:
There are massive amounts of statements and information gathered in this investigation - That the Crown chooses from this all that they need to build that case. That the defence does the same. The case is LM V HMA. That they do precognitions. That they gather more evidence. And the SCCRC who like both the Crown and the defence - are legally able to access everything - and they did point out many areas to Ms Lean - of how her assumptions were wrong, that these items were there all along. Of the process of elimination - in those investigation papers - that Ms Lean does not have? - And the clear assumptions made around this also - It is hardly surprising these constant claims of zoning in on LM - for the case was LM V HMA - the information used, was to do with the case against him.
And of your mention yet again about this dog at the V - completely wiping out LM's statements. To bring him right to this V - it was LM who was lying and that is why you have to ignore all he said.
There was no mystery man following any one - That wording from paper and the likes - There was a male seen, walking along Easthouses Road, there was a female seen walking along Easthouses Road.
Be a good chap and pull up the girl with the buggies statement when she eventually came forward will you. Pull up this positive sighting of Jodi which was her coming off the school bus and heading home. Pull up this ID of the male and what day and time it was actually determined to be. In fact, you can't pull up a lot of things, can you? - as Ms Lean does no have a lot of them - but there are precise reasons why some of this was NOT included DF's defence of his client LM - it was not shoved under the proverbial carpet and forgotten about - it was irrelevant to use by DF. Thus why Ms Lean does not have all of the information around it. She does not have every statement, she does not have every phone log and she has only a fraction of what actually went into this investigation - and of that fraction she uses around 5%
Of what Nicholas put up earlier - of this repetitive - "this is from the families own statements and can be backed up" - Which shows us, that minute use of truth, but the narrative can not be backed up - the narrative would be trampled into the ground - if that other 95% was shown - wouldn't it? This cherry picking that she accuses everyone else of doing? - At least theirs made sense.
Ms Lean may very well be able to back up what she says, as in the actual few words verbatim. - But it goes a long long way - to backing up what she might claim, As with the bike at this V, as with the appeal for Jodi, the mystery man, the girl with the buggy, the duo on the bike and so forth - And we can see how ridiculous her narrative is with every attempt she makes to disperse doubt - Of one officer writing "with the boyfriend", with scrubbing the data, with getting him over the V for his DNA, with the aunts miraculously arriving at this path - changing one's tune a little here from the many years of all else discussed and come out with:
'
'We don't know how the aunts arrived there, someone must have contacted them from the path? We know it was not Judith as it is not in her phone logs?' - what a telling statement that is? - Still not saying that AW had phoned her daughter, perhaps that part of AW's statement was also not used, not just the phone log? - you know, all this irrelevant stuff that DF sought not use in his defence of LM. - what a mess.
And he did not have his family as an alibi - did he? It was a lot of nonsense. Less than 15mins to cook a dinner, to plate up, to eat and race out that door - oh and the in-depth conversation with his mother, of telling his mother he was off, and of the t-shirt being Jodi's favourite - and of CM soaking up the sunshine? - on this miserable day.
-
Nonsense - Almost on par with CM's "the police didn't bank on Luke being Luke though" And considering we have such ridiculous claims of minute areas of truth given, such as this witness seeing any bike parked up against this V break - We are continually swayed to this mystery man and to these times of AB - asked to ignore every single part of LM's original defence - to go in favour of Ms Leans nonsense.
I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
This swayed with the police nonsense - One breath saying they are pushing this parka jacket into her face trying to force her to say it was one of those. But she stuck to her guns and said, it was that colour I can't be sure of jacket.
She said on oath that the parka was closest to the jacket the youth was wearing but it wasn’t a parka and she pointed out the differences to the police at the time.
But of all of them, that is the closest. I do remember his face though and his sticky out hair which looked clumped around his neck.
She said that she could not describe any of the youth’s facial features and she only saw the back of the girl’s head. Then there was the disgraceful identification of Luke, identified in a way that went against all guidelines. An identification of which an identification expert said ‘Luke didn’t have a red arrow pointing at him but he might as well have’.
Then saying she gave this time but the police managed to to talk her round, tampered with her bank statement and all else - forced her into driving a route and so forth - This witness was honest to the max. Of the girl. Again this desperate need to zone in those colours in the first statement. - by completely manipulating them, to make it sound like she had on, just a blue top and jeans. She was clear when she clarified those colours - Of the top being very dark navy/black and of the bottoms being slightly lighter and loose around the bottom. This desperate need to pick every hole available - of her driving, of her approaching this bend in the road, of saying it was impossible to pick what the male looked like out - yet in the same breath, want every single part of that clothing, colours of hair, the red bobble and all else - down to a fine art - Ridiculous. AB had a voice, and she used it - She was manipulated into nothing. - That bank statement, that time of leaving the store, that route determined, that house just a couple of hundred yards from the sighting, that she drove to, did not hang around, drove out again and drove home - to Newtongrange - facing onto this couple and that boy she saw. - Looking at the female, holding his palms out, beckoning the girl. And she remembered that face - and she was "as sure as she could be that the youth was Luke Mitchell that she saw that day"
It should have been worrying that AB admitted to not being able to describe his facial features. And I see the youth is beckoning now, not having a altercation as you claimed previously. In fact you said this is why AB noticed him. And that Deftones logo....AB never could explain why she didn’t see that. And that 45 minutes still unaccounted for. This is your timeline not mine.
Andrina Bryson, a witness who gave her police statements in good faith. Those first statements where everything fitted. Her children’s return from school, that visit to the supermarket and home again via that house that may possibly have become her’s, that phone call from her husband that sealed those times. When and why that certainty changed can only be guessed at. She was never, however, categorical about Luke being the youth...from the ‘I’m as sure as I can be’ to her non-identification of Luke in court she knew the weight of her words and if she wasn’t absolutely sure she wasn’t going to be pushed into saying that she was.
And you want to know every second of every minute of everything she did - when she arrived home to her house? Because she had said in her first statement - I thought I had been home X amount of time when my husband phoned me. She did not pick him out in court - he was totally different looking. And of F&W whom admitted to seeing his coupon in the papers. Honest again. Which does not retract from ID him previously at all. They saw him that day, they further saw him in the papers and his mug stayed in their minds.
RW and LF ‘recognised’ Luke in court, even with his ‘different shaped head’ and the admission that they had never seen his face because of his hair so AB should have been able to too.
And of those appeals. For any sighting of Jodi that day and I will revert back to the above - of those minute areas of truth used, to add every assumption under the son. And of Ms Leans blatant misrepresentation of the facts in "No Smoke" Of stating clearly "the mystery man who FOLLOWED Jodi in to the path" and of DD being on this path. To still be saying to this present day - it was a simple typo - nonsense. This is what one is capable of is it not? - and if one can do this then it clearly shows what else can be done - doesn't it?
It’s strange. I find that you and Dr Lean approach this case in a very similar way...you make claims that you simply expect people to believe and when they are proven to be wrong they are simply dropped like a hot brick. SK vomiting is a classic example of that.
And of these weeks between statements and so forth - Now I wonder if DF retained them all to use? For we know that he did not keep RK, SK's father in those files. He knew about it, he knew from those precognitions that they were with this man having dinner. So how many other statements - did DF not keep in those defence papers? As with those phone logs. - That are being used to jump between? - So the reality is, you do not know - there could have been another two statements in-between. The amount of stuff that Ms Lean has never had in her possession - has the information around it - but has used it, has she not - to make claim to having everything? For it can not be any clearer, that:
There are massive amounts of statements and information gathered in this investigation - That the Crown chooses from this all that they need to build that case. That the defence does the same. The case is LM V HMA. That they do precognitions. That they gather more evidence. And the SCCRC who like both the Crown and the defence - are legally able to access everything - and they did point out many areas to Ms Lean - of how her assumptions were wrong, that these items were there all along. Of the process of elimination - in those investigation papers - that Ms Lean does not have? - And the clear assumptions made around this also - It is hardly surprising these constant claims of zoning in on LM - for the case was LM V HMA - the information used, was to do with the case against him.
And of your mention yet again about this dog at the V - completely wiping out LM's statements. To bring him right to this V - it was LM who was lying and that is why you have to ignore all he said.
There was no mystery man following any one - That wording from paper and the likes - There was a male seen, walking along Easthouses Road, there was a female seen walking along Easthouses Road.
Be a good chap and pull up the girl with the buggies statement when she eventually came forward will you. Pull up this positive sighting of Jodi which was her coming off the school bus and heading home. Pull up this ID of the male and what day and time it was actually determined to be. In fact, you can't pull up a lot of things, can you? - as Ms Lean does no have a lot of them - but there are precise reasons why some of this was NOT included DF's defence of his client LM - it was not shoved under the proverbial carpet and forgotten about - it was irrelevant to use by DF. Thus why Ms Lean does not have all of the information around it. She does not have every statement, she does not have every phone log and she has only a fraction of what actually went into this investigation - and of that fraction she uses around 5%
Of what Nicholas put up earlier - of this repetitive - "this is from the families own statements and can be backed up" - Which shows us, that minute use of truth, but the narrative can not be backed up - the narrative would be trampled into the ground - if that other 95% was shown - wouldn't it? This cherry picking that she accuses everyone else of doing? - At least theirs made sense.
Ms Lean may very well be able to back up what she says, as in the actual few words verbatim. - But it goes a long long way - to backing up what she might claim, As with the bike at this V, as with the appeal for Jodi, the mystery man, the girl with the buggy, the duo on the bike and so forth - And we can see how ridiculous her narrative is with every attempt she makes to disperse doubt - Of one officer writing "with the boyfriend", with scrubbing the data, with getting him over the V for his DNA, with the aunts miraculously arriving at this path - changing one's tune a little here from the many years of all else discussed and come out with:
'
'We don't know how the aunts arrived there, someone must have contacted them from the path? We know it was not Judith as it is not in her phone logs?' - what a telling statement that is? - Still not saying that AW had phoned her daughter, perhaps that part of AW's statement was also not used, not just the phone log? - you know, all this irrelevant stuff that DF sought not use in his defence of LM. - what a mess.
And he did not have his family as an alibi - did he? It was a lot of nonsense. Less than 15mins to cook a dinner, to plate up, to eat and race out that door - oh and the in-depth conversation with his mother, of telling his mother he was off, and of the t-shirt being Jodi's favourite - and of CM soaking up the sunshine? - on this miserable day.
So many words but none of them particularly relevant. What is relevant is that cornerstone of the case...that if Jodi’s family were telling the truth, that Luke’s dog hadn’t alerted to the v and Luke had gone straight there...then he was the killer. But it wasn’t true, was it? That vivid picture from SK of Luke’s dog pulling him to the v....mirroring Luke’s words completely. Of Luke being ‘in hysterics’. Such distain for the truth.
-
Stop talking nonsense - retching/vomiting - not even 20yrds passed this V to exactly at the V. Hysterics to being overcome with screams to reflection of LM watching people
scream. Of a ban on the path to your blatant lies. of "never" walking. And of Ms Lean - who you recite to the letter T consistently.
" could have taken this route or that route back from the supermarket, could have been a blue hoodie with lighter blue bootcut jeans, could have left at 6 o'clock or 5.40 to go to Costco ... proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nowhere near it."
-
They mystery man - what a shambles this has become. That main topic of conversation since day dot in this plight to show LM to be innocent.
A run through again of this male. A young girl has been brutally murdered. People come forward. We know AB was one of the first, we hear of this often, of contacting the police the following morning. Over the course of the days - we hear of two further people who saw a male on Easthouse's Road and of a female, also of a girl with a pushchair. What they also had was reports coming in from the Newbattle end of another male. At the gate near to the west end of this path. And at further points along this road. -
Lot's of possible sightings. Of days and times - sifting out viable ones. This sighting we hear of, the positive ID of Jodi Jones by a neighbour - coming home from school, shortly after 4pm. Walking passed their house towards her own. That little fragment of truth yet again. I'm not going to take the time here to put up yet again those cleverly worded accounts from Ms Lean - Of the use of possibles sightings and positive sighting - and blending them in such away - they appear to be at the same time - they were not. And we know this, as has been already stated - For if there was a positive sighting of Jodi Jones, around 5pm walking along Easthouse's Road - it would simply have been used. There was not.
