Luke Mitchell Theories

[Venturi Swirl]

Nobody returned to the scene after the murder that night or in the next few days. The bleaching was done after the Police left. It took 10 days for the specialised dogs to be brought up from England. The bleaching was done before those dogs arrived. Blood would just soak into the ground. It was raining all night after the murder. Dogs would still have found it if the area had not been bleached. Blood has been found in soil before after 8 years. What the Police said was that they were unable to find any traces of blood anywhere and that bleach was found in certain areas, which prevents dogs picking up the scent.

I didn’t suggest that anyone went back to bleach the scene that night however if getting rid of all the blood was that important they would no doubt want to return sooner rather than later unless they had a tip off from the police that the dogs would not be turning up for 10 days. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Most of the scribblings on his school books were quotes from the Max Payne computer game.

And what difference does that make exactly?  So he honed in specifically on references to Satan made in a computer game to scrawl on his school books because..?  Were the references to being a Satanist in his school essay also plagiarized from a computer game, or did the media fabricate the whole thing?   Which excuse will you trot out for that one I wonder…

[faithlilly]

In fairness, Faith, I think there was an element of premeditation to it. The fact LM had talked to pals (prior to the murder) about knowing the best way to kill someone, and telling his female pal that he could 'just imagine getting stoned and killling someone just for a laugh", to me, is indicative of an unsound mind (although, I understand, too, that it could've been teenage rebellion). Also, some of LM's mates broke into Greyfriar's graveyard circa 2003/04 and were found in breach of violating a sepulchre (chopping its head off with a knife). There are tales of LM himself talking about eviscerating cows and horses (likewise with his brother, Shane). As I've said numerous times before, all was not well with LM & Jodi in school on 30.06.03, and they were later seen in a confrontation with each other at 1654  by AB at the top of that path. It's hard to tell; either opinion is that, as they walked down that path and into the woodland strip, near the V,  LM either snapped, to the point his temper escalated and he did murder Jodi in the most brutal manner. Either that, or he lured her down there for his own nefarious & premeditated purposes and murdered her because she had argued with him earlier as a result of her finding out about KT (who he was due to meet with that week -- a young woman who testified in court that she thought was his.only girlfriend).

Yeah, he destroyed some of his clothing and replaced them with the exact same. Identical, in fact. This was no coincidence, btw, for his original clothing has/had incriminating DNA on it.

How much of the above was ever heard in court? What fantastic evidence for the prosecution that Luke had said that he knew the best way to kill someone and that he imagined getting stoned and killing someone just for a laugh. What fodder that would have been for Turnbull and yet not one word of this explosive evidence was heard in court. Why? Could it be that was because it only appeared in the tabloids where the burden of proof is somewhat lower than in court?

With the greatest respect MA your posts evidence exactly why the press reporting in this case has had such a prejudicial effect. Most of what you post has either come from the newspapers or some forum or other where the veracity of the claims can never be properly tested. You, and people like you are, I’m afraid, the reason why I have no faith in the jury system.

[Parky41]

The fact that you rudely slag off anyone who disagrees with you and make derogatory comments like "BS" and "Mr.Fibs" doesn't exactly enhance your credibilty or intellect.  The Police botched the crime scene where the body was found. If the murder was elsewhere, the area at the V is still a crime scene (obviously). Let's stick to facts, FACTS. There was very little blood where the body was found. Blood cannot disappear. Blood has been traced in soil when it is as old as 8 years. Blood is not already gone "according to you". Blood is already gone according to the forensics who analysed the place where the body was found. You might not like it, but that means 100% the murder did not take place where the body was found.

The murder probably took place fairly close to the V but not necessarily 10 or 15 yards away. The woods behind the V stretch back more than 200 yards towards Easthouses and further towards Newbattle. The murder could have happened anywhere behind that wall in that long stretch of trees. Forensic teams found no trace of the real murder location because ammonia was used to stop sniffer dogs finding blood.

The crime scene was not actually protected for long. A certain individual related to the moped boys took 8 spaniel dogs through that area within a few days of the murder. There were plenty opportunities for someone to go in there and put ammonia down.

