Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

[Parky41]

AB description of the girl in no way matches what Jodi was wearing. AB must have seen the girl to have given a description which was a dark blue hoodie and lighter coloured trousers she took to be boot cut jeans. We have all seen the police reenactment photos and what Jodi was wearing therefore AB description even if she only caught a glimpse would we very baggy dark or black clothing with something orange on the back. IMO AB did not see Jodi and Luke at the top of the path. At the very least reasonable doubt.

Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.

[Parky41]

Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.

The "two independent people" that you have bought into readily (of course you have ;-) ) Who could not make a positive ID of the school girl, they saw no hair contained and they saw no logo on the back of her top! Thus the appeal for the two other people, pushchair and mystery male! Who were being sought to try and place a positive ID of the schoolgirl with time and day. - It had been a false trail. But you know, because someone said something, because the media sensationalised it, bingo, must be so true!!

Two people certainly did positively ID that young girl, both confirmed as being just after 4pm - Fancy that! One who knew her by sight, saw the girl after she had gotten off her school bus, the other a neighbour as she walked past their house - Going home from school. -But you buy into this tying of it all together, that lie, building something from a fragment of truth and pushing it out as fact!

[Chris_Halkides]

"She paid for the shopping at 4.32 and she estimated it would have taken her five minutes to load the groceries and get her children in the car.  Mrs Bryson, who lived in Newtongrange, looked at a house for sale on her way home.  She said she couldn't remember which of two routes she had taken but police had re-traced both.  One would have placed her on Easthouses Road, near the entrance to Roan's Dyke path, at about 4.49pm and the other at the same spot at around 4.54pm."

This is where the 12 and 17 minute figures come from.  The receipt said 4:32:45.  Whichever direction, she had to be looking in the opposite direction from the one that she was turning and seeing two people whom she did not know.  She did not describe [Name removed]'s hair color correctly, among other things.

[faithlilly]

Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.

The problem with Andrina Bryson was she gave her initial statement on the 1st of July using the later times. She then gave a second statement the following day, after you would have thought she would have time to get things straight in her head. In that statement, and using peripheral events, she again stated that she had seen the couple at between 5.40-5.45.

So this wasn’t someone who initially guesstimated the time of her sighting but someone who, when she had time to sit down and work everything out still put probably the most important piece of evidence in the case at between 5.40 and 5.45. The fact that the police basically ignored her sighting for well over a month after she gave it speaks volumes about how the viewed it….it was too late.

As to Bryson’s description of the girl she saw’s clothing, she did not say baggy cords. The were ‘lighter’ than the top ( which was navy) and bootcut.The glaring error of course is that if it was in fact Jodi Bryson saw and she did have her back to her she couldn’t avoid seeing the bright orange Deftones logo. It would have stuck it like a sore thumb. Yet Bryson didn’t mention it. Odd.

There was no Luke seen as he was at home.

[Bullseye]

Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

This is from the appeal papers, describes AB evidence. You can see she said a navy hoody with lighter trousers she took to be jeans, when I see the photo of what Jodi was wearing it’s not even close and to say it is really says everything about you. I’m not saying Luke is innocent because I think AB got it wrong I’m simply saying imo it was not Jodi she seen.

[114] Mrs Bryson did not know the deceased or the appellant. In the late afternoon of 30 June she was driving home from the supermarket, her two young children being in the car with her. She was proceeding south along Easthouses Road. The Roan's Dyke Path joined Easthouses Road at a point near where the road, for a person driving southwards on it, bends to the left. The entrance to the path lies ahead at this point. As she approached the bend Mrs Bryson saw two young people, a girl nearer to her (on the pavement of Easthouses Road) with her head turned to her right towards a young male who was on the path (about 20 feet from Mrs Bryson). He appeared to be gesturing towards the girl, with his palms out facing her. She thought this very strange. The view that Mrs Bryson had of the girl was of the side and back of her head. The girl had very dark hair which had a wave which suggested it had at some time been contained in a ponytail. (The deceased's hair was dark and she sometimes wore it held in a "scrunch" at the bottom of her neck; such an item was found with her body). She described the girl's clothing as comprising a navy blue hooded jumper and pair of trousers ("I just took them to be a pair of jeans"); the trousers were lighter in colour than the jumper. (The description of the jumper was consistent with what the deceased was wearing when she left home; her trousers were dark in colour and of a "baggy" type). She was unable to see the girl's face or to form an impression of her age. The male she described in evidence as having a lot of hair ("quite messy") of a sandy/brownish colour. He was wearing a kind of green jacket which was "hippy" in length. It put Mrs Bryson in mind of a fishing type jacket, an outdoor type. His trousers were a similar colour. She saw his face "for a brief second". At a later stage in her evidence in chief Mrs Bryson was asked to look at a photograph of a jacket, similar to that which witnesses were to testify the appellant had been seen wearing before 30 June. She described what the male had been wearing as "very similar" to that photographed. She did not identify the appellant in court.