An appeal is put out. Not just for this male but for the girl with the pushchair, and of the duo on the bike. There is a possibility that these people may have seen Jodi Jones. There is no appeal for the couple in the lane or of any youth on Newbattle Road - The police are not daft, neither desperate. For at the same time this has been coming through, they already know several things. That contrary to LM's claims, that Jodi had left her home earlier than his claimed time of meeting. That there is mention of this ban on this path and of Jodi saying to her mother, that they (Jodi and Luke) would be "mucking about up here". And that Jodi had punishments that ended that day, no restrictions on her time. That the only person she had contacted upon finding this out - was LM, by using her mothers phone.
This appeal is put out. One such ID was of a male who had been in England on the 30th of June. We hear of this other ID from carrying this girls coffin some 9 weeks later. But before any of this we had the girl with the pushchair come forward - Which changed all of this? The time, the day? and of this male and female. Remember one other thing here of the reconstruction - The girl does not have her hair with a red bobble/scrunchie in it. - there are certain things, of information only they know, of LM given out - that would not be made public. And we hear of this person who made this ID on social media just now CRM. Who is stating that she contacted the police again about this sighting, that she knows what she saw and that they did not get back in touch with her - well it is hardly surprising when the police already know this was not Jodi at this time on Monday the 30th of June, as we already know - any positive sightings would simply have been used - to tie in with AB, if going by this shoe horning things together is as claimed - as adding a few minutes on, would have made no difference, at all. - they would have shoe horned everything - but there was none of this anyway. Tactics, nothing more nothing less. - And if this person is making these claims of ID this male as carrying this girls coffin - then we know it was employees from the funeral directors.
Further, to note yet again. We have already taken one minute area of truth - The employee from Basically Tool Hire, of the arms and legs added to this. Of all and sundry discussing about this duo's bike being parked up at this V break with no boys in sight. And we know that Ms Lean is not daft? For these people from BTH could not have seen this V break at all. Of them giving an estimate to where on this path they saw the bike 'close to where there is a V break' Of using this and DF trying to trip these boys up - whom not once, precognitions or otherwise, admitted to their bike being up against this V, or any part of the wall. And we know at the time this was a national speed limit of 60mph. That these boys had been stopping and starting the bike before getting it going and riding up and down the path - a couple of times. That whilst this employee may have seen this bike, they would be hard pushed to see the boys anyway, and of the bike being pushed, whilst they were driving. split second and gone. And of this noisy bike - which of course, LM could not have failed to hear. - and we know without a shadow of a doubt it is only this employee she is talking about - as there was no other person on that path, and one had to be on the path - to see this V, for it is sheltered by trees on the field side of the path.
As we have with this mystery man - of using him in the exact same fashion? - Taken some fragments of truth. Of completely non confirmed sightings of anything, and using these as a means to allow these arms and legs to be added. And of course, highlighting here, yet again - that many things would not have been included in DF's case of defence for his client LM - That this is not a case of things being swept under the carpet or buried - it is because he chose not to use them. And I did ask Ms Lean about this - and she told me his hands were tied - due to funding. -Funding prohibits of course would be in place for irrelevance, but not for strong areas of evidence, that could have shown LM to be innocent. She further claimed, that he would not have been allowed to use any of it as mystery man nor [Name removed] were part of the prosecution case? -yet DF obtained his medical records, and used part of the BTH place statement - even though this person was not part of the Crowns case either - The mystery man was not used, as DF knew everything around this, the irrelevance of it - plain and simple. This part of the investigation was eliminated for a reason. And DF knew those reasons.
-
Stop talking nonsense - retching/vomiting - not even 20yrds passed this V to exactly at the V. Hysterics to being overcome with screams to reflection of LM watching people
scream. Of a ban on the path to your blatant lies. of "never" walking. And of Ms Lean - who you recite to the letter T consistently.
The best form of defence is attack.
-
And not a single witness came forward to say they had walked home with Luke Mitchell after school, all very odd and unusual if I'm honest. All that missing unaccounted-for time after school then until the 6pm sightings on Newbattle Road.
Plenty of time to get up to much mischief. No alibi, just a pile of lies.
-
They mystery man - what a shambles this has become. That main topic of conversation since day dot in this plight to show LM to be innocent.
A run through again of this male. A young girl has been brutally murdered. People come forward. We know AB was one of the first, we hear of this often, of contacting the police the following morning. Over the course of the days - we hear of two further people who saw a male on Easthouse's Road and of a female, also of a girl with a pushchair. What they also had was reports coming in from the Newbattle end of another male. At the gate near to the west end of this path. And at further points along this road. -
Lot's of possible sightings. Of days and times - sifting out viable ones. This sighting we hear of, the positive ID of Jodi Jones by a neighbour - coming home from school, shortly after 4pm. Walking passed their house towards her own. That little fragment of truth yet again. I'm not going to take the time here to put up yet again those cleverly worded accounts from Ms Lean - Of the use of possibles sightings and positive sighting - and blending them in such away - they appear to be at the same time - they were not. And we know this, as has been already stated - For if there was a positive sighting of Jodi Jones, around 5pm walking along Easthouse's Road - it would simply have been used. There was not.
Much as you try you can’t simply airbrush those inconvenient sightings from the narrative. The neighbour who saw Jodi pass her window just after 5 or the girl on the Easthouses road with a stocky man following on behind. The sighting must have been credible as an appeal was made for this individual to come forward. Of course Stocky Man more than likely was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time but what was interesting was that identification of Jodi by someone who knew her, an identification that put her on the Easthouses Road long after she should have been elsewhere.
An appeal is put out. Not just for this male but for the girl with the pushchair, and of the duo on the bike. There is a possibility that these people may have seen Jodi Jones. There is no appeal for the couple in the lane or of any youth on Newbattle Road -
Of course there was no appeal for the youth seen by RW in those first days after the murder, RW didn’t give her first statement until the 8th of July, the police had no idea that this sighting had happened initially. They did however know of AB’s sighting as she called them the day after the murder and made statements within days of that phone call. So why no appeal for this young couple in the following days? Suggesting that this was because the police ‘knew’ things is a nonsense. From those timings given by AB in that first statement to the police the police will have known that the timings were too late to be of any use to them. That is why they initially took no action, plain and simple.
The police are not daft, neither desperate. For at the same time this has been coming through, they already know several things. That contrary to LM's claims, that Jodi had left her home earlier than his claimed time of meeting. That there is mention of this ban on this path and of Jodi saying to her mother, that they (Jodi and Luke) would be "mucking about up here". And that Jodi had punishments that ended that day, no restrictions on her time. That the only person she had contacted upon finding this out - was LM, by using her mothers phone.
Wasn’t that a bit of a gamble for Luke? IF they had texted those arrangements of meeting earlier how could he have known that Jodi would have deleted them too? That those damning texts, heavy with implication, were just sitting on Jodi’s mother’s phone ready to be found. How would he have explained that?
That carefully planned alibi, of getting his mother and brother to lie for him, of standing on the Newbattle Road praying to be seen, of the burning of incriminating clothes, of the back and forward to the woodland yet we are being asked to believe that not once did this clever, cunning boy realise that those earlier texts, filled with those revealing plans, could be his undoing.
This appeal is put out. One such ID was of a male who had been in England on the 30th of June. We hear of this other ID from carrying this girls coffin some 9 weeks later. But before any of this we had the girl with the pushchair come forward - Which changed all of this? The time, the day? and of this male and female. Remember one other thing here of the reconstruction - The girl does not have her hair with a red bobble/scrunchie in it. - there are certain things, of information only they know, of LM given out - that would not be made public. And we hear of this person who made this ID on social media just now CRM. Who is stating that she contacted the police again about this sighting, that she knows what she saw and that they did not get back in touch with her - well it is hardly surprising when the police already know this was not Jodi at this time on Monday the 30th of June, as we already know - any positive sightings would simply have been used - to tie in with AB, if going by this shoe horning things together is as claimed - as adding a few minutes on, would have made no difference, at all. - they would have shoe horned everything - but there was none of this anyway. Tactics, nothing more nothing less. - And if this person is making these claims of ID this male as carrying this girls coffin - then we know it was employees from the funeral directors.
Tunnel vision is exactly what you are describing above. The police in those first days couldn’t have possibly known that the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi...the times were too late. The sighting of Jodi on Easthouses Road was much more credible as it was closer to the time she had left the house. However the police didn’t want Jodi on the Easthouses Road at that time, did they? They wanted her to be on RDP at a time Luke had no independent witnesses. That’s why they’d called on the services of experts... not to fit Luke to the TOD but to fit the TOD to Luke.
Further, to note yet again. We have already taken one minute area of truth - The employee from Basically Tool Hire, of the arms and legs added to this. Of all and sundry discussing about this duo's bike being parked up at this V break with no boys in sight. And we know that Ms Lean is not daft? For these people from BTH could not have seen this V break at all. Of them giving an estimate to where on this path they saw the bike 'close to where there is a V break' Of using this and DF trying to trip these boys up - whom not once, precognitions or otherwise, admitted to their bike being up against this V, or any part of the wall. And we know at the time this was a national speed limit of 60mph. That these boys had been stopping and starting the bike before getting it going and riding up and down the path - a couple of times. That whilst this employee may have seen this bike, they would be hard pushed to see the boys anyway, and of the bike being pushed, whilst they were driving. split second and gone. And of this noisy bike - which of course, LM could not have failed to hear. - and we know without a shadow of a doubt it is only this employee she is talking about - as there was no other person on that path, and one had to be on the path - to see this V, for it is sheltered by trees on the field side of the path.
As we have with this mystery man - of using him in the exact same fashion? - Taken some fragments of truth. Of completely non confirmed sightings of anything, and using these as a means to allow these arms and legs to be added. And of course, highlighting here, yet again - that many things would not have been included in DF's case of defence for his client LM - That this is not a case of things being swept under the carpet or buried - it is because he chose not to use them. And I did ask Ms Lean about this - and she told me his hands were tied - due to funding. -Funding prohibits of course would be in place for irrelevance, but not for strong areas of evidence, that could have shown LM to be innocent. She further claimed, that he would not have been allowed to use any of it as mystery man nor [Name removed] were part of the prosecution case? -yet DF obtained his medical records, and used part of the BTH place statement - even though this person was not part of the Crowns case either - The mystery man was not used, as DF knew everything around this, the irrelevance of it - plain and simple. This part of the investigation was eliminated for a reason. And DF knew those reasons.
Stocky Man is merely a distraction but in saying that you use him well.
-
And not a single witness came forward to say they had walked home with Luke Mitchell after school, all very odd and unusual if I'm honest. All that missing unaccounted-for time after school then until the 6pm sightings on Newbattle Road.
Plenty of time to get up to much mischief. No alibi, just a pile of lies.
There were phone logs putting Luke at home shortly before 4.30...after school...so why would the police have wasted time finding witnesses to a time before then, when Jodi was alive?
-
Interesting* that phone logs exist for earlier in the day, but texts/calls slightly later were deleted - should we file that under foresight?
*When I say 'interesting', I mean convenient.
If Stocky Man is merely a distraction, why does Dr Lean keep mentioning him, allegedly following Jodi?
The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!
If LM claims he'd never noticed the V in the wall at any time prior to the dog attracting his attention to it, I'm not buying that for a second - that's a lie, and that's a concern.