No blood means the body was moved. The body was also dragged because Jodi's socks had been put back on inside out because they were filthy. They were put back on with the dirty side on the inside.

So nothing of any value to give in response, a simple - No idea would have sufficed.

I did not apply there was not enough blood that it was all gone, it is you who are applying all your blood was gone with some magic potion from another invented crime scene. I asked how you would account for the blood that was in the crime scene applied by the forensic team, you gave no answer.

Let's make this easy for you, bring the focus back to the actual crime scene, keep away from the fairy stories, shall we?

Three points, A-B-C. A is the commence of the attack, some distance from the V break NW. Between points A-B was a prolonged attack upon the victim ending at point B beside the wall. Point C is behind the tree, you know that "large oak tree" where LM had attempted to hide his victims body, to give him time after he set his own little scene. Including your "socks"

The area which lies in the lower quadrant of that woodland strip is off the beaten track. The type of area used for privacy by young couples. Rarely would it be used as any shortcut, for it wasn't. However there are exit points that someone with good knowledge would know about, such as a young lad who knew the area intimately. The very area that trails were picked up heading away from the murder scene - The very reason the ammonia/bleach story is in place!

Evidence, forensically, set in place.  Point A the attack commenced, the victim attempted to escape from her attacker, running away from him up the woodland strip, stopped by that maniac as you know, who caused such damage by the blow he inflicted it was placed as part cause of death! Then attacked with that knife. Your "dragging" was put in place by the forensics, it is exactly what they applied the actions of her killer as being within points A-B then to C.

It is that area where we apply all loss to and not just at the wall and point C! We apply every factor attributable, such as soil type, vegetation, heavy bouts of rainfall etc. There is no and never was there going to be, this 5ltrs showing up in photographs!

Facts you say, really? Here is the facts around your claimed "FACTS" - DD was not trampling all over any scene set by that forensic team, not that evening and not days later! The ammonia, the masking that hunters do, the fairy stories, the lean to him as a hunter, behave yourself!

He had spaniels, beating/game dogs. In that woodland, to the east of it, then golf course and Abbey woods. Why was he taken back there 'after' the forensic team had finished (that found none of your magic potion), because he was being investigated! Suck it up and stop applying BS. There was something put in place to see if his dogs reacted exactly as he claimed. That he nor them had been west, that his dogs had adhered to his commands in going east. And it is exactly what they did do again whilst being tested. Whilst he was being investigated with his dogs.  Had this nonsense out with SL before, where she applied, but it wasn't a proper test, they didn't use a real dead body!!

[William Wallace]

I won't be responding to you ever again as your arrogance and rudeness conveys your lack of basic manners and intelligence. Have you never heard of respecting the opinion of others? Do you think it's appropriate to direct what equates to verbal abuse at people using terms such as 'BS' and 'Mr.Fibs'? Were you never taught manners by your parents? Also a forum is for people to express opinions in case you don't understand what a forum is. The name of this forum is UK Justice Forum. It's not Parky41's Blinkered Soapbox Preaching Forum. It means everyone is allowed an opinion. You seem to to think you can just slag people off that don't agree with you using ignorant language such as BS. Empty vessels make the most noise. You're an embarassment.

Registering - Many forums require users to register to gain full access.
Logging In - Once registered, users must login to access their account.
Profile - Each member has their own personal profile.
Search - Searching is an extremely helpful tool for finding information in posts and topics.
Posting - The whole point of a forum, posting allows users to express themselves.
Bulletin Board Code (BBC) - Posts can be spiced up with a little BBC.
Personal Messages - Users can send personal messages to each other.
Memberlist - The memberlist shows all the members of a forum.
Calendar - Users can keep track of events, holidays, and birthdays with the calendar.
Features - Here is a list of the most popular features in SMF.

