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: Holly Goodhead on April 13, 2021, 07:22:07 PM
-
The first wit stats of those present when J J was found all agreed LM's dog led the way. Later wit stats say LM led the way. Either way I don't see the significance in that dog walkers often find bodies:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/dog-walkers-find-dead-body-6689463
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/28/dog-walkers-find-human-foot-field-sparking-police-search-9332060/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlucky-dog-walker-finds-two-4326407
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/womans-body-found-dog-walkers-4835845
https://www.thecomet.net/news/biggleswade-dog-walker-finds-dead-body-in-field-5370876
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/body-boy-found-walkers-golf-19745659
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/dog-walkers-find-body-leicester-505933
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51802324
https://www.portadowntimes.co.uk/news/body-of-man-found-by-dog-walker-in-portadown-3178623
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1298792/mystery-dog-walker-body-village-woods-england-investigation/
-
How many of the above dog walkers were also in a relationship with thr person whose body they found?
-
I find it much more significant that the witness statements changed.
Why??
-
I find it much more significant that the witness statements changed.
Why??
How do you know the witness statements changed and if so from what to what? Genuine question.
-
How many of the above dog walkers were also in a relationship with thr person whose body they found?
Why do you think that's relevant?
Dog walkers often find bodies and imo its no different in this case. Quite likely LM's dog, Mia ?, was attracted to the scent of blood and/or the odours emitted from a decomposing corpse.
Most women will have experienced the embarrassment of having a dog sniff around their crotch when having a period even when wearing a tampon! Dogs without training!
https://www-huffpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/why-dogs-sniff-women-crotches-on-period_n_5ba2b72de4b0375f8f99b44b/amp?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16183823588431&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fwhy-dogs-sniff-women-crotches-on-period_n_5ba2b72de4b0375f8f99b44b
-
Why do you think that's relevant?
Dog walkers often find bodies and imo its no different in this case. Quite likely LM's dog, Mia ?, was attracted to the scent of blood and/or the odours emitted from a decomposing corpse.
Most women will have experienced the embarrassment of having a dog sniff around their crotch when having a period even when wearing a tampon! Dogs without training!
https://www-huffpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/why-dogs-sniff-women-crotches-on-period_n_5ba2b72de4b0375f8f99b44b/amp?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16183823588431&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fwhy-dogs-sniff-women-crotches-on-period_n_5ba2b72de4b0375f8f99b44b
If you don’t think it’s relevant then I doubt there’s anything I can add to help you understand.
-
If you don’t think it’s relevant then I doubt there’s anything I can add to help you understand.
He would know the dog was likely to attract attention to the body. If he was responsible why not join the search without the dog and allow others to find the body.
-
He would know the dog was likely to attract attention to the body. If he was responsible why not join the search without the dog and allow others to find the body.
Maybe he had a reason for wanting to be the one to find the body. To have the kudos of being the one who found her, or to take delight in the reactions of those who he was with to the gruesome discovery or maybe he thought he needed to put himself at the scene of the crime for legitimate reasons in case any of his DNA was found on the body. Who knows. But if you don't think it's in any way relevant that the person who found the body was intimately acquainted with the victim then that is your prerogative, nothing I say will change your mind of that I am certain.
-
How do you know the witness statements changed and if so from what to what? Genuine question.
See "Innocents Betrayed" Chapter 3, in which Sandra Lean explains that the early statements given to police by various witnesses differed from later statements, and from what they said in court. Some examples are whether Luke or his dog found Jodi, whether or not Luke was emotional when he discovered Jodi was dead, whether or not Jodi had, in fact been grounded by her mum, and for what reason(s), and what time Jodi left home.
I have no issues with Sandra Lean, so until someone can prove to me that what she says in her book is lies/mistakes, I have no choice but to believe her.
-
See "Innocents Betrayed" Chapter 3, in which Sandra Lean explains that the early statements given to police by various witnesses differed from later statements, and from what they said in court. Some examples are whether Luke or his dog found Jodi, whether or not Luke was emotional when he discovered Jodi was dead, whether or not Jodi had, in fact been grounded by her mum, and for what reason(s), and what time Jodi left home.
I have no issues with Sandra Lean, so until someone can prove to me that what she says in her book is lies/mistakes, I have no choice but to believe her.
The questioning of these witnesses by DF also included questioning over the changes in their statements. The newspaper reports verify this, if verification was needed.
-
Maybe he had a reason for wanting to be the one to find the body. To have the kudos of being the one who found her, or to take delight in the reactions of those who he was with to the gruesome discovery or maybe he thought he needed to put himself at the scene of the crime for legitimate reasons in case any of his DNA was found on the body. Who knows. But if you don't think it's in any way relevant that the person who found the body was intimately acquainted with the victim then that is your prerogative, nothing I say will change your mind of that I am certain.
Surely, Luke would have expected his DNA to be on Jodi. He was her boyfriend, so why would he be worried about that?
I don't know enough about people who commit murder to know whether or not they sometimes like to "discover" the bodies of those they have killed. I suspect it might be true of some who have severe mental health disorders. It may also be the case that some killers would want to be as far away from the murder scene as possible. Who knows?
-
Surely, Luke would have expected his DNA to be on Jodi. He was her boyfriend, so why would he be worried about that?
I don't know enough about people who commit murder to know whether or not they sometimes like to "discover" the bodies of those they have killed. I suspect it might be true of some who have severe mental health disorders. It may also be the case that some killers would want to be as far away from the murder scene as possible. Who knows?
When was the last time he claimed to have seen her alive?
-
When was the last time he claimed to have seen her alive?
At school, on the day of the murder, I believe.
-
The first wit stats of those present when J J was found all agreed LM's dog led the way. Later wit stats say LM led the way. Either way I don't see the significance in that dog walkers often find bodies:
And it's a sheer coincidence that the dug walkers that discovered Jodi was the search party that was actively looking for her?
-
See "Innocents Betrayed" Chapter 3, in which Sandra Lean explains that the early statements given to police by various witnesses differed from later statements, and from what they said in court. Some examples are whether Luke or his dog found Jodi, whether or not Luke was emotional when he discovered Jodi was dead, whether or not Jodi had, in fact been grounded by her mum, and for what reason(s), and what time Jodi left home.
I have no issues with Sandra Lean, so until someone can prove to me that what she says in her book is lies/mistakes, I have no choice but to believe her.
Sorry. If Sandra Lean is the only source for this I will disregard it; in my short acquaintance with this discussion I have found her to be the source of so much misinformation as to make her an unreliable source.
I believe it is not unusual for witnesses to alter initial statements either to add or subtract something recalled later. Shane Mitchell did so for example.
-
And it's a sheer coincidence that the dug walkers that discovered Jodi was the search party that was actively looking for her?
No coincidence. The search party took the logical steps of looking for J J on the footpath they knew she had taken and find her located nearby.
-
No coincidence. The search party took the logical steps of looking for J J on the footpath they knew she had taken and find her located nearby.
So it's not entirely surprising or significant in this case that Jodi was found by dog walkers.
The dog-walking thing, in this case, is a bit of a misnomer, imo.
Significant, though, that LM was there at the head of the pack, and apparently threw himself on the body - so the question would be whether LM was in that position by accident or design?
-
So it's not entirely surprising or significant in this case that Jodi was found by dog walkers.
The dog-walking thing, in this case, is a bit of a misnomer, imo.
Significant, though, that LM was there at the head of the pack, and apparently threw himself on the body - so the question would be whether LM was in that position by accident or design?
Do you have a cite for LM throwing himself on the body? If he did I'm surprised he wasn't covered in J J's blood?
-
So it's not entirely surprising or significant in this case that Jodi was found by dog walkers.
The dog-walking thing, in this case, is a bit of a misnomer, imo.
Significant, though, that LM was there at the head of the pack, and apparently threw himself on the body - so the question would be whether LM was in that position by accident or design?
Was it not the granny that held Jodi, don’t think Luke went that close
-
The questioning of these witnesses by DF also included questioning over the changes in their statements. The newspaper reports verify this, if verification was needed.
Think perhaps clarity is needed is it not - It was LM who found? Jodi, not the dog. That is fact. The dog was not in the woodland.
This was not 'dog walkers' were dogs are roaming free or in the actual same terrain.
These four people were on a path, they were not in the woodland.
The woodland is cut off from the path by a dry stone dyke. Which is some 8-10ft in height for the most part?
LM, and only LM took the notion of looking into the woodland (twice), the first time at a spot where there was some stones missing on top?
The 'Gino' spot, so called due to graffiti? on the wall. Where there is a break, yet Ms Lean claims
The wall is stone built, around 12‟‟ thick, and has no other breaks
'No Smoke'
This is in reference, granted to the search party not seeing through any other breaks, to see what LM was doing. Yet there is no mention of this first account of LM taking the notion to look into this woodland.
The search party had been on this path less than 10mins.
When they reached a part in the wall that had a V in it, LM sought to look, yet again into the woodland.
The contrast in statements was to where LM claimed he was - "not even 20yards past the V"
SK "The dogs head was level with this V"
Once LM had entered the woodland he turned immediately to his left. Witnessed by AW and JaJ.
AW remained at the V with the dog. She did not walk back to it?
SK and JaJ continued to walk - they had barely walked around '10ft' when LM shouted he had found something. "shouted back" They backtracked to the V. (ran) Yet LM was on the other side of this V?
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."
Luke‟s version of events is that the search party had passed the V in the wall when his dog began pawing at the wall and sniffing the air. He went back to the V, because it was slightly easier to get over the wall at that point, then made his way to where the dog had reacted on the other side of the wall (i.e. he turned left.) Both Janine and Stephen said that they were "shouted back" by Luke. But back from where, exactly? By their own contention, Luke had gone straight to the V. This being "shouted back" suggests that, after Luke had gone over the wall, they had carried on down the path. If that is the case, then they were not at the V to see what Luke did when he got to the other side of the wall. Or, Luke was telling the truth
Of course it is simple and plain to see is it not? That all three (LM,SK and JaJ) continued to walk down this path at the same time once LM was in the woodland. That upon him commencing this walk to the left, they all, except AW continued down, SK and JaJ on the path, LM in the woods. That they had barely walked around 10ft when LM shouted he had found something. Upon them being "shouted back" LM was at the other side of the V yet again. He may have ran back too of course?
Therefore - what is clear from above and in those first witness statements is that "Luke's version of events" and "Luke telling the truth" were and had always been in contradiction to that of the other members of this search party. That none of them had gone passed this V break until 'after' LM entered the woodland.
-
I find it much more significant that the witness statements changed.
Why??
Maybe after some time to reflect on the actual facts of what happened the 3 of them realised they’d been manipulated and duped by sociopathic Luke Mitchell?
-
Maybe after some time to reflect on the actual facts of what happened the 3 of them realised they’d been manipulated and duped by sociopathic Luke Mitchell?
A 14 year old boy duping three adults?
There were 17 months between the murder of Jodi and Luke's trial. Memories become dim and play tricks--------or worse. Who knows?
I certainly don't believe Luke was able to manipulate three adult members of Jodi's family.
What evidence is there that Luke was a sociopath?
-
A 14 year old boy duping three adults?
There were 17 months between the murder of Jodi and Luke's trial. Memories become dim and play tricks--------or worse. Who knows?
I certainly don't believe Luke was able to manipulate three adult members of Jodi's family.
What evidence is there that Luke was a sociopath?
A small point but Luke was 15 when Jodi died.
-
A small point but Luke was 15 when Jodi died.
Fair enough!!!
Doesn't make a lot of difference though-----IMO.
-
A small point but Luke was 15 when Jodi died.
I believe Luke was born on the 24th of July 1988 therefore would have been 14 at the time of Jodi’s murder.
-
A 14 year old boy duping three adults?
What evidence is there Luke Mitchell grew out of his manipulative childhood behaviour?
-
I certainly don't believe Luke was able to manipulate three adult members of Jodi's family.
Why not?
I see no evidence of Mitchell being a placid individual but a wealth of evidence pointing to controlling behaviour
-
What evidence is there that Luke was a sociopath?
What evidence is there he wasn’t/isn’t?
-
What evidence is there he wasn’t/isn’t?
Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist?
-
What evidence is there he wasn’t/isn’t?
From a CoA doc:
The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
-
From a CoA doc:
The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
What did it say about sociopathy or PD’s?
-
Per se, there’s nothing significant about Luke finding the body, but, in the context of the case, and when the prosecution evidence against him is considered in its totality, then, imo, it does become significant. I think the prosecution argued that Luke finding the body, especially so quickly (found within half an hour of her being reported as missing), could’ve been construed as ‘having guilty knowledge’. Yes, there was certainly quite a strong circumstantial case against Luke (although, analysed more closely, there’s definitely room for counterargument against all the evidence), but there were also equally as strong circumstanstial cases that could’ve been made against SK, JOF, GD, MK, [Name removed] and JAF. Furthermore, even though there was quite a strong circumstanstial case against Luke, I still don’t know how a majority jury thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Per se, there’s nothing significant about Luke finding the body, but, in the context of the case, and when the prosecution evidence against him is considered in its totality, then, imo, it does become significant. I think the prosecution argued that Luke finding the body, especially so quickly (found within half an hour of her being reported as missing), could’ve been construed as ‘having guilty knowledge’. Yes, there was certainly quite a strong circumstantial case against Luke (although, analysed more closely, there’s definitely room for counterargument against all the evidence), but there were also equally as strong circumstanstial cases that could’ve been made against SK, JOF, GD, MK, [Name removed] and JAF. Furthermore, even though there was quite a strong circumstanstial case against Luke, I still don’t know how a majority jury thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.
Totally agree with your last sentence.
I don't find it significant in that the search was carried out over a finite area based on the route J J would have taken.
I can't reconcile the level of violence used with everyday people such as those above.
Why the emphasis on local people? Has Peter Tobin been ruled out? I think the perp was someone with a long history of violence.
-
Per se, there’s nothing significant about Luke finding the body, but, in the context of the case, and when the prosecution evidence against him is considered in its totality, then, imo, it does become significant. I think the prosecution argued that Luke finding the body, especially so quickly (found within half an hour of her being reported as missing), could’ve been construed as ‘having guilty knowledge’. Yes, there was certainly quite a strong circumstantial case against Luke (although, analysed more closely, there’s definitely room for counterargument against all the evidence), but there were also equally as strong circumstanstial cases that could’ve been made against SK, JOF, GD, MK, [Name removed] and JAF. Furthermore, even though there was quite a strong circumstanstial case against Luke, I still don’t know how a majority jury thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.
Not sure I follow? But will give it a bash.
LM had no alibi. Jodi and Luke were to meet. Luke was witnessed in Easthouses at the lane. There was no DNA pointing this murder to An another. Luke was witnessed at the gate then nothing for approx 18-20mins. Luke is witnessed again three times in that very short time frame of 15mins. Then nothing for another 85mins. Luke is with his friends for approx 90mins. Luke claims to have been in his house from Just after 9pm until around 10.30. Witnessed going in to his house at 10pm. Luke instantly offers to search for Jodi, he has barely said the words and he is on this path. Luke led the search for Jodi to this path. Within the space of 10mins Luke takes the notion to introduce a search of the woods (at the Gino spot) then again at the V. He is in the woodland mere seconds and he discovers Jodi. He not only discovers Jodi but he describes the 'type' of tree she is lying behind and that of the red hair tie. (bobble?) And of the clothing right down to those DC shoes. This of course is the very basics. That plain and simple front of it.
Let's think of a 'sociopath' next. Those tendencies and remember to take on board here that this PD is not usually diagnosed nor treated. It Is is defined by the characteristics of a person - Usually young males.
They are often compulsive liars - Luke admitted to absolutely nothing and lied about everything. Having been in the woodland before, of the existence of the V. Of carrying knives, of cannabis, of contact with Kt, of the search of the path, of whiplash trash, the list is endless. Oddly enough most of those who proclaim innocence refuse to accept any evidence against. This ridiculous notion that the 'only' evidence against LM was that of "half a mars bar".
They are prone to violent outburst of being hot headed - remember here, if you want to go down the road of "equally as strong" and are going to include 'information' without evidence of these 'others' we must include LM in everything. However we will go by the 'killer' This was someone who had a violent outburst, red rage whom attacked this girl with such force then became instantly calm and collective, those post mortem injuries. Classic symptoms of being a sociopath.
Lack of empathy - Absolutely nothing, the evidence for this is in abundance. From discovery, through the investigation (those interviews) It really is endless. Luke Mitchell had no PTSD. He needed and wanted to be out, partying, obtaining more knives and celebrating with that tattoo at whiplash trash CM "we are celebrating" He was thriving not surviving?
The centre of attention - He wanted/needed to be back in school. The sky interview, the graveyard, the discovery of Jodi the list yet again endless. Sociopaths thrive attention. And Luke Mitchell still has this attention on a daily basis. He is consistently discussed and often fore front of the media. Those quiet spells? coincidently? up pops some prison story, anything really?
Impulsive or aggressive behaviour, lack of respect for authority - Again in abundance. The interviews, the teachers.
Low moral sense of conscience,of right from wrong. - Definitely?
Will we move onto equally as strong cases against others? In fairness however. Actual proof not hear say or that based on the word of the one person who is promoting the head of the innocence campaign?
Let's start with MK. There is absolutely no evidence of MK being on Newbattle R'd around the time of this murder. There is no evidence that his face was covered in scratches, quite the opposite. He gave an account of his movements that day which checked out. He had been on Newbattle R'd much later in the evening. He had went to the local off licence. He was captured on CCTV, strangely enough. No scratches. Let us not forget that there was no DNA of anyone in Jodi's fingernails. - If you want to buy this nonsense that they were tested wrongly. fair enough? What we do know for certainty however is that SF did hatch up a plan with him to make some big bucks? That is fact is it not?
But let us not forget the one most important factor on this concentration of 'others' That main reason. - to divert 'away' from the evidence against LM. Also. You can not take a part of each of the above and add them together to make that same case of one LM?
Clear, consistent proof? That any one of them, individually could come anywhere near to that, of the case against LM? - No get out cards allowed here, not simply allowed to say "but they were never investigated, so we don't know for sure, do we?" For do we really want to continually drag these 'others' through the mire on "we don't know?
-
Per se, there’s nothing significant about Luke finding the body, but, in the context of the case, and when the prosecution evidence against him is considered in its totality, then, imo, it does become significant. I think the prosecution argued that Luke finding the body, especially so quickly (found within half an hour of her being reported as missing), could’ve been construed as ‘having guilty knowledge’. Yes, there was certainly quite a strong circumstantial case against Luke (although, analysed more closely, there’s definitely room for counterargument against all the evidence), but there were also equally as strong circumstanstial cases that could’ve been made against SK, JOF, GD, MK, [Name removed] and JAF. Furthermore, even though there was quite a strong circumstanstial case against Luke, I still don’t know how a majority jury thought it was beyond reasonable doubt.
How did a majority jury find LM guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
The trial was local, and local people were (rightly) appalled by this senseless murder of a young girl. The media has been full of it for months, and so had local gossip. At the time, most people thought Luke was guilty even before the trial started, so, IMO, he didn't stand much of a chance.
Of course, he might have done it, but I would have thought there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
-
Not sure I follow? But will give it a bash.
LM had no alibi. Jodi and Luke were to meet. Luke was witnessed in Easthouses at the lane. There was no DNA pointing this murder to An another. Luke was witnessed at the gate then nothing for approx 18-20mins. Luke is witnessed again three times in that very short time frame of 15mins. Then nothing for another 85mins. Luke is with his friends for approx 90mins. Luke claims to have been in his house from Just after 9pm until around 10.30. Witnessed going in to his house at 10pm. Luke instantly offers to search for Jodi, he has barely said the words and he is on this path. Luke led the search for Jodi to this path. Within the space of 10mins Luke takes the notion to introduce a search of the woods (at the Gino spot) then again at the V. He is in the woodland mere seconds and he discovers Jodi. He not only discovers Jodi but he describes the 'type' of tree she is lying behind and that of the red hair tie. (bobble?) And of the clothing right down to those DC shoes. This of course is the very basics. That plain and simple front of it.
So he’s too keen to search and then not keen enough to know where she was.Which is it? Why would he not offer to help find her and why would it be curious for him to search the wood....especially if his dog alerted there? And the clothing? He had been at school with her. As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.
Let's think of a 'sociopath' next. Those tendencies and remember to take on board here that this PD is not usually diagnosed nor treated. It Is is defined by the characteristics of a person - Usually young males.
Reading stuff on the internet doesn’t a psychiatrist make.
They are often compulsive liars - Luke admitted to absolutely nothing and lied about everything. Having been in the woodland before, of the existence of the V. Of carrying knives, of cannabis, of contact with Kt, of the search of the path, of whiplash trash, the list is endless. Oddly enough most of those who proclaim innocence refuse to accept any evidence against. This ridiculous notion that the 'only' evidence against LM was that of "half a mars bar".
He wasn’t a sociopath, he was 14. He probably thought that there was no evidence that he hurt Jodi but the police could lay charges for cannabis use or carrying knives. He has never been in trouble before, didn’t have the maturity to deal with it, had no solicitor to advise him and probably panicked. As to the tattoo, when was he asked about it?
They are prone to violent outburst of being hot headed - remember here, if you want to go down the road of "equally as strong" and are going to include 'information' without evidence of these 'others' we must include LM in everything. However we will go by the 'killer' This was someone who had a violent outburst, red rage whom attacked this girl with such force then became instantly calm and collective, those post mortem injuries. Classic symptoms of being a sociopath.
Was there any other instance of this in his background? Anything, apart from paid for newspaper stories, that he was violent? His friends, Jodi, his family, his neighbours.....anyone?
Lack of empathy - Absolutely nothing, the evidence for this is in abundance. From discovery, through the investigation (those interviews) It really is endless. Luke Mitchell had no PTSD. He needed and wanted to be out, partying, obtaining more knives and celebrating with that tattoo at whiplash trash CM "we are celebrating" He was thriving not surviving?
Are you still trying to hawk the same ‘ Luke wasn’t upset, it was SK, that has already been debunked?
The centre of attention - He wanted/needed to be back in school. The sky interview, the graveyard, the discovery of Jodi the list yet again endless. Sociopaths thrive attention. And Luke Mitchell still has this attention on a daily basis. He is consistently discussed and often fore front of the media. Those quiet spells? coincidently? up pops some prison story, anything really?
Now you really are showing your bias. Can you detail Luke’s sociopathic behaviour before the murder, when the national consciousness hadn’t been tainted?
Impulsive or aggressive behaviour, lack of respect for authority - Again in abundance. The interviews, the teachers.
Low moral sense of conscience,of right from wrong. - Definitely?