-
Interesting* that phone logs exist for earlier in the day, but texts/calls slightly later were deleted - should we file that under foresight?
*When I say 'interesting', I mean convenient.
If Stocky Man is merely a distraction, why does Dr Lean keep mentioning him, allegedly following Jodi?
The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!
If LM claims he'd never noticed the V in the wall at any time prior to the dog attracting his attention to it, I'm not buying that for a second - that's a lie, and that's a concern.
Of course it’s a lie
⬇️
[162] As the trial judge informs us, the appellant told the police at interview on 4 July 2003 that he and Jodi would sit on the other side of the wall from the Roan's Dyke Path near to the gap in the wall at the junction of the two paths and "have a cigarette or whatever". In the same interview he said that there was "a tiny wee path ... that folk walk along in the inside of that wall", i.e. on the other side from the Roan's Dyke Path. There was evidence, indeed, that just inside a gap in the wall at the junction of the paths stood a small tree with the initials [Name removed] and LM carved in its bark. A witness David Stirling described an occasion in early June 2003 when he was with friends and they met the appellant at the junction of the paths. They went down the inside of the wall (towards the "V") for some distance, then sat and smoked cannabis. Another witness, John [Name removed], said that on two occasions when the appellant telephoned asking for quantities of cannabis, they arranged to meet at the opening in the wall at the junction of the paths. On one of these occasions when they met the appellant said that he was waiting for Jodi. For all these reasons there is no merit in this ground of appeal.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
-
The way CM and LM were dressed at Jodi's grave was distasteful and disrespectful - the fact that they were there at all is questionable.
Good to see Dr Lean marshalling her forces - expect more.
I wonder if Dr Lean's recent recruits know about LM having knives at other girls throats, etc?
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
Indeed Jane and welcome to the forum.
-
Interesting* that phone logs exist for earlier in the day, but texts/calls slightly later were deleted - should we file that under foresight?
*When I say 'interesting', I mean convenient.
If Stocky Man is merely a distraction, why does Dr Lean keep mentioning him, allegedly following Jodi?
The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!
If LM claims he'd never noticed the V in the wall at any time prior to the dog attracting his attention to it, I'm not buying that for a second - that's a lie, and that's a concern.
Seems Jodi had ‘foresight’ too.
What was the point of Luke deleting incriminating texts when he knew there was a copy which might not have been deleted on Judith’s phone?
-
.
I think this case needs an independent review
There won’t be an ‘independent review’!
-
there is just far too many things that don't add up
There often are in cases where the killer doesn’t confess and disclose what he did and didn’t do
-
and questions needing answered
It’s highly probable Luke Mitchell will take his secrets to his grave therefore many of your questions may never be answered
-
I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It was proved - following a 42 day trial - Luke Mitchell murdered [Name removed]
-
As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
She can indeed wear what she wants
However have you explored how her behaviour may have affected Luke Mitchell growing up and where his sexual deviancy may have come from?
‘Behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
He was having sexual intercourse with several girls from a young age - therefore was sexually promiscuous
Luke Mitchell fitted the criminal profile more than any other possible suspect in this case and Sandra Lean has chosen to not explore this - publicly at least
It is something her and I touched on however back in 2014
-
Interesting* that phone logs exist for earlier in the day, but texts/calls slightly later were deleted - should we file that under foresight?
There was definitely ‘foresight’ and planning involved in Luke Mitchell’s crimes
And him choosing to buy and watch the Marilyn Manson DVD just two days after he killed [Name removed] gives some insight into his mindset - and he may well have been reliving what he had done
-
If Stocky Man is merely a distraction, why does Dr Lean keep mentioning him, allegedly following Jodi?
It’s all part of her game playing
And I find it telling for so many reasons
-
The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!
It’s utter nonsense but helps her distract her followers
-
The way CM and LM were dressed at Jodi's grave was distasteful and disrespectful - the fact that they were there at all is questionable.
It’s highly questionable and gives an insight into their behaviours
-
I wonder if Dr Lean's recent recruits know about LM having knives at other girls throats, etc?
I wonder if the psychologists and psychiatrists who access Luke Mitchell are aware of all these allegations by various girls
If they are not they should be
-
Seems Jodi had ‘foresight’ too.
What was the point of Luke deleting incriminating texts when he knew there was a copy which might not have been deleted on Judith’s phone?
Luke Mitchell would have told [Name removed] to delete them and she would have done what he told her
He wasn’t too young to kill and he wasn’t too young to use coercive control
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
How much will a independent review cost and who is going to pay for it?
Who is going to conduct this independent review?
What exactly will a independent review uncover that previous review have not?
Many of YOUR unanswered questions, may be answered. If you asked Lean to release the report she got from the SCCRC. But I suspect Lean releasing information that goes against what she is presenting to the public, is like finding gold in your back garden.
You could always write to Luke, in the segregation unit at Shotts and ask him, why he did it.
-
As far as I know Luke isn't on protection he's in general prison population
-
Seems Jodi had ‘foresight’ too.
What was the point of Luke deleting incriminating texts when he knew there was a copy which might not have been deleted on Judith’s phone?
Very much the point is it not? - Of him phoning the Jones landline. As he knew for sure there was only one place her parents were expecting her to be going. To see him. You are completely missing the fact that he knew exactly what was in those messages. - the privacy of them, that almost non existent chance of Jodi not deleting them prior to giving her mother her phone back. But he could never count on that totally, nor of being able to be retrieved. So he had to have this different tale. Of the meet to be in Newbattle. Which he claimed was to be after dinner, after leaving home at 5.45pm for this after dinner meeting - around 6pm. This is the story he first told. - with that added proviso of course - this tangled mess of claiming - there was no fixed plans as such - of claiming to tell his mother, that if Jodi turned up - he would be in the abbey, that she would know where? He did not know that Jodi had said to her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here". He needed to delete those texts - and Jodi did also due to their privacy.
Of this constant talk of putting LM down to being some masterminded murderer - well he was not, this is why he is in jail serving life for Jodi's murder. He flew into a rage and murdered her. Everything that happened after that point was never going to be easy. Disposal yes. That perfect cover - no chance. Those wheels firmly in motion. Jodi had left to meet with him and only him. At the time he knew. Thus why one had to have this time firmly at home, from his mothers arrival at 5.05pm. To cancel out AB's sighting. To not being on Newbattle Road untl 5.45pm and just after - to cancel out F&W's sighting. We can enter the simple realm of that call, to set alibi in place - but we know he was still towering over what he had done at 5.32pm - so we can also enter into the depravity of his mindset here. And of the call to connect at 5.38pm. 6 mins making sure he spoke to someone - whilst still at the scene. The fleeing and been caught by F&W at the gate at 17.42pm. Who else was around this path at those times of the calls? - where he was sure no one was going to be able to hear him speak? Did he hear other people? - We know the duo were back home by 5.30pm. No chance of escaping until they were well gone? Was LM waiting until he heard that noisy bike away altogether? Making sure that call was short and sweet, of no noise in the background of simply "cool, bye"
But he was seen. And he had not left his house around 5.45pm, his mother had not gotten home around 5.05pm. And they did bring SM into the mix with the exact same story of her arriving home at 5.05pm - All lies, LM was not at home, And every single part of those first stories were rammed into less than 15mins. And he did appear back on this road again, with a different jacket on - at a point in the road, he claimed not to go as far as? Which was pretty much the same area that he had disappeared from - around the gate of the F&W sighting. And he had only hung around enough for approx 20mins - until LM was not seen again, until with the boys in the Abbey ar 7.30pm.
And the above are only some of what lay behind all of this. - Of the ban on this path. Of his claimed non worry about his girlfriend not arriving at the other end of this isolated path. Of this initial short time he gave - expanding to nearly two hours. - Due to those very calls. Because he then claimed to make them well away from this path - at the entrance of the estate. Which showed the lies in the story of being at home. For he then had to have left around 5.30pm - for a meeting at 6pm? To then claim he had phoned the Jones landline - to claim that he asked AO "is Jodi on her way?" for 6pm? - to claim he was told she had only just left? Rather than what AO did say "of already left to meet with him". Those holes just got bigger and the shoring over even more extraordinary.
This mastermind we are told - who left no dna at the scene - who had already had many thoughts on the best way to kill someone. Carried this out. He could not have, ever banked on the police being the police though - Or of that clear other evidence coming through - He just kept on tripping himself up, heaping that suspicion upon himself - not in a million years was LM framed. There was absolutely no way - that he could be eliminated. And that naivety of his non arrest, of believing he had gotten away with it. Carries on with those campaigning for innocence - that the evidence was so weak they had to wait 10 months for that final arrest. Exactly how LM thought, until just after those celebrations of getting that tattoo, when CM said to staff "we are celebrating" - and the only knocking to be had on anyone's door - was LM's in the early hours of that morning in April 2004 when he was last to see freedom. He was simply not arrested on the basis of this being a circumstantial case - that due to no incriminating DNA - that arrest could not be made imminently. That naivety again, of believing that DNA was everything - it simply was not. For whilst there was none incriminating LM - there was none of a stranger murder either.
-
As far as I know Luke isn't on protection he's in general prison population
So what your trying to tell me, that one of Scotlands most high profile prisoners, that committed one of the most despicable crimes in recent history, that gets more public attention, than anyone else in Shotts, is mixing with the general population in prison?
Are you going to address the other points I made?
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
Hi Jane - welcome. What questions do you have? Can I ask are they based on Ms Lean? Of the book and documentary? That sound very demanding, don't mean for it to be. Just curious?
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.
-
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.
Hi Jane, welcome to the forum. Could you please introduce yourself in the New Members' section. Thank you!
-
I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi
-
I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi
Well how about if I tell you I know some screws that previously worked in Shotts, that say different.
-
I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi
Absolutely no disrespect taken Jane - I understand totally where you questions come from. Hopefully one day they will be answered for you
-
I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.
Maybe you might know Bullseye.
Who is paying for it?
Who is going to conduct it?
What catalogue of errors did the police make?
-
I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi
Have you asked Lean for the SCCRC report? You will find many answers in that.
-
The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!
Yes there was somebody on another forum, made a post regarding this. They posted several images from around the area, using street view, not perfect. But it certainly showed, that you would indeed need superhuman skills to see 300/400 yards across an undulated field, while driving and say with absolute certainty, with what you saw 300/400 yards away. It is amazing, that the same person peddling this nonsense, wants us to believe and went to the hassle of having two disgraced ex detectives role-play and try to discredit the AB sighting from YARDS away, not to mention the RW sighting, that happened FEET away. But we are to believe a sighting from 300/400 yards away. She had to go down this path though, she cannot back away, from her promotion of this sighting, she know she can't fool us sensible people into believing the tool hire worker seen it parked at the V, and she most certainly will not release his whole statement. So the tale of the sighting from the beeches from an unnamed witness had to be made up, it is more far fetched than that of the tool hirer worker, but she had to make something up i suppose.
-
Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.
Do you have first hand knowledge of what the police did or did not do when they attended the crime scene which justifies an independent review?
-
Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.
There wasn’t
-
Very much the point is it not? - Of him phoning the Jones landline. As he knew for sure there was only one place her parents were expecting her to be going. To see him. You are completely missing the fact that he knew exactly what was in those messages. - the privacy of them, that almost non existent chance of Jodi not deleting them prior to giving her mother her phone back. But he could never count on that totally, nor of being able to be retrieved. So he had to have this different tale. Of the meet to be in Newbattle. Which he claimed was to be after dinner, after leaving home at 5.45pm for this after dinner meeting - around 6pm. This is the story he first told. - with that added proviso of course - this tangled mess of claiming - there was no fixed plans as such - of claiming to tell his mother, that if Jodi turned up - he would be in the abbey, that she would know where? He did not know that Jodi had said to her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here". He needed to delete those texts - and Jodi did also due to their privacy.