[William Wallace]

It was a mere coincidence that AB's brother-in-law (MBB) knew the Joneses & Walkers. AB didn't know them at all before 30.06.03 and her husband's relationship with them was tenuous at best; it was only her brother-in-law that knew them reasonably well. AB went to the police on the afternoon of 01.07.03 innocently and with the best of intentions. Her brother-in-law, who knew the Jones & Walker families fairly well, found out via his own brother because AB told him about it on the morning of 01.07.03 once the first newsflashes came through, and naturally he told MBB as he knew that MBB knew the two families quite well. AB was simply trying to assist the police and was simply being honest. Also, conspiracy theorists put a lot of  stock in the fact that MBB was in a photograph some 6 weeks after the murder and the fact that AB cut Judith's hair a couple of times after the murder; I reiterate, it was pure coincidence and nothing sinister. Read IB and do some research and it will become glaringly obvious that none of the Brysons were involved in the murder of Jodi.

The moped boyd, too. A mere coincidence they were in the vicinity; they were looked into thoroughly & eliminated forensically and by their alibis. JOF cut his hair because it was getting long and he didn't like it (ie, thick, bushy red hair). So, he cut some of it himself initially and then went to a barber's in the subsequent days to get it tidied up. He didn't go to police as quickly as he could have because he was initially paranoid & worried that he might be blamed for it along with GD, especially as they were both near the locus when the murder happened; both were known to police and had a history of violence, so were worried the police might try and blame them. Also, AW advised them not to go to police straight away  (in case, I suspect, the police tried to implicate them).

I could explain why your first paragraph is not correct. I note you say only MBB knew them reasonably well - true, but tenuous or not regarding the others, they did know who the Jones' were including AB. I could tell you exactly how, but knowing this forum it would be guaranteed to result in a red card. That's obviously a huge problem in here, because the minute you name certain people or post something about the connection between certain people and who they knew, you will also get a red card.

Do you really honestly believe it was a mere coincidence those 2 were at the alleged location of the murder at the exact time it allegedly happened?? Was it a mere coincidence they couldn't remember what they were doing? I mean seriously? I don't think anyone believes that part even amongst those who think LM did it. With good reason, it's just nonsensical.

How can they have been "looked into forensically" when the Police didn't know who they were for 5 days? Nothing they were wearing could be examined for 5 days and the moped was never examined because it disappeared. Their DNA was not found at the murder scene no, but we'll never know what might have been on their clothes or on that moped. I don't believe those 2 carried out the murder, but not remembering what you were doing is not something anyone would say if there was nothing to report. If all they did was go over the V and smoke hash for 10 minutes then drive off why would they not just admit that instead of giving nonsensical explanations of "not remembering what they were doing"?

So in effect you are saying F and D being at the V was mere coincidence, the hair being removed - timing coincidental, and the moped disappearing - was that merely coincidental too? I don't actually think you can believe all of that is mere coincidence.

You mentioned AB cutting X's hair after the murder. You said AB didn't know the Jones' at all? How do you know she hadn't cut X's hair before the murder? Are you guessing? Even cutting X's hair in X's house after the murder date, but before the Trial means she was not an independent witness. AB said in Court she didn't know the Jones family, but she had been in their house cutting hair between the murder date and the Trial date?

You might be surprised to hear that I am not of the view that it is 100% sure that LM did not do it. I think it is of more interest to examine all the inconsistencies of the evidence against LM, a lot of which does not make any logical sense at all. I doubt anyone in here is a forensic expert including me, but I don't think it is possible for LM to have carried out such a savage murder and avoided all traces of blood and DNA transference to his clothing or to anything in his house, particularly in 45 minutes.

There was a murder case not long ago where the killer's DNA was found on the car seat lever of the victim's car, but nowhere else.  The killer attempted to clean the inside of her car to remove any trace of him being in it. As nothing was found on the steering wheel or anywhere else, he must have put gloves on inside the car, but probably moved the driver's seat back first, which left his DNA on the lever. So his DNA was found because he touched a seat lever, but none of LM's was found after a savage murder? Doesn't make any sense.

[Mr Apples]

I could explain why your first paragraph is not correct. I note you say only MBB knew them reasonably well - true, but tenuous or not regarding the others, they did know who the Jones' were including AB. I could tell you exactly how, but knowing this forum it would be guaranteed to result in a red card. That's obviously a huge problem in here, because the minute you name certain people or post something about the connection between certain people and who they knew, you will also get a red card.