He was 14
Will we move onto equally as strong cases against others? In fairness however. Actual proof not hear say or that based on the word of the one person who is promoting the head of the innocence campaign?
Let's start with MK. There is absolutely no evidence of MK being on Newbattle R'd around the time of this murder. There is no evidence that his face was covered in scratches, quite the opposite. He gave an account of his movements that day which checked out. He had been on Newbattle R'd much later in the evening. He had went to the local off licence. He was captured on CCTV, strangely enough. No scratches. Let us not forget that there was no DNA of anyone in Jodi's fingernails. - If you want to buy this nonsense that they were tested wrongly. fair enough? What we do know for certainty however is that SF did hatch up a plan with him to make some big bucks? That is fact is it not?
But let us not forget the one most important factor on this concentration of 'others' That main reason. - to divert 'away' from the evidence against LM. Also. You can not take a part of each of the above and add them together to make that same case of one LM?
Clear, consistent proof? That any one of them, individually could come anywhere near to that, of the case against LM? - No get out cards allowed here, not simply allowed to say "but they were never investigated, so we don't know for sure, do we?" For do we really want to continually drag these 'others' through the mire on "we don't know?
No need to put others in the frame, simply debunk the Crown and media narrative that has percolated over all these years. To find Luke’s case wasn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt you don’t have to prove who else did it.
-
ILet's start with MK. There is absolutely no evidence of MK being on Newbattle R'd around the time of this murder. There is no evidence that his face was covered in scratches, quite the opposite. He gave an account of his movements that day which checked out. He had been on Newbattle R'd much later in the evening. He had went to the local off licence. He was captured on CCTV, strangely enough. No scratches. Let us not forget that there was no DNA of anyone in Jodi's fingernails. - If you want to buy this nonsense that they were tested wrongly. fair enough? What we do know for certainty however is that SF did hatch up a plan with him to make some big bucks? That is fact is it not?
It does seem that MK was investigated, then - and yet the recent documentary still chose to treat him as a suspect.
-
It does seem that MK was investigated, then - and yet the recent documentary still chose to treat him as a suspect.
Well there you go....that’s him eliminated.
-
From a CoA doc:
The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
What did the forensic clinical psychiatrist say about Luke Mitchell’s threats and/or idealisations of suicide?
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/
Luke Mitchell:
“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world”
-
Not sure I follow? But will give it a bash.
LM had no alibi. Jodi and Luke were to meet. Luke was witnessed in Easthouses at the lane. There was no DNA pointing this murder to An another. Luke was witnessed at the gate then nothing for approx 18-20mins. Luke is witnessed again three times in that very short time frame of 15mins. Then nothing for another 85mins. Luke is with his friends for approx 90mins. Luke claims to have been in his house from Just after 9pm until around 10.30. Witnessed going in to his house at 10pm. Luke instantly offers to search for Jodi, he has barely said the words and he is on this path. Luke led the search for Jodi to this path. Within the space of 10mins Luke takes the notion to introduce a search of the woods (at the Gino spot) then again at the V. He is in the woodland mere seconds and he discovers Jodi. He not only discovers Jodi but he describes the 'type' of tree she is lying behind and that of the red hair tie. (bobble?) And of the clothing right down to those DC shoes. This of course is the very basics. That plain and simple front of it.
Let's think of a 'sociopath' next. Those tendencies and remember to take on board here that this PD is not usually diagnosed nor treated. It Is is defined by the characteristics of a person - Usually young males.
They are often compulsive liars - Luke admitted to absolutely nothing and lied about everything. Having been in the woodland before, of the existence of the V. Of carrying knives, of cannabis, of contact with Kt, of the search of the path, of whiplash trash, the list is endless. Oddly enough most of those who proclaim innocence refuse to accept any evidence against. This ridiculous notion that the 'only' evidence against LM was that of "half a mars bar".
They are prone to violent outburst of being hot headed - remember here, if you want to go down the road of "equally as strong" and are going to include 'information' without evidence of these 'others' we must include LM in everything. However we will go by the 'killer' This was someone who had a violent outburst, red rage whom attacked this girl with such force then became instantly calm and collective, those post mortem injuries. Classic symptoms of being a sociopath.
Lack of empathy - Absolutely nothing, the evidence for this is in abundance. From discovery, through the investigation (those interviews) It really is endless. Luke Mitchell had no PTSD. He needed and wanted to be out, partying, obtaining more knives and celebrating with that tattoo at whiplash trash CM "we are celebrating" He was thriving not surviving?
The centre of attention - He wanted/needed to be back in school. The sky interview, the graveyard, the discovery of Jodi the list yet again endless. Sociopaths thrive attention. And Luke Mitchell still has this attention on a daily basis. He is consistently discussed and often fore front of the media. Those quiet spells? coincidently? up pops some prison story, anything really?
Impulsive or aggressive behaviour, lack of respect for authority - Again in abundance. The interviews, the teachers.
Low moral sense of conscience,of right from wrong. - Definitely?
Will we move onto equally as strong cases against others? In fairness however. Actual proof not hear say or that based on the word of the one person who is promoting the head of the innocence campaign?
Let's start with MK. There is absolutely no evidence of MK being on Newbattle R'd around the time of this murder. There is no evidence that his face was covered in scratches, quite the opposite. He gave an account of his movements that day which checked out. He had been on Newbattle R'd much later in the evening. He had went to the local off licence. He was captured on CCTV, strangely enough. No scratches. Let us not forget that there was no DNA of anyone in Jodi's fingernails. - If you want to buy this nonsense that they were tested wrongly. fair enough? What we do know for certainty however is that SF did hatch up a plan with him to make some big bucks? That is fact is it not?
But let us not forget the one most important factor on this concentration of 'others' That main reason. - to divert 'away' from the evidence against LM. Also. You can not take a part of each of the above and add them together to make that same case of one LM?
Clear, consistent proof? That any one of them, individually could come anywhere near to that, of the case against LM? - No get out cards allowed here, not simply allowed to say "but they were never investigated, so we don't know for sure, do we?" For do we really want to continually drag these 'others' through the mire on "we don't know?
Para 25 from CoA judgement
‘The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions,the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest
-
A 14 year old boy duping three adults?
There were 17 months between the murder of Jodi and Luke's trial. Memories become dim and play tricks--------or worse. Who knows?
I certainly don't believe Luke was able to manipulate three adult members of Jodi's family.
What evidence is there that Luke was a sociopath?
Para 94 CoA judgement
“he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased”
-
The first wit stats of those present when J J was found all agreed LM's dog led the way
What do the Mitchell’s and Sandra Lean say about Luke’s lies? ⬇️ ⬇️
Para 94 CoA judgement
“he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased”
-
The first wit stats of those present when J J was found all agreed LM's dog led the way. Later wit stats say LM led the way. Either way I don't see the significance in that dog walkers often find bodies:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/dog-walkers-find-dead-body-6689463
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/28/dog-walkers-find-human-foot-field-sparking-police-search-9332060/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlucky-dog-walker-finds-two-4326407
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/womans-body-found-dog-walkers-4835845
https://www.thecomet.net/news/biggleswade-dog-walker-finds-dead-body-in-field-5370876
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/body-boy-found-walkers-golf-19745659
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/dog-walkers-find-body-leicester-505933
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51802324
https://www.portadowntimes.co.uk/news/body-of-man-found-by-dog-walker-in-portadown-3178623
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1298792/mystery-dog-walker-body-village-woods-england-investigation/
I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.
In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591
-
I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.
In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591
Well isn't that just outstanding reason for believing it is the same in this case, on par with saying MOJ happen! But again, those consistent lies being told, morphed from the self professed 'truthseeker'
No Holly, the search party did not all say the same thing, they did no agree with Luke Mitchells claims of the dog leading to finding the body. That blatant misrepresentation of the truth by Lean in her section "The agreed facts" - when she has the search party had all "walked several meters past the V break".
So this claimed "truthseeker" knows if she were actually to tell the truth, it would destroy one of the strongest areas she depends upon for support!! As above. But lets add the truth here! JaJ and SK stated clearly that they walked past the V break around 10ft or more AFTER LM went over not before. That none of the search party including Mitchell walked past prior to him entering the woodland. Does it matter? Well all round it certainly does, for one would just tell the bloody truth would they not?! If it didn't matter, don't you think?
Does it matter to this miraculous find? - most definitely for it showed clearly just how easy Mitchell would lie. But let's talk of that dog on it's harness on a short reign here. Being guided by it's master! One jerk, one movement and the animal is going to go in the direction he prompts, in this case to the wall, AT the V break. This is what was CLARIFIED, that it was not of the dogs own free will so to speak, of leading his master to the V but of Luke Mitchell leading the dog. When one by one the members of that search party were taken back to that path to go over the events. That is why the clarification came about, they had to re- live that evening whilst actually walking RDP again. As with Mitchell, they did not change their mind, they clarified. And Mitchells clarification was that it was around 40ft past not 60ft. - All several meters, isn't it? With two members being around 3 meters AFTER Mitchel was in the woodland, and one claiming "they" had walked around 40ft past prior to him going over into the woods.
Which showed, that he had only walked around the same, and this is why the police knew it was impossible for him to have seen what he later stated! More so as Kelly and Jones had dashed back that 10ft or so and Mitchell was at the V again.
It does not matter, certainly not where truth is concerned, these continuous lies and misrepresentation of the facts where Mitchell is concerned, in keeping him behind bars. - As I stated to Ms Lean before - Lies do not pose a threat to a killer walking the streets! In answer to her question "why would she lie and risk a killer on the streets?"
This book, which is in effect a complete dishonor to the victim herself, where the author and her hypothesis and conclusions leave the distinct impression with people - that Jodi was raped and murdered! Another vlog by some "Christine" - Who states that this boy was questioned repeatedly without his mother, a responsible adult or lawyer. A murder where she fought and attacked here assailant with nothing of Mitchell on her. Where she was raped and again nothing of Mitchell upon her!! - Job done, and the comments are screaming, release him and "buy the book!" Where does the rape come from? - from Lean!?
For she states in her book, just because there is no evidence of rape, does not mean that rape did not take place! Reason and explanation for this! She claims that if the victim was almost dead or dead then there would have been no need for force! Thus no signs of rape and forced sex! To further this, she adds in one of her "only conclusions" , that semen and sperm had to have been deposited at or after death! - implication again that sex acts took place with an almost or dead person! That lubricants used on condoms were tested, with that usual? Heavy inference in the air, and of course "nothing in the defence papers!" - That is ok then, let's add the authors lack of anything, add all these possibilities to draw the reader, nothing better than some added spice to an already horrific murder, is there? - Keeps that attention off Mitchell, I mean, no evidence of him (or anyone) raping Jodi, no evidence of rape, does not mean it did not happen, as we had with the murder taken place elsewhere!?
And this is born from those defunct heads and one a profile obtained from, and that minute stain, NOT visible. But she uses "appears" just in case! to strengthen her nonsense. So one sperm head on a shoe, not Kelly's and not Mitchells. Those minute left overs and trace transferal, survival of washing cycle and rainwater - belonged to two males. One Kelly and one Mitchell. And people are scratching their heads, and listening to Lean saying If, IF, IF around when or how the clothing moved, when it rained and all else - But what of Mitchells? and more importantly of Mitchell and trace transferal? Of touching, cutting and removing all the clothing! Where the most likeliest transferal took place, by the killers own touching and movement of the clothing and all else! - For that is the stark reality! Not this nonsense that it all could be put against 10% of the male population guff! Two donors, Mitchell and Kelly. The dregs from millions upon millions of sperm remaining from some previous encounter. - Or is Ms Lean suggesting that Kelly and Mitchell had sex with Jodi both at the time or after her death! - can't have one without the other now, can we? Can't just have Mitchells odd little bit surviving for multiple partial profiles and one of Kellys now - can we? If nothing survives as she suggests (which we know it does, science tells us this) then LM was present and performing a sex act also!
But of course Ms Lean is "only saying" - that all of this could not have been investigated properly, if it had surely it would be in those defence papers! and Ms Lean would not have all of her questions needing appeased! - BS. Ms Lean knows exactly the aim, and that level of intellect required , who makes statements such as " lot's of dog walkers find bodies" Or list all of her other killers as possibilities. To hang with forensics and clear cut DNA from a killer, as long as it is not Mitchell! eh? Anyone is up for the role here, to hang with forensics, but she does of course have an answer here also, does she not? - "we will never know" "the wrong testing was asked for" "only testing for Mitchell" " the murder happened elsewhere" - Poppycock, she is expert in BS plain and simple. - and it does take a certain lack of much upstairs to go along with this nonsense.
And these claimed experts agreeing! - No they do not, they do exactly as Lean professes may have happened with others. Ask a question a certain way to get the answer one wants. - perfect, and the Likes of Jamieson give the answer sought. Hypothetically of course!
So yes to these dogs walkers, outstanding proof that this happened here. Case solved. Back to a goth [ censored word ] being the culprit! The significance in LM finding the body is because he did not find Jodi! He had left her there, and he led her family directly to her. From the moment that curfew time came, he was prepped and ready. Led the search and the notion of RDP from the moment he said he would look there.
-
I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.
In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591
I don’t think you can compare this case with the Jodi Jones case. And you certainly can’t compare the circumstances in which they were both found. The boyfriend in the case you posted was 100 miles away from his girlfriend who was hiking alone in secluded snowy terrain. Moreover, he didn’t find the body until 10 months after she went missing (4 months at its lowest, if you factor in that this was when it became feasible for him to physically search for her personally, after the heavy snow disappeared between nov 2020 and April 2021). Luke Mitchell, on the other hand, found Jodi’s body within 40 mins! Now, per se, Luke finding the body within 40 minutes is, imo, is not enough to be overly incriminating, but it is still suspicious, especially when taken together with the rest of the circumstantial evidence against him. Jodi’s body while admittedly being found ‘off the beaten path’, it was not off the beaten path for locals. And many locals used this secluded woodland area behind the V to walk their dogs (Gd’s father, for example) and it was a common area for gangs of youths to gather, and yet Luke was the only person to find it despite more than 6 hours having elapsed since Jodi was last seen alive. The crux of the matter is that only a local would know to hide the body there, and Luke did know this area well and found the body within a few seconds of climbing over that V; it’s like he was a robot programmed to find Jodi. Very suspicious, imo, and it’s even more suspicious when you consider all the other circumstantial evidence used against him. In fact, many people consider Luke to be highly intelligent, but I’m of the opinion that he displayed stupidity by finding Jodi as quickly as he did. Why didn’t he distance himself from it? Maybe he thought at the time it would’ve worked in his favour? I mean, sure, it was only a matter of time before the other circumstanstial evidence caught up with him, but it was still a strange and stupid thing for him to do, imo. Luke’s emotions at the scene of the body just slight (slight intonation in his voice whe saying, “I’ve found something!” and Janine saying that Luke’s eyes were larger than normal; notice these are the signs of someone who isn’t all that perturbed or distressed by the finding of a mutilated body — Luke was acting normal throughout it all according JAJ and, by the ambulance crew’s account, Luke was nonchalantly texting away on his phone. And then there were Luke’s taunts to the police (ridiculing them that they’d never solve the case, being forensically aware, and calling them ‘retards’ for allowing the bins to be emptied so soon; a young man in control, being calculated, underhand, deceitful, cocky, lippy, advanced for his age, undisciplined by his mother, spoiled, man about the house, left to his own devices most of the time, having a very short temper and used to getting his own way. A recipe for disaster, was it not?
Btw, not to be morbid, but does anyone have a photo, video, a link, etc, of the exact spot where Jodi’s body lay on the evening golf 30.06.03? I’ve seen some pics & videos of the woodland behind the V, but does anyone have a pic of the exact location?
-
I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.
In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591
The people in these articles were walking their dogs and happened to come across these bodies. I assume they weren't looking for bodies. Luke Mitchell wasn't a dog walker. He was part of a search team, looking for his missing girlfriend who happened to have his dog with him. I don't have time just now to read all of the articles but did any of those dog walkers even know the people they had found?
-
In response to posts above I dont see how someone finding a body is evidence of anything?
I gave examples of dog walkers locating bodies. I also referred to Esther Dingley's boyfriend locating her body despite detailed searches by experts in France and Spain.
-
In response to posts above I dont see how someone finding a body is evidence of anything?
I gave examples of dog walkers locating bodies. I also referred to Esther Dingley's boyfriend locating her body despite detailed searches by experts in France and Spain.
Per se, him finding the body isn’t evidence of anything. However, when taken together with all of the other circumstantial evidence, and applying the principles of Occam’s razor, it is significant.
-
Per se, him finding the body isn’t evidence of anything. However, when taken together with all of the other circumstantial evidence, and applying the principles of Occam’s razor, it is significant.
With a body, numeous wounds and litres of blood spilled why the need to rely on circumstantial? The lack of hard forensic evidence is astonishing.
-
With a body, numeous wounds and litres of blood spilled why the need to rely on circumstantial? The lack of hard forensic evidence is astonishing.
No it isn’t
-
No it isn’t
How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?
-
How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?
Explain these alleged footprints you are referring to?
And what was the terrain like before it rained?
Is it usual to leave footprints on a pathway in the middle of summer?
What does the heat do to the terrain?
If there was a lack of ‘tyre tracks ‘ on the pathway maybe this is an indicator as to the type of terrain ?
-
How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?
Why would there be tyre tracks?
-
Why would there be tyre tracks?
Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't LM have a bike? Didn't he sometimes cycle to school with a witness who saw him on Newbattle Road? I wonder what happened to his bike.
-
Why would there be tyre tracks?
I thought Holly might be referring to the moped?
-
I thought Holly might be referring to the moped?
Was the moped definitely there?
If it was, was there not a massive downpour that night? Would there still be tyre tracks after a massive downpour?
-
Was the moped definitely there?
Or maybe she was referring to the ‘tyre tracks’ of Leonard Kelly‘s mountain bike?
-
Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't LM have a bike? Didn't he sometimes cycle to school with a witness who saw him on Newbattle Road? I wonder what happened to his bike.
Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)? Perhaps this would explain why he was able to get from N’battle to Easthouses so quickly? Even if he’d walked it from his home @ 1634-1644, he could’ve still made it to Easthouses for the AB sighting at 1654. But, I reckon he biked it; I reckon travelling at an average bike pace from his home to Easthouses would’ve halved his walking time (either taking him 7 mins at the fastest; or 15 mins at the slowest). Biking it from his house to Easthouses would also explain why he phoned the speaking clock @ 1654; he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to phone it from his bike as he was probably going at such a pace. He naturally would have been curious how long his bike journey would have taken and would no doubt have lost track of time, even on that short bike journey. So, curiosity got the better of him and he just had to phone that speaking clock to find out — and for more accuracy. More accuracy was needed as it was he first time in a while that he due to meet with Jodi due to her curfews; he didn’t want to let her down or be late; he was trying to make an impression after a couple of weeks of not seeing her due to her grounding; it was almost like a new date, like starting from scratch with Jodi? Luke was trying to be punctual and trying to impress? As you do on a first date? Also’ maybe he chose to bike it because he thought it was going to rain? The overcast weather? Would maybe explain why he wore a parka on top of bomber? Or, failing that, maybe he just wore the parka going over to see Jodi at 1638-1640, and he went home after the f&w sighting, got CM to get rid of parka, and changed back into bomber jacket that he’d worn to school, and was back in N’battle rd for 1755-1800. Or maybe he was wearing the parka on top of bomber jacket and merely hid the parka in the Eskbank woodland straight after the f&w sighting @ 1740 and was back in N’battle rd at 1800 with the bomber on.
-
Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)? Perhaps this would explain why he was able to get from N’battle to Easthouses so quickly? Even if he’d walked it from his home @ 1634-1644, he could’ve still made it to Easthouses for the AB sighting at 1654. But, I reckon he biked it; I reckon travelling at an average bike pace from his home to Easthouses would’ve halved his walking time (either taking him 7 mins at the fastest; or 15 mins at the slowest). Biking it from his house to Easthouses would also explain why he phoned the speaking clock @ 1654; he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to phone it from his bike as he was probably going at such a pace. He naturally would have been curious how long his bike journey would have taken and would no doubt have lost track of time, even on that short bike journey. So, curiosity got the better of him and he just had to phone that speaking clock to find out — and for more accuracy. More accuracy was needed as it was he first time in a while that he due to meet with Jodi due to her curfews; he didn’t want to let her down or be late; he was trying to make an impression after a couple of weeks of not seeing her due to her grounding; it was almost like a new date, like starting from scratch with Jodi? Luke was trying to be punctual and trying to impress? As you do on a first date? Also’ maybe he chose to bike it because he thought it was going to rain? The overcast weather? Would maybe explain why he wore a parka on top of bomber? Or, failing that, maybe he just wore the parka going over to see Jodi at 1638-1640, and he went home after the f&w sighting, got CM to get rid of parka, and changed back into bomber jacket that he’d worn to school, and was back in N’battle rd for 1755-1800. Or maybe he was wearing the parka on top of bomber jacket and merely hid the parka in the Eskbank woodland straight after the f&w sighting @ 1740 and was back in N’battle rd at 1800 with the bomber on.
I read somewhere a while back that LM's bike was seen on the day of Jodi's murder, close to where her murder happened and around the same time, leaning against a fence or railings. I don't remember where I read it so I don't have a cite. Whether Holly meant tyre tracks from a bicycle or not, I had forgotten all about reading that until Holly mentioned tyre tracks. I'd be interested to know what happened to LM's bike. Just out of curiosity.
-
Explain these alleged footprints you are referring to?
And what was the terrain like before it rained?
Is it usual to leave footprints on a pathway in the middle of summer?
What does the heat do to the terrain?
If there was a lack of ‘tyre tracks ‘ on the pathway maybe this is an indicator as to the type of terrain ?
The CoA doc explains the environment:
In circumstances more fully described below the deceased's body was found in the wooded area behind the wall bordering the path, about 13.6 metres west of the "V" point. Access was gained to the wooded area via the "V" point. There were foliage, overhanging branches and a tree stump, which obscured the view westwards on the north side of the wall at that point. To obtain a view westwards along the inside of the wall it was necessary to walk some distance northwards beyond this tree stump. Once beyond the stump, the presence of other vegetation, including a large tree, again restricted the view westward along that side of the wall. Only from about that point could one see the feet of the deceased, which were lying closer to the wall than her head.
I have attempted to find out the weather conditions on 30th June 2003 and the days leading up to but in any event given the description above which refers to foliage, overhanging branches, other vegetation and a large tree the ground should remain moist enough from dew alone to obtain some sort of footprint/tyre track evidence.
-
Why would there be tyre tracks?
I didn't say there would be I said footprints/tyre tracks.