The point of the phone call? Nope, you’ll have to explain that to me and yes agreed he couldn’t have totally counted on Jodi deleting those texts so why push a different tale than the texts told? Would he really chance that? To tell a completely a different story from those incriminating texts. As to the ‘mucking around up here’ comment, was that a statement from Jodi or an assumption of Judith’s? If you are correct there was nothing particularly private about those last texts of Jodi to Luke. They only, allegedly, said what her mother knew already, that Luke would meet her in Easthouses and earlier than usual. Why the need for privacy? A more believable explanation? That Jodi deleted those texts because she didn’t want her mum to know that she was walking, alone, down a path she had expressly been forbidden from walking. Isn’t that a more believable explanation?
Of this constant talk of putting LM down to being some masterminded murderer - well he was not, this is why he is in jail serving life for Jodi's murder.
The police couldn’t find one piece of direct evidence that connected Luke to Jodi’s murder, not one. Not one speck of DNA, even though the murder scene must have been swimming in blood. If Luke had been the murderer I think that alone would qualify him as a mastermind.
He flew into a rage and murdered her. Everything that happened after that point was never going to be easy. Disposal yes. That perfect cover - no chance. Those wheels firmly in motion. Jodi had left to meet with him and only him. At the time he knew. Thus why one had to have this time firmly at home, from his mothers arrival at 5.05pm. To cancel out AB's sighting.
How in those first interviews, when all this information was being given, could Luke possibly have known that he’d been seen by AB or RW?
To not being on Newbattle Road untl 5.45pm and just after - to cancel out F&W's sighting. We can enter the simple realm of that call, to set alibi in place - but we know he was still towering over what he had done at 5.32pm - so we can also enter into the depravity of his mindset here. And of the call to connect at 5.38pm. 6 mins making sure he spoke to someone - whilst still at the scene. The fleeing and been caught by F&W at the gate at 17.42pm. Who else was around this path at those times of the calls? - where he was sure no one was going to be able to hear him speak? Did he hear other people? - We know the duo were back home by 5.30pm. No chance of escaping until they were well gone? Was LM waiting until he heard that noisy bike away altogether? Making sure that call was short and sweet, of no noise in the background of simply "cool, bye"
Making that phone call while still at the scene....his hands covered in the blood of is newly murdered girlfriend, yet not a scrap on Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s phone, not even in those hard to clean buttons...no touchscreens then. Of course there was no sign of flight by anyone on the Newbattle Road, was there? Just a young boy standing by a gate with no sign that he was wary of being seen. In fact no one on the busy road at 5.42 did see the youth, did they, no one except these two women hurrying to the shops.
But he was seen. And he had not left his house around 5.45pm, his mother had not gotten home around 5.05pm. And they did bring SM into the mix with the exact same story of her arriving home at 5.05pm - All lies, LM was not at home, And every single part of those first stories were rammed into less than 15mins. And he did appear back on this road again, with a different jacket on - at a point in the road, he claimed not to go as far as? Which was pretty much the same area that he had disappeared from - around the gate of the F&W sighting. And he had only hung around enough for approx 20mins - until LM was not seen again, until with the boys in the Abbey ar 7.30pm.
No one but RW and FL came forward to say that they’d seen Luke on the Newbattle Road so, once again, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. What do you think Luke was doing at the time you allege he wasn’t seen?
And the above are only some of what lay behind all of this. - Of the ban on this path. Of his claimed non worry about his girlfriend not arriving at the other end of this isolated path. Of this initial short time he gave - expanding to nearly two hours. -
Two hours? His school friend said that he was standing on the Newbattle Road around 6.20 and had been from around 5.55. You yourself said he angrily chased his friends up so he must have been waiting for a while before he did that and he also must have been at the Abbey at that time to know his friends weren’t there already. So how long is really unaccounted for? Certainly not 2 hours if he met his friends around 7.30.
Due to those very calls. Because he then claimed to make them well away from this path - at the entrance of the estate. Which showed the lies in the story of being at home. For he then had to have left around 5.30pm - for a meeting at 6pm? To then claim he had phoned the Jones landline - to claim that he asked AO "is Jodi on her way?" for 6pm? - to claim he was told she had only just left? Rather than what AO did say "of already left to meet with him". Those holes just got bigger and the shoring over even more extraordinary.
AO never gave evidence in court so we have no idea exactly what he said.
This mastermind we are told - who left no dna at the scene - who had already had many thoughts on the best way to kill someone. Carried this out. He could not have, ever banked on the police being the police though - Or of that clear other evidence coming through - He just kept on tripping himself up, heaping that suspicion upon himself - not in a million years was LM framed. There was absolutely no way - that he could be eliminated. And that naivety of his non arrest, of believing he had gotten away with it. Carries on with those campaigning for innocence - that the evidence was so weak they had to wait 10 months for that final arrest. Exactly how LM thought, until just after those celebrations of getting that tattoo, when CM said to staff "we are celebrating" - and the only knocking to be had on anyone's door - was LM's in the early hours of that morning in April 2004 when he was last to see freedom. He was simply not arrested on the basis of this being a circumstantial case - that due to no incriminating DNA - that arrest could not be made imminently. That naivety again, of believing that DNA was everything - it simply was not. For whilst there was none incriminating LM - there was none of a stranger murder either.
Even the PF didn’t think the police had sufficient evidence to charge in September and delayed the decision in November for over 4 months when L&B police submitted their report again. Perhaps they were waiting, hoping that the FBI would come up with the goods, would suggest that Luke fitted the profile for such a murder but they didn’t, did they, or we’d have heard about it in court.
-
Maybe you might know Bullseye.
Who is paying for it?
Who is going to conduct it?
What catalogue of errors did the police make?
It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.
Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.
-
Yes there was somebody on another forum, made a post regarding this. They posted several images from around the area, using street view, not perfect. But it certainly showed, that you would indeed need superhuman skills to see 300/400 yards across an undulated field, while driving and say with absolute certainty, with what you saw 300/400 yards away. It is amazing, that the same person peddling this nonsense, wants us to believe and went to the hassle of having two disgraced ex detectives role-play and try to discredit the AB sighting from YARDS away, not to mention the RW sighting, that happened FEET away. But we are to believe a sighting from 300/400 yards away. She had to go down this path though, she cannot back away, from her promotion of this sighting, she know she can't fool us sensible people into believing the tool hire worker seen it parked at the V, and she most certainly will not release his whole statement. So the tale of the sighting from the beeches from an unnamed witness had to be made up, it is more far fetched than that of the tool hirer worker, but she had to make something up i suppose.
Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.
It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.
Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.
Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.
-
What I fail to grasp most in what you put out - is this lack of knowing factually, of what actually did happen? Those recordings and how they turned the tide on what DF was trying to show, as with the phone logs to the speaking clock and now with AO? - He did testify at court. So as well as those "statements" of his that Ms Lean refers to - there is his actual evidence in court. - one has to wonder, are you playing coy/games - or are you really lacking in all of this knowledge?
And of this repeat of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what we have with Manson. We know LM liked and admired his work, so much so that he bought and viewed this DVD showing that awful depiction - of this girl murdered, naked in a woodland.
And of this phone call at the scene of his phone not being covered in blood. As above. Something we certainly discussed a lot when studying this case. Of this affluent adolescent boy. Of this data being scrubbed and that call to the speaking clock. Of that repetitive question of -"why phone when his phone would have the time?" When LM could of course had two handsets, old and new? - Of swapping the sim thus knocking the time out and losing data at the same time - we don't know if the handset he handed in was the one he was using - do we? And of course that of having gloves on, anything really. - But there was nothing on the one he did hand in, which tells us it was either not the handset he used or he had gloves on, or cleaned his hands first.. - and of course, it's not so ridiculous to suggest he would not have had gloves when one is wearing a heavy parka jacket?
And we do have to ask ourselves - with the evidence led, of describing the best way to kill someone - how much was LM prepared for this becoming reality one day? Of carrying knives, what else did he carry with him?
And of the interviews of knowledge of being seen? - he would not have been aware of being seen. Of that car with AB when he met with Jodi and of standing at the gate with F&W - looking suspicious. - His alibi, without a shadow of a doubt, was concocted and reeked of such when they gave it to the police. Right down to enjoying the summer sunshine in the garden?
-
Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.
It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.
Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.
Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.
And Luke Mitchell of course. Ms Lean however not so much with those who question and believe in guilt. Those question times and groups - controlled with what is asked and answered are they not? I noticed someone tried to link this forum and it was removed instantly.
Of it being cancelled this week yet again. - the main topics for questions quickly drying up are they not? And nothing from Ms Lean directly on the JE podcast up and coming? - yet again controlled however, of this live one where questions have to be asked in advance and chosen on the night to answer? When there is no indication of who will be on - thus one can not ask relevant questions anyway - perhaps it will be Mr Mitchell and Shane? As he does say it will blow everything about this case wide open?
-
It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.
Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.
I find it all overtly contradictory? - Whilst we know how these minute areas of truth show no context of the facts and relevant truth behind them - even with above there is that clear contradiction - of the handling of this crime scene, potentially destroying evidence - to then wanting the coroner and all else to traipse through other areas, in the dark which would definitely have had more potential of destroying evidence, would it not? Only the actual reports, the reasoning and timing of each and everything, laid out would show us the truth. We know how much is made of this wrongful claim, of the bike being seen at this V, without a shadow of a doubt that Ms Lean knows this is impossible - yet uses it. As she does with the above? - therefore it is what we are not being told that tells us - that the above is far from the actual truth. The cutting of branches for instance? - we know this was to allow for the heavier equipment of the videographer, for access. But what branches? Were they in the passageway, that narrow area down the inside of this wall? What time was this done and by who's request/orders/ permission? - And it was done after the initial crime scene photos. What time were these items carefully gathered up, and again on who's request/orders/permission? -what reason? Had the rain started to fall heavily? Did some branches have to be cut to allow for the erection of a tent finally? All of this, I am pretty certain would show us a completely different view, from the one being touted out - for we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reasons it is put out as it is - to disperse doubt, to give cause to your question - "what else did they miss or do wrong?" - When you actually do not know for a fact, that anything was done wrong in the first instance - do you? Without knowing all of the facts around this? And is it not wrong to be wanting a review on this basis? -when that horse has already bolted? Those clear assumptions have been made, that should not be made at all - prior to knowing one's facts - as it was with the female element of DNA in semen?
And of the review - tax payers money to answer Ms Lean questions, based around all that she does not hold in her hands? - that she wants access 'now' to everything, that this will show people, and I quote "if she is either wrong or right?" - Which clearly shows us two things, that it is a completely false premise to state "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" - which can only be so, if everything was actually available in it's full context in the first instance?
I watched a little of an Injustice speech in which Ms Lean took part in 2007. In this she puts out information of a discussion she had with a Jury member (not this case). Of the influence of the media. That this Juror had went home after a days proceedings. Got up in the morning, read the newspaper and the details they had read were in contradiction to the previous days evidence. That, she claims, this Juror then thought "Oh I must have nodded off, missed this somehow" - rather than simply understand that the report was wrong/fabricated? - not accurate, to show us how a Juror who had actually heard evidence could be influenced. Which ties in with this case and of the tactics used:
Of people knowing certain areas of evidence and then being swept away on a completely different tangent - by those very means of inaccuracy and fabrication - that narrative that is added to it. - And they simply accept this on the basis that the person putting out this information is both trusted and accurate in what they say? - Much the same as one gives claim to with this Juror? -That they put trust in something else over their own Judgement?
And to re-iterate yet again - that whilst one does not and never has had access to everything - Is not a basis for this person to sway public opinion in her favour, to give the access she seeks. Access to information that was always available in the first instance - to the Crown/Defence and subsequently the SCCRC in their review of the investigation and case - From which Ms Lean wants another one as she discovered that she had in fact been wrong around several areas? - Nothing hidden, nothing buried.