Do you really honestly believe it was a mere coincidence those 2 were at the alleged location of the murder at the exact time it allegedly happened?? Was it a mere coincidence they couldn't remember what they were doing? I mean seriously? I don't think anyone believes that part even amongst those who think LM did it. With good reason, it's just nonsensical.

How can they have been "looked into forensically" when the Police didn't know who they were for 5 days? Nothing they were wearing could be examined for 5 days and the moped was never examined because it disappeared. Their DNA was not found at the murder scene no, but we'll never know what might have been on their clothes or on that moped. I don't believe those 2 carried out the murder, but not remembering what you were doing is not something anyone would say if there was nothing to report. If all they did was go over the V and smoke hash for 10 minutes then drive off why would they not just admit that instead of giving nonsensical explanations of "not remembering what they were doing"?

So in effect you are saying F and D being at the V was mere coincidence, the hair being removed - timing coincidental, and the moped disappearing - was that merely coincidental too? I don't actually think you can believe all of that is mere coincidence.

You mentioned AB cutting X's hair after the murder. You said AB didn't know the Jones' at all? How do you know she hadn't cut X's hair before the murder? Are you guessing? Even cutting X's hair in X's house after the murder date, but before the Trial means she was not an independent witness. AB said in Court she didn't know the Jones family, but she had been in their house cutting hair between the murder date and the Trial date?

You might be surprised to hear that I am not of the view that it is 100% sure that LM did not do it. I think it is of more interest to examine all the inconsistencies of the evidence against LM, a lot of which does not make any logical sense at all. I doubt anyone in here is a forensic expert including me, but I don't think it is possible for LM to have carried out such a savage murder and avoided all traces of blood and DNA transference to his clothing or to anything in his house, particularly in 45 minutes.

There was a murder case not long ago where the killer's DNA was found on the car seat lever of the victim's car, but nowhere else.  The killer attempted to clean the inside of her car to remove any trace of him being in it. As nothing was found on the steering wheel or anywhere else, he must have put gloves on inside the car, but probably moved the driver's seat back first, which left his DNA on the lever. So his DNA was found because he touched a seat lever, but none of LM's was found after a savage murder? Doesn't make any sense.

Hi, WW. I've already given reasons why I disagree with a lot of what you say and am not prepared to go through it all again. At the end of the day, there is no one on here or on the planet who knows exactly what happened to Jodi Jones. Only the killer knows. We can all speculate, theorise and draw inferences until the end of time. Makes no difference. AB swore under oath that she didn't know Jodi, and I believe her. She was a level-headed working mother of two young children at the time and her husband was the same; fairly decent and respectable people. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that they would lie about their relationship to the Jones & Walker families; likewise, I'd find it equally as difficult to believe that they'd be willing to collude and conspire with those families in order to hide a brutal murder. The same applies to the Jones and Walker families themselves -- I don't think they'd be willling to lie in order to protect their son/grandson (not just from a moral point of view, but for their own safety too). I would be most grateful if  Mr Easton would upload AB's full court testimony to his blog as I feel it would clarify most points of our discussions.

I definitely believe the moped boys and their bike were thoroughly looked into and subsequently eliminated. Why wouldn't they be?? They were known to police, had had brushes with law for violence and were near the locus that day, so it stands to reason they would be investigated closely (even SL states in IB that both boys & JOSJ had their DNA taken and tested). As for them not being able to remember what they were doing near the locus that day, I agree that that is a tad strange, though maybe they just froze with worry in case they were falsely accused; or maybe they simply just couldn't remember (as implausible as it was). Anyway, like I said, I firmly believe they were examined carefully and meticulously until they could unequivocally be ruled out as having any part in the murder. As I said with AB, I think reading their full court testimonies will shed light on some questions.