I wasn't referring particularly to the moped which was observed on the path side of the wall which may have been more exposed to sunlight making the ground drier and harder.
Unless the perp flew by flying carpet or similar it seems to me he/she was in an area where some sort of footprint/tyre track would be picked up on but nothing! Not even a mention from the police that they tried to obtain but were unable to for whatever reason(s). Afaik not even a mention about footprints from J J?
Did the police carry out a fingertip search of the location?
-
I didn't say there would be I said footprints/tyre tracks.
Well, that clears that up, then.
This idea of LM biking it is new, is it not?
-
Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)? Perhaps this would explain why he was able to get from N’battle to Easthouses so quickly? Even if he’d walked it from his home @ 1634-1644, he could’ve still made it to Easthouses for the AB sighting at 1654. But, I reckon he biked it; I reckon travelling at an average bike pace from his home to Easthouses would’ve halved his walking time (either taking him 7 mins at the fastest; or 15 mins at the slowest). Biking it from his house to Easthouses would also explain why he phoned the speaking clock @ 1654; he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to phone it from his bike as he was probably going at such a pace. He naturally would have been curious how long his bike journey would have taken and would no doubt have lost track of time, even on that short bike journey. So, curiosity got the better of him and he just had to phone that speaking clock to find out — and for more accuracy. More accuracy was needed as it was he first time in a while that he due to meet with Jodi due to her curfews; he didn’t want to let her down or be late; he was trying to make an impression after a couple of weeks of not seeing her due to her grounding; it was almost like a new date, like starting from scratch with Jodi? Luke was trying to be punctual and trying to impress? As you do on a first date? Also’ maybe he chose to bike it because he thought it was going to rain? The overcast weather? Would maybe explain why he wore a parka on top of bomber? Or, failing that, maybe he just wore the parka going over to see Jodi at 1638-1640, and he went home after the f&w sighting, got CM to get rid of parka, and changed back into bomber jacket that he’d worn to school, and was back in N’battle rd for 1755-1800. Or maybe he was wearing the parka on top of bomber jacket and merely hid the parka in the Eskbank woodland straight after the f&w sighting @ 1740 and was back in N’battle rd at 1800 with the bomber on.
‘ Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)’
And this is how misinformation works.
-
I didn't say there would be I said footprints/tyre tracks.
I wasn't referring particularly to the moped which was observed on the path side of the wall which may have been more exposed to sunlight making the ground drier and harder.
How can you be sure the witness/es who allegedly made these claims were accurate in what they thought they had seen re the moped?
-
Unless the perp flew by flying carpet or similar it seems to me he/she was in an area where some sort of footprint/tyre track would be picked up on but nothing! Not even a mention from the police that they tried to obtain but were unable to for whatever reason(s).
How can you be certain there was ‘nothing’?
And how would you know what the police did and didn’t try to obtain?
-
How can you be sure the witness/es who allegedly made these claims were accurate in what they thought they had seen re the moped?
I can't but its irrelevant to the point about expecting to find footprints/tyre tracks in the environment described in detail within the CoA doc.
-
Did the police carry out a fingertip search of the location?
Killer Luke Mitchell went over the wall - witnessed by the search party trio
Was blood found on the bottom of his boots?
With a body, numeous wounds and litres of blood spilled why the need to rely on circumstantial? The lack of hard forensic evidence is astonishing.
And would you have expected blood to have been found on the bottom of his boots?
-
I can't but its irrelevant to the point about expecting to find footprints/tyre tracks in the environment described in detail within the CoA doc.
It’s ‘irrelevant’ you say
?
-
How can you be certain there was ‘nothing’?
And how would you know what the police did and didn’t try to obtain?
Because its the sort of thing that would be thrased out at trial: either footprints/tyre tracks from the defendant or a.n. other but in this case no such evidence was adjudicated over at trial.
Has anyone here ever read or heard anything about footprints/tyre tracks or lack of?
-
It’s ‘irrelevant’ you say
?
On the basis that I'm questioning footprints/tyre tracks or lack of on the side of the wall J J was found ie in the immediate vicininty.
-
Well, that clears that up, then.
This idea of LM biking it is new, is it not?
No idea. I'm interested in footprints/tyre tracks or lack of within the immediate vicinity that J J's body was found.
-
Killer Luke Mitchell went over the wall - witnessed by the search party trio
Was blood found on the bottom of his boots?
And would you have expected blood to have been found on the bottom of his boots?
Given what took place and the amount of blood spilled I would have thought the perp ended up with some blood on his/her person/clothing/footwear. Nothing was found on LM but of course if he is responsible he had time to clean up/dispose of etc.
-
No idea. I'm interested in footprints/tyre tracks or lack of within the immediate vicinity that J J's body was found.
Again, I would come back to the apparently very heavy rainfall that night.
-
Because its the sort of thing that would be thrased out at trial: either footprints/tyre tracks from the defendant or a.n. other but in this case no such evidence was adjudicated over at trial.
Has anyone here ever read or heard anything about footprints/tyre tracks or lack of?
What agreements were made with the prosecution and defence pre trial re ‘footprints/tyre tracks’?
-
Given what took place and the amount of blood spilled I would have thought the perp ended up with some blood on his/her person/clothing/footwear. Nothing was found on LM but of course if he is responsible he had time to clean up/dispose of etc.
He went over the wall in front of the search party trio and was taken to the police station sometime after
Were his boots tested for blood and if so what were the results?
-
Again, I would come back to the apparently very heavy rainfall that night.
Do you think the rainfall removed all traces of blood from the bottoms of killer Luke Mitchell’s boots after he’d climbed over the wall when he was with the search party?
-
Do you think the rainfall removed all traces of blood from the bottoms of killer Luke Mitchell’s boots after he’d climbed over the wall when he was with the search party?
Nothing we hear that was found? - But then the contention would be there was not as LM only walked a few feet on the inside of the wall. He had not went close enough to even see what he later claimed. If he had however picked anything up, it would have simply been down to presence then. We know the shoes were taken of the others that day and jackets. People are somewhat confused, deliberately so - LM was not forensically tested upon himself that evening as being the murderer - He had samples taken for elimination as with the clothing. A clipping of hair does not equate to there being nothing at all upon him. - All that could be determined is there were no assault marks, scratches or bruises - but we know with certainty that this girl had nothing upon her of her attacker. Her wounds were of defence, of shielding blow not of attack.
-
On the basis that I'm questioning footprints/tyre tracks or lack of on the side of the wall J J was found ie in the immediate vicininty.
The problem is it not? As even those who have read the book (with sense), point out the actual relevant areas that are missing - in place we have half a book on waffle around others. I mean all those fantastic pages on forensics (not) to repeat "no reportable result" - attempting to make this something, when in short, it meant nothing to do with the murder, the killer.
This fingertip search, of course they did. Does one imagine they just had a couple of people walking about attempting to spot anything? It was swarming with forensic teams along with police shoulder to shoulder in the woods and surrounding fields. What they did pick up with equipment and all else was where the attack began and ended. The tiniest droplets of blood upon branches and so forth. Determined this happened from NW to SW. Does not matter the authors ludicrous suggestions of bleaching scenes in one direction - poppycock. They were bleaching the locus as they do with every crime scene at some point. Cleansing the area before opening it back up for public use. Not that they needed the dogs to go one way only! They are not going to go any way unless something to go with and they did - into the woodland on the opposite side of Newbattle Road. The gate side where Mitchell was spotted by F&W. The trail turning cold. The river not further into the woods itself.
These droplets of blood into something more substantial at the actual area where death occurred. Again we enter the ludicrous when the author wants the reader to concentrate on litres of blood, as she did with her silly wine test! As you do? As with having a murderer dripping in blood running down roads - simply not real is it, a false picture. How does one measure density upon a wall? The porous soil and whatever the rain may have diluted and washed further into it. Using this to infer that the murder could have happened elsewhere! - to then have people come along and ask question about vehicular access:
One would ask of course when they envision the person being carted there and off again to meet her death elsewhere, somewhere with litres of blood present! But of footprints where you can bet with certainty that every effort would have been made to determine any, if there is nothing clear then nothing was found. What we do have of course is those blood trails heading west by foot, clear enough to take prints? Simply remnants/trace from what may have survived the rainfall.
So no car can access the area, path or woodland - Well it could of course have entered into the field and stood out like a sore thumb! From Lady Path but not from the Newbattle Road end. Interestingly there was the maroon Frontera parked up at the entrance. Same make and model as CM's. Also the yellow bike at the school railings at the rear end. Exact type/colour again as that of Mitchells which by some fluke also happened to just disappear! These modes of transport spotted, certainly no car driving across an expansive field or likewise. Which would have left tyre trails - there was none.
So the moped! Again the ground being tested for any pick up of blood trails and certainly none from this bike - but there would not be of course for there was no bike in this strip of woodland and no boys either! This nonsense talk of getting rid of the bike before it could be tested! Again we have to revert back to the Mitchells - the Frontera, the bike at the railings and talk of disposal via a scrap merchant - SM his profession and not being home when he stated he was! Reason given when found out, that he just simply went to fuel the car up around 8 miles from home?
-
Again we enter the ludicrous when the author wants the reader to concentrate on litres of blood, as she did with her silly wine test! As you do? As with having a murderer dripping in blood running down roads - simply not real is it, a false picture.
That really was something else *&^^&
Here ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YCCys8S-c2A for anyone who may be interested
*&^^&
-
The problem is it not? As even those who have read the book (with sense), point out the actual relevant areas that are missing - in place we have half a book on waffle around others. I mean all those fantastic pages on forensics (not) to repeat "no reportable result" - attempting to make this something, when in short, it meant nothing to do with the murder, the killer.
This fingertip search, of course they did. Does one imagine they just had a couple of people walking about attempting to spot anything? It was swarming with forensic teams along with police shoulder to shoulder in the woods and surrounding fields. What they did pick up with equipment and all else was where the attack began and ended. The tiniest droplets of blood upon branches and so forth. Determined this happened from NW to SW. Does not matter the authors ludicrous suggestions of bleaching scenes in one direction - poppycock. They were bleaching the locus as they do with every crime scene at some point. Cleansing the area before opening it back up for public use. Not that they needed the dogs to go one way only! They are not going to go any way unless something to go with and they did - into the woodland on the opposite side of Newbattle Road. The gate side where Mitchell was spotted by F&W. The trail turning cold. The river not further into the woods itself.
These droplets of blood into something more substantial at the actual area where death occurred. Again we enter the ludicrous when the author wants the reader to concentrate on litres of blood, as she did with her silly wine test! As you do? As with having a murderer dripping in blood running down roads - simply not real is it, a false picture. How does one measure density upon a wall? The porous soil and whatever the rain may have diluted and washed further into it. Using this to infer that the murder could have happened elsewhere! - to then have people come along and ask question about vehicular access:
One would ask of course when they envision the person being carted there and off again to meet her death elsewhere, somewhere with litres of blood present! But of footprints where you can bet with certainty that every effort would have been made to determine any, if there is nothing clear then nothing was found. What we do have of course is those blood trails heading west by foot, clear enough to take prints? Simply remnants/trace from what may have survived the rainfall.
So no car can access the area, path or woodland - Well it could of course have entered into the field and stood out like a sore thumb! From Lady Path but not from the Newbattle Road end. Interestingly there was the maroon Frontera parked up at the entrance. Same make and model as CM's. Also the yellow bike at the school railings at the rear end. Exact type/colour again as that of Mitchells which by some fluke also happened to just disappear! These modes of transport spotted, certainly no car driving across an expansive field or likewise. Which would have left tyre trails - there was none.
So the moped! Again the ground being tested for any pick up of blood trails and certainly none from this bike - but there would not be of course for there was no bike in this strip of woodland and no boys either! This nonsense talk of getting rid of the bike before it could be tested! Again we have to revert back to the Mitchells - the Frontera, the bike at the railings and talk of disposal via a scrap merchant - SM his profession and not being home when he stated he was! Reason given when found out, that he just simply went to fuel the car up around 8 miles from home?
No idea what book/author you are referring to.
Can we keep posts brief and to the point please.
Re footprints/tyre tracks, or lack of, can anyone explain please why there's no mention of? Given the environment was covered with large trees, over hanging branches and foilage I would expect the ground to be damp even if it hadn't rained from some time. Dew is unlikely to quickly evaporate in such an environment keeping the ground moist.
The perp didn't fly there and back on a magic carpet so where are the footprints tyre tracks?
-
Does anyone know the weather conditions on 30th June 2003 and the days leading up to?
-
Nothing we hear that was found? - But then the contention would be there was not as LM only walked a few feet on the inside of the wall. He had not went close enough to even see what he later claimed. If he had however picked anything up, it would have simply been down to presence then. We know the shoes were taken of the others that day and jackets. People are somewhat confused, deliberately so - LM was not forensically tested upon himself that evening as being the murderer - He had samples taken for elimination as with the clothing. A clipping of hair does not equate to there being nothing at all upon him. - All that could be determined is there were no assault marks, scratches or bruises - but we know with certainty that this girl had nothing upon her of her attacker. Her wounds were of defence, of shielding blow not of attack.
No and there doesn’t appear to be any moment by moment accurate reporting on the actual murder trial
‘Jodi Jones: A uniquely hard case’ By Rosalind McInnes
’The Jodi Jones murder case is, it has been said, the longest Scottish murder trial against a single accused.
For the jurors, and for anyone with even a professional interest in this especially disturbing case, it certainly must feel that way
The millennium has already seen some outstandingly protracted and terrible Scottish murder proceedings - the mass slaughter of Lockerbie, the carnage of William Beggs, the calculating horror of Nat Fraser's crime.
Each represents an unimaginable tragedy for those intimately involved. Each also poses delicate legal questions.
How does a journalist do the job of letting the public know what is going on, in a case evoking widespread outrage and fear, whilst protecting vulnerable participants and the presumption of innocence?
The law tries to hold the values of open justice, human sensitivity and legitimate public interest in a workable tension.
First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.
The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.
Secondly, there are various legal rules to protect the privacy of children who are caught up in legal proceedings.
Thirdly, the judge has authority to protect the integrity of his courtroom.
Luke Mitchell's trial was fraught from the very beginning. At the time of Jodi's murder, he was, as defence counsel was later to stress, 14.
Everyone in Dalkeith, and soon throughout the UK, knew who he was. When he was arrested, at the age of 15, the legal rules protecting the anonymity of children kicked in.
As a mere suspect, he could be named, and was. As an arrested minor, his name could not be published.
The outcome was an ironic happy birthday from some chagrined tabloids when Luke Mitchell turned 16, and, later, contempt proceedings against some newspapers which were felt by the Procurator Fiscal to have jumped the gun.
The publicity before the arrest, including the boy's own television interview, denying Jodi's murder, helped to muddy the waters.
As preparations went ahead for the trial, the court reporters felt increasingly embattled.
Swingeing demands by the defence to recover vast amounts of material from broadcasters, without a reason being offered, were only trimmed back after a hearing before the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith.
The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.
The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial
Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.
Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packages. The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown.
In the Mitchell trial, however, it was made clear by the judge that shots of the crime-scene might themselves amount to contempt.
This unusual stricture began to make sense as the Crown's case developed, but would have been difficult to predict.
The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.
For television reports, this resulted in a continual struggle to describe adequately to the audience images - of photographs, of weapons, of maps - which the people in this public court were seeing; hence the poignant over-use of the home video of Jodi Jones.
The challenge to make television coverage relevant and comprehensible, especially when the evidence was complicated and circumstantial, was at least partly mitigated by the courtroom sketches, but increased as the weeks wore on.
In the context of the trial of a young man for the brutal murder of a young girl, reporters' difficulties pall into insignificance.
A combination of factors in the Jodi Jones murder trial, however - the young age and the late arrest of the accused, the nature of the evidence, the aggressive approach of the defence to coverage and the absence of visual material - made this a uniquely hard case for 21st century court reporting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm
-
Does anyone know the weather conditions on 30th June 2003 and the days leading up to?
Here's the temp for 30th June 2003. Still looking for rain.
https://www.meteocentre.co.uk/weather-archive/city-detail/031600-99999/edinburgh
-
Here's the temp for 30th June 2003. Still looking for rain.
https://www.meteocentre.co.uk/weather-archive/city-detail/031600-99999/edinburgh
Thanks for that. If I'm reading it properly, 1.9mm on 30th June and 3.5mm on 1st July 2003.
-
Thanks for that. If I'm reading it properly, 1.9mm on 30th June and 3.5mm on 1st July 2003.
I couldn't access the precipitation data but based on the following and given the environment with trees, vegetation, foilage and overhanging branches I would expect the ground to be moist enough to yield footprints/tyre tracks.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge/diary2003.html#0306
The above gives general weather conditions for the British Isles.
-
I couldn't access the precipitation data but based on the following and given the environment with trees, vegetation, foilage and overhanging branches I would expect the ground to be moist enough to yield footprints/tyre tracks.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge/diary2003.html#0306
The above gives general weather conditions for the British Isles.
I'll have a look at that when I come back home.
Unfortunately I couldn't see any data of the time/s it rained. Do you mean specific tyre tracks or any tyre tracks at all?
-
You guys know the whole thing about the cops not being able to get a tarpaulin up in time to preserve the crime scene from the rain, aye?
-
I'll have a look at that when I come back home.
Unfortunately I couldn't see any data of the time/s it rained. Do you mean specific tyre tracks or any tyre tracks at all?
Any tyre tracks and/or footprints.
-
You guys know the whole thing about the cops not being able to get a tarpaulin up in time to preserve the crime scene from the rain, aye?
No I didn't know but you would expect the soc was prime for tyre tracks and/or footprints regardless of rainfall after the event. The CoA doc describes the environment as having large trees, over hanging branches, foilage and vegetation. From this it would seem a damp enviroment with some protection from the elements ie rain and sun. It might be that if there was a lot of vegetation and foilage not much bare soil to yield tracks/prints.
-
No idea what book/author you are referring to.
Can we keep posts brief and to the point please.
Re footprints/tyre tracks, or lack of, can anyone explain please why there's no mention of? Given the environment was covered with large trees, over hanging branches and foilage I would expect the ground to be damp even if it hadn't rained from some time. Dew is unlikely to quickly evaporate in such an environment keeping the ground moist.
The perp didn't fly there and back on a magic carpet so where are the footprints tyre tracks?
Really? My mistake then Holly, did you not mention several weeks ago of ordering up the book, the advice given that you should put two weeks aside to read it? - Perhaps it was another?
However, please spare me the advice on how to conduct my posts. It was very much in line with what you were discussing, of fingertip searching, tyre tracks and footprints. But bluff away with this nonsense of not knowing which author/book one was referring to. The point being made that there should be more of what you are searching for over the nonsense in it? - actual relevant information as opposed to deflection.
So how short and brief would you like it? - There is NO ACCESS for vehicles in RD wood. NO access for cars to travel up or down RDP. An area at either end where a car may park up on gravel, a road. One end a very small area, the other a whole road a mile long. - No tyre tracks to be had as such - BUT a maroon Frontera was spotted parked here, same make and model as CM's. A bike, a yellow push bike at the railings of the school - same colour and type as LM's. - is it this you do not wish to hear when asking about tyres?
At/in the actual woodland itself with your knowledge of soil, the dampness and all else - good to see that you acknowledge reason as to why there were not litres of blood lying on top of it! - What there was not was blood trails and footprints heading anywhere other than west. - hope that clears it for you. No blood found East of the locus, South or directly North. - All West.
So perhaps some clarity? - is it bloodied footprints, any old footprints? - Or the actual area surrounding, have you even looked at it? Where exactly are you envisioning these tyres about? That you do not accept that the killer went into the woods on foot, that they had no car parked anywhere leaving tyre trails? There was really, no where off road for them to take a car so no tyre trails. Unless as I stated they drove across the field! Where one would be sure it would have been picked up and noted. a crop flattened. So clarity please? Where exactly are you looking for these tyre trails?
-
No I didn't know but you would expect the soc was prime for tyre tracks and/or footprints regardless of rainfall after the event. The CoA doc describes the environment as having large trees, over hanging branches, foilage and vegetation. From this it would seem a damp enviroment with some protection from the elements ie rain and sun. It might be that if there was a lot of vegetation and foilage not much bare soil to yield tracks/prints.
Sorry to labour the point, but a great deal has been made of the fact that the crime scene wasn't preserved due to the heavy rain that night, and the fact that the police couldn't erect a tarpaulin in time. - also that the medical examiner called out couldn't get her fat arse over the wall to attend to Jodi.
Genuinely surprised that anyone who has been following the case wouldn't know this.
-
Sorry to labour the point, but a great deal has been made of the fact that the crime scene wasn't preserved due to the heavy rain that night, and the fact that the police couldn't erect a tarpaulin in time. - also that the medical examiner called out couldn't get her fat arse over the wall to attend to Jodi.
Genuinely surprised that anyone who has been following the case wouldn't know this.
Was it to do with the tarpaulin not being erected on time or were the timings down to the logistics of it all ?
-
Was it to do with the tarpaulin not being erected on time or were the timings down to the logistics of it all ?
I believe the local police stations at Eashouses and Newbattle didn't have the necessary materials, so they had to have it delivered from the Edinburgh police station at Causewayside.
Once you're at RDP with the materials, it wouldn't have been easy getting it all up the path and erected in the dark in the rain with all the trees and the wall, etc.
You would expect the police to react quicker and better to the scene of a major crime, and I expect they've upped their game since 2003.
-
Sorry to labour the point, but a great deal has been made of the fact that the crime scene wasn't preserved due to the heavy rain that night, and the fact that the police couldn't erect a tarpaulin in time. - also that the medical examiner called out couldn't get her fat arse over the wall to attend to Jodi.
Genuinely surprised that anyone who has been following the case wouldn't know this.
I haven't been following the case. Still fact-finding!
It seems from my own research that the area had heavy rainfall during the night of 30th June through to 1st July but it seems the crime took place much earlier and I believe the police arrived before midnight? If so, and given the gravity of the situation, I would expect police to attempt to preserve footprints/tyre tracks at all costs.
-
Interestingly there was the maroon Frontera parked up at the entrance. Same make and model as CM's. Also the yellow bike at the school railings at the rear end. Exact type/colour again as that of Mitchells which by some fluke also happened to just disappear! .
So the moped! Again the ground being tested for any pick up of blood trails and certainly none from this bike - but there would not be of course for there was no bike in this strip of woodland and no boys either! This nonsense talk of getting rid of the bike before it could be tested! Again we have to revert back to the Mitchells - the Frontera, the bike at the railings and talk of disposal via a scrap merchant - SM his profession and not being home when he stated he was! Reason given when found out, that he just simply went to fuel the car up around 8 miles from home?