Surely therefore the way to show the public - that there are sound reasons for this independent review, would be to show people what this first one concluded from theirs, rather than, yet again having to sway people with long winded roads of obtuse reasoning? - Where, and let's face it, has been the whole basis of gaining support in the first instance? - By having no disclosure on what Ms Lean already holds? The Mitchells statements and evidence firstly and onto this report by the SCCRC - all of which can and should be shown? - The mere facts they are not shown, tells those who do not simply accept this persons word, that these things need to be kept undisclosed and hidden from public view? - For they would shown context and in doing so - the actual/factual truth in all of this.
Also to highlight yet again this Juror - who readily accepted they must have "nodded off" and onto Ms Lean herself, and every other person who did not sit through this trial - That they are being fed stuff, from someone who did not even see the evidence first hand in the first place? - are being swayed into believing that this Jury must have been influenced by outside forces? - Rather than of hearing and seeing a lot more than she or any other person did.
-
There is little in the way of information from the original trial. I have seen many claims made 'quoting' witness statements - which of course they do not.
Have you ever clapped eyes on a bona fide witness statement cos I haven't. There has to be a little balance somewhere and I think Parky is one of those providing that balance usually with well thought out posts backed up with what we know are on record accurate timelines of events.
I have seen a load of ill researched nonsense put about much of it at variance with the facts.
Was Sandra Lean at the trial ~ she certainly has taken her part in shaping her interpretation of it into a career ~ but it seems you accept her interpretation as gospel.
What didn't you agree with in Parky's post.
Neither timelines or local knowledge are my forte but I followed the post quite well because it was so clearly thought out and well presented. What am I missing here?
The conclusion of this case was a majority guilty verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence. Not one piece of direct evidence was led in court. As such, the crux of the matter is that none of us, judges, lawyers, police, cjsw, jurors, the media, friends & family of the convicted and deceased, Sandra Lean and the general public, have ever known the exact true facts of this case. No one will ever know the exact true facts of what happened to Jodi Jones between 1650 and 2340 on 30.06.03, unless we get a full detailed confession from the killer. Not even having every single witness statement, every police interview, every transcript, a video recording of the entire trial with audio, every single piece of info in conjunction with this case would make a single bit of difference. Nothing. Nada. We, the general public, along with the aforementioned people and authorities, have to make do with what we think we know, make do with limitations of human understanding, and make our own inferences from the circumstantial info available to us. An arduous, unenviable Herculean task, is it not?
And, just because Parky41 does often provide articulate, well-thought-out, lengthy posts, it does not mean he or she is right. He or she doesn’t possess the gift of omniscience. As highlighted above, we are all merely guessing from our own inferences, interpretations and instincts, from the purely circumstantial evidence in the case. At this exact moment, as I type this, I am inclined to think that Luke Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied, judging from what I have read of the case so far (i.e, info gleaned from various forums, newspaper articles, tv documentaries and Sandra’s book, IB), that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt — which is extremely problematic given the seriousness of the crime.
-
It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.
Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.
Have some of those things not already been addressed by the authorities and accepted that some techniques used by the police were unprofessional?
As far as cutting down branches and climbing over walls, a bit nitpicky there, these are hardly errors, or in your words "catalogue" but no doubt, there are a catalogue of errors in Leans book, where is seems you are getting your information from. I'm also curious, you have gathered information online regarding this, care to share?
I also think, I read not too long ago on this forum. Someone suggested drawing a diagram of the locus, to show how it was possible to cover the crime scene, they did after all, have to cut away some branches to make semi manageable space to work. Care to take a crack at this diagram, to show us how a tent for example could have been erected?
So, you want the authorities, the government, who by all accounts are happy with this conviction to hand over more public money, for some private independent review. MSP's of various parties have already commented, regarding this case, and going by their comments, there is more chance that Jesus is reincarnated, than any more public funds being spent on a red herring.
My final thoughts. Is do you seriously think Lean of all people want an independent review? It would be outwith her control, it would expose her innocence fraud. Like I have said previously. Why do you think, she will never make public, the report she got from the SCCRC? Many of these so-called unanswered questions will be in that report. If there is any pressure that should be applied any-where, it should be from her very own supporters to herself, to get this report uploaded.
-
I find it all overtly contradictory? - Whilst we know how these minute areas of truth show no context of the facts and relevant truth behind them - even with above there is that clear contradiction - of the handling of this crime scene, potentially destroying evidence - to then wanting the coroner and all else to traipse through other areas, in the dark which would definitely have had more potential of destroying evidence, would it not? Only the actual reports, the reasoning and timing of each and everything, laid out would show us the truth. We know how much is made of this wrongful claim, of the bike being seen at this V, without a shadow of a doubt that Ms Lean knows this is impossible - yet uses it. As she does with the above? - therefore it is what we are not being told that tells us - that the above is far from the actual truth.
Without doubt an exaggerated & manufactured story to keep the attention away from the real killer - Luke Mitchell
We’ve seen these malicious tactics used in many others cases - and Sandra Lean has written about some of them too
-
What I fail to grasp most in what you put out - is this lack of knowing factually, of what actually did happen? Those recordings and how they turned the tide on what DF was trying to show, as with the phone logs to the speaking clock and now with AO? - He did testify at court. So as well as those "statements" of his that Ms Lean refers to - there is his actual evidence in court. - one has to wonder, are you playing coy/games - or are you really lacking in all of this knowledge?
Okay...AO gave evidence in court, provide the evidence? Insinuating that you know something is really not the same as actually knowing it. Perhaps it’s a good lesson to learn?
And of this repeat of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what we have with Manson. We know LM liked and admired his work, so much so that he bought and viewed this DVD showing that awful depiction - of this girl murdered, naked in a woodland.
Now here’s the thing. Liking Manson, though there was no evidence that Luke particularly did more than any other musical artist, was only ever a bridge to what the prosecution really wanted to insinuate, that the images seen in the Golden Age of the Grotesque dvd, a dvd given free with an album, and the artwork by Manson of the Black Dahlia where a reflection of Luke’s sinister psychology in some way, even though none of it was true. Luke had no Manson CDs in his collection before the murder and had not accessed Manson’s Black Dahlia painting on any device he owned. The contempt shown to the jury with this nonsense is jaw dropping. A youth who owned no Manson albums before the murder of his girlfriend and had never accessed his art work was alleged to have committed a murder in a way that replicated that artwork...like some dysfunctional Mystic Meg. How ridiculous is that when you say it out loud. Of course the murders weren’t similar at all as the pathologist verified later.
And of this phone call at the scene of his phone not being covered in blood. As above. Something we certainly discussed a lot when studying this case. Of this affluent adolescent boy. Of this data being scrubbed and that call to the speaking clock. Of that repetitive question of -"why phone when his phone would have the time?" When LM could of course had two handsets, old and new? - Of swapping the sim thus knocking the time out and losing data at the same time - we don't know if the handset he handed in was the one he was using - do we? And of course that of having gloves on, anything really. - But there was nothing on the one he did hand in, which tells us it was either not the handset he used or he had gloves on, or cleaned his hands first.. - and of course, it's not so ridiculous to suggest he would not have had gloves when one is wearing a heavy parka jacket?
Except there’s not a scrap of evidence for the above. The police never put it forward as a theory and they certainly never found another phone in any of their raids on Luke’s home or any receipt for another phone. Remember Occam’s Razor...there was none of Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s phone simply because Luke didn’t murder her. Anything else is just desperate speculation.
And we do have to ask ourselves - with the evidence led, of describing the best way to kill someone - how much was LM prepared for this becoming reality one day? Of carrying knives, what else did he carry with him?
More speculation without an iota of evidence.
And of the interviews of knowledge of being seen? - he would not have been aware of being seen. Of that car with AB when he met with Jodi and of standing at the gate with F&W - looking suspicious. - His alibi, without a shadow of a doubt, was concocted and reeked of such when they gave it to the police. Right down to enjoying the summer sunshine in the garden?
Looking suspicious....ah yes, that little nugget added under oath.
-
The conclusion of this case was a majority guilty verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence. Not one piece of direct evidence was led in court. As such, the crux of the matter is that none of us, judges, lawyers, police, cjsw, jurors, the media, friends & family of the convicted and deceased, Sandra Lean and the general public, have ever known the exact true facts of this case. No one will ever know the exact true facts of what happened to Jodi Jones between 1650 and 2340 on 30.06.03, unless we get a full detailed confession from the killer. Not even having every single witness statement, every police interview, every transcript, a video recording of the entire trial with audio, every single piece of info in conjunction with this case would make a single bit of difference. Nothing. Nada. We, the general public, along with the aforementioned people and authorities, have to make do with what we think we know, make do with limitations of human understanding, and make our own inferences from the circumstantial info available to us. An arduous, unenviable Herculean task, is it not?
And, just because Parky41 does often provide articulate, well-thought-out, lengthy posts, it does not mean he or she is right. He or she doesn’t possess the gift of omniscience. As highlighted above, we are all merely guessing from our own inferences, interpretations and instincts, from the purely circumstantial evidence in the case. At this exact moment, as I type this, I am inclined to think that Luke Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied, judging from what I have read of the case so far (i.e, info gleaned from various forums, newspaper articles, tv documentaries and Sandra’s book, IB), that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt — which is extremely problematic given the seriousness of the crime.
Think this needs to be split up into segments a little - For myself to answer that is.
Not one piece of direct evidence - tied in with the true facts of this case. Are two separate things are they not? Firstly it can not be truer, and I have stated this myself on many occasions. That only the killer knows exactly what happened that night, and only the killer would know certain things. - And as you rightly say, no-one will ever know exactly what happened, over what we do know to have happened. That Jodi Jones was brutally murdered and that LM is in jail for that murder. And even here, if we were to bring in some direct evidence. The knife, incriminating DNA - we would still not know exactly what happened, unless yet again the killer were to enlighten us. What direct evidence would have done - was close over the door of reasonable doubt substantially, and perhaps brought about a unanimous verdict. - But not necessarily so, as some due to the very nature of this crime, of not wishing to be responsible in playing a part in proclaiming guilt - are those who would have had to actually witness the crime itself being carried out.
But here we are, it was a circumstantial case - of which Luke Mitchell is the convicted person for this murder. - He is whether we like it or not. in law - a murderer. Then we move onto the realms of reasonable doubt and the endless debate as to whether there was enough evidence. - And it is mainly this we are discussing, is it not? - Of all, we as individuals do know. Thankfully, we did not have this "arduous, Herculean task" of having to be those people who had to decide.
And you are spot on - What a burden it must have been, for the police, onto the Crown and subsequently the Jury - That ended up with a young lad now spending his life in prison. The enormous task that his defence had - In fighting with all they had. to combat the evidence introduced - And I have stated, that it is not my place, and I am thankful for that - to state firmly that LM murdered Jodi Jones - that this burden had already taken place for the above. Of each and every witness who testified knowing the seriousness of the case - Which, and perhaps I am somewhat naive - makes it even more so convincing that LM was proven to have murdered Jodi Jones. - That due to the very nature of the case, of this horrific murder of this young girl, that people would be telling the truth. And keeping with the oath on which they swore. That the police also, due to the very nature of this case, would also have sought to being Just, of being fair and true in all they did. And onto the Crown, defence, Jury and the Judge. - And yes, it goes wrong and people are wrongfully convicted - It is not a basis for saying it happened here, it holds no water without solid foundation.
