I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was it checked out and able to be innocently explained?
Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.
For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.
If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:
That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.
Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.
Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.
Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.
Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.
MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.
"Neither description matches Luke or the descriptions given by Andrina Bryson, who described an older male with thick, messy, sandy brown hair, sticking up in a clump at the back" As late as August the 6th, Ms Fleming and Mrs Welsh were agreed that this youth had dark hair - it was a bright, sunny evening around 6pm on June the 30th, so the descriptions of dark hair can not be explained away by bad light"
A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.
Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:
LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it. Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.
Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.
The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.
So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.