Interesting. Parky41, what are your sources for the sighting of Corinne’s fontera and Luke’s bike? I would be grateful if you could provide a cite for both those sightings. Or are you paraphrasing from info gleaned on another website that discusses this case? I wonder what time someone saw Luke’s bike there? Also wonder at which time Corinne’s Fonterra was spotted at the RDP entrance on N’battle rd? Who was driving it? Corinne before she had a drink? Maybe the stress of helping her son out and the inevitability of what would ensue was too much for her and she hit the drink immediately yo that night? Or maybe Shane was driving it and helping Luke out to destroy incriminating evidence?
Also, could you provide a cite or source for the part about Shane not being home when he said he was, and him being 8 miles away getting fuel? Would really appreciate that.
-
I believe the local police stations at Eashouses and Newbattle didn't have the necessary materials, so they had to have it delivered from the Edinburgh police station at Causewayside.
Once you're at RDP with the materials, it wouldn't have been easy getting it all up the path and erected in the dark in the rain with all the trees and the wall, etc.
You would expect the police to react quicker and better to the scene of a major crime, and I expect they've upped their game since 2003.
What time was it delivered from Causewayside and can anyone post the full details of all the logistics, timings etc?
-
I would expect police to attempt to preserve footprints/tyre tracks at all costs.
So if you were the first police officer to arrive on the scene that night what would you have done to do this? Baring in mind you are also in the company of shocked and distraught family members of the victim ……
Also where would you be expecting to find all these supposed ‘footprints/tyre tracks’ and how do you plan to ‘preserve’ them ?
-
I believe the local police stations at Eashouses and Newbattle didn't have the necessary materials, so they had to have it delivered from the Edinburgh police station at Causewayside.
Once you're at RDP with the materials, it wouldn't have been easy getting it all up the path and erected in the dark in the rain with all the trees and the wall, etc.
You would expect the police to react quicker and better to the scene of a major crime, and I expect they've upped their game since 2003.
It wouldn’t have been easy but they would have been trained for just such an event. Murders that are perpetrated outdoors don’t often happen in spots easily accessible to the police and public.
-
It seems from my own research that the area had heavy rainfall during the night of 30th June through to 1st July but it seems the crime took place much earlier and I believe the police arrived before midnight? If so, and given the gravity of the situation, I would expect police to attempt to preserve footprints/tyre tracks at all costs.
I'm sure the cops would have made every attempt to preserve all aspects of the crime scene including footprints and tyre tracks if there were any.
However, the heavy rain rendered that problematic.
Can you not see that any tracks or prints and indeed all sorts of physical evidence might have been washed away by the heavy rain?
-
It wouldn’t have been easy but they would have been trained for just such an event. Murders that are perpetrated outdoors don’t often happen in spots easily accessible to the police and public.
I'm suggesting that the police weren't as well prepared for such an event as they should have been, and that they will have upped their game since then as a result.
-
So if you were the first police officer to arrive on the scene that night what would you have done to do this? Baring in mind you are also in the company of shocked and distraught family members of the victim ……
Thank god someone else can see it.
-
Thank god someone else can see it.
Hopefully Holly will come back and answer how she would have done things differently
And again we only have Sandra Leans word about the managing of the crime scene and her word cannot and should not be trusted. She lies - a lot!
-
I'm suggesting that the police weren't as well prepared for such an event as they should have been, and that they will have upped their game since then as a result.
So you are admitting incompetence played a part in the shocking way that the crime scene was handled?
-
So you are admitting incompetence played a part in the shocking way that the crime scene was handled?
I've said consistently and often that the cops made an arse of it.
You either haven't been paying attention, or you're being disingenuous.
The fact that the police made mistakes doesn't mean LM didn't murder Jodi.
-
I've said consistently and often that the cops made an arse of it.
You either haven't been paying attention, or you're being disingenuous.
The fact that the police made mistakes doesn't mean LM didn't murder Jodi.
Of course it doesn’t mean that he didn’t but it makes it less likely that any resulting trial will be fair. Surely even you can appreciate that?
-
Of course it doesn’t mean that he didn’t but it makes it less likely that any resulting trial will be fair. Surely even you can appreciate that?
How does the police making mistakes entail the trial being unfair?
And why even me?
-
How does the police making mistakes entail the trial being unfair?
And why even me?
Really?
You truly can’t see why an incompetent investigation would make any trial stemming from it unfair? .
-
Really?
You truly can’t see why an incompetent investigation would make any trial stemming from it unfair? .
Like I've said to you before, you don't understand logic.
The one thing doesn't necessarily entail the other.
In formal terms, your premise doesn't necessarily entail your conclusion without an appropriate quantifier.
Why even me?
-
Like I've said to you before, you don't understand logic.
The one thing doesn't necessarily entail the other.
In formal terms, your premise doesn't necessarily entail your conclusion without an appropriate quantifier.
Why even me?
I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand logic.
If a body is left uncovered in the pouring rain who can possibly say how much important forensic material will be lost as a result? Forensic material that could suggest another perpetrator.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the judicial standard…botched forensics logically should implant doubt.
Would you be happy if one of your family had been convicted of a serious crime in such circumstances?
-
I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand logic.
If a body is left uncovered in the pouring rain who can possibly say how much important forensic material will be lost as a result? Forensic material that could suggest another perpetrator.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the judicial standard…botched forensics logically should implant doubt.
Would you be happy if one of your family had been convicted of a serious crime in such circumstances?
I don't think you know what logic is.
None of my family had been convicted of a serious crime in any circumstances.
-
I don't think you know what logic is.
None of my family had been convicted of a serious crime in any circumstances.
I notice you didn’t address the actual points in my post. This seems to be a particular habit of yours. Insults are no substitute for reasoned debate but I’m sure even you know that.
And I am truly glad that none of your family have had to endure a miscarriage of justice…yet.
-
I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand logic.
If a body is left uncovered in the pouring rain who can possibly say how much important forensic material will be lost as a result? Forensic material that could suggest another perpetrator.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the judicial standard…botched forensics logically should implant doubt.
Would you be happy if one of your family had been convicted of a serious crime in such circumstances?
Genuine question. What do you know about the forensics being botched and how do you know? Do you have proof or a cite of the "several " members of the jury who didn't think LM was guilty? That was part of one of your previous posts. I meant to ask you previously. It's your proof of numbers I'm interested in. If you don't have a cite, that's how misinformation can be started.
-
I notice you didn’t address the actual points in my post. This seems to be a particular habit of yours. Insults are no substitute for reasoned debate but I’m sure even you know that.
And I am truly glad that none of your family have had to endure a miscarriage of justice…yet.
Yet? SMH.
-
Yet? SMH.
What do you think ‘yer’ means in the context of my post?
-
I notice you didn’t address the actual points in my post. This seems to be a particular habit of yours. Insults are no substitute for reasoned debate but I’m sure even you know that.
And I am truly glad that none of your family have had to endure a miscarriage of justice…yet.
No-one is obliged to answer your questions.
If you'd care to point out where I've insulted anyone, either report it to Moderators, or kindly direct me to the alleged insults.
-
No-one is obliged to answer your questions.
If you'd care to point out where I've insulted anyone, either report it to Moderators, or kindly direct me to the alleged insults.
Of course no one is obliged to answer any of my questions but when you don’t it does make for a rather one-sided discussion as well as reminding me of the much used, at least by myself, quote attributed to Mark Twain “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”
-
Of course no one is obliged to answer any of my questions but when you don’t it does make for a rather one-sided discussion as well as reminding me of the much used, at least by myself, quote attributed to Mark Twain “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”
What about when you don't answer questions? Are you somehow exempt? I asked you before, Do you have a cite of the "several" jury members? Do you know who was or wasn't given permission to video record inside the church? You have answered less than anyone else and yet you want answers from others? You won't answer and I doubt very much that anyone expects a straight answer to either question. I certainly know I'm not getting one.
-
Of course no one is obliged to answer any of my questions but when you don’t it does make for a rather one-sided discussion as well as reminding me of the much used, at least by myself, quote attributed to Mark Twain “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”
Oh, quotes! Maybe the replies you don't hear are because no one can be bothered with your question dodging and your relentless nonsense. Just that! Nothing as clever as Twain, just that no one wants to communicate with you anymore? I'd certainly rather communicate with Twain. The trouble with you talking, you don't remove all doubt. In fact, you don't answer any questions. You increase doubt.
-
Oh, quotes! Maybe the replies you don't hear are because no one can be bothered with your question dodging and your relentless nonsense. Just that! Nothing as clever as Twain, just that no one wants to communicate with you anymore? I'd certainly rather communicate with Twain. The trouble with you talking, you don't remove all doubt. In fact, you don't answer any questions. You increase doubt.
.
Sigh !
-
.
Sigh !
Exactly how I feel when I see the quotes of other people. Good night, faithlilly.
-
Exactly how I feel when I see the quotes of other people. Good night, faithlilly.
Can I suggest that you pop me on ignore then,
-
Can I suggest that you pop me on ignore then, there’s a good lass/lad?
Patronising, the usual sarcastic but still the same old, same old boring. Nothing new with you, is there? You can suggest whatever you like to whoever you like. You ,just hope they're still bothering to pay attention. Good night.
-
Well if you’re not going to take the initiative then I’m going to have to…sigh!
-
Well if you’re not going to take the initiative then I’m going to have to…sigh!
Be in, faithlilly. Sigh away. You doing nothing but sighing is a gift.
-
Of course no one is obliged to answer any of my questions but when you don’t it does make for a rather one-sided discussion as well as reminding me of the much used, at least by myself, quote attributed to Mark Twain “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”
-
Now that’s a blast from the past.
-
Can we stop the squabbling, please.
-
I downloaded that.
-
What do you think ‘yer’ means in the context of my post?
I wasn't referring to, yer, I knew what you meant. I was referring to, yet.
-
Can I suggest that you pop me on ignore then,
I'm going to ask you AGAIN. Genuine question. What do you know about the forensics being botched and how do you know? Do you have proof or a cite of the "several " members of the jury who didn't think LM was guilty? That was part of one of your previous posts. I meant to ask you previously. It's your proof of numbers I'm interested in. If you don't have a cite, that's how misinformation can be started. All questions, given your posts, you should be able to answer.
-
Can I suggest that you pop me on ignore then,
Maybe it's not in the public domain. Good night.
-
Could it be that the reason LM never went up to Jodi’s body was due to utter shock and terror, rather than him being paranoid and ‘DNA aware’ after murdering her himself? He turned and ran away immediately after he knew it was her, did he not? Indicative of his horror and shock? What was the closest LM ever got to the body that evening/morning before being taken away to the car park and then DKH station? I think, just before finding the body, he supposedly stopped a few yards from a big tree, said he saw something, said he could not identify what it was, moved a little closer and thought it was a mannequin, before finally realising it was Jodi (whereupon he immediately turned and ran away — if SL is to be believed). But, of course, we’ll never know the exact sequence of events, will we? We can only speculate and infer from the info we have, which, let’s face it, won’t be 100% accurate and reliable. Anyway, reverting back to the discovery of the body ... LM was branded a liar because he said he could see a body and its injuries from about 12 ft away and yet SK was parallel to LM (maybe a few steps further forward) and wasn’t treated with the same skepticism and aggression as LM. I suppose it is incriminating, the fact that LM could describe all of Jodi’s clothing — clothing that was scattered some feet away from her body, in the dark, from more than 12 ft away, even with a torch. Maybe Jodi hadn’t changed from school? Maybe Luke had went closer than 12 feet at some point before he was segregated from the others? It is said Luke is highly intelligent, but him describing Jodi’s clothing when he could’ve simply said he didn’t know what she was wearing, seems a bit stupid. Maybe it was a tactic he thought would have worked in his favour, as if it would somehow reinforce the notion that he had nothing to hide? Or maybe, as some have suggested, his psychopathy was such that he was quietly gloating amongst the chaos and trauma and was enjoying playing games with the police. Some people wonder why Luke was treated as the prime suspect almost immediately, but they tend to forget that the police had misinterpreted Luke and the search trio’s calls to the point where, by the time they got to the locus, they were under the impression that Luke had left with jodi earlier in the evening, then said he hadn’t seen her and then found her dead; that LM was out searching for Jodi himself and had found her himself; and then, to compound his problems, he was calm & unemotional during his calls to emergency services, saying he’d found ‘something’ and not found ‘a body’ (what was he thinking?). It seems LM didn’t get off to an auspicious start with the police as a result of these initial misunderstandings. And then there’s his seemingly calm demeanour during all this horror, giving out the impression he didn’t care and was emotionally unaffected by it all. Allegedly just sitting there, nonchalantly texting away on his phone (which was duly noted, btw). Would be interesting, and disturbing, if there was police bodycam footage of the scene of the locus that evening; really is a great pity that the technology wasn’t as it is now. Anyway, I guess the speculation in relation to this case will literally go on for aeons .....
-
Could it be that the reason LM never went up to Jodi’s body was due to utter shock and terror, rather than him being paranoid and ‘DNA aware’ after murdering her himself? He turned and ran away immediately after he knew it was her, did he not? Indicative of his horror and shock? What was the closest LM ever got to the body that evening/morning before being taken away to the car park and then DKH station? I think, just before finding the body, he supposedly stopped a few yards from a big tree, said he saw something, said he could not identify what it was, moved a little closer and thought it was a mannequin, before finally realising it was Jodi (whereupon he immediately turned and ran away — if SL is to be believed). But, of course, we’ll never know the exact sequence of events, will we? We can only speculate and infer from the info we have, which, let’s face it, won’t be 100% accurate and reliable. Anyway, reverting back to the discovery of the body ... LM was branded a liar because he said he could see a body and its injuries from about 12 ft away and yet SK was parallel to LM (maybe a few steps further forward) and wasn’t treated with the same skepticism and aggression as LM. I suppose it is incriminating, the fact that LM could describe all of Jodi’s clothing — clothing that was scattered some feet away from her body, in the dark, from more than 12 ft away, even with a torch. Maybe Jodi hadn’t changed from school? Maybe Luke had went closer than 12 feet at some point before he was segregated from the others? It is said Luke is highly intelligent, but him describing Jodi’s clothing when he could’ve simply said he didn’t know what she was wearing, seems a bit stupid. Maybe it was a tactic he thought would have worked in his favour, as if it would somehow reinforce the notion that he had nothing to hide? Or maybe, as some have suggested, his psychopathy was such that he was quietly gloating amongst the chaos and trauma and was enjoying playing games with the police. Some people wonder why Luke was treated as the prime suspect almost immediately, but they tend to forget that the police had misinterpreted Luke and the search trio’s calls to the point where, by the time they got to the locus, they were under the impression that Luke had left with jodi earlier in the evening, then said he hadn’t seen her and then found her dead; that LM was out searching for Jodi himself and had found her himself; and then, to compound his problems, he was calm & unemotional during his calls to emergency services, saying he’d found ‘something’ and not found ‘a body’ (what was he thinking?). It seems LM didn’t get off to an auspicious start with the police as a result of these initial misunderstandings. And then there’s his seemingly calm demeanour during all this horror, giving out the impression he didn’t care and was emotionally unaffected by it all. Allegedly just sitting there, nonchalantly texting away on his phone (which was duly noted, btw). Would be interesting, and disturbing, if there was police bodycam footage of the scene of the locus that evening; really is a great pity that the technology wasn’t as it is now. Anyway, I guess the speculation in relation to this case will literally go on for aeons .....
Luke knowing what Jodi was wearing is another aspect of this case that interests me. In what context did Luke give this information? In what interview did he give this information? What information had he been given before and during the interview ? Had he seen any of the family before the interview? What information may they have given him? Until we have the context of precisely how the information was given, information that may not have been available to the jury, then we can’t know how incriminating that that information really was.
-
Apart from anything else, it just seems weird that, of all the people who could have discovered Jodi, it happened to be the self same person who was meant to meet her, but supposedly didn't.
-
Apart from anything else, it just seems weird that, of all the people who could have discovered Jodi, it happened to be the self same person who was meant to meet her, but supposedly didn't.
I found it very strange that she lay there for over five hours yet nobody came across her in all that time despite numerous individuals being in that area, some even had dogs with them?
-
Apart from anything else, it just seems weird that, of all the people who could have discovered Jodi, it happened to be the self same person who was meant to meet her, but supposedly didn't.
Well, he was looking for her, and he did have a dog with him.
Would you have found it weird if someone else from the search party had found her?
-
Well, he was looking for her, and he did have a dog with him.
Would you have found it weird if someone else from the search party had found her?
I don't think anyone else in the search party was meant to meet Jodi earlier in the day.
See John's reply - why don't you ask him?
-
Well, he was looking for her, and he did have a dog with him.
Would you have found it weird if someone else from the search party had found her?
No. Not if Jodi had been alive.
-
Well, he was looking for her, and he did have a dog with him.
Would you have found it weird if someone else from the search party had found her?
Actually, may I take that back please? It would have been very odd for anyone in the search party to have found poor Jodi within that small space of time but they didn't. Luke Mitchell did.
-
Well, he was looking for her, and he did have a dog with him.
Would you have found it weird if someone else from the search party had found her?
Yes, under the same evidence - who wouldn't be?
As John states, of being surprised that this girl had not been found over the course of that evening. The very reason that it was nothing short of a miracle that LM would suddenly find her in the space of seconds upon entering that wood. He had left her hidden. That area of woodland was off the beaten track, infrequently used by anyone other than perhaps youngsters. Not an area popular with dog walkers and others who used that V to access the East end woods of the Esk Trail, Abbey and Golf course. Doing exactly as DD had done. Entered, followed the path in front and up East to the Golf course woods.
The very reason his dogs (hunting dogs), were tested by using a pig carcass. Of his dogs going over that break in the wall, off lead and walking the 'normal' route up with their master. They picked up nothing, and we are to believe that this family guard dog miraculously picked up a scent!! Which was not in the woodland, was not anywhere near where Mitchell made claim to, on a tight harness. And he hopped over that break and seconds later he is shouting out. - nonsense.
So, yet again that clear confusion. Down west from that break in the wall, was not an area frequently used, it led nowhere. Hangout place at most, at times by local youngsters. Hangout place for Mitchell. The 'used' exit and entry point was the V break, used to walk East into the Golf course woods, the Abbey grounds, where the woods joined at the top of that woodland strip. And reason for being left hidden and off that beaten track, the one person who needed time on their side, to get an alibi and disposal in place, is the one person that Jodi was supposed to be with, that person being LM.
And the mere fact that we know without a shadow of a doubt, that the attack started and finished in that area of the woods, and was witnessed by no one other than the noises heard by LK - tells us just how isolated that area was, of it not being frequented regularly. There were no other dog walkers in that area from that V break down that evening, only DD eastwards. Children playing in the top end, into the back of Easthouse's itself. The caves the author speaks of, the closest one, in an entirely different area of woodland, at least half a mile away!
So this isolated area, hidden behind that large Oak tree, next to that wall, the overgrowth and some distance down from the 'normal' thoroughfare that barely anyone used. Hidden away from and off any beaten track. And we have four people walking down that path. Within 8 minutes of commencing that walk together, we have Mitchell introducing that woodland strip to the search, behind that large stone dyke. When he looked over at the 'Gino' break. And they come to the next break, easier to access one and he goes over this time. And seconds later, with no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he is shouting out he had found something.
And he lies and he just keeps on lying. He claims he had never been in there before that evening, he claims he did not know that V break existed. He claims that 'they' had all walked some distance past that break, "not even 20 yards". He further clarifies this to being "parallel to" where Jodi lay in the woods.
And one really has to shake their heads here, and wonder why people feel LM was framed, that the police had tunnel vision! Jodi, after being left hidden was not discovered over the course of that evening. Where can there even be a fragment of doubt, that he was clearly chapping at the bit! And more lies, he states he was home and in his room from just after 9pm. No he was not. He had no concern and the stories around this, nothing short of exposing more lies upon lies. Waiting and waiting should someone by chance come across her, knowing the likelihood of this was slim. And that curfew time comes and he is seen arriving home.
Waiting and waiting and finally that correspondence he had been waiting on, comes. And it is instant, I will search, I will search the RDP, and he waited until the family arrived, and he asked (after requesting), if they had brought something of Jodi's. So from that very first moment of correspondence and his offer to search and search that very path it took less than 50mins. And it took less than 10 mins once together, to discuss, to set off down and discover. - He was not searching, he was leading them directly to her. In less than ten minutes of offering to search that very path, he is on it!
-
Yes, under the same evidence - who wouldn't be?
As John states, of being surprised that this girl had not been found over the course of that evening. The very reason that it was nothing short of a miracle that LM would suddenly find her in the space of seconds upon entering that wood. He had left her hidden. That area of woodland was off the beaten track, infrequently used by anyone other than perhaps youngsters. Not an area popular with dog walkers and others who used that V to access the East end woods of the Esk Trail, Abbey and Golf course. Doing exactly as DD had done. Entered, followed the path in front and up East to the Golf course woods.
The very reason his dogs (hunting dogs), were tested by using a pig carcass. Of his dogs going over that break in the wall, off lead and walking the 'normal' route up with their master. They picked up nothing, and we are to believe that this family guard dog miraculously picked up a scent!! Which was not in the woodland, was not anywhere near where Mitchell made claim to, on a tight harness. And he hopped over that break and seconds later he is shouting out. - nonsense.
So, yet again that clear confusion. Down west from that break in the wall, was not an area frequently used, it led nowhere. Hangout place at most, at times by local youngsters. Hangout place for Mitchell. The 'used' exit and entry point was the V break, used to walk East into the Golf course woods, the Abbey grounds, where the woods joined at the top of that woodland strip. And reason for being left hidden and off that beaten track, the one person who needed time on their side, to get an alibi and disposal in place, is the one person that Jodi was supposed to be with, that person being LM.
And the mere fact that we know without a shadow of a doubt, that the attack started and finished in that area of the woods, and was witnessed by no one other than the noises heard by LK - tells us just how isolated that area was, of it not being frequented regularly. There were no other dog walkers in that area from that V break down that evening, only DD eastwards. Children playing in the top end, into the back of Easthouse's itself. The caves the author speaks of, the closest one, in an entirely different area of woodland, at least half a mile away!
So this isolated area, hidden behind that large Oak tree, next to that wall, the overgrowth and some distance down from the 'normal' thoroughfare that barely anyone used. Hidden away from and off any beaten track. And we have four people walking down that path. Within 8 minutes of commencing that walk together, we have Mitchell introducing that woodland strip to the search, behind that large stone dyke. When he looked over at the 'Gino' break. And they come to the next break, easier to access one and he goes over this time. And seconds later, with no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he is shouting out he had found something.