And I have on many occasions now, used language such as "after he had murdered her". Of having to do X Y or Z - whilst using the evidence we do have. And whilst I use terms such as being overcome with rage and so forth to then becoming calm - it is again on the basis of what we do know. We do know that Luke Mitchell is in jail for this murder. And we work around this, around the evidence. And a lot of what I do use is to combat those direct claims by people - of how it had to be, when it simply did not - And again on the basis that this guilty verdict was brought about. So whatever evidence was gathered and heard - then the Jury accepted that there were means used - to thwart any DNA being present to incriminate himself? As I did with the phone evidence earlier. I was not stating he had to have had two phones, or he had to have worn gloves - I was as people do, introducing possibilities around this, for the fact is - there was no incriminating DNA on the phone he did hand in. I also highlighted with this, the perfect area, if there was any basis at all for LM being fitted up, of this tunnel vision and so forth? - Would be to tamper with evidence - they simply did not, and we can say this, can we not? - When there is absolutely nothing, other than innuendo to make claim that they did.
So, yes - whilst I may speak at times from the basis of using language, such as "he had already murdered her" - it is on the basis of fact. The fact that he was found guilty, the fact that he was ID at both ends of this path, the fact that Jodi entered this path and did not leave it from that time. And at times, it is necessary to use this language, to drive some points home. What I do not do - is claim to knowing exactly what did happen. Of his every move, of why he murdered her and so forth. - for as you say - no one knows this but the killer. And again, whilst I may use the terms - I have stated, many time, categorically - it is not my place to lay guilt firmly upon this shoulders, but can speak with it - on that pure basis, that he is a convicted murderer.
And to revert back yet again. Of asking myself that question. "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" "Why could he not be eliminated, whilst others could?" And a lot of what I do post, as stated is in discussion of all that is known. And of the wrong in what I see is being done in the name of Justice by Unjust means. And again, as you rightly point out, of the exact facts and truth - it is exactly this that I try to make many points on, is it not? - As with this claim of Ms Leans book "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" Leaving aside what only the killer can tell us - It is a completely false premise, is it not? - For Ms Lean does not even hold all of the evidence, she does not have nowhere near enough of anything - to make claims of truth? - does she?
So - No Mr Apples, I do not make claim to knowing all the facts of anything, and I never have. All I do try to do, is highlight all that is missing. And of highlighting much more than what was led at trial, on the investigation side - Not because I have some insider knowledge or the gift of omniscience. But of taken the time to understand those clear reasons for suspicion. Of that alibi - I did not make any of that up. Those were the ever changing accounts given, their evidence. - which resulted in this dinner being squeezed into less than 15mins. Of the search party. Those timings and so forth - all true. Of LM's very clear evidence and account of what happened in contrast with the search trio - and again, no omniscience required - Straight from the horses mouth. I did not make up LM's time out and about - he gave that himself - I did not make up his lies or the lies given for him - they did that. And yes some must come down to basic trust - Do I trust the words of LM over these other witnesses - then I choose the others. And I will say again, If someone has had to lie about all and everything - it is a clear sign of guilt, and this is one clear valid area of suspicion, as to why LM could not be eliminated.
And then we finish off with this reasonable doubt. Of that arduous task right from the beginning. For the police, for the Crown, defence and the Jury. For every witness and onto the Judge. - What do we do here? - Prohibit all circumstantial cases, allow only those with clear direct evidence. Do we stop MOJ this way? Or do we do as we must at present. And allow for every legal avenue to be used. That is there in the very first instance, due to the very nature of this case being circumstantial. For there is always going to be room, for that "Crux of the matter" is there not? - But as you say, not one person knows it all, other than, and in this case Jodi Jones and her killer. Right down to myself and of course Ms Lean, who is the very cause is she not - of the vast majority of any discussion. For she most definitely does not know everything, knows far less than the police, the Crown, those witnesses and of course this Jury. Yet she has invented some questions has she not?, and one is hardly surprised that anyone would have questions as such (not all of them) - when there is so much missing from all that she has had access to? - Are not your very own doubts around the books which led into FS, onto podcast and this documentary - stemmed from her? Of her claims that this case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt? Of a flawed investigation, in her opinion. Of tunnel vision, in her opinion. Of changing witness statements in her interpretation, of botched DNA testing, in her opinion, of more viable suspects?? being air brushed over, in her opinion and so on.
So, yes, whilst I and many others do not know everything - we are not claiming to - Ms Lean sadly always has. And she most definitely does not. And it is clear, of how much of everything she does have, can become a distorted reality for some. As we have with the bike at the V break in the wall. Which is for many who take the time to understand - based on a small fragment of truth with absolutely no foundation for being fact, in that anyone could see this V break, unless they were on this very path - And we know the witness she speaks of and the one DF mentioned is the employee from BTH who was driving at the time. And we know she has tripped herself up with this many times has she not? -when she made claim to the V being hard to see, unless you were actively looking for it on this very path.
So whilst my posts may be varied and - the only parts that I or anyone really do not know, and can not know - are exactly as this killer did, on this we have only the clear evidence of that sequence of events - of using what we can, to understand areas, such as - disappearing from sight to be seen again in different clothing. And for the most part of other areas - it is using the Crowns case, of other information gathered - to combat what is being put out, to show that there is nothing in this 5% of anything - In this the truth of the actual/factual evidence, does not lie. That it is empty of context and substance.
-
I have removed several off topic posts.
Please would posters stay on topic. Thank you.
-
Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.
It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.
Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.
Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.
What was the outcome of the comment made? Sandra denied any wrongdoing in her last live. I would be interested to know the truth.
-
What was the outcome of the comment made? Sandra denied any wrongdoing in her last live. I would be interested to know the truth.
https://twitter.com/janehamilton22/status/1393524282362417156
&
https://twitter.com/janehamilton22/status/1398541628294549504
-
I am not sure how to reply to an earlier post but someone said AB went to the police the following morning to report 2 people she saw at the entrance of the path. If she did not know [Name removed] and all the pictures released at the time were of a much younger Jodi why would she think it was [Name removed] and LM
-
I am not sure how to reply to an earlier post but someone said AB went to the police the following morning to report 2 people she saw at the entrance of the path. If she did not know [Name removed] and all the pictures released at the time were of a much younger Jodi why would she think it was [Name removed] and LM
The much younger pictures of Jodi weren't released the following day.
-
The much younger pictures of Jodi weren't released the following day.
Andrina Bryson didn't go to the police the next day to say she saw LM and [Name removed]. She went to the police to say she had seen a male and a female.
-
Andrina Bryson didn't go to the police the next day to say she saw LM and [Name removed]. She went to the police to say she had seen a male and a female.
Yes and at around 5.50.
I do wonder what weight the jury would have given to AB’s sighting if they had know the timing of the sighting in her first two statements?
-
Yes and at around 5.50.
I do wonder what weight the jury would have given to AB’s sighting if they had know the timing of the sighting in her first two statements?
Andrina Bryson's statement to the police isn't in the public domain along with a lot of other things we're just expected to believe. I don't have the information you seem to have.
-
Andrina Bryson's statement to the police isn't in the public domain along with a lot of other things we're just expected to believe. I don't have the information you seem to have.
You seem to believe information detrimental to Luke, Corrine and Sandra for which there is no evidence in the public domain…why not this?
-
You seem to believe information detrimental to Luke, Corrine and Sandra for which there is no evidence in the public domain…why not this?
As I said, I don't have the information you seem to have. I believe what I believe based on what I have read, based on what is available, what I know personally and common sense. Especially common sense. When someone tells me, "we" know, I know I'm not "we" and I see the attempt at manipulation. Anyway, how do you know so much about the witness statements, the information that isn't in the public domain? You didn't answer.
-
You seem to believe information detrimental to Luke, Corrine and Sandra for which there is no evidence in the public domain…why not this?
Just to be clear, I believe AB.
-
Just to be clear, I believe AB.
When she said her sighting happened at 5.50 or 4.54 ?
-
When she said her sighting happened at 5.50 or 4.54 ?
Show me proof of both then we can have a fair debate.
-
When she said her sighting happened at 5.50 or 4.54 ?
Anyway, back to the original question. Why do you have information (if it's accurate, ) that isn't available to the rest of us? With all due respect, you still haven't answered.
-
Show me proof of both then we can have a fair debate.
If you believe AB told the truth, as earlier stated, then you must have proof of at least one of the times stated…which?
-
Anyway, back to the original question. Why do you have information (if it's accurate, ) that isn't available to the rest of us? With all due respect, you still haven't answered.
By the ‘rest of us’ do you mean you?
-
By the ‘rest of us’ do you mean you?
Yeah I do. How do you have information I don't have?
-
If you believe AB told the truth, as earlier stated, then you must have proof of at least one of the times stated…which?
I don't have anything that isn't in the public domain that isn't second hand information. I've already told you that. You seem to have more info about AB and her statements. Why do you have more info than me please?
-
Yeah I do. How do you have information I don't have?
It’s called research.
-
It’s called research.
But you're not going to be point me in the right direction though, are you?
-
But you're not going to be point me in the right direction though, are you?
Should I need to? Surely someone as sure of their position on this case as has researched this case thoroughly already?
-
Should I need to? Surely someone as sure of their position on this case as has researched this case thoroughly already?
If you have factual information, why would you hold it back? Wouldn't you like everyone to know the facts? Surely you wouldn't withhold facts for no other reason than you can? This isn't a competition. There's a dead girl at the centre of this so if you have facts, you'll share them, no?
-
If you have factual information, why would you hold it back? Wouldn't you like everyone to know the facts? Surely you wouldn't withhold facts for no other reason than you can? This isn't a competition. There's a dead girl at the centre of this so if you have facts, you'll share them, no?
Surely you know the facts already? How else could you have come to such a rigid conclusion as you have if you didn’t?
-
Surely you know the facts already? How else could you have come to such a rigid conclusion as you have if you didn’t?
Ok so does that mean you can't provide any proof?
-
Ok so does that mean you can't provide any proof?
Not can’t, won’t. There’s no point in flogging a dead horse as you’ve obviously made your mind up, with or without the information you’ve requested.
-
Surely you know the facts already? How else could you have come to suc
h a rigid co
nclusion as you have if you didn’t?
Anyway, small talk aside, how do you know more about AB than I do? Research doesn't cut it. I'm sure you'll provide the info unless you have reason not to. And that'll be a gem!
-
Anyway, small talk aside, how do you know more about AB than I do? Research doesn't cut it. I'm sure you'll provide the info unless you have reason not to. And that'll be a gem!
The information is common knowledge. I’m surprised you don’t know it already, being so convinced of Luke’s guilt and all.
Anyhoo…that’s half an hour that I’ll never get back. Time for bed.
-
The information is common knowledge. I’m surprised you don’t know it already, being so convinced of Luke’s guilt and all.
Anyhoo…that’s half an hour that I’ll never get back. Time for bed.
Anyhoo?
-
Anyhoo?
Thank you
-
The information is common knowledge. I’m surprised you don’t know it already, being so convinced of Luke’s guilt and all.
Anyhoo…that’s half an hour that I’ll never get back. Time for bed.
The information is NOT common knowledge. How do you know? Maybe you just want to play silly games because Jodi isn't your priority but she should be so please share your knowledge. Why wouldn't you?
-
Not can’t, won’t. There’s no point in flogging a dead horse as you’ve obviously made your mind up, with or without the information you’ve requested.
Don't be silly. You're making a fool of yourself now. Don't pretend I'm the reason you're not going to provide proof. The reason you can't provide proof is because you don't have any.
-
‘Hi Folks - as the publisher of Ms Sandra Lean's book - 'No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice' - I thought I should help clarify a couple of points of possible misinformation here.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s250.html
Did Sandra Lean phone or email Stephen T Manning re the above?
-
The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !
Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:
Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.
So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd.
We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.
Were there more than 5 witnesses who saw [Name removed] and killer Luke Mitchell but only 5 were called to give evidence?
-
What you have said in this is very interesting. Derek and marion are actually my parents, i feel as though there is more to this than what has been said here or what was mentioned in court. Please contact me i would love to talk to you more about this.