[Parky41]

Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?

[Bullseye]

Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?

If you mean going by the photo I would describe a girl with very baggy possibly black clothing on, with a symbol on the back. Not a navy hoodie with lighter colour trousers I took to be jeans…

I’ve asked many questions over the years about the ‘narrative’ as you put it, on here also. Regarding AB movements and where the house was, did AB get out the car and go into the house or just view from outside, how long did she stay etc etc but after all that none of that matters if I don’t believe it was Jodi she seen. Going by the info I would have put that bit of evidence down as reasonable doubt and moved on to the next piece of evidence. But that’s the point it’s up to each person to decide what they believe / interpret from the information we have. It’s not black and white and we will likely never know for sure. I for one have no idea if Luke is guilty or not I just hope he is and wish the Scottish legal system was more open with the information from trials then it might make things a whole lot clearer and stop all the misinformation from both side. But never going to happen.

[Parky41]

If you mean going by the photo I would describe a girl with very baggy possibly black clothing on, with a symbol on the back. Not a navy hoodie with lighter colour trousers I took to be jeans…

I’ve asked many questions over the years about the ‘narrative’ as you put it, on here also. Regarding AB movements and where the house was, did AB get out the car and go into the house or just view from outside, how long did she stay etc etc but after all that none of that matters if I don’t believe it was Jodi she seen. Going by the info I would have put that bit of evidence down as reasonable doubt and moved on to the next piece of evidence. But that’s the point it’s up to each person to decide what they believe / interpret from the information we have. It’s not black and white and we will likely never know for sure. I for one have no idea if Luke is guilty or not I just hope he is and wish the Scottish legal system was more open with the information from trials then it might make things a whole lot clearer and stop all the misinformation from both side. But never going to happen.

You can get any information you want from the trial - Just got to fork out a pretty penny for it. But and again, after so many times of pushing the point forward, of SL and co NOT having access to full court transcripts, there has been the blanking in admitting this until recently, very recently. Access to LM attending his own trial of course, however what was proven beyond any doubt, is that he compulsively lied. - If some pigs should fly in this case, then the one person to blame for LM being where he is, is as always himself.

Of course it matters where house was, viewing and so forth, when people are punting out nonsense such as, it must have taken this amount of time to do what she did, without even knowing distance and so forth! It matters a lot, it is evidence as heard. Such as, that she did not physically view into any house, located it, turned around and headed home.

Did your two independent people give a description of the logo? Where were they? Where was the girl and the mystery male? What day did they first go forward, and again, what were the actual colour and type of trouser the victim was wearing? - So many questions.

We are, as always, left with the absolute fact that AB identified the male as being LM, that he was again identified on the west end in the same clobber, then his doppelganger was seen again just down from there, but NO LM anywhere else seen! That clear sequence of events, with nothing, and that is absolutely zero to show that anything else happened.


And to back up AB in court, those changes, we had the couple who saw LM after changing, not sure in being able to identify him at the time, by court they stated it was absolutely not the person in the dock! But is was LM, wearing those same clothes, that shiny bomber with orange lining and light coloured snow boarding boots. NO said LM, I was not there, it was not me. - But guess what? He was not where he claimed, all these bloody doppelgangers but no real LM - Yawn.

[faithlilly]

Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?

The trousers were ‘lighter than the hoodie’. The hoodie was navy blue so the trousers were lighter than navy blue, not the black or very dark navy trousers Jodi was wearing. Where did the Deftones logo go? That could be considered to be the most conspicuous part of Jodi’s clothing.