And he lies and he just keeps on lying. He claims he had never been in there before that evening, he claims he did not know that V break existed. He claims that 'they' had all walked some distance past that break, "not even 20 yards". He further clarifies this to being "parallel to" where Jodi lay in the woods.
And one really has to shake their heads here, and wonder why people feel LM was framed, that the police had tunnel vision! Jodi, after being left hidden was not discovered over the course of that evening. Where can there even be a fragment of doubt, that he was clearly chapping at the bit! And more lies, he states he was home and in his room from just after 9pm. No he was not. He had no concern and the stories around this, nothing short of exposing more lies upon lies. Waiting and waiting should someone by chance come across her, knowing the likelihood of this was slim. And that curfew time comes and he is seen arriving home.
Waiting and waiting and finally that correspondence he had been waiting on, comes. And it is instant, I will search, I will search the RDP, and he waited until the family arrived, and he asked (after requesting), if they had brought something of Jodi's. So from that very first moment of correspondence and his offer to search and search that very path it took less than 50mins. And it took less than 10 mins once together, to discuss, to set off down and discover. - He was not searching, he was leading them directly to her. In less than ten minutes of offering to search that very path, he is on it!
It's chilling to imagine what he was doing during his three unaccounted for hours.
-
Yes, under the same evidence - who wouldn't be?
As John states, of being surprised that this girl had not been found over the course of that evening. The very reason that it was nothing short of a miracle that LM would suddenly find her in the space of seconds upon entering that wood. He had left her hidden. That area of woodland was off the beaten track, infrequently used by anyone other than perhaps youngsters. Not an area popular with dog walkers and others who used that V to access the East end woods of the Esk Trail, Abbey and Golf course. Doing exactly as DD had done. Entered, followed the path in front and up East to the Golf course woods.
The very reason his dogs (hunting dogs), were tested by using a pig carcass. Of his dogs going over that break in the wall, off lead and walking the 'normal' route up with their master. They picked up nothing, and we are to believe that this family guard dog miraculously picked up a scent!! Which was not in the woodland, was not anywhere near where Mitchell made claim to, on a tight harness. And he hopped over that break and seconds later he is shouting out. - nonsense.
So, yet again that clear confusion. Down west from that break in the wall, was not an area frequently used, it led nowhere. Hangout place at most, at times by local youngsters. Hangout place for Mitchell. The 'used' exit and entry point was the V break, used to walk East into the Golf course woods, the Abbey grounds, where the woods joined at the top of that woodland strip. And reason for being left hidden and off that beaten track, the one person who needed time on their side, to get an alibi and disposal in place, is the one person that Jodi was supposed to be with, that person being LM.
And the mere fact that we know without a shadow of a doubt, that the attack started and finished in that area of the woods, and was witnessed by no one other than the noises heard by LK - tells us just how isolated that area was, of it not being frequented regularly. There were no other dog walkers in that area from that V break down that evening, only DD eastwards. Children playing in the top end, into the back of Easthouse's itself. The caves the author speaks of, the closest one, in an entirely different area of woodland, at least half a mile away!
So this isolated area, hidden behind that large Oak tree, next to that wall, the overgrowth and some distance down from the 'normal' thoroughfare that barely anyone used. Hidden away from and off any beaten track. And we have four people walking down that path. Within 8 minutes of commencing that walk together, we have Mitchell introducing that woodland strip to the search, behind that large stone dyke. When he looked over at the 'Gino' break. And they come to the next break, easier to access one and he goes over this time. And seconds later, with no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he is shouting out he had found something.
And he lies and he just keeps on lying. He claims he had never been in there before that evening, he claims he did not know that V break existed. He claims that 'they' had all walked some distance past that break, "not even 20 yards". He further clarifies this to being "parallel to" where Jodi lay in the woods.
And one really has to shake their heads here, and wonder why people feel LM was framed, that the police had tunnel vision! Jodi, after being left hidden was not discovered over the course of that evening. Where can there even be a fragment of doubt, that he was clearly chapping at the bit! And more lies, he states he was home and in his room from just after 9pm. No he was not. He had no concern and the stories around this, nothing short of exposing more lies upon lies. Waiting and waiting should someone by chance come across her, knowing the likelihood of this was slim. And that curfew time comes and he is seen arriving home.
Waiting and waiting and finally that correspondence he had been waiting on, comes. And it is instant, I will search, I will search the RDP, and he waited until the family arrived, and he asked (after requesting), if they had brought something of Jodi's. So from that very first moment of correspondence and his offer to search and search that very path it took less than 50mins. And it took less than 10 mins once together, to discuss, to set off down and discover. - He was not searching, he was leading them directly to her. In less than ten minutes of offering to search that very path, he is on it!
Two things . Firstly it was Alice Walker who suggested going back down the path that Luke had just walked. Luke had no way of knowing that they would be going back down that particular path.
Secondly Luke was a product of the metric generation. Like my nephew, who is ages with Luke, they deal in mm,cm and metres, grms and kg….not inches, feet and yards. Would he really have described the distance he had travelled past the break in yards or was it put to him and he was simply unaware of how far the distance was?
-
Where else would they go other than the last place Jodi was spotted heading for?
-
Defenders of LM often ask how LM could have fled a bloody crime scene without being seen covered in blood.
Out of interest, was anyone else spotted walking in the area around that time on that day covered in blood?
Let's have a comprehensive list of those people, please.
-
Where else would they go other than the last place Jodi was spotted heading for?
But according to the family she was ‘ hanging around in Easthouses’. None of the family saw her heading towards RDP.
-
Defenders of LM often ask how LM could have fled a bloody crime scene without being seen covered in blood.
Out of interest, was anyone else spotted walking in the area around that time on that day covered in blood?
Let's have a comprehensive list of those people, please.
Now that is an interesting question though quite easily answered.
An unknown assailant, covered in blood, could have taken multiple routes to safety, chosen, I would have thought, because they gave him/her some semblance of cover.
Luke could also have taken several routes which hid him from the public’s gaze but he would still have to have broken cover to get to his house which, I believe, was in the middle of the estate. This was, arguably, the most dangerous part of his getaway too, with the all to real chance that one of the many residents whose houses he would have to have passed would spot him.
Further an unknown assailant could have been teaming with Jodi’s DNA. How thorough his/her clean up was would never be an issue. Luke’s person and surroundings were analysed to the nth degree with nothing found to link him to the murder found.
-
Two things . Firstly it was Alice Walker who suggested going back down the path that Luke had just walked. Luke had no way of knowing that they would be going back down that particular path.
Secondly Luke was a product of the metric generation. Like my nephew, who is ages with Luke, they deal in mm,cm and metres, grms and kg….not inches, feet and yards. Would he really have described the distance he had travelled past the break in yards or was it put to him and he was simply unaware of how far the distance was?
He used "some distance past" along with "not even 20 yards" - just in case that perhaps is not clear enough for you, he then went onto stating it was "parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods" - So the exact place he meant was not confusing, was it? Neither were the search trio's also from the off. On and approaching and not a foot past, Mitchell with his dog went directly to that break in the wall ---------
But of course, one is trying to imply that the police put words into pretty much everyone's mouths, more so Mitchell. Interestingly the author speaks of a young witness, who she claims the police wrote down lots of words she did not understand, and stated "don't worry, it means the same, you won't be called as a witness anyway" A very intelligent and bright young girl. And of course nonsense, the police write down what you say, read back and if inconsistencies then can change/clarify. And one would doubt, they would put down some words that someone simply did not understand - and of course there is no example given of any words!
More so, the author goes onto to state of the mental health problems of this young girl, the anxiety brought about - she claims due to perhaps being called as a witness and going to jail if not telling the truth?! - The truth, this girl was a mutual friend, close to both the deceased and LM. Her evidence was heard in court, her statements read from, no fancy unrecognizable words. The anxiety and mental health problems were down to the simple factor of - Losing her friend and the other one under suspicion then charged with her murder. Horrific situation to be in that resulted in those mental health issues. What the author does not tell you, and can not fail to know, yet again, Is that this close friend stopped speaking to both CM and her son. Extremely relevant and very telling information.
And of AW, yes we know that she suggested they look properly. Hardly surprising, is it? They are heading there to meet with Mitchell, they had been asked to take something of Jodi's. When they got there he was not even at the top of that path. They each saw the others torch light "Is that you Luke?" shouted out AW, "yes", They walked to meet with him, down from the junction of those paths. And two questions, "did you see anything" "No" - "Do you have anything of Jodi's" for the dog to use to scent with and "No" So there you have it, he had not even reached the top of that path, and he asks if they had brought something and where does one assume they are going to search, with that something of Jodi's? The path of course. He asks he waits, he is still on it, not all of it could have been searched as he had not even walked the length of it. And that is the cover of making it all happen. But you are correct, there are several things he could not have banked on. But, one thing by that point, for sure, is that LM was going to be part of more than one person searching that path. Why?
She was coming to mine, she was supposed to walk this path to get there = the last place she would/could have been he has made clear, is that very path. Again the utter nonsense of zoning in on one thing over everything else, that of AW but when it is put into context it shows a completely different account. They have walked down to meet with him, already an area of that path that could not have been searched. He has the dog, he is making it clear of using the dog ! with or without having that something of Jodi's. So they then do what they were meeting to do, to search that path together! - and in around 8 mins - that miraculous find (cough) He had fed and filled their heads with that path and searching it, plain and simple. From waiting on that first correspondence coming through.
10.49pm - 'I will search, I will search the RDP. I will come to yours to go through phone numbers?!? And again, the only number he may have been able to give was the mutual friend above, if Jodi's mother did not already have it, but then this girl was away on a school trip. So that guise of phone numbers was false, a non starter. He was heading and leading a search to the RDP. And every piece of nonsense given, in an attempt to rush him up that path, to deflect away from the dog doing naff all, backfired time and again. For it that lad had been rushing anywhere, he would have been up and off it. He was not, he was waiting and he was leading that search to it, intentionally.
He certainly was rushing though, chapping at the bit from 10pm. 10.49pm and that instant offer to get on that path and search and by 10.59pm he is that path. And the one thing that stands out along with this, is the police! 10.49pm "I am phoning the police Luke and he is right in there" 10.59pm "I have phoned the police Luke, Jodi's gran is coming out and it is "I am on the path" And he stays and within minutes of meeting, before the police have an active chance to be involved she is found!! - he knew exactly what he was doing. Jack flash, up at that Gino break introducing the woodland to the search, and upon the next break in is instantly there and over. And it is here yet again that the book deflects away from:
The "interrogation" - Of Mitchell wanting the screen turned back to see! It did not matter as with the claims of being "parallel to" on the path side, where Mitchell claimed he had walked to, on the inside of that wall, for he had not. He did not have the time to, in motion with Kelly and JaJ on that unobstructed path side 10 -15 steps. And it was them that hasted back and there he was, on the other side of that break, once more. He could not have walked more than those 3 meters on the inside of that wall, and there was no visibility from there, still around 30 ft away with obstacle after obstacle in the way of sight. And those lies just keep on given -
Mitchell had a search light it is claimed, whilst the others had mere household torches! He was able to see further and see everything due to this, given as a reason you know, Just in case he had only walked those three meters!! But there was no evidence of him carrying a search light, one with x-ray powers of course! Those torches tested to see exactly how strong they were.
-
Defenders of LM often ask how LM could have fled a bloody crime scene without being seen covered in blood.
Out of interest, was anyone else spotted walking in the area around that time on that day covered in blood?
Let's have a comprehensive list of those people, please.
No is the answer of course - and anyone had to come out from any cover of the woods at some point. Stranger or otherwise. And out of anyone known to the victim, Mitchell is the one person who had a relatively short distance to cover from the wood, through the cul-de-sac and into the cover of his garden. Do I believe he had on that parka and dripping blood, no I do not. Simply left in the woods/carried home? And he had to cross through a river to get home via those woods removing any trail from that footwear. I do not believe he was dripping with blood at all, and again the evidence shows us this, whether people accept it or not. And there was a trail followed into the woods next to his home, the very reason we have this "bleaching the scene in one direction only" claims!! To give reason as to why the trail only went West!!
We can use the straightforward time scale, of having time to get home and changed and back the way he came, at haste onto Newbattle Road from the wood with that change of clothing. Staying just long enough to be seen with that blouson jacket on. The sighting by the people who did not ID Mitchell but that blouson jacket and clothing to a T. Was at the spot near to the F&W sighting, the entry and exit to the area of woods. The Esk Trail. And he did not have to enter his house prior to being cleaned a bit, or removing that outerwear. This lad who was savvy to the implications of DNA, extremely clued up.
And of not seeing him, and of this "in the middle of a housing estate" is not accurate. A cul-de-sac to go through and over the road. But what of his claims? Of toddling off from his house to the entrance of that estate. He was not seen and that is walking a fair distance from his house to get to that point. This was supposed to be, (after the changes) at 5.30pm but not seen until almost 6pm at the end of the work day. Not even by his own brother, who claimed to have left home just after 5.30pm.
So we have this short distance from wood to garden and back again. And not seen. Or we have this idle walk from house to entry of the estate by motorists.And a half hour of not being seen!? Yet in the space of 20mins seen umpteen times - logic again tells us that Mitchell was not walking to or at the entrance of that estate from 5.30pm. And not on Newbattle Road up until around 7pm!
So reality, less than a minute to get from the cover of those woods into his garden and back again and not seen. Over around 30 mins of walking and sitting/walking and not seen?!
If we want to enter into other realms, and of the evidence led of "knowing the best way to kill someone" Whatever fantasies, Just how much was Mitchell prepped? And we can revert back to earlier in that day, of the fall out at lunch time. Of Mitchell no liking confrontation and we can ask ourselves, had he planned on carrying out that attack upon Jodi that evening and had it all set in motion?
Lucky to not have been seen exiting those woods into his estate. Not lucky however in being seen by F&W and the couple who saw him after entering Newbattle Road again. But reality, and not being seen in the space of around 30min then a further 40 mins + Not very likely at all, is it?
-
Yes, under the same evidence - who wouldn't be?
As John states, of being surprised that this girl had not been found over the course of that evening. The very reason that it was nothing short of a miracle that LM would suddenly find her in the space of seconds upon entering that wood. He had left her hidden. That area of woodland was off the beaten track, infrequently used by anyone other than perhaps youngsters. Not an area popular with dog walkers and others who used that V to access the East end woods of the Esk Trail, Abbey and Golf course. Doing exactly as DD had done. Entered, followed the path in front and up East to the Golf course woods.
The very reason his dogs (hunting dogs), were tested by using a pig carcass. Of his dogs going over that break in the wall, off lead and walking the 'normal' route up with their master. They picked up nothing, and we are to believe that this family guard dog miraculously picked up a scent!! Which was not in the woodland, was not anywhere near where Mitchell made claim to, on a tight harness. And he hopped over that break and seconds later he is shouting out. - nonsense.
So, yet again that clear confusion. Down west from that break in the wall, was not an area frequently used, it led nowhere. Hangout place at most, at times by local youngsters. Hangout place for Mitchell. The 'used' exit and entry point was the V break, used to walk East into the Golf course woods, the Abbey grounds, where the woods joined at the top of that woodland strip. And reason for being left hidden and off that beaten track, the one person who needed time on their side, to get an alibi and disposal in place, is the one person that Jodi was supposed to be with, that person being LM.
And the mere fact that we know without a shadow of a doubt, that the attack started and finished in that area of the woods, and was witnessed by no one other than the noises heard by LK - tells us just how isolated that area was, of it not being frequented regularly. There were no other dog walkers in that area from that V break down that evening, only DD eastwards. Children playing in the top end, into the back of Easthouse's itself. The caves the author speaks of, the closest one, in an entirely different area of woodland, at least half a mile away!
So this isolated area, hidden behind that large Oak tree, next to that wall, the overgrowth and some distance down from the 'normal' thoroughfare that barely anyone used. Hidden away from and off any beaten track. And we have four people walking down that path. Within 8 minutes of commencing that walk together, we have Mitchell introducing that woodland strip to the search, behind that large stone dyke. When he looked over at the 'Gino' break. And they come to the next break, easier to access one and he goes over this time. And seconds later, with no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he is shouting out he had found something.
And he lies and he just keeps on lying. He claims he had never been in there before that evening, he claims he did not know that V break existed. He claims that 'they' had all walked some distance past that break, "not even 20 yards". He further clarifies this to being "parallel to" where Jodi lay in the woods.
And one really has to shake their heads here, and wonder why people feel LM was framed, that the police had tunnel vision! Jodi, after being left hidden was not discovered over the course of that evening. Where can there even be a fragment of doubt, that he was clearly chapping at the bit! And more lies, he states he was home and in his room from just after 9pm. No he was not. He had no concern and the stories around this, nothing short of exposing more lies upon lies. Waiting and waiting should someone by chance come across her, knowing the likelihood of this was slim. And that curfew time comes and he is seen arriving home.
Waiting and waiting and finally that correspondence he had been waiting on, comes. And it is instant, I will search, I will search the RDP, and he waited until the family arrived, and he asked (after requesting), if they had brought something of Jodi's. So from that very first moment of correspondence and his offer to search and search that very path it took less than 50mins. And it took less than 10 mins once together, to discuss, to set off down and discover. - He was not searching, he was leading them directly to her. In less than ten minutes of offering to search that very path, he is on it!
The above post by Parky41 is, imo, a compelling and accurate summation of what likely happened on that fateful day. Yep, the circumstantial evidence against LM sure was overwhelming. From that broken alibi (for god’s sake, Shane, you either saw him or you didn’t; these ‘I don’t knows, I can’t remembers, and he could have beens’ were very telling and indicative of lies), to AB’s ‘I’m as sure as I can be it’s him’ sighting (she was taken aback by just how much the person in the book of photographs looked like the lad she saw, don’t kid yourselves!), the same sighting of this lad who was wearing khaki green clothing with clumps of hair sticking up at the back, quarrelling/disputing with a female of around the same age (animated, gesticulating with his hands — it even caught the attention of AB, a stranger, from her car, and even though it was a momentary glance; the image stuck in her head like a photograph) at around five to five. Lo and behold LK heard the disturbing noises of the attack (that the little dispute witnessed by AB some 15 mins earlier had obviously escalated to its horrific climax as he was cycling by) and then, about half an hour later, a young man in khaki green clothing with shoulder-length hair is spotted by two motorists (an unequivocal “oh my god, it’s him!”) at a wooden gate on a busy road at peak time — a wooden gate that just so happened to be directly down from where LK heard those disturbingly strange noises! God only knows what had taken place between 1705-1740 hrs that day. I shudder to think.
-
So, just to summarise:
There would be nothing unusual in the search party starting at RDP given that that was the obvious place to start;
and
If it was possible for A Murderer to escape the bloody crime scene without being spotted, then it was also possible for LM to do so, particularly because his movements remain unaccounted for.
Oops, I appear to have dropped my mic.
-
Now that is an interesting question though quite easily answered.
An unknown assailant, covered in blood, could have taken multiple routes to safety, chosen, I would have thought, because they gave him/her some semblance of cover.
Luke could also have taken several routes which hid him from the public’s gaze but he would still have to have broken cover to get to his house which, I believe, was in the middle of the estate. This was, arguably, the most dangerous part of his getaway too, with the all to real chance that one of the many residents whose houses he would have to have passed would spot him.
Further an unknown assailant could have been teaming with Jodi’s DNA. How thorough his/her clean up was would never be an issue. Luke’s person and surroundings were analysed to the nth degree with nothing found to link him to the murder found.
You have no idea if the killer was covered in blood. Mr. Scrimger said ,not neccessarily.
-
But according to the family she was ‘ hanging around in Easthouses’. None of the family saw her heading towards RDP.
But none of the family saw Jodi in Easrhouses or Newbattle so what's your point please?
-
But none of the family saw Jodi in Easrhouses or Newbattle so what's your point please?
But this Unknown Assailant Teaming with DNA is unknown.
-
Two things . Firstly it was Alice Walker who suggested going back down the path that Luke had just walked. Luke had no way of knowing that they would be going back down that particular path.
Secondly Luke was a product of the metric generation. Like my nephew, who is ages with Luke, they deal in mm,cm and metres, grms and kg….not inches, feet and yards. Would he really have described the distance he had travelled past the break in yards or was it put to him and he was simply unaware of how far the distance was?
Doesn't make a bit of difference who suggested going down any path. Smokescreen, smokescreen, smokescreen! What matters are LM's lies. He murdered Jodi and you have had nearly two decades to prove otherwise, unsuccessfully. Why is that?? LM is guilty. SL wasn't even in court despite the avoidance of answering questions asking her. Manipulative rubbish for the sponges.
-
Who was the witness that knew LM that William Wallace is referring to? Can someone clarify? And at what time did they see LM on the Newbattle Road that evening?
-
Another quick question .... was the spot where Jodi’s body was found thick with grass and vegetation? Was that the reason it lay for some 6 hours undiscovered? Yes, it was off the beaten path, but it was still quite a popular spot for local dog walkers ([Name removed] snr was there that evening with his dogs and never noticed her body) and local youths. I’ve yet to see a pic of the exact spot where her body was found.
-
Another quick question .... was the spot where Jodi’s body was found thick with grass and vegetation? Was that the reason it lay for some 6 hours undiscovered? Yes, it was off the beaten path, but it was still quite a popular spot for local dog walkers ([Name removed] snr was there that evening with his dogs and never noticed her body) and local youths. I’ve yet to see a pic of the exact spot where her body was found.
The spot where Jodi was found was/is woodland - there is a rough mud path, but not brilliant for walking, imo.
I'm not sure that the side of the wall where Jodi was was found was that popular for walkers, etc.
You certainly get people walking on RDP itself - on the other side of the wall - if you were walking by, you'd maybe spot the V in the wall, but you wouldn't necessarily feel an urge to peer over/through it - even if you did, I'm not sure you'd be able to see Jodi's body - you'd maybe have to climb the wall - bear in mind that the medical examiner sent out on the night couldn't get over the wall.
-
The spot where Jodi was found was/is woodland - there is a rough mud path, but not brilliant for walking, imo.
I'm not sure that the side of the wall where Jodi was was found was that popular for walkers, etc.
You certainly get people walking on RDP itself - on the other side of the wall - if you were walking by, you'd maybe spot the V in the wall, but you wouldn't necessarily feel an urge to peer over/through it - even if you did, I'm not sure you'd be able to see Jodi's body - you'd maybe have to climb the wall - bear in mind that the medical examiner sent out on the night couldn't get over the wall.
Rough terrain would be no deterrent for dogs though I would have thought and you often hear of dogs leading their owners to a body.
-
Who was the witness that knew LM that William Wallace is referring to? Can someone clarify? And at what time did they see LM on the Newbattle Road that evening?