-
Didn't Luke Mitchell change his appearance somewhat drastically after the murder? What he looked like in the media and in court was surely different to what he looked like on the evening of the murder or is there more to it?
-
What you have said in this is very interesting. Derek and marion are actually my parents, i feel as though there is more to this than what has been said here or what was mentioned in court. Please contact me i would love to talk to you more about this.
Sandra Lean & Her Laughable Eye Witness Testimony; Carol Heatlie, Rosemary Walsh, Lorraine Fleming, Andrina Bryson, Marion O’Sullivan, Derek Hamilton, Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston, Grant Elliot & The Jogger “Trick” (Part 43)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/04/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-43/
-
Didn't Luke Mitchell change his appearance somewhat drastically after the murder? What he looked like in the media and in court was surely different to what he looked like on the evening of the murder or is there more to it?
Absolutely. He had changed considerably between June '03 & his court appearances between November '04 & January '05, owed to puberty and his still developing physically. Also, he had much longer hair during court appearances, and I've no doubt him growing his hair and wearing it in a ponytail was done deliberately with a view to trying to confuse eyewitnesses -- much like him changing into the shiny green bomber jacket between 1745 - 1800 from the dull long olive green parka jacket he was spotted wearing between 1655 and 1740. This is why MO & DH were adamant it wasn't LM at court; he had changed so much between their sighting in June '03 and his court appearances in '04 & '05. Even AB said she wasn't sure if it was LM in the dock, after saying to police on August '03 that "she was as sure as she could be that it was him she seen with Jodi at 1655 at Easthouses on 30.06.03. Likewise, F & W were a tad confused by LM's physical appearance in court, after saying to police on August '03 that it was unequivocally LM they had seen on NB Rd at 1740 on 30.06.03 (ie, "OH my God, it's him!"). The good thing is that there were 3 boys in pushbikes who knew LM personally and they positively ID'd him on the NB Rd at just after 1800 on 30.06.03. Crucially, these 3 boys id'd LM in court and, even more crucially, they noted the green bomber jacket and black baggy jeans that LM was wearing at 1805 on 30.06.03 -- the same clothing MO, DH & CH noticed this same youth was wearing. So, the youth MO & DH saw was actually Luke Mitchell. It was him on Nbattle rd between 1805-1815, wearing a change of clothing (changing from the dull olive green parka jacket at 1755/1800 into a shiny green bomber jacket). LM was very devious & crafty, but providence worked against him in this case.
-
Absolutely. He had changed considerably between June '03 & his court appearances between November '04 & January '05, owed to puberty and his still developing physically. Also, he had much longer hair during court appearances, and I've no doubt him growing his hair and wearing it in a ponytail was done deliberately with a view to trying to confuse eyewitnesses -- much like him changing into the shiny green bomber jacket between 1745 - 1800 from the dull long olive green parka jacket he was spotted wearing between 1655 and 1740. This is why MO & DH were adamant it wasn't LM at court; he had changed so much between their sighting in June '03 and his court appearances in '04 & '05. Even AB said she wasn't sure if it was LM in the dock, after saying to police on August '03 that "she was as sure as she could be that it was him she seen with Jodi at 1655 at Easthouses on 30.06.03. Likewise, F & W were a tad confused by LM's physical appearance in court, after saying to police on August '03 that it was unequivocally LM they had seen on NB Rd at 1740 on 30.06.03 (ie, "OH my God, it's him!"). The good thing is that there were 3 boys in pushbikes who knew LM personally and they positively ID'd him on the NB Rd at just after 1800 on 30.06.03. Crucially, these 3 boys id'd LM in court and, even more crucially, they noted the green bomber jacket and black baggy jeans that LM was wearing at 1805 on 30.06.03 -- the same clothing MO, DH & CH noticed this same youth was wearing. So, the youth MO & DH saw was actually Luke Mitchell. It was him on Nbattle rd between 1805-1815, wearing a change of clothing (changing from the dull olive green parka jacket at 1755/1800 into a shiny green bomber jacket). LM was very devious & crafty, but providence worked against him in this case.
Apologies if the above is a tad incoherent -- I'm having a few cocktails at the airport and flying down to Bristol for a conference. Typing from phone, too. Crap!
-
What you have said in this is very interesting. Derek and marion are actually my parents, i feel as though there is more to this than what has been said here or what was mentioned in court. Please contact me i would love to talk to you more about this.
Welcome! Do your mum and dad now think it may have been LM they saw on 30.06.03? Hopefully, their full transcript will be uploaded on the new blog. 8((()*/
-
Meanwhile, back in the endeavours to ascertain case facts, some related new posts:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/594743596079701/?ref=share
-
Meanwhile, back in the endeavours to ascertain case facts, some related new posts:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/594743596079701/?ref=share
They are not “new” James Easton this is yet more of your deception 🙄
“The dock identification - why the omission from Innocents betrayed?”
👇
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-dock-identification-why-omission.html?m=1
-
Absolutely. He had changed considerably between June '03 & his court appearances between November '04 & January '05, owed to puberty and his still developing physically. Also, he had much longer hair during court appearances, and I've no doubt him growing his hair and wearing it in a ponytail was done deliberately with a view to trying to confuse eyewitnesses -- much like him changing into the shiny green bomber jacket between 1745 - 1800 from the dull long olive green parka jacket he was spotted wearing between 1655 and 1740. This is why MO & DH were adamant it wasn't LM at court; he had changed so much between their sighting in June '03 and his court appearances in '04 & '05. Even AB said she wasn't sure if it was LM in the dock, after saying to police on August '03 that "she was as sure as she could be that it was him she seen with Jodi at 1655 at Easthouses on 30.06.03. Likewise, F & W were a tad confused by LM's physical appearance in court, after saying to police on August '03 that it was unequivocally LM they had seen on NB Rd at 1740 on 30.06.03 (ie, "OH my God, it's him!"). The good thing is that there were 3 boys in pushbikes who knew LM personally and they positively ID'd him on the NB Rd at just after 1800 on 30.06.03. Crucially, these 3 boys id'd LM in court and, even more crucially, they noted the green bomber jacket and black baggy jeans that LM was wearing at 1805 on 30.06.03 -- the same clothing MO, DH & CH noticed this same youth was wearing. So, the youth MO & DH saw was actually Luke Mitchell. It was him on Nbattle rd between 1805-1815, wearing a change of clothing (changing from the dull olive green parka jacket at 1755/1800 into a shiny green bomber jacket). LM was very devious & crafty, but providence worked against him in this case.
I can tell you as FACT that the person M.O'Sullivan saw was NOT Mitchell. She actually knew who Luke and Jodi were because she had often seen them walking around together over the months before the murder. The person she saw was in a lane right next to her father-in laws house. She described him as in his 20s and significantly taller than what Mitchell was and looked like he was on something. It was 100% NOT Mitchell.
[/b][/size]
-
I can tell you as FACT that the person M.O'Sullivan saw was NOT Mitchell. She actually knew who Luke and Jodi were because she had often seen them walking around together over the months before the murder. The person she saw was in a lane right next to her father-in laws house. She described him as in his 20s and significantly taller than what Mitchell was and looked like he was on something. It was 100% NOT Mitchell.
I guess we'll just have to wait on her and her husband's court transcripts being uploaded. It would somewhat throw the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons if she did say that, especially if she was consistent with her statements to police and under oath. Btw, who told you she said this? Do you have a cite?
-
Sorry about the large bold letters, that wasn't intentional. I can't tell you what she said in Court as I've not seen a transcript of her evidence. However what I said is 100% accurate because it came from her herself.
Having recently read other transcripts, the evidence of Walsh and Fleming was nonsensical. One of them said they only saw the person's face near the gate side-on from the rear view mirror of their car when they drove past. The other one claimed to have seen Mitchell in the papers on a date when no pictures had yet appeared of him in the Press. Really all that's reliable from their sighting is that there was a youth standing next to the gate wearing something green. This sort of eye witness sighting is so poor it should never have carried any weight in Court. The sighting by M.O'Sullivan of someone in a green jacket was NOT Mitchell, because as I said, she had seen him and Jodi walking around in the weeks pre the murder because her father in law lived very near LM. She knew who they were and the guy looked nothing like LM.
The chances of 2 youths wearing green being spotted within something like 30 minutes are probably almost zero, so I am near certain the person seen at the gate was the same person M.O'Sullivan saw. If that person was not LM, then it can't have been Mitchell at the gate.
These Court transcripts are really concerning and alarming. There is no way the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Janine Jones' evidence is particularly horrendous. " I don't know" was her favourite answer, She also claimed she didn't know Roan's Dyke Path existed despite having lived very near it for at least 15 years. Is she saying her mother never told her as a child and teen not to go up that path? It's just utterly ridiculous but of course she was a witness not the accused, so Findlay didn't grill her about the path question. That's just one example of lies being told. No explanation in Court either as to why Alice Walker went straight to the path and didn't even look in the trees adjacent to the path before the wall starts well before the V. No explanation from [Name removed] or [Name removed] either as to what they were doing when the moped was seen at the V. The whole thing is horrendous and definitely was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bryson even failed to identify him in Court, but he was still convicted. There's nothing to link him to the murder. There's no DNA, no identifications of him in the area. only people in green jackets or shirts. People can argue for eternity whether he did it or not, but the law is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no way at all that this met that,
-
Sorry about the large bold letters, that wasn't intentional. I can't tell you what she said in Court as I've not seen a transcript of her evidence. However what I said is 100% accurate because it came from her herself.
Having recently read other transcripts, the evidence of Walsh and Fleming was nonsensical. One of them said they only saw the person's face near the gate side-on from the rear view mirror of their car when they drove past. The other one claimed to have seen Mitchell in the papers on a date when no pictures had yet appeared of him in the Press. Really all that's reliable from their sighting is that there was a youth standing next to the gate wearing something green. This sort of eye witness sighting is so poor it should never have carried any weight in Court. The sighting by M.O'Sullivan of someone in a green jacket was NOT Mitchell, because as I said, she had seen him and Jodi walking around in the weeks pre the murder because her father in law lived very near LM. She knew who they were and the guy looked nothing like LM.
The chances of 2 youths wearing green being spotted within something like 30 minutes are probably almost zero, so I am near certain the person seen at the gate was the same person M.O'Sullivan saw. If that person was not LM, then it can't have been Mitchell at the gate.
These Court transcripts are really concerning and alarming. There is no way the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Janine Jones' evidence is particularly horrendous. " I don't know" was her favourite answer, She also claimed she didn't know Roan's Dyke Path existed despite having lived very near it for at least 15 years. Is she saying her mother never told her as a child and teen not to go up that path? It's just utterly ridiculous but of course she was a witness not the accused, so Findlay didn't grill her about the path question. That's just one example of lies being told. No explanation in Court either as to why Alice Walker went straight to the path and didn't even look in the trees adjacent to the path before the wall starts well before the V. No explanation from [Name removed] or [Name removed] either as to what they were doing when the moped was seen at the V. The whole thing is horrendous and definitely was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bryson even failed to identify him in Court, but he was still convicted. There's nothing to link him to the murder. There's no DNA, no identifications of him in the area. only people in green jackets or shirts. People can argue for eternity whether he did it or not, but the law is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no way at all that this met that,
According to this article, she didn't know LM at all:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-in-defence-2509118
-
Sorry about the large bold letters, that wasn't intentional. I can't tell you what she said in Court as I've not seen a transcript of her evidence. However what I said is 100% accurate because it came from her herself.