Ah yes the two people mentioned in the appeal. The first ‘credible sighting’ according to the police yet Bryson had given at least two statements by that point. Why wasn’t her sighting considered more credible? Could it be that even the police at that time knew Bryson’s sighting was too late to be Jodi and Luke? Further if those witnesses saw Stocky Man as Jodi walked into RDP why didn’t they also see Luke coming up the lane that lead from it? After all Jodi was allegedly still on the pavement leading to the path when seen by Bryson.

[Parky41]

The trousers were ‘lighter than the hoodie’. The hoodie was navy blue so the trousers were lighter than navy blue, not the black or very dark navy trousers Jodi was wearing. Where did the Deftones logo go? That could be considered to be the most conspicuous part of Jodi’s clothing.

Ah yes the two people mentioned in the appeal. The first ‘credible sighting’ according to the police yet Bryson had given at least two statements by that point. Why wasn’t her sighting considered more credible? Could it be that even the police at that time knew Bryson’s sighting was too late to be Jodi and Luke? Further if those witnesses saw Stocky Man as Jodi walked into RDP why didn’t they also see Luke coming up the lane that lead from it? After all Jodi was allegedly still on the pavement leading to the path when seen by Bryson.

B****r Off with your nonsense, clown.

[faithlilly]

B****r Off with your nonsense, clown.

I’m afraid I will continue to ask awkward questions even if it angers some.

[Parky41]

I’m afraid I will continue to ask awkward questions even if it angers some.

And that is why you are a clown. Anger, my lord, we were laughing at you. Dense, much?

[faithlilly]

And that is why you are a clown. Anger, my lord, we were laughing at you. Dense, much?

I’m not sure if I’m with Rousseau “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong” or Thomas Jefferson “Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us” on this one.

[Mr Apples]

Mr. Apples,

Regarding the timing of her trip you wrote, "leaving for a 9-minute car drive."  I have read that the trip takes 12-17 minutes, depending on the route.  The bank receipt gave the time as 16:32:45.  Therefore, we are already at 16:44:45 at the earliest before we include the time to get lost (it is quite easy to get lost in a nearby neighborhood if you don't know it at all in my experience) and the time to view the house.  I assume that the house had been photographed; therefore, AB must have wanted some information about its appearance that a single photograph could not convey.  Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your argument.
EDT (21 August)
I failed to include the time between obtaining the receipt for the groceries and starting the car.  Ms. Bryson would have to walk outside, put the groceries in the car, and also buckle up her children, one of whom was a toddler IIRC.  I am inclined to put another five minutes onto the total time for these things to happen.

The time from Gorebridge Coop to Easthouses is 7-9 minutes -- not 12 - 14. And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference. The fact is, no one on the planet knew/knows what the exact times were or are, not even SL (who, just to remind you & everyone else, did not/does not have access to everything in connection with this case and, more crucially, did not attend a single day of that 9-week trial). The most accurate time available was from her bank statement (ie, 1632 hrs), and from that bank statement we can begin to accurately formulate a theory on driving routes and times. I've already highlighted how tiny Easthouses was and still is, and the strong likelhood that it literally only added 2-3 minutes on to her journey (5 mins at the absolute most, imo), especially as it was not a pre-arranged viewing with an estate agent; AB merely looked at it from her car briefly, for less than a minute or two -- a quick glance and not an extensive inspection, then drove southbound back home (the journey home likely taking about 5 - 10 mins). I would guess that AB only bought a basket full of shopping (2 small bags of groceries) and getting her 2 children back in car would have taken only 2 mins (in 2003, car seats weren't mandatory for children, so there was no time wasted in having to strap a 2-year-old in thoroughly). So, the 1655 sighting is, in fact, very realistic.

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?

[faithlilly]

And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference.

You are absolutely correct Mr Apples. Bryson on the 1st of July gave a statement claiming that her sighting of the two youths seen at the entrance to RDP was between 5.40-5.45. Her initial estimates of peripheral events such as the time from her getting home to her husband’s phone call all fitted with that. That night she went over those times again, again fitting the timing of her sighting with fixed points in her day. She then when back to the police and gave a second statement with exactly the same timings as the first.

Can you explain how she initially got those timings so wrong, even after considering them again, and if the timings were wrong how reliable a witness could she have been in the first place?