They were boys from Luke’s school who were cycling to a nearby college and saw him around 5.50pm while going to the college and coming back sometime later. They said that he hadn’t moved from the position where they first saw him when seen on the way back, the position where Luke said he’d been standing.
-
They were boys from Luke’s school who were cycling to a nearby college and saw him around 5.50pm while going to the college and coming back sometime later. They said that he hadn’t moved from the position where they first saw him when seen on the way back, the position where Luke said he’d been standing.
William Wallace said it was a female who knew him. I know the 3 guys knew him and identified him. This is a completely separate matter. If it wasn’t Marion O’Sullivan, who was it?
-
The spot where Jodi was found was/is woodland - there is a rough mud path, but not brilliant for walking, imo.
I'm not sure that the side of the wall where Jodi was was found was that popular for walkers, etc.
You certainly get people walking on RDP itself - on the other side of the wall - if you were walking by, you'd maybe spot the V in the wall, but you wouldn't necessarily feel an urge to peer over/through it - even if you did, I'm not sure you'd be able to see Jodi's body - you'd maybe have to climb the wall - bear in mind that the medical examiner sent out on the night couldn't get over the wall.
I know it was a strip of woodland where she was found. I’m talking about the exact spot where her body lay when Luke found her. Was it in thick grass or thick vegetation?
-
Dugs oot for a walk tend to be accompanied by humans - rough terrain could be a deterrent for humans.
-
The recent suggestion that LM's bike was seen at Newbattle High School still hasn't been confirmed or ruled out - what's the deal with that?
Quite an important detail, I would have thought.
-
I know it was a strip of woodland where she was found. I’m talking about the exact spot where her body lay when Luke found her. Was it in thick grass or thick vegetation?
This might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKL-pJvePsg&t=39s
This chap has done a series of videos in & around the locus. Although these videos are taken around March time, where the vegetation won't be fully grown yet, I suspect it won't have been a huge difference to what it may have looked in June/July. The chap is also very much in the Mitchell camp, so best with volume down.
-
Dugs oot for a walk tend to be accompanied by humans - rough terrain could be a deterrent for humans.
Not for dogs off of a lead.
-
The two parts are separated by a wall - it's been mentioned.
If a dog is on a particular side of the wall, that will be because a human has picked either side.
-
Not for dogs off of a lead.
And his was on a tight short rope lead with harness. "bounded" indeed?
-
This might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKL-pJvePsg&t=39s
This chap has done a series of videos in & around the locus. Although these videos are taken around March time, where the vegetation won't be fully grown yet, I suspect it won't have been a huge difference to what it may have looked in June/July. The chap is also very much in the Mitchell camp, so best with volume down.
What a lot of nonsense yet again. This is one of the 'amigos' 'Lugs'.
As you say, better with the sound down but it needs some form of explanation.
Firstly as I have stated is the thickness and height of that wall. And the distance from the actual path to the wall itself. And we add in those 8 mins of this party of four being together. It is overcast, and the air is not clear. Damp. And they are walking down this path and they approach where that break is, and Mitchell with his dog (could have being doing somersaults, it makes no difference), goes directly to it. Over and directly left.
Now stop, if you have actually put the video on, and Rusty is correct. It was filmed here in winter and lots of the vegetation from 18 years ago gone. But those brief glimpses given in the video at the start of looking down to the left, directly beside that wall. And it was 40ft from the break that Mitchell had left Jodi's body, hidden behind a large Oak tree. Off the beaten track, no path as such, a passageway that had obstacle after obstacle in the way. No clear line of sight.
SD the guy shooting it, only looks back to the V, states the murder happened there, no it did not. Then he walks towards Easthouse's, by that trodden path I mentioned that people used, if accessing the woods by that break, to head up into the other woods. Passes the spot, where he briefly mentions 'condom guy' around roughly where it was found, in the opposite direction of where Jodi was murdered. Give him his due he states he was cleared and not involved.
But back to those 8 mins (approx) on that path, directly to that break in the wall, over and seconds later shouting out. Where SD states that the dog jumped up at the V and that the dog looked left (class) But what is shows is just how many lies are told, clearly by lying by omission and attempting to tie in that dog with the search parties account, and they really have no clue about Mitchells evidence. Where he lied from the off, of them all being well down past that break, his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay, and him backtracking to the break to go over.
And one really has to ask here, from those people who have jumped on board, feel they are fighting the fight, a good cause - If they actually knew the truth, actually saw those witness account, heard accurately the evidence led and the defence of, they would not be of the same mind. For it tells a completely different story to the one the author, onto that documentary put out. Which was full of misinformation and lies.
And we see that clearly with this guy, with the sunshine bunch - Where they all have the dog reacting directly at the break in the wall. They have studied the book, watched the documentary. They have it that the dog did no react before the break, for Jodi was not before the break. That the dog reacted at the break, and Mitchell knew to go left, and as Lugs states, the "dog was looking to the left"
The truth. Those 8 mins. That first intro to the woods at the gino break. They come to the V, and it is exactly that. Mitchell and his dog go directly to it. And in come the lies. "That the search trio all agreed with Luke, that Mia alerted to the wall then they all changed their mind, stated he went directly to it"
For they do not know. That Mitchell did not agree with the search trio at all, not from the first to the last. He was clear and he was specific. This is his statement. "we walked some distance past a break in the wall, not even 20 yards, when Mia bounded to the wall" He goes on to state of the "air sniffing" "pawing at the wall" and of him "backtracking to where the break was as it was easier to access the woods"
And it had to be Mitchells account, for it to be viable in the slightest, that gave him cause to go directly to his left, on an untrodden path, through overgrowth and all else. But then he stated he had walked much further here also. He had not, for again in those first accounts from the search trio. That after Mitchell entered those woods, proceeded left, that JaJ and Kelly then walked past, further down, around 10-15ft and Mitchell shouted out. They ran back that short distance at haste, and Mitchell was once again on the other side of that break.
So really? Look at that wall. Look at the thickness of it. Look at the woodland even in winter and the wrong areas!. Look at the clear different accounts told from the off. Look at the time frame of less than 8mins of setting off together. And can you honestly say, that you believe that his dog, reacted from 40ft away, through that high, thick dry stone dyke, to something that was over 40ft down from it. Can you just ignore Mitchells clear lies, of being past it, the diagram he drew. That in the dark, and in just seconds, off the beaten track and hidden, he miraculously finds her?!
And then we have to add in why they were all there - Mitchell.
He lied, he stated he had never been in that stretch of woodland before, and he lied that he had never seen that break in the wall before. And the search trio made it clear, that the woods never entered their heads, why would they? But who introduced the woodland and again Mitchell. Why?
So, please, head out of the clouds here - Look at that wall, look at his account, look at his lies. Look at those 8 mins. Look why they were there. Look at who first offered to search. Look at who was on that path within 10mins of that offer. Look at who was only around 2/3 of the way up it when the trio arrived. And keep on adding in the rest - tunnel vision, fit up - not on your life.
And the arms and legs, any old thing getting made up to try and make it work - it does not work at all, any of it. SD (lugs), has it that there was blood to the west and east of the break, no there was not. Nonsense. But then he has Jodi murdered almost at it. The blood was from NW up and across to that V break. Nothing east of that break in the wall.
And we add in reason as to why Jodi was that far down and away from that break in the wall when that attack happened. For she was with someone she knew, someone she frequented that strip of woodland with, someone she trusted - and that person was LM. After he met with her, after he was ID by AB. And he attacked her once far enough down, away from the beaten track, in that isolated area of that woodland strip.
And one wishes to place trust in the author, and the two PI's?! Where they have it that she may have been murdered elsewhere. Really, and we just have to look again at that isolated area, with little in the way of access. And the evidence of her death happening exactly there. And we can put a massive question mark around any judgement they may make - complete and utter guff. Total fallacy and fantasy of fact and fiction.
-
I have guests up for the September weekend, so I’ll ask again before I get too drunk: was Jodi found in thick grass or thick vegetation?
Here’s a video of the locus. From 4:24-4:33, you can somewhat see where her body was found, though not enough to tell if she was found in high grass or thick vegetation. Anyone know??
https://youtu.be/ekoHFga6StE
-
And his was on a tight short rope lead with harness. "bounded" indeed?
“Luke’s dog was pulling him to the wall” Steven Kelly.
Indeed.
-
But of course, one is trying to imply that the police put words into pretty much everyone's mouths, more so Mitchell. Interestingly the author speaks of a young witness, who she claims the police wrote down lots of words she did not understand, and stated "don't worry, it means the same, you won't be called as a witness anyway" A very intelligent and bright young girl. And of course nonsense, the police write down what you say, read back and if inconsistencies then can change/clarify. And one would doubt, they would put down some words that someone simply did not understand - and of course there is no example given of any words!
Indeed. So how do you think this happened?
“ When she returned, Mr Findlay said that in a statement to police in the early hours of July 1 she had said 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Janine replied: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Mr Findlay: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement?'
Janine: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong.
'I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics. As I said, the police have misrepresented it.”
And of AW, yes we know that she suggested they look properly. Hardly surprising, is it?
Not surprising at all if they knew that Jodi was on her way to Newbattle.
She was coming to mine, she was supposed to walk this path to get there = the last place she would/could have been he has made clear, is that very path. Again the utter nonsense of zoning in on one thing over everything else, that of AW but when it is put into context it shows a completely different account. They have walked down to meet with him, already an area of that path that could not have been searched. He has the dog, he is making it clear of using the dog ! with or without having that something of Jodi's. So they then do what they were meeting to do, to search that path together! - and in around 8 mins - that miraculous find (cough) He had fed and filled their heads with that path and searching it, plain and simple. From waiting on that first correspondence coming through.
Luke has already come up the path, Jodi, if she was ‘messing about up here ( Easthouses) wouldn’t have been on the path, so why the need to walk down it again? The only explanation is that they knew that Jodi had started out towards Newbattle.
10.49pm - 'I will search, I will search the RDP. I will come to yours to go through phone numbers?!? And again, the only number he may have been able to give was the mutual friend above, if Jodi's mother did not already have it, but then this girl was away on a school trip. So that guise of phone numbers was false, a non starter. He was heading and leading a search to the RDP. And every piece of nonsense given, in an attempt to rush him up that path, to deflect away from the dog doing naff all, backfired time and again. For it that lad had been rushing anywhere, he would have been up and off it. He was not, he was waiting and he was leading that search to it, intentionally.
He certainly was rushing though, chapping at the bit from 10pm. 10.49pm and that instant offer to get on that path and search and by 10.59pm he is that path. And the one thing that stands out along with this, is the police! 10.49pm "I am phoning the police Luke and he is right in there" 10.59pm "I have phoned the police Luke, Jodi's gran is coming out and it is "I am on the path" And he stays and within minutes of meeting, before the police have an active chance to be involved she is found!! - he knew exactly what he was doing. Jack flash, up at that Gino break introducing the woodland to the search, and upon the next break in is instantly there and over. And it is here yet again that the book deflects away from:
The "interrogation" - Of Mitchell wanting the screen turned back to see! It did not matter as with the claims of being "parallel to" on the path side, where Mitchell claimed he had walked to, on the inside of that wall, for he had not. He did not have the time to, in motion with Kelly and JaJ on that unobstructed path side 10 -15 steps. And it was them that hasted back and there he was, on the other side of that break, once more. He could not have walked more than those 3 meters on the inside of that wall, and there was no visibility from there, still around 30 ft away with obstacle after obstacle in the way of sight. And those lies just keep on given -
Mitchell had a search light it is claimed, whilst the others had mere household torches! He was able to see further and see everything due to this, given as a reason you know, Just in case he had only walked those three meters!! But there was no evidence of him carrying a search light, one with x-ray powers of course! Those torches tested to see exactly how strong they were.
-
What if LM wasn't spotted going home to clean up because he didn't go home after Jodi's murder? What if he stayed in the woods until later? There's so much emphasis on LM not being spotted but he may have been hiding and he may have had help.
-
What if LM wasn't spotted going home to clean up because he didn't go home after Jodi's murder? What if he stayed in the woods until later? There's so much emphasis on LM not being spotted but he may have been hiding and he may have had help.
Help from whom?
-
But of course, one is trying to imply that the police put words into pretty much everyone's mouths, more so Mitchell. Interestingly the author speaks of a young witness, who she claims the police wrote down lots of words she did not understand, and stated "don't worry, it means the same, you won't be called as a witness anyway" A very intelligent and bright young girl. And of course nonsense, the police write down what you say, read back and if inconsistencies then can change/clarify. And one would doubt, they would put down some words that someone simply did not understand - and of course there is no example given of any words!
Indeed. So how do you think this happened?
“ When she returned, Mr Findlay said that in a statement to police in the early hours of July 1 she had said 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Janine replied: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
And then those recording were played, and there is nothing that could alter or muddy the waters upon that clear physical proof. That flat effect voice of Mitchell with those hysterics in the background, those screams. Along with of course, the areas of her statement, when asked to clarify what exactly was meant, when she mentioned hysterics.
So you see Faith, the court heard Mitchell, they heard Alice and Janine screaming in the background of his flat effect tones. And then Kelly, screaming and F'n and blinding. Nothing can alter or change that proof.
But of course we were talking of people knowing what was in their statements, and of course you fail as above, to show the rest, to show the clarification. But of the young girl, Mitchells best friend, and those claims of the police putting down words that she did not recognize. Not a misunderstanding, not taken in the wrong way, unrecognizable words?! With not a snifter to show this to be true, to show those words.
So not the same, and in JaJ's statements there was clarification and correction. So not simply left, and of DF attempts, to show at some point she had stated that as one does, and omits the rest - good old prosecution and that balance and of course the recordings - doesn't get any better than that. As we had with the path fiasco. Makes it sound the part, when only showing a fraction of the evidence around that path. But alas, as with everything, those minute areas of scraping in the pits of that barrel simply fall flat - empty bias.
-
Some realism of course, for most - Who instantly just think, bloody hell! Someone is known to be missing and 50 mins later a call is put through to the emergency services that they have been found dead. Not only found dead, but in an isolated area of woodland, hidden out of sight. And we add to this. That no one was actually in that woodland searching, just four people who met to walk down a path running alongside it, with a high, thick, dry stone dyke separating the two. Some 4-5ft in from it. They have a dog, not belonging to the family who it is claimed was partially trained to find toys!! That these four people reach more than 40ft away, on the path side of this thick, high, dry stone dyke, and it is claimed the dog picked up some scent. That the owner without that dog went into the woodland, walked around 10 steps and found the hidden body of this person. Who was over 40ft down from the break in the wall that they entered this woodland from.
So we think, well, 50mins to search an area with a dog and it seems feasible, just. But then you learn that the actual search was in fact less than 8 mins. And we tie in not being in that woodland but merely on the path, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. In the dark, overcast and damp. The air is not clear and full of smells/scents. It is a path used by other dogs, a woodland full of wildlife. And only one person, without the aid of that dog, decides it is a good idea to look over into the woods, they climb the wall and briefly shine their torch. (Gino break) To remember here, there is absolutely no reason why that missing person would actually be in the woods. For now we can add further information in at this point.
The reason why these four people are actually on that path. It is due to the person who has that dog. They are the missing persons boyfriend, they have stated that the girl was to meet them in Newbattle, but that she had not appeared on the other end of that path, some 6 hours earlier. They did not report this, they did nothing. She did not appear and they went off and did something else. No one is made aware that she is missing until she fails to arrive home by her curfew time. Her family (mother), who knew her daughter had left home, to meet her boyfriend and spend the evening with him, believed that is where her daughter had been. Upon her curfew time coming and going, the first person she contacted, was of course her boyfriend. The girl had no phone.
Now we add in some more information - When it is realised the girl is missing, that she had left home to meet with her boyfriend some 6 hours earlier, her mother finds out that this meet had not taken place. Told that she had failed to turn up in Newbattle to meet with him. So the mother tells the boyfriend she is contacting the police and she does. This is within minutes of realising she is missing, and before anyone even has a chance to think of searching, to think of much of anything. The boyfriend is first in there, to offer to search. Not a fragment of worry the whole evening, but instantly offers, not only to search but to search this path he claims she failed to appear at the other side of. The girl is reported missing. The mother contacts the boyfriend again, less than 10mins from that last call to him, and he is on that path (it is a good 7 mins walk from his house). She tells him the police have been called.
Now we add in some other information, it takes around 11 mins to walk that path from west to east. The time now is around 11.10pm and members of this girls family are walking to Easthouse's, the boy waits on them arriving. When they arrive he is still not at the top of that path, only around 3/4 of the way up it, 2/3 even. As when they arrive at the top of that path they see a torch light in the distance approaching them, and shout out "Is that you Luke?". They had torches, but not close enough to make him out. They walk to meet with him. They know of course that the path could not have been searched in it's entirety - he is not even at the top of it. He asks, if by his earlier request, if they had brought anything of Jodi's, they had not. And the gran naturally says, we will check properly, I mean? It has not all been checked and he is going to only then put that dog into seek mode.
Now we add in some more information - The dog is put into seek mode, it is on a short lead and harness. We have mentioned the intro to the woods above, and now we add a few steps into the field, again at random, nothing to do with the dog. It is being a dog, sniffing and scenting and leaving it's scent. And the boy takes himself in front again, after the Gino and after the field. They come to another break in the wall, and this time with his dog he goes to the break and he goes over. The dog, overtly excited. This break, in the shape of a V, the only place on that path, that has a large enough gap, to further it's excitement of heading somewhere, perhaps it had been before.
Now we add in some more information - He (boy with his dog) claimed that they (all) had walked well past that break, parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. The other three state the exact opposite, this is in those very first accounts.which were always upon coming to that break, of them all stopping at the break, and only two of them walking further, after the boy had entered the woods. Not at any point had the boy and his dog walked past, and no-one, until after he entered those woods. Something is clearly wrong, there can be no way that this search trio, consisting of member of Jodi's family, can be wrong in their description. For further down from that break, on this path side, there is no visibility, they simply could not have seen what all three gave a description of. Upon being asked to clarify, further information was added. They had been taken back to this path, and mapped and marked out where each person had been. The three still upon approaching and at that break, the boy still some 40ft past it, parallel he claimed to where his girlfriend lay in the woods, 4-5ft in, up and over that 8ft + high, thick, dry stone dyke. At no break.
So just stop for a moment, there is of course a hell of a lot more information - But we have one person who failed to raise any alarm. They are the first to mention search, and to mention that path. They are the first onto that path, and they stay on that path. They are the first to lead and to take the lead twice. They are the first to introduce the woodland. And they are the first over that wall into it. And they lie. The search trio did not lie, not from that first onwards. They always stated it was upon coming to that break in the wall. And we add in those 8 mins from walking down together. And it is straight to the point. That introduction to the woods, taking the lead and going into those woods at the first real opportunity where the wall is broken.
Why did he lie? More so that clear realism here - why did this boy not raise any alarm, when by his claims, she failed to arrive on the other side of that path, some six hours earlier. He claims he was phoning her house, to let her know he was out earlier (only after the phone records were obtained, and his original claim of leaving at 5.45 changed to 5.30pm) So, by his claims, he knows she had left to meet him, she is not late , and that again by his claims, she was heading to Newbattle. And he claims to wait, that factual time being around 90mins. And she does not appear and he does not raise any alarm, as by his claims, she was coming to his, she had walked an isolated path and not appeared on the other side of it. Further, this claim after those phone records were obtained did no tarry, changed to suit as other evidence immerged. The first, simply leaving at 5.45 to meet her for 6, the arranged time. The second to then claim he phoned, to tell her he was out earlier and on that road waiting for her.
And we add in further information. For the only person whom the boy kept in the loop, of meeting his girlfriend, of her not appearing was the boys mother. And she did nothing, bar claim to tell him, that all will be well. The first time being around 7pm, when he told her, to tell his girlfriend, if she should show up, then to send her into the Abbey grounds, that "she will know where". The second time, when claimed to arrive home around 9pm and again, the claims are that she told him, "she will have been caught up with friends gabbing" And we add in more, the boy claimed to have been home and stayed home, until he took the dog out for the toilet at 10.30pm. He was however witnessed arriving home at 10pm.
And we add in some more, the girls mother, had said that her daughter told her, that she was meeting with Luke, that they would be "mucking about up here" - There is no dispute that the two were to meet, and to be spending the evening together. So one claimed meet in the Easthouse's end and one in the Newbattle end. Where Jodi's parent were left in the dark. No warning of anything being wrong, no insight into using an isolated path, one which a ban had been placed upon using. And of course, at the point of the phone call from the boyfriend, there was no concern from him, it was only to let her know he was out earlier. The briefest of conversation, "is Jodi there?" - "no, she has already left to meet you". It is dinner time, busy and occupied, the boy could have been late to meet the girl, anywhere. The only person, if by their claims, to have an incline of any worry, any danger is that boy, and of course his mother.
And now we tie in some more, that ban on the path, the claim is by the boy, that he knew of no ban. That he had never been in that woodland before and knew not of that break in the wall, never seen it before. Yet? Here we had this boy, not only infiltrating the idea and claim that the girl would have walked that path, failed to appear on the other side, he also introduced the notion that she could be in the woodland. A path, unlikely to have walked on her own, and a woodland he claimed not to have stepped in before. Where there was little chance the girl had walked the path alone, certainly less of being in that actual woodland alone.
And we add in some more - witnesses and evidence is produced that show the boy is lying. Not only had he been in that woodland before with others, and to that break in the wall he had frequented it with Jodi herself. To the point that they had carved their initials into a tree. And the lies are beginning to stack up. That he carried knives also, he denied this. That the area of woodland that the attack began in , was off the beaten track, deep into and going nowhere. Where it could not be clearer that this girl was only in that area, in the company of someone she knew and trusted.
Then we tie in sightings coming through. One which was to be positively ID as being Mitchell, wearing khaki green clothing at the East end of that path. Then of another positive ID of this youth, wearing khaki green clothing at the west end of that path, by two further people. And we tie in that Jodi had in fact left earlier and not for 6pm as the boy claimed.
Then we tie in the alibi. A clear sequence of events with lots of detail that ran precisely from five past five until 5.45pm. Then we tie in the inclusion of the brother, to match that very precise timings between five past five and 5.45pm. Then we tie in footage of CTTV and the phone logs, which completely wiped out approx 30mins of that alibi leaving around 13mins, to carry everything they stated out. Then we tie in the chopping and changing of accounts at will to match any evidence. That one could simply not have been mistaken about the time she had gotten home, when she then included her other son into areas that she had forgotten. That he could not have spoken to her at five past five at all, then waited around ten mins for dinner to be ready and all else. And we have to then revert to his clear evidence - that he had "popped his head round the lounge door, and no one was home" No music, no burnt pies and as he stated, no brother did he see. Not in the house or at any entrance of that estate when he left home, just after 5.30pm.