As regards LM's capacity for murder and the circumstances of the murder ...  I think a lot of people forget he was far from your average teenager  He even said so himself. There were clear signs that LM was capable of doing this: his personality, nature, lifestyle, recreational hobbies/pursuits, history of violence and, above all, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution at the original trial between November 2004 and January.2005.

[Venturi Swirl]

How much of the above was ever heard in court? What fantastic evidence for the prosecution that Luke had said that he knew the best way to kill someone and that he imagined getting stoned and killing someone just for a laugh. What fodder that would have been for Turnbull and yet not one word of this explosive evidence was heard in court. Why? Could it be that was because it only appeared in the tabloids where the burden of proof is somewhat lower than in court?

With the greatest respect MA your posts evidence exactly why the press reporting in this case has had such a prejudicial effect. Most of what you post has either come from the newspapers or some forum or other where the veracity of the claims can never be properly tested. You, and people like you are, I’m afraid, the reason why I have no faith in the jury system.

a witness statement to the police is where details of this claim originate “A WITNESS told police Mitchell, who smoked cannabis, previously said he could imagine getting "stoned" and killing someone”.  It should be in the court transcripts, why have they not all been released yet?
ETA, from your paper of choice The Guardian
“Earlier, the trial heard from Michelle Tierney, 17, who described a conversation in an area of Woodburn, Dalkeith, where young people went to smoke cannabis.

She recalled: "He said that he could just imagine himself going out and getting stoned and killing somebody and how funny it would be."

I’m glad you agree that this is fantastic evidence that Mitchell is indeed a murderer though I suspect you might now be adding the name of Michelle Tierney to your list of conspirators out to condemn a poor wee innocent child.

[Parky41]

Hi, WW. I've already given reasons why I disagree with a lot of what you say and am not prepared to go through it all again. At the end of the day, there is no one on here or on the planet who knows exactly what happened to Jodi Jones. Only the killer knows. We can all speculate, theorise and draw inferences until the end of time. Makes no difference. AB swore under oath that she didn't know Jodi, and I believe her. She was a level-headed working mother of two young children at the time and her husband was the same; fairly decent and respectable people. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that they would lie about their relationship to the Jones & Walker families; likewise, I'd find it equally as difficult to believe that they'd be willing to collude and conspire with those families in order to hide a brutal murder. The same applies to the Jones and Walker families themselves -- I don't think they'd be willling to lie in order to protect their son/grandson (not just from a moral point of view, but for their own safety too). I would be most grateful if  Mr Easton would upload AB's full court testimony to his blog as I feel it would clarify most points of our discussions.

I definitely believe the moped boys and their bike were thoroughly looked into and subsequently eliminated. Why wouldn't they be?? They were known to police, had had brushes with law for violence and were near the locus that day, so it stands to reason they would be investigated closely (even SL states in IB that both boys & JOSJ had their DNA taken and tested). As for them not being able to remember what they were doing near the locus that day, I agree that that is a tad strange, though maybe they just froze with worry in case they were falsely accused; or maybe they simply just couldn't remember (as implausible as it was). Anyway, like I said, I firmly believe they were examined carefully and meticulously until they could unequivocally be ruled out as having any part in the murder. As I said with AB, I think reading their full court testimonies will shed light on some questions.

As regards LM's capacity for murder and the circumstances of the murder ...  I think a lot of people forget he was far from your average teenager  He even said so himself. There were clear signs that LM was capable of doing this: his personality, nature, lifestyle, recreational hobbies/pursuits, history of violence and, above all, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution at the original trial between November 2004 and January.2005.

Agree Mr Apples - It will be interesting to see full testimony to take away the fallacy and bias in place. Even with what we do know around the boys, pushed repeatedly from the defences attempts to cast doubt. 7hrs and we know very little, the full context of their testimony as with AB.

There has never been any dispute as to why the boys were upon the paths, close to the locus. Never has there been any evidence of them being over that wall, least of all the locus itself. We do have their approx time. We do know they were investigated (massively so) and eliminated.