Having recently read other transcripts, the evidence of Walsh and Fleming was nonsensical. One of them said they only saw the person's face near the gate side-on from the rear view mirror of their car when they drove past. The other one claimed to have seen Mitchell in the papers on a date when no pictures had yet appeared of him in the Press. Really all that's reliable from their sighting is that there was a youth standing next to the gate wearing something green. This sort of eye witness sighting is so poor it should never have carried any weight in Court. The sighting by M.O'Sullivan of someone in a green jacket was NOT Mitchell, because as I said, she had seen him and Jodi walking around in the weeks pre the murder because her father in law lived very near LM. She knew who they were and the guy looked nothing like LM.
The chances of 2 youths wearing green being spotted within something like 30 minutes are probably almost zero, so I am near certain the person seen at the gate was the same person M.O'Sullivan saw. If that person was not LM, then it can't have been Mitchell at the gate.
These Court transcripts are really concerning and alarming. There is no way the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Janine Jones' evidence is particularly horrendous. " I don't know" was her favourite answer, She also claimed she didn't know Roan's Dyke Path existed despite having lived very near it for at least 15 years. Is she saying her mother never told her as a child and teen not to go up that path? It's just utterly ridiculous but of course she was a witness not the accused, so Findlay didn't grill her about the path question. That's just one example of lies being told. No explanation in Court either as to why Alice Walker went straight to the path and didn't even look in the trees adjacent to the path before the wall starts well before the V. No explanation from [Name removed] or [Name removed] either as to what they were doing when the moped was seen at the V. The whole thing is horrendous and definitely was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bryson even failed to identify him in Court, but he was still convicted. There's nothing to link him to the murder. There's no DNA, no identifications of him in the area. only people in green jackets or shirts. People can argue for eternity whether he did it or not, but the law is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no way at all that this met that,
Indeed WW - What are the chances? On the same stretch of road a youth wearing dark green clothing. But not the real deal, LM himself wearing his green clothing sitting on that wall at the entrance of his estate. What are the chances of seeing one but not the other? Where the hell was LM WW?
-
According to this article, she didn't know LM at all:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-in-defence-2509118
Yes that's what the article says. Perhaps she was afraid at the time to say more. When I said she knew them it wasn't necessarily by name but just hanging around the area. Jodi and Luke often walked about that road where he lived and M.O'S father in law lived very close by so she will have seen them as Luke and Jodi knew each other for quite a while before the murder. I note from the article that both her and her husband were certain this guy they saw looked nothing like Mitchell. She described him as early 20s, tall and thin and looking like "he was on something", although not sure if she said that part in Court.
-
Indeed WW - What are the chances? On the same stretch of road a youth wearing dark green clothing. But not the real deal, LM himself wearing his green clothing sitting on that wall at the entrance of his estate. What are the chances of seeing one but not the other? Where the hell was LM WW?
It's baffling to say the least. I think we can rule out the possibility that there were 2 young men in green jackets seen in the same area around the same time. It must have been the same person. The description M.O's gave chilled me a bit at the time. I got that uneasy feeling you get where you feel very strongly you can see something even though it's not actually physically there. That feeling came over me because the description sounded almost exactly like someone who is often talked of as being a suspect but was never investigated. I probably can't say on here who that person is, so I'll say it was someone who had scratches all over his face the day after the murder. I actually cannot fathom how he was never interviewed by Police until years after the Trial, despite turning up at a Police station with SF. With him now being deceased it's going to be impossible to ascertain whether he had anything to do with it or not, unless these DNA samples of sperm that were on Jodi's body are analysed.
Turnbull claimed in Court that sperm was found from SK on the t-shirt due to washing machine transference. I always thought that this was a load of rubbish, but I recently read of an extensive scientific experiment in Canada where tests were done by putting bedsheets with sperm on them in a washing machine with items of underwear. What was found was that very few traces of sperm transferred to the underwear, but a very small number actually did. However, as we now know there was sperm in 14 places on the body, only SK's sperm on the t-shirt can be explained by washing machine transference. The presence of sperm on the body changes the non sexual categorisation of the murder, there clearly was a sexual element which makes it even less likely it was Mitchell.
These DNA samples need to be tested.
Where was Mitchell if it wasn't him seen by M.O'S ? He had gone out some time around 530-540 I think because he was seen by 3 cyclists at around 6pm then shortly afterwards by friends. The problem still remains that the only person who confirmed he was in the house between 515pm and around 530-540pm was Corrine.
-
MK was ruled out of having any involvement in Jodi's murder by way of forensics. His dna was tested against all the available crime scene dna samples pre-trial and nothing of his was found (see link below). The SCCRC also retested dna samples from the original trial and nothing was found except a previously undetected sample that was so degraded that they could not name its source or get a profile from (see the second link below). If there were any incriminating dna samples, they would have been picked up at the original trial and by the sccrc latterly. Nothing of any significance was ever found and discussing the dna in this case was, is, and probably always will be, futile. What I would like to know, however, is if MK's whereabouts on 30.06.03 were ever confirmed. I'm talking outwith him being on cctv buying alcohol from a local shop just before 2200. He was a person of interest in the early stages of the investigation, but was, according to police at the time, 'untraceable'. I've heard that he was out of the Dalkeith area on the afternoon to late evening on 30.06.03 (up untill his sighting at that shop buying alcohol at just before 2200), but was wondering if it was ever confirmed. Does anyone know?
Yeah, the eyewitness accounts between 1740 - 1820 are messy as hell. LF & RW couldn't say if the khaki parka jacket had a hood or not (though they both said that when they saw a pic of LM in the DR that it 'jumped out at them' that it was the same lad they spotted at the gate looking up to no good, and they both id'd him in court); two of the three pushbike boys' testimonies (ie GE & DH) will never ever be availabe because they were never transcribed at trial for some reason (they did say they saw LM at just before 1800 on n'battle rd just before 1800 and did positively id him in court along with their pushbike boy pal, Andrew Holburn); the pushbike boy who didn't know LM, Andrew Holburn, his transcript is available and he described seeing LM at the entrance to a path on n'battle rd just before 1800, wearing a khaki army shirt -- that went past his waist -- similar to those sold in Flip clothing in Edinburgh (he too, along with his pushbike pals GE & DH, id'd LM in court); motorist CH said she saw a suspicious looking boy standing at a driveway to a house on n'battle rd at approx 1805 (she indicated that his clothing was dark, grungey and baggy -- said the jacket was maybecacdark dull green -- and said in court that the boy she saw that day was 'very, very similar' to LM). MO & DH's testimonies are the real anomaly, though. They spotted a suspicious looking boy on n'battle rd at just before 1800 but wearing a bomber jacket and said the boy they saw that day unequivocally wasn't LM. But, LM had changed considerably between their sighting and their court appearance -- so perhaps that would explain why they said this -- and LM did have a green bomber jacket in addition to a dull khaki green army shirt and dull khaki green army parka. And when we apply some logic and the principles of Occam's razor, it all points emphatically to LM being the boy spotted on that stretch of road acting suspiciously. All of the other id'd him in court, got his age right, hair style, height, clothing style & colour. Perhaps MO & DH were mistaken about what a bomber jacket was? One of the pushbike boys had to turn back 20-30 mins later as he had a puncture and said LM was still at the same spot as he was at when he first passed him at just before 1800 with the two other pushbike boys, putting him back on n'battle road between 1820-1830, so it would be interesting to read what he said LM was wearing when he went past him that second time (though, I'm not sure if the ADT asked him about this, and of course we'll never know as 2 of those boys' testimonies were never transcribed). I don't think LM did go home between 1740-1800 and changed into the bomber jacket as AH & CH said it wasn't a waist length jacket or shiny; I tgink he was wearing his army parka with hood & the army shirt underneath. If he was in the bomber jacket at just before 1800, then either he was wearing it underneath, or he had planked or hid it somewhere before meeting jodi at 1654, or Corinne or Shane brought him it at some point. No, I don't think he did go home between 1740-1800 and changed jackets. I think MO & DH are mistaken about a bomber jacket, so it'll be interesting to read their testimonies to see what they said regarding LM's clothing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7259126.stm#:~:text=Mitchell%2C%2019%2C%20was%20jailed%20for,found%2C%22%20said%20Mr%20Beckett.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20140706/281801397063449
-
Kane's DNA wasn't there and neither was LM's. They ended up with nothing except Kelly's, probably because they contaminated the crime scene, moved the body then left her lying out in the rain all night. Kane also owned a bomber jacket I think.
-
Kane's DNA wasn't there and neither was LM's. They ended up with nothing except Kelly's, probably because they contaminated the crime scene, moved the body then left her lying out in the rain all night. Kane also owned a bomber jacket I think.
That is still not true of LM, but let's go with it anyway. Nothing of Mk, not the boys on the bike, nor any of the 'others' put forward as suspect. Still nothing showing stranger DNA, pointing the murder elsewhere. We will only ever know the truth about the crime scene (outwith tent) when one can read all reports themselves! As for the "I think" MK also owned a bomber, seriously. So he went from parka to bomber as well then? - Shakes ones head.
-
That is still not true of LM, but let's go with it anyway. Nothing of Mk, not the boys on the bike, nor any of the 'others' put forward as suspect. Still nothing showing stranger DNA, pointing the murder elsewhere. We will only ever know the truth about the crime scene (outwith tent) when one can read all reports themselves! As for the "I think" MK also owned a bomber, seriously. So he went from parka to bomber as well then? - Shakes ones head.
No stranger DNA…quite true. However if DNA from a person close to Jodi was found on the body that wouldn’t be questioned would it and perhaps it should have been?
-
No stranger DNA…quite true. However if DNA from a person close to Jodi was found on the body that wouldn’t be questioned would it and perhaps it should have been?
Pie in the sky then?
-
Pie in the sky then?
Not at all. Jodi was bound to have DNA from those close to her on her body. Only a cast iron alibi could have ruled those individuals out and if your only alibi is your mother and another family member….well we already know that mother’s and family lie to protect a cherished son, don’t we?
-
Not at all. Jodi was bound to have DNA from those close to her on her body. Only a cast iron alibi could have ruled those individuals out and if your only alibi is your mother and another family member….well we already know that mother’s and family lie to protect a cherished son, don’t we?
Indeed Faith. I'll leave you to your empty house now, have fun with the mirror.
-
Kane also owned a bomber jacket I think.
Quite a claim. You can't just casually throw something like that in there. Can you elaborate or provide a cite?
-
Indeed Faith. I'll leave you to your empty house now, have fun with the mirror.
Yep…walk yourself back from points you can’t or won’t address.
-
Quite a claim. You can't just casually throw something like that in there. Can you elaborate or provide a cite?
It's appeared in numerous places over the years that Kane owned a bomber jacket. Like everything else with this case, there's always a lack of proof, like Mitchell's "Parka" and proof he committed the murder. The number of lies and liars involved in this case when you analyse it all albeit tedious, is the biggest sign Mitchell did NOT do it. If MK did it or some other random crackpot there wouldn't be all these lies from so many different "witnesses". Why are they all lying? Consider these lies:
1. F and D don't remember anything in Court from the day of the murder or why the bike was at the V at 5.15pm. I mean seriously???
2. JaJ in Court claims not to know the Roan's Dyke Path...hmm she lives 300 yards from it for over 15 years and has never cycled up it, walked up it or even been warned by her mother NOT to go up there alone? Hmmm that's funny, because Jodi had been warned about that.
3. Alice Walker fails in Court to explain why she went straight to the path and why nobody was looking in the trees before they reached the start of the wall which leads to the V.
4. LK gives a statement saying he heard a noise like branches rustling, then in Court he changes it to... "strangling noises".
5. Jo J was in the house all afternoon on the day of the murder claims JuJ. No he wasn't, he was identified as the Stocky Man following Jodi.
6. Craig Dobbie lied in Court saying there was only a search warrant for Mitchell's house. That's recently proved to have been a lie.
Whether MK owned a bomber jacket or not, it's obvious he didn't do it otherwise why would all these people be lying? Would people normally all lie when they had no idea who the killer was? I don't think so somehow.