And we tie in those fires, of whatever was being burnt in the back garden that evening, and we tie in the denials, the admittance and all else - it matters not, there were fires and there were lies being told around this.
And we tie in that miraculous find, and every piece of evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Ignored his mothers calls, a mother who was evidently that frantic she reached out to no one else. Neither did this "child" Ignored his mothers calls and did not reach out to her, his father or his brother.
And there can be no clearer proof that physical evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Those recordings to the emergency services. Those screams of "hysterics" in the background and Mitchells flat effect tones. Kelly and his F'n and blinding, clearly distraught. Mitchell - nothing.
-
And then those recording were played, and there is nothing that could alter or muddy the waters upon that clear physical proof. That flat effect voice of Mitchell with those hysterics in the background, those screams. Along with of course, the areas of her statement, when asked to clarify what exactly was meant, when she mentioned hysterics.
So you see Faith, the court heard Mitchell, they heard Alice and Janine screaming in the background of his flat effect tones. And then Kelly, screaming and F'n and blinding. Nothing can alter or change that proof.
As ever, when faced with difficult questions, deflection is your method of choice. My question had nothing to do with Luke’s behaviour and everything to do with the police putting words into witnesses mouths, something you said never happened. Yet here we are with the prosecution’s own witness claiming just that. So are you saying that the police ‘misrepresented’ what Janine said because that’s how it appears?
But of course we were talking of people knowing what was in their statements, and of course you fail as above, to show the rest, to show the clarification. But of the young girl, Mitchells best friend, and those claims of the police putting down words that she did not recognize. Not a misunderstanding, not taken in the wrong way, unrecognizable words?! With not a snifter to show this to be true, to show those words.
We have Janine’s testimony that that’s exactly what the police did in this case, put words into witnesses mouths. Even after reading her statement back Janine still signed it as a true representation of what she said, just like Luke’s friend.. So was she telling the truth in court and like Luke’s friend the police had twisted her words or had the police written down exactly what Janine had said and she lied in court? It has to be one of those scenarios.
So not the same, and in JaJ's statements there was clarification and correction. So not simply left, and of DF attempts, to show at some point she had stated that as one does, and omits the rest - good old prosecution and that balance and of course the recordings - doesn't get any better than that. As we had with the path fiasco. Makes it sound the part, when only showing a fraction of the evidence around that path. But alas, as with everything, those minute areas of scraping in the pits of that barrel simply fall flat - empty bias.
Absolutely the same but same old tactics too, suggestions of further evidence not presented here, of evidence hinted at but never revealed. No clarifications, no corrections just the police and prosecution witnesses tangled up in a web of their own lies.
“ There’s a young lad in a panic here.”
“ We were all in hysterics”.
That’s the truth.
-
And then those recording were played, and there is nothing that could alter or muddy the waters upon that clear physical proof. That flat effect voice of Mitchell with those hysterics in the background, those screams. Along with of course, the areas of her statement, when asked to clarify what exactly was meant, when she mentioned hysterics.
So you see Faith, the court heard Mitchell, they heard Alice and Janine screaming in the background of his flat effect tones. And then Kelly, screaming and F'n and blinding. Nothing can alter or change that proof.
As ever, when faced with difficult questions, deflection is your method of choice. My question had nothing to do with Luke’s behaviour and everything to do with the police putting words into witnesses mouths, something you said never happened. Yet here we are with the prosecution’s own witness claiming just that. So are you saying that the police ‘misrepresented’ what Janine said because that’s how it appears?
My point was, and is - unrecognizable words. as below. And what i stated was, the author claimed that unrecognizable words were put into 'one' witnesses mouth/statement yet gave no proof of those "unrecognizable words" There is a world of difference between, completely altering words and changing them into something else "unrecognizable" - but you know that of course, playing silly beggars as per.
But of course we were talking of people knowing what was in their statements, and of course you fail as above, to show the rest, to show the clarification. But of the young girl, Mitchells best friend, and those claims of the police putting down words that she did not recognize. Not a misunderstanding, not taken in the wrong way, unrecognizable words?! With not a snifter to show this to be true, to show those words.
We have Janine’s testimony that that’s exactly what the police did in this case, put words into witnesses mouths. Even after reading her statement back Janine still signed it as a true representation of what she said, just like Luke’s friend.. So was she telling the truth in court and like Luke’s friend the police had twisted her words or had the police written down exactly what Janine had said and she lied in court? It has to be one of those scenarios.
Baby steps for Faith: - JaJ never denied that she said hysterics, no unrecognizable words. Exactly and again, what are you rabbiting on about? Now if the police had put down 'furore' then that is a complete change, perhaps an unrecognizable word. The clarification given, was that, she did say hysterics, and she meant that herself and her gran were screaming, Kelly retching and Mitchell -Nothing! That was her "we"
So, this 'we' And it was, what did you mean with "we" and "all" - DF attempting to to confuse and of course that black and white you are attempting also. This nonsense of the police manipulated the statement or the witness was lying. - When what he was doing, was attempting to scrape at anything, to try and show the jury that there may just have been something, anything that showed his client to have emotion/feeling. That this witness upon clarification had expanded her statement, to make it clear, that what she had meant in that first instance, was of those screams and that retching. Taken in the early hours of July the 1st when she was in shock, traumatised. And that fog lifted a little, and further statements taken - And she clarifies of those screams and so forth. And she makes it clear, what she meant when she said "we were all in hysterics" Her family unit of herself, her gran and Kelly.
So not the same, and in JaJ's statements there was clarification and correction. So not simply left, and of DF attempts, to show at some point she had stated that as one does, and omits the rest - good old prosecution and that balance and of course the recordings - doesn't get any better than that. As we had with the path fiasco. Makes it sound the part, when only showing a fraction of the evidence around that path. But alas, as with everything, those minute areas of scraping in the pits of that barrel simply fall flat - empty bias.
Absolutely the same but same old tactics too, suggestions of further evidence not presented here, of evidence hinted at but never revealed. No clarifications, no corrections just the police and prosecution witnesses tangled up in a web of their own lies.
And again - not the same, unrecognizable words over clarification given upon something stated earlier. And again you rabbit nonsense. Or are you, in you simple speech, stating that is all JaJ's said on the stand? That no other parts of her statements were read, no clarifications, no corrections, nothing - Just the rabbits out of a hat, of selective cherry picking a handful of words from DF to any witness. Where of course you are doing exactly what you are accusing of: When the point is and always has been. That these minute areas, on repeat are empty of context, the bias in which they are served mean nothing - nada.
And I will say again, it means nothing, those life long bleats of being able to pull out a handful of words, and that combat as above, that I or anyone else can not produce the transcripts - It is only a fool and a bloody big fool at that, who believes that those rabbits out of a hat prove anything. Those with just a fragment of intellect, know that a handful of words are empty of context.
“ There’s a young lad in a panic here.”
“ We were all in hysterics”.
That’s the truth.
The truth is those recordings. Can't change them, can't scrub them out. JaJ's clarified that 'we' her gran and herself were in hysterics screaming and Steven retching. That they had to shout at Mitchell! - And was she telling the truth when she clarified this, dam right she was for they played those recordings. Mitchell, flat effect, monotone voice, and those hysterics in the background, exactly as she stated. Her gran screaming, her screaming. And then Kelly and that "lad in a panic" Class courtroom drama! DF playing that "lad in a panic" and the AD "wait!, let us play that again, who's voice is that?" And it was Steven Kelly's.
Of course, the real trouble with having someone attempting to dictate how a trial went, when they were not even present, just reading some partial scripts from it - just doesn't work, does it? Those recordings were outstanding proof of Mitchells calm, collective, non affected person. As were the calls to the the speaking clock. Produced again by DF. To show that his client had used the service before. And again the AD, and those times of the calls, shown to be when Mitchell was not in his house, walking to school, lunchtime and so forth. They only proved he was in the habit of doing so, when not near a clock.
And back to that friend, those claimed "unrecognizable words" Not simply the clarification of what they meant by "we" Can we see some? Now I do not know if they did or not put down "unrecognizable words" The point I was making, a young, bright, articulate girl, those "unrecognizable words" must have been something else for someone bright not to understand what they meant? Strange that neither DF or the AD read out any "unrecognizable words" - don't you think?
-
Some realism of course, for most - Who instantly just think, bloody hell! Someone is known to be missing and 50 mins later a call is put through to the emergency services that they have been found dead. Not only found dead, but in an isolated area of woodland, hidden out of sight. And we add to this. That no one was actually in that woodland searching, just four people who met to walk down a path running alongside it, with a high, thick, dry stone dyke separating the two. Some 4-5ft in from it. They have a dog, not belonging to the family who it is claimed was partially trained to find toys!! That these four people reach more than 40ft away, on the path side of this thick, high, dry stone dyke, and it is claimed the dog picked up some scent. That the owner without that dog went into the woodland, walked around 10 steps and found the hidden body of this person. Who was over 40ft down from the break in the wall that they entered this woodland from.
So we think, well, 50mins to search an area with a dog and it seems feasible, just. But then you learn that the actual search was in fact less than 8 mins. And we tie in not being in that woodland but merely on the path, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. In the dark, overcast and damp. The air is not clear and full of smells/scents. It is a path used by other dogs, a woodland full of wildlife. And only one person, without the aid of that dog, decides it is a good idea to look over into the woods, they climb the wall and briefly shine their torch. (Gino break) To remember here, there is absolutely no reason why that missing person would actually be in the woods. For now we can add further information in at this point.
The reason why these four people are actually on that path. It is due to the person who has that dog. They are the missing persons boyfriend, they have stated that the girl was to meet them in Newbattle, but that she had not appeared on the other end of that path, some 6 hours earlier. They did not report this, they did nothing. She did not appear and they went off and did something else. No one is made aware that she is missing until she fails to arrive home by her curfew time. Her family (mother), who knew her daughter had left home, to meet her boyfriend and spend the evening with him, believed that is where her daughter had been. Upon her curfew time coming and going, the first person she contacted, was of course her boyfriend. The girl had no phone.
Now we add in some more information - When it is realised the girl is missing, that she had left home to meet with her boyfriend some 6 hours earlier, her mother finds out that this meet had not taken place. Told that she had failed to turn up in Newbattle to meet with him. So the mother tells the boyfriend she is contacting the police and she does. This is within minutes of realising she is missing, and before anyone even has a chance to think of searching, to think of much of anything. The boyfriend is first in there, to offer to search. Not a fragment of worry the whole evening, but instantly offers, not only to search but to search this path he claims she failed to appear at the other side of. The girl is reported missing. The mother contacts the boyfriend again, less than 10mins from that last call to him, and he is on that path (it is a good 7 mins walk from his house). She tells him the police have been called.
Now we add in some other information, it takes around 11 mins to walk that path from west to east. The time now is around 11.10pm and members of this girls family are walking to Easthouse's, the boy waits on them arriving. When they arrive he is still not at the top of that path, only around 3/4 of the way up it, 2/3 even. As when they arrive at the top of that path they see a torch light in the distance approaching them, and shout out "Is that you Luke?". They had torches, but not close enough to make him out. They walk to meet with him. They know of course that the path could not have been searched in it's entirety - he is not even at the top of it. He asks, if by his earlier request, if they had brought anything of Jodi's, they had not. And the gran naturally says, we will check properly, I mean? It has not all been checked and he is going to only then put that dog into seek mode.
Now we add in some more information - The dog is put into seek mode, it is on a short lead and harness. We have mentioned the intro to the woods above, and now we add a few steps into the field, again at random, nothing to do with the dog. It is being a dog, sniffing and scenting and leaving it's scent. And the boy takes himself in front again, after the Gino and after the field. They come to another break in the wall, and this time with his dog he goes to the break and he goes over. The dog, overtly excited. This break, in the shape of a V, the only place on that path, that has a large enough gap, to further it's excitement of heading somewhere, perhaps it had been before.
Now we add in some more information - He (boy with his dog) claimed that they (all) had walked well past that break, parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. The other three state the exact opposite, this is in those very first accounts.which were always upon coming to that break, of them all stopping at the break, and only two of them walking further, after the boy had entered the woods. Not at any point had the boy and his dog walked past, and no-one, until after he entered those woods. Something is clearly wrong, there can be no way that this search trio, consisting of member of Jodi's family, can be wrong in their description. For further down from that break, on this path side, there is no visibility, they simply could not have seen what all three gave a description of. Upon being asked to clarify, further information was added. They had been taken back to this path, and mapped and marked out where each person had been. The three still upon approaching and at that break, the boy still some 40ft past it, parallel he claimed to where his girlfriend lay in the woods, 4-5ft in, up and over that 8ft + high, thick, dry stone dyke. At no break.
So just stop for a moment, there is of course a hell of a lot more information - But we have one person who failed to raise any alarm. They are the first to mention search, and to mention that path. They are the first onto that path, and they stay on that path. They are the first to lead and to take the lead twice. They are the first to introduce the woodland. And they are the first over that wall into it. And they lie. The search trio did not lie, not from that first onwards. They always stated it was upon coming to that break in the wall. And we add in those 8 mins from walking down together. And it is straight to the point. That introduction to the woods, taking the lead and going into those woods at the first real opportunity where the wall is broken.
Why did he lie? More so that clear realism here - why did this boy not raise any alarm, when by his claims, she failed to arrive on the other side of that path, some six hours earlier. He claims he was phoning her house, to let her know he was out earlier (only after the phone records were obtained, and his original claim of leaving at 5.45 changed to 5.30pm) So, by his claims, he knows she had left to meet him, she is not late , and that again by his claims, she was heading to Newbattle. And he claims to wait, that factual time being around 90mins. And she does not appear and he does not raise any alarm, as by his claims, she was coming to his, she had walked an isolated path and not appeared on the other side of it. Further, this claim after those phone records were obtained did no tarry, changed to suit as other evidence immerged. The first, simply leaving at 5.45 to meet her for 6, the arranged time. The second to then claim he phoned, to tell her he was out earlier and on that road waiting for her.
And we add in further information. For the only person whom the boy kept in the loop, of meeting his girlfriend, of her not appearing was the boys mother. And she did nothing, bar claim to tell him, that all will be well. The first time being around 7pm, when he told her, to tell his girlfriend, if she should show up, then to send her into the Abbey grounds, that "she will know where". The second time, when claimed to arrive home around 9pm and again, the claims are that she told him, "she will have been caught up with friends gabbing" And we add in more, the boy claimed to have been home and stayed home, until he took the dog out for the toilet at 10.30pm. He was however witnessed arriving home at 10pm.
And we add in some more, the girls mother, had said that her daughter told her, that she was meeting with Luke, that they would be "mucking about up here" - There is no dispute that the two were to meet, and to be spending the evening together. So one claimed meet in the Easthouse's end and one in the Newbattle end. Where Jodi's parent were left in the dark. No warning of anything being wrong, no insight into using an isolated path, one which a ban had been placed upon using. And of course, at the point of the phone call from the boyfriend, there was no concern from him, it was only to let her know he was out earlier. The briefest of conversation, "is Jodi there?" - "no, she has already left to meet you". It is dinner time, busy and occupied, the boy could have been late to meet the girl, anywhere. The only person, if by their claims, to have an incline of any worry, any danger is that boy, and of course his mother.
And now we tie in some more, that ban on the path, the claim is by the boy, that he knew of no ban. That he had never been in that woodland before and knew not of that break in the wall, never seen it before. Yet? Here we had this boy, not only infiltrating the idea and claim that the girl would have walked that path, failed to appear on the other side, he also introduced the notion that she could be in the woodland. A path, unlikely to have walked on her own, and a woodland he claimed not to have stepped in before. Where there was little chance the girl had walked the path alone, certainly less of being in that actual woodland alone.
And we add in some more - witnesses and evidence is produced that show the boy is lying. Not only had he been in that woodland before with others, and to that break in the wall he had frequented it with Jodi herself. To the point that they had carved their initials into a tree. And the lies are beginning to stack up. That he carried knives also, he denied this. That the area of woodland that the attack began in , was off the beaten track, deep into and going nowhere. Where it could not be clearer that this girl was only in that area, in the company of someone she knew and trusted.
Then we tie in sightings coming through. One which was to be positively ID as being Mitchell, wearing khaki green clothing at the East end of that path. Then of another positive ID of this youth, wearing khaki green clothing at the west end of that path, by two further people. And we tie in that Jodi had in fact left earlier and not for 6pm as the boy claimed.
Then we tie in the alibi. A clear sequence of events with lots of detail that ran precisely from five past five until 5.45pm. Then we tie in the inclusion of the brother, to match that very precise timings between five past five and 5.45pm. Then we tie in footage of CTTV and the phone logs, which completely wiped out approx 30mins of that alibi leaving around 13mins, to carry everything they stated out. Then we tie in the chopping and changing of accounts at will to match any evidence. That one could simply not have been mistaken about the time she had gotten home, when she then included her other son into areas that she had forgotten. That he could not have spoken to her at five past five at all, then waited around ten mins for dinner to be ready and all else. And we have to then revert to his clear evidence - that he had "popped his head round the lounge door, and no one was home" No music, no burnt pies and as he stated, no brother did he see. Not in the house or at any entrance of that estate when he left home, just after 5.30pm.
And we tie in those fires, of whatever was being burnt in the back garden that evening, and we tie in the denials, the admittance and all else - it matters not, there were fires and there were lies being told around this.
And we tie in that miraculous find, and every piece of evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Ignored his mothers calls, a mother who was evidently that frantic she reached out to no one else. Neither did this "child" Ignored his mothers calls and did not reach out to her, his father or his brother.
And there can be no clearer proof that physical evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Those recordings to the emergency services. Those screams of "hysterics" in the background and Mitchells flat effect tones. Kelly and his F'n and blinding, clearly distraught. Mitchell - nothing.
And we can add to this those lies of being separated, when the evidence shows us clearly yet again, that Mitchell was in the company of others, until they were all taken to different places to be interviewed.
-
Why were they shouting at Luke? Because he was dithering whilst on the phone to emergency services? Saying “we’ve found something” rather that “we’ve found a body”? Strange that he would say that. Was he giving the police the run-around as they claimed, rather than them misunderstanding the directions? Maybe he purposely dithered so as to buy him more time to think of an alibi and to delete the incriminating data on his phone (i.e, text messages of his meet with Jodi earlier)? Maybe he was enjoying playing games with the police and quietly gloating about his heinous work and revelling in the ensuing chaos and horror? Truly evil and wicked kid?
-
Why were they shouting at Luke? Because he was dithering whilst on the phone to emergency services? Saying “we’ve found something” rather that “we’ve found a body”? Strange that he would say that. Was he giving the police the run-around as they claimed, rather than them misunderstanding the directions? Maybe he purposely dithered so as to buy him more time to think of an alibi and to delete the incriminating data on his phone (i.e, text messages of his meet with Jodi earlier)? Maybe he was enjoying playing games with the police and quietly gloating about his heinous work and revelling in the ensuing chaos and horror? Truly evil and wicked kid?
Or maybe he was a 14 year old child who had just found his girlfriend dead but his emotionally immature brain just wouldn’t not let him process that awful truth? People deal with death in many different ways, some wail, some become angry, some go into shock and show no outward sign at all, some express their grief in private. Perhaps if Luke had been given psychological support when taken to the police station we may now have some idea of his actual psychological state.
-
Why were they shouting at Luke? Because he was dithering whilst on the phone to emergency services? Saying “we’ve found something” rather that “we’ve found a body”? Strange that he would say that. Was he giving the police the run-around as they claimed, rather than them misunderstanding the directions? Maybe he purposely dithered so as to buy him more time to think of an alibi and to delete the incriminating data on his phone (i.e, text messages of his meet with Jodi earlier)? Maybe he was enjoying playing games with the police and quietly gloating about his heinous work and revelling in the ensuing chaos and horror? Truly evil and wicked kid?
Who knows? Maybe they were hysterical because they were hysterical? Maybe Luke raised his voice for any number of reasons.
-
Who knows? Maybe they were hysterical because they were hysterical? Maybe Luke raised his voice for any number of reasons.
I believe everything LM did was calculated. Maybe didn't work in his favour but calculated just the same.
-
I believe everything LM did was calculated. Maybe didn't work in his favour but calculated just the same.
Do you think the killing of Jodi was premeditated?
-
Do you think the killing of Jodi was premeditated?
That's a difficult one. I believe LM met Jodi and murdered her. I suppose I don't believe it was pre meditated for that day, time etc. although he may have already fantasised about it? I don't know. I believe LM murdered poor Jodi where the police say she was murdered. No moving of her body etc. But I believe LM had help post murder. I think there's far too much emphasis on LM making it home, ways home, covered in blood etc. I think it's very possible that LM didn't leave the woods after Jodi's murder and I have always believed he had help. I believe he changed from his parka into someone else's bomber jacket without going home at that point. I believe all of the witnesses at Newbattle Road. I believe some saw LM and some saw someone else and I think there's an important connection there because no one saw two males and Luke claims to have seen no other male but he was there. Just IMO
-
Help from whom?
I have suspicions who helped Luke but that's all they are. Just suspicions. I absolutely believe he had help from someone though.
-
Do you think the killing of Jodi was premeditated?
Due to a family celebration I won't be able to jump back on later but I'd also like to say I believe Fleming and Walsh and I believe the reason those two witnesses are the ONLY witnesses constantly discredited by SL who saw LM on Newbattle Road is because they're the only witnesses who saw LM wearing his parka. Andrina Bryson, at the other end of the path, saw the same jacket. Also constantly discredited. No mistaken identity here. LM had a parka and LM was wearing that parka. Then, he changed his jacket. SL doesn't discredit witnesses who saw LM in a bomber jacket. SL doesn't even discredit witnesses who saw someone else in a bomber jacket. But there weren't two males at the same time. There were two males at different times. The witnesses tell us so. That bomber jacket, handed in and that parka never found.
-
Due to a family celebration I won't be able to jump back on later but I'd also like to say I believe Fleming and Walsh and I believe the reason those two witnesses are the ONLY witnesses constantly discredited by SL who saw LM on Newbattle Road is because they're the only witnesses who saw LM wearing his parka. Andrina Bryson, at the other end of the path, saw the same jacket. Also constantly discredited. No mistaken identity here. LM had a parka and LM was wearing that parka. Then, he changed his jacket. SL doesn't discredit witnesses who saw LM in a bomber jacket. SL doesn't even discredit witnesses who saw someone else in a bomber jacket. But there weren't two males at the same time. There were two males at different times. The witnesses tell us so. Because that bomber jacket was handed in and that parka, never found.