Evidence as it stands, which matters not if others disagree with it. The killer was behind the wall with the victim. By the time the boys were around the V break there was only silence from beyond, the girl already dead. So what can the killer hear in this silence? The boys voices, the bike when they got it going, it riding off into the distance and back again a couple of times. He would be alert to any possibility of them entering that woodland, We know the victims body had been moved away from the wall, hidden behind that "large oak tree" We know the many obstacles in the way blocking view.  And we can apply coincidence to him hanging up on that first attempt at calling the Jones household, coinciding with a bike and boys he thought gone, deciding to take a hurl back down that path? Faith before attempted to scoff at this, placing that question, would there be no motorbikes upon NR itself? But its not just that, if they were coming back again he would not be taking the risk of being on a call should the bike stop and the boys voices also heard in a call, or indeed as above, that worry they may enter the woodland?

DF made no attempt to place the boys with someone else, he attempted to cast doubt around a girl using the path alone, bumping into people she knew? that type of thing. Perfectly executed by the Crown. Nothing matched. A girl breaking her ban, the time being later, LK seeing no girl, there was no opportunity for those boys to be bumping into anyone. Not when there was no girl was upon the path whilst LK was upon it, or the lane, or on ER itself.

[Mr Apples]

Agree Mr Apples - It will be interesting to see full testimony to take away the fallacy and bias in place. Even with what we do know around the boys, pushed repeatedly from the defences attempts to cast doubt. 7hrs and we know very little, the full context of their testimony as with AB.

There has never been any dispute as to why the boys were upon the paths, close to the locus. Never has there been any evidence of them being over that wall, least of all the locus itself. We do have their approx time. We do know they were investigated (massively so) and eliminated.

Evidence as it stands, which matters not if others disagree with it. The killer was behind the wall with the victim. By the time the boys were around the V break there was only silence from beyond, the girl already dead. So what can the killer hear in this silence? The boys voices, the bike when they got it going, it riding off into the distance and back again a couple of times. He would be alert to any possibility of them entering that woodland, We know the victims body had been moved away from the wall, hidden behind that "large oak tree" We know the many obstacles in the way blocking view.  And we can apply coincidence to him hanging up on that first attempt at calling the Jones household, coinciding with a bike and boys he thought gone, deciding to take a hurl back down that path? Faith before attempted to scoff at this, placing that question, would there be no motorbikes upon NR itself? But its not just that, if they were coming back again he would not be taking the risk of being on a call should the bike stop and the boys voices also heard in a call, or indeed as above, that worry they may enter the woodland?

DF made no attempt to place the boys with someone else, he attempted to cast doubt around a girl using the path alone, bumping into people she knew? that type of thing. Perfectly executed by the Crown. Nothing matched. A girl breaking her ban, the time being later, LK seeing no girl, there was no opportunity for those boys to be bumping into anyone. Not when there was no girl was upon the path whilst LK was upon it, or the lane, or on ER itself.

Hi, Parky. Interesting comments re the noises from the moped likely being heard on LM's phone call (s) to the Jones landline. I remember you mentioning this in one of your previous posts from way back when ..... I'd be willing to bet you are correct and that's why he hung up the first time. As you say, he would have been on high alert and full of adrenaline. I'd even go as far as to say that he probably found the experience exhilirating.

[Venturi Swirl]

More evidence presented in court by his teacher that Luke Mitchell considered himself to be a Satanist at the time of the murder (from the BBC website)

Mrs Mackie showed the court Mr Mitchell's English jotter which had the numbers 666 and references to the devil on the front cover.

   

The word Satan was written across the back of the jotter with the phrase: "I have tasted the devil's green blood."

She told prosecuting advocate Alan Turnbull QC that she referred the teenager to a guidance teacher after he wrote the essay, the first time she had taken the step with a pupil in 15 years as a teacher.

In another essay, Mr Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

More relevant perhaps is Mitchell’s own admission to being more violent than others and with a tendency to harm himself with a knife.

[faithlilly]

Hi, Parky. Interesting comments re the noises from the moped likely being heard on LM's phone call (s) to the Jones landline. I remember you mentioning this in one of your previous posts from way back when ..... I'd be willing to bet you are correct and that's why he hung up the first time. As you say, he would have been on high alert and full of adrenaline. I'd even go as far as to say that he probably found the experience exhilirating.

