Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that Luke was cheating on her. Why would she be happy to meet him? Why wouldn't she go find some other people to hang out with? Beyond that, his cheating might conceivably be a motive for her to kill him, but not vice versa. The circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell, especially the portions of it which involve eyewitnesses, is a hot, sticky mess.
I think the motivation for her wanting to meet him, despite their earlier tiff in school, was to preserve their relationship. Jodi diarised her feelings for LM, writing that he was her 'first true love', that 'she might actually be in love with him', that 'when she wasn't with him, she wanted to be, and when she was with him, she was happy' and that 'she would die if he finished with her' (this is all in the public domain). So, quite clearly, she really liked him and had deep feelings for him. I'd suggest she was very keen to get their earlier dispute resolved, and being allowed out earlier than she normally would have -- due to her curfew being lifted unexpectedly by her mother Judith -- well, she would naturally have been delighted. Like I said in my previous post, her curfew being lifted by her mother no doubt gave her some positivity and likely altered & improved her mood. And with an improved mood, there would have been optimism -- optimism that whatever was bothering her earlier concerning LM, could be resolved. (I should also note that it is entirely possible that Jodi had already shaken off what was bothering her earlier in school before her curfew was lifted. Teenagers are fickle and more often than not overcome their problems quickly. Also, her being at home with her close, loving family, listening to music while homemade lasagne is cooking away in the background, likely gave her comfort and lifted her mood; the simple yet meaningful things in life.)
As regards the eyewitness testimonies, I think anyone reading them with objectivity and sense would infer it was LM they saw: AB was taken aback by how much one of the pictures she saw looked like LM. She was 'as sure as she could be' that it was LM in that book of photographs shown to her by the police. In court, contrary to what a lot of people say, she didn't not identify him -- she said 'she didn't know'. BIG difference. She was simply being honest. LM in the dock in late 2004 looked completely different to the LM she saw with that girl (who the Jury accepted, from AB's description and testimony, could be identified as Jodi) on June 2003 wearing that olive green parka jacket (he had much longer hair, was wearing completely different clothes and was fuller about the face, owing to puberty and development). AB probably knew, deep down, that it was LM in the dock, but chose to do the right thing and tell the truth -- like she had done throughout the entire investigation. Nothing messy about her testimony, imo. LF & RW made it clear they thought it was him from the off, with one of them even exclaiming, upon seeing his picture in a newspaper for the first time, "Oh my god, it's him!". Unequivocal. They both identified him in the dock, too, despite DF's badgering. These 2 women described his parka jacket and jeans quite accurately despite seeing him when they were driving by in a car on 30.06.03 at 1740/1745. They, like CH, MO & DH, were drawn to how suspicious he was looking (they all said he looked suspicious and was acting strangely; said he was avoiding eye contact and generally acting in an odd manner). Carol Heatlie, seeing him at 1810 on 30.06.03 on NB road in the shiny bomber jacket and black baggy jeans, said that her sighting was 'very very similar' to the young man she had seen on the Sky News interview on September '03. The 3 push bike boys, who knew LM personally, saw him on NB road at 1805 on 30.06.03 sitting on a wall at the end of his estate. They said he was wearing a green bomber jacket and baggy black jeans. They, too, identified him in court. MO & her partner DH, said they saw a suspicious looking youth on NB road at just after 1800 on 30.06.03 wearing a green bomber jacket and black jeans. In court, they said the person they saw that day wasn't the person in the dock. Let's face it, it was LM they saw, but he had changed so significantly between 30.06.03 and December 2004 that they thought it wasn't the same lad they had seen on 30.06.03. So, there you have it. Very robust circumstancial evidence from 9 separate eyewitnesses. Between them, we can establish confidently and beyond reasonable doubt, that LM was seen in a confrontation at Easthouses with Jodi at 1655, then seen 45 mins later, on NB road, acting suspiciously, without Jodi. (In between these sightings, a witness was cycling by rdp and heard strangling choking noises from behind the rdp wall that startled and frightened him.) From these 9 witnesses' testimonies, we can strongly infer that LM was wearing his (still) missing dull olive green parka jacket at 1740/1745, and then seen wearing a different jacket (he'd changed into a shiny green bomber jacket between 1745-1805) at 1805. LM was positively identified in court as the same person that was seen in both Easthouses and Newbattle rd, wearing 2 separate jackets (how cunning and crafty, eh). Both Easthouses and Newbattle are small settlements. No other person fitting Luke's description lived in these areas at the time. No other person matching LM's description came forward to eliminate themselves from the inquiry between 30.06.03 and November 2004. MK looked nothing like LM and was almost a foot taller. MK was seen in a different area altogether on the afternoon/evening of 30.06.03. MK's DNA was tested against all the samples from the original murder investigation -- nothing incriminating was found. MK -- and no one else on the planet -- was due to meet with Jodi on 30.06.03. LM was. And then there's all the other considerable circumstantial evidence used against LM. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence. A glacier of circumstantial evidence. Does anyone have a blowtorch?