And if he was standing on the Newbattle Road there would be no motorbikes going by? Or even near his house? I’ve heard Parky put this forward before as a reason for the two phone calls and of course it’s an absolute nonsense.

[Parky41]

Hi, Parky. Interesting comments re the noises from the moped likely being heard on LM's phone call (s) to the Jones landline. I remember you mentioning this in one of your previous posts from way back when ..... I'd be willing to bet you are correct and that's why he hung up the first time. As you say, he would have been on high alert and full of adrenaline. I'd even go as far as to say that he probably found the experience exhilirating.

The stocky man. The two different applications by people supposedly working from the same information? One places the sighting pre 5pm the other after it. LK stayed locally to the area. As said, he didn't see Jodi upon that path, nor in the lane, nor on Easthouses Road, nor in Easthouses, the scheme. This is the crucial time frame where SL applies the girl being on that road, into the lane and RDP. Her application of "assurance" from her version of the same witness! That the sighting took place at 5:10pm across from the park. LK is on a bike, he is off that path before that girl could be out of sight anywhere, and that is anywhere, when we apply where he stayed.

What will now be attempted to be put in place is the following. - The claim by SL that Jodi may have went down through Easthouses (as above, LK stayed in Easthouses). Why does she apply this? The claimed sighting of the girl was on Easthouses Road, adjacent to the park. Jodi would not have walked up on to that road, walked along it, then walked down through the housing scheme. If the girl were going to be doing so, she would have simply walked along her own St (PP) and then down. She is of course leaning away from the Stocky man claims when doing so.

It doesn't matter which way you swing it, it simply does not fit. But as we know, as evidence was led, Jodi was already at the lane for around 4:55pm. Very much why SF's attempts to apply his version of the same witness, same claimed sighting, as being around 4:50pm.

To be clear, as there is some confusion, intended probably from Faith and I have had it applied to myself by others also. I have at no point stated that the two people mentioned in the media appeal, categorically did not see Jodi. I have always categorically stated that three things must be placed together. Jodi, the time and day. It may have been Jodi on that day at an earlier time. It may have been Jodi on another day around that time, or it may not have been Jodi at all. And as above, the contradicting versions, claimed to be from the same information held!

Furthermore - This "following" which was used as clickbait. It is still being used in the same fashion. Makes it really sound the part, applying this "following" There was something clearly lacking in that first positive "possible" sighting that merited in those two people not being used as witnesses. Valuable evidence relating to the girls last movements that day. And we know we can't apply that the time did not fit, for we see two people applying different times, from the same claimed version of events!?

It tells us that it was a false trail, fell flat. And as much as she is pushed to the background, we cannot forget the other person in that appeal, the girl with pushchair. Who took her time in going forward, she had not recognized it as being her around that time, that day? SL applies that she saw "nothing" How very odd. A girl in the same housing scheme is murdered. That appeal is put out, she clearly was not there around that time that day. And it certainly fits, that once she was traced no further appeals were put out, and no witnesses were used to show Jodi's last movements, if it had been her at that time. This was a girl who would have walked face on to Jodi, if was her around that time. Up close and personal. - It really has been some fiasco, of contradictory accounts, absolutely no evidence. Leaning towards a media appeal and a claimed ID over the phone some 10 weeks later. When quite clearly it had already been been put to bed?

 

[Rusty]

Pop on for my monthly comment. Maybe something has changed. Nope, just some proper tin foil hat stuff going on. Then we have that cowardly troll faith, on the never ending roundabout.

[Mr Apples]

And if he was standing on the Newbattle Road there would be no motorbikes going by? Or even near his house? I’ve heard Parky put this forward before as a reason for the two phone calls and of course it’s an absolute nonsense.

Hi, faith. What is the inference here? That this quite busy rural road suddenly turned into Route 66/The North Coast 500 Road Tour as that suspicious-looking youth stood there, by himself, between 1740 - 1820 on 30.06.03?? Don't be laughably irrational, ol' gal.