-
I have suspicions who helped Luke but that's all they are. Just suspicions. I absolutely believe he had help from someone though.
It’s possible he did
-
It’s possible he did
I believe he had help. His supporters constantly bang on about a 14 year old without help I agree. He had help.
-
It’s possible he did
If Luke did commit the murder, I can quite believe that he had help---but from whom, I have no idea.
-
Do you think the killing of Jodi was premeditated?
I do 100%
-
I do 100%
What, on that particular day?
Luke did not even know that Jodi would be coming out that evening. Her mother, apparently, had grounded her, and then decided to allow her out. Luke would not have known that, until Jodi texted him.
-
Do you think the killing of Jodi was premeditated?
I hadn't heard about a possible falling out at lunch time between Jodi and LM until today.
-
That's a difficult one. I believe LM met Jodi and murdered her. I suppose I don't believe it was pre meditated for that day, time etc. although he may have already fantasised about it? I don't know. I believe LM murdered poor Jodi where the police say she was murdered. No moving of her body etc. But I believe LM had help post murder. I think there's far too much emphasis on LM making it home, ways home, covered in blood etc. I think it's very possible that LM didn't leave the woods after Jodi's murder and I have always believed he had help. I believe he changed from his parka into someone else's bomber jacket without going home at that point. I believe all of the witnesses at Newbattle Road. I believe some saw LM and some saw someone else and I think there's an important connection there because no one saw two males and Luke claims to have seen no other male but he was there. Just IMO
I suspect there’s still a whole lot more to come out about all this
And Shane Mitchell’s silence doesn’t help his brother
-
I suspect there’s still a whole lot more to come out about all this
And Shane Mitchell’s silence doesn’t help his brother
Yeah it would seem he doesn't want to help his brother for whatever reason but I don't buy into the, "he just wants a quiet life," story.
-
What, on that particular day?
Luke did not even know that Jodi would be coming out that evening. Her mother, apparently, had grounded her, and then decided to allow her out. Luke would not have known that, until Jodi texted him.
I'm not convinced you even know what premeditated means.
-
What, on that particular day?
Luke did not even know that Jodi would be coming out that evening. Her mother, apparently, had grounded her, and then decided to allow her out. Luke would not have known that, until Jodi texted him.
I believe LM was a danger to girls/women and if LM hadn't murdered Jodi on that particular day, I believe she would have continued to be in serious danger. I believe he fantasised about killing a girl. And it was in the woods!
-
I believe he fantasised about killing a girl. And it was in the woods!
He admitted this to his friends. The fact that he was pondering this idea, speaks volumes to me. To suggest that he accidentally not only murdered Jodi, but proceed to mutilate her body in such a gruesome style. Is no accident. I find it utterly mind-boggling, that people think it was spur of the moment. Craving away at a body post death, is no spur of the moment, it's not opportunist either. It is a well-thought-out process. MrsW seems to want some kind date, of when he first though about doing this, a few days before? A week before? A month? It matters not, if he woke that very morning & decided today was the day. It still means it was premeditated. They also hide behind, Jodi was grounded argument, how could Luke possibly of known, Jodi was allowed out that evening, it matters not, if it was the next day or the week after. Luke's mind was made up, he was intent on carrying out the gruesome crime. Jodi was the victim, the date 30th June 2003..
-
What, on that particular day?
Luke did not even know that Jodi would be coming out that evening. Her mother, apparently, had grounded her, and then decided to allow her out. Luke would not have known that, until Jodi texted him.
No "apparently" about it, was there? To the point without the unnecessary waffle. Fully grounded, exchanged punishment, chores over full grounding. Only allowed out once daily chores were completed. Not that Jodi was not allowed out that evening, but not allowed out until a certain time. This young couple saw each other every day bar times at this fathers. So he definitely knew she was allowed out, one would imagine around this 6pm. Time to do those chores. However:
The significance of this being used at trial was of this girl getting out earlier than could have been anticipated. That her mother, only after arriving home from school that day, lifted the punishment entirely. Happy girl? Contacted her boyfriend to let him know, the only person she contacted and the person she left to meet with, at this (previously), earlier than expected time.
Only becomes difficult with these "apparently" comments when one has become caught up in the waffle of the book. The nonsense about this girl being out previous to that Monday, that she could not have been grounded. The evidence led was exactly to there being two sets of grounding, petering out, re-grounded, then exchanged for doing chores. Grounded at base until chores were completed daily. Evidence also heard, that the boyfriend had been allowed to visit Jodi at home at the points when she was fully grounded, thus still saw each other daily where possible.
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
[/b]
It is these points in the book, as stated in another post of ones analytical skills?? At points it's hard to tell if is because one is severely lacking or deliberately misleading? Awash with a clear mixture of both. IM humble O of course?
So you are correct, partly, he did not know she was getting out earlier than expected until she texted him, but he knew she was getting out that evening. So again, contrary to the book, of stating there was no reason for LM to leave his house until after the exchange of the last text - that is nonsense, he could leave at any point, knowing his girlfriend was coming out. Away into those woods to roll a few perhaps, or to go to her house, anything - he knew she was coming out that evening.
Premeditated? - Work from "the best way to kill someone, by slitting their throat", to thwart being covered in blood and so forth. Add in "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there" - he was forensically aware, first and foremost. Add in having that parka style coat on with bulging pockets, hood the lot. Now add in going deep down into that woodland strip, an area going nowhere but a dead end. No ready/easy exit point, and isolated. Add in that they frequented those woods, and add in that this girl would only have been in that area of isolated woodland with someone she trusted. This girl whom was sensible, articulate, told not to walk that path alone, would not have been in those woods alone, far less down the bottom in an area going nowhere! So premediated over opportunist? A bit of both? Whatever rage ensued that day, he had played that 'type' of moment over prior to this. Add in the fall out at school that day, add this KT and nature of both. One who did not like confrontation over a strong headed girl, whom we are told would speak her mind.
-
I believe he fantasised about killing a girl. And it was in the woods!
He admitted this to his friends. The fact that he was pondering this idea, speaks volumes to me. To suggest that he accidentally not only murdered Jodi, but proceed to mutilate her body in such a gruesome style. Is no accident. I find it utterly mind-boggling, that people think it was spur of the moment. Craving away at a body post death, is no spur of the moment, it's not opportunist either. It is a well-thought-out process. MrsW seems to want some kind date, of when he first though about doing this, a few days before? A week before? A month? It matters not, if he woke that very morning & decided today was the day. It still means it was premeditated. They also hide behind, Jodi was grounded argument, how could Luke possibly of known, Jodi was allowed out that evening, it matters not, if it was the next day or the week after. Luke's mind was made up, he was intent on carrying out the gruesome crime. Jodi was the victim, the date 30th June 2003..
He did - similar to executioner, child killer and sexual predator Jeremy Bamber openly fantasising about killing his family to James Marsden and Julie
-
He did - similar to executioner, child killer and sexual predator Jeremy Bamber openly fantasising about killing his family to James Marsden and Julie
And wasn't the imaginary story of MK's essay about Killing a Woman in the Woods convenient? How ironic that the unsubstantiated "story," was exactly what happened to that wee girl?? Distraction again aeay from the convicted killer of poor Jodi in those woods.
-
What has always struck me as odd is that not one of the search party, including Luke, shouted out for Jodi whilst being on that secluded woodland in the black of night. Perhaps they did call out, but I haven’t read anywhere that they did. It’s a bit puzzling.
-
What has always struck me as odd is that not one of the search party, including Luke, shouted out for Jodi whilst being on that secluded woodland in the black of night. Perhaps they did call out, but I haven’t read anywhere that they did. It’s a bit puzzling.
I suppose no one will ever really know who shouted Jodi's name but LM did not. He doesn't mention that in his pole statement.
-
Of course, the real trouble with having someone attempting to dictate how a trial went, when they were not even present, just reading some partial scripts from it - just doesn't work, does it?
8((()*/
What was it she told James English
*&^^&
“The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-10/
-
I revisited the RD Path recently and NBA Road area as I hadn't been for a while. RDP path in both directions, somewhere between 10-12 mins each way with the V break approx halfway. I did notice there were a further two breaks in the RDP wall nearer the Easthouses end so can't remember which was Gino. (Does anyone know who Gino was?)
Over the V break, the oak tree has now snapped and there is floral tribute nearby. As it is winter it is hard to tell what it would look like in summer but imagine it would be near impossible to see much in the dark and with increased vegetation. The ground was bare and damp and littered with cider cans, bottles and an old tent. There were deer nearby who scarpered across the open field (the open field that Det. Forbes claimed the murder took place then was carried to V break over barbed wire fences and bushes).
When I was over the V, a dog on the other side reacted to me and started barking almost like Mia when she was in tracker mode. I still find it hard to believe anyone other than LM could have carried out this atrocity and the times and distances between 5-6pm were well within his capability and wish someone would do a more indepth video/discussion on the area from the V to NBA Crescent.
-
I revisited the RD Path recently and NBA Road area as I hadn't been for a while. RDP path in both directions, somewhere between 10-12 mins each way with the V break approx halfway. I did notice there were a further two breaks in the RDP wall nearer the Easthouses end so can't remember which was Gino. (Does anyone know who Gino was?)
Over the V break, the oak tree has now snapped and there is floral tribute nearby. As it is winter it is hard to tell what it would look like in summer but imagine it would be near impossible to see much in the dark and with increased vegetation. The ground was bare and damp and littered with cider cans, bottles and an old tent. There were deer nearby who scarpered across the open field (the open field that Det. Forbes claimed the murder took place then was carried to V break over barbed wire fences and bushes).
When I was over the V, a dog on the other side reacted to me and started barking almost like Mia when she was in tracker mode. I still find it hard to believe anyone other than LM could have carried out this atrocity and the times and distances between 5-6pm were well within his capability and wish someone would do a more indepth video/discussion on the area from the V to NBA Crescent.
I’ve always thought that a video discussion for and against Luke’s guilt would be interesting….both sides explaining their opinions and why they came to those opinions. Perhaps Parky or your good self would be interested?
-
I’ve always thought that a video discussion for and against Luke’s guilt would be interesting….both sides explaining their opinions and why they came to those opinions. Perhaps Parky or your good self would be interested?
I agree, however it's always more appealing to argue against the conviction as people have stronger feelings about injustice than justice. I'm camera shy but would be happy to take part in another form.
-
I agree, however it's always more appealing to argue against the conviction as people have stronger feelings about injustice than justice. I'm camera shy but would be happy to take part in another form.
Under your own name?
-
I’ve always thought that a video discussion for and against Luke’s guilt would be interesting….both sides explaining their opinions and why they came to those opinions. Perhaps Parky or your good self would be interested?
I also would like to see this. There have been many questions and topics dodged on both side. Get all the facts out there and get rid of all the misinformation from both sides once and for all.
-
I also would like to see this. There have been many questions and topics dodged on both side. Get all the facts out there and get rid of all the misinformation from both sides once and for all.
A rational debate would be good, just not James Emglish or Mr Fivo who have a bias. I've tried asking questions on previous live Q&A's and been blocked or deleted. Democracy?
For some reason you're not allowed to ask about Shane or CM alibis, LM's knife collection, knife attacks on girls, his dad, his movements between 5-6pm, but actively encourage Qs on the intimate details of the Jones family and their medical records.
-
A rational debate would be good, just not James Emglish or Mr Fivo who have a bias. I've tried asking questions on previous live Q&A's and been blocked or deleted. Democracy?
For some reason you're not allowed to ask about Shane or CM alibis, LM's knife collection, knife attacks on girls, his dad, his movements between 5-6pm, but actively encourage Qs on the intimate details of the Jones family and their medical records.
I have noticed a lot of questions on the lives also being ignored. It would be good to get some of it cleared up. Could make all the difference to some peoples opinion’s including mine.
-
A rational debate would be good, just not James Emglish or Mr Fivo who have a bias. I've tried asking questions on previous live Q&A's and been blocked or deleted. Democracy?
For some reason you're not allowed to ask about Shane or CM alibis, LM's knife collection, knife attacks on girls, his dad, his movements between 5-6pm, but actively encourage Qs on the intimate details of the Jones family and their medical records.
I don’t think platforms like JE are particularly the best vehicle for a balanced debate. The problem is would either side accept answers that while absolutely truthful are not what they want to hear?
-
I don’t think platforms like JE are particularly the best vehicle for a balanced debate. The problem is would either side accept answers that while absolutely truthful are not what they want to hear?
Faith, have you ventured forth on the RD Path and NB area to get an idea of the case and the possibilties of what could and couldn't have happened? It's quite a small area.
-
Faith, have you ventured forth on the RD Path and NB area to get an idea of the case and the possibilties of what could and couldn't have happened? It's quite a small area.
I have but I don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make.
-
I have but I don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make.
Just to get a feel for the timescales and distances involved and how the killer could have escaped without being seen - unless it was the sightings on NB Road?
-
Just to get a feel for the timescales and distances involved and how the killer could have escaped without being seen - unless it was the sightings on NB Road?
COULD being the operative word. Apart from AB whose first timelines were an hour too late to be Luke and Jodi and who failed to pick him out at court and Walsh and Fleming who only identified Luke after his photograph had been in the papers there is absolutely nothing to put Luke at either end of RDP on the night of Jodi’s murder.
-
Walsh and Fleming who only identified Luke after his photograph had been in the papers there is absolutely nothing to put Luke at either end of RDP on the night of Jodi’s murder.
Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming’s evidence was supported by Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot ‘s
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+A+strangling+sort+of+sound%2Ca+human.+It+sounded...-a0125808235
-
Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming’s evidence was supported by Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot ‘s
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+A+strangling+sort+of+sound%2Ca+human.+It+sounded...-a0125808235
Lorraine Fleming 👇
’She told the court:'I said to Rosemary, 'He looks like he's up to no good'. It was just the way he was standing. It just didn't look right at all.
'Just as we got closer to him, he flicked his hair back off his face.It wasa young boy and I thought aged about17.
'He was dressed all in dark clothing and his jacket was a dark green colour.'
The next day, after learning of the murder,Rosemary phoned her and said: 'I think we should get in touch with the police. It may not mean anything to us but it might mean something to them.'
Miss Fleming was interviewed by officers. Then, in August, she saw a picture of Mitchell in the Record. The photo reminded her of the boy she had seen and she called police to tell them.
She told advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC that, at that time, she didn't know Mitchell or any of his family.
He then read her police statement which said: 'I do recall that the article named the boy as Luke something but the important thing is I recognised the boy as the person I had seen standing at the gate.'
Mr Turnbull asked, as nearly 18 months had passed, would she be able to recognise the same person again.
-
Walsh and Fleming who only identified Luke after his photograph had been in the papers
Were Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming shown a photograph of killer Luke Mitchell when they first contacted the police on the 1st July 2003
‘Just as we got closer to him, he flicked his hair back off his face.It was a young boy and I thought aged about 17.
'He was dressed all in dark clothing and his jacket was a dark green colour.'
The next day, after learning of the murder, Rosemary phoned her and said: 'I think we should get in touch with the police. It may not mean anything to us but it might mean something to them.'
Miss Fleming was interviewed by officers. Then, in August, she saw a picture of Mitchell in the Record. The photo reminded her of the boy she had seen and she called police to tell them.
She told advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC that, at that time, she didn't know Mitchell or any of his family.
-
Just to get a feel for the timescales and distances involved and how the killer could have escaped without being seen - unless it was the sightings on NB Road?
A WOMAN told the Jodi Jones murder trial yesterday she saw a youth - later identified as Luke Mitchell - "up to no good" near where the body was found.
Lorraine Fleming, 46, said she saw the youth standing against a gate opposite the entrance to Roan's Dyke footpath in Dalkeith, Midlothian, where Jodi's mutilated body was discovered on June 30 last year.
‘Mrs Fleming identified Mitchell, 16, in the court dock as the boy she had seen. She said she knew it was him as "the eyes were the same", though his hair had changed.
The witness, who had been in the passenger seat of a friend's car, told the High Court in Edinburgh: "I said to my friend as he came into view that he looked as if he'd been up to no good.
"It was just the way he was standing, he wasn't looking for anyone or waiting for anyone, he was looking down at the pavement. You just had to be there to know what I mean. He just didn't look right at all."
Was it psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell who lied and told the police he was ‘sitting on a wall’ ?
Is this where innocence fraud enabler Sandra Lean got this myth from ?
-
Walsh and Fleming
Lorraine Fleming described killer Luke Mitchell’s hair like Liam Gallagher’s
Mark Kane never had a Liam Gallagher hair style - nor did any of the other youths
‘In a statement, she likened the youth to a newspaper photo she had seen of Oasis singer Mr Gallagher, pointing out their similar hairstyles.
What date was this statement made and what exactly did the police note down when Lorraine Fleming first made contact them?
‘In court, Mrs Fleming was shown a newspaper report of Jodi's boyfriend being questioned by police, accompanied by his photograph.
-
Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming’s evidence was supported by Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot ‘s
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+A+strangling+sort+of+sound%2Ca+human.+It+sounded...-a0125808235
Luke has never denied that he was on the Newbattle road at the time Walsh and Fleming allegedly spotted him. He did however deny that he walked as far down the road as the witnesses claimed and was not wearing a parka. Both these claims were verified by Holborn, Houston and Dean.
-
Luke
Who was Holly?
👇
Who was ‘Holly’?
Corinne Mitchell - 27th June 2010
Holly will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm off home now so won't have access to this until then.
I feel I really should warn you though........what you hear from me.....you may not like.
-
Lorraine Fleming 👇
’She told the court:'I said to Rosemary, 'He looks like he's up to no good'. It was just the way he was standing. It just didn't look right at all.
'Just as we got closer to him, he flicked his hair back off his face.It wasa young boy and I thought aged about17.
'He was dressed all in dark clothing and his jacket was a dark green colour.'
The next day, after learning of the murder,Rosemary phoned her and said: 'I think we should get in touch with the police. It may not mean anything to us but it might mean something to them.'
Miss Fleming was interviewed by officers. Then, in August, she saw a picture of Mitchell in the Record. The photo reminded her of the boy she had seen and she called police to tell them.
She told advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC that, at that time, she didn't know Mitchell or any of his family.
He then read her police statement which said: 'I do recall that the article named the boy as Luke something but the important thing is I recognised the boy as the person I had seen standing at the gate.'
Mr Turnbull asked, as nearly 18 months had passed, would she be able to recognise the same person again.
Lorraine Fleming.
“ She agreed with Donald Findlay QC, defending, that Mitchell hadn't done anything to try to hide himself.
Miss Fleming broke down in tears as he quizzed her about newspaper photos she claimed to have remembered.
She told police that the Record's August 15 picture last year 'showed more of his face and eyes' than a photo she had seen earlier and had reminded her of the youth on Newbattle Road.
Findlay then said a search of Scottish newspapers had revealed no published picture of Mitchell before August 15.
She sobbed: 'You are just confusing me. All I can do is tell you what I saw and that is what I am doing.'
Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'
Miss Fleming replied: 'Yes”
And
“ But Mr Findlay said, despite their good intentions, the witnesses' evidence was confused and he questioned what value it had.
He told the court: "Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh were undoubtedly two ladies who came to give evidence, to do their best.
"But the reality was, in my submission, that by the end of this chapter of evidence, the evidence given by them was reduced to something akin to the chaotic.
"The most charitable thing that might be said about this area of evidence was that by the end of it, it was quite simply all over the place.”
-
Were Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming shown a photograph of killer Luke Mitchell when they first contacted the police on the 1st July 2003
‘Just as we got closer to him, he flicked his hair back off his face.It was a young boy and I thought aged about 17.
'He was dressed all in dark clothing and his jacket was a dark green colour.'
The next day, after learning of the murder, Rosemary phoned her and said: 'I think we should get in touch with the police. It may not mean anything to us but it might mean something to them.'
Miss Fleming was interviewed by officers. Then, in August, she saw a picture of Mitchell in the Record. The photo reminded her of the boy she had seen and she called police to tell them.
She told advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC that, at that time, she didn't know Mitchell or any of his family.
They saw a man somewhere on the Newbattle road. That’s it.
-
Lorraine Fleming.
Did Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh contact the police on the 1st July 2003?
What was the date they first made contact with the police about their sighting and what did they tell police?
What did police notes say these two witnesses first said?
And if Lorraine Flemings evidence changed by the time of killer Luke Mitchell’s trial was it because Donald Findlay ‘confused’ her?
-
Did Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh contact the police on the 1st July 2003?
What was the date they first made contact with the police about their sighting and what did they tell police?
What did police notes say these two witnesses first said?
Read Dr Lean’s book. There is all the information you need there.
-
Read Dr Lean’s book. There is all the information you need there.
I’ve read it http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/08/copy-of-chapter-from-sandra-leans-1st-discredited-smoke-mirrors-book-promoting-the-innocence-fraud-phenomenon-of-actually-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchell/
Sandra Lean makes no mention of police notes
Rosemary Walsh’s evidence was damning
“He looks like he's up to no good'. It was just the way he was standing. It just didn't look right at all”
as was Lorraine Fleming’s
What did Lorraine Fleming first tell the police?
And how did Donald Findlay attempt to magic away the other 4 witnesses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7232548.stm
-
Read Dr Lean’s book. There is all the information you need there.
Sandra Lean is an unreliable narrator and source
“Ms Walsh, 49, admitted that when she saw the paper she did nothing about it, despite a work colleague urging her to contact police.
Six days later, murder hunt detectives interviewed her at the Midlothian Council offices where she works, following a tip-off.
Whilst parts of Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Flemings evidence appears to have been influenced by the photograph of killer Luke Mitchell wearing his replacement parka - there’s no reason to doubt everything else they said they saw -
And they weren’t the only witnesses who saw him standing there at the times they gave
Carole Heatlie, Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot also saw him
-
And how did Donald Findlay attempt to magic away the other 4 witnesses
👇
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7232548.stm
‘But Mr Findlay said, despite their good intentions, the witnesses' evidence was confused and he questioned what value it had.
He told the court: "Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh were undoubtedly two ladies who came to give evidence, to do their best.
"But the reality was, in my submission, that by the end of this chapter of evidence, the evidence given by them was reduced to something akin to the chaotic.
It appears it was Donald Findlay who confused Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh and their evidence was ‘reduced to something akin to the chaotic’ following his lawyering tactics during the trial
-
I’ve read it http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/08/copy-of-chapter-from-sandra-leans-1st-discredited-smoke-mirrors-book-promoting-the-innocence-fraud-phenomenon-of-actually-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchell/
Sandra Lean makes no mention of police notes
Rosemary Walsh’s evidence was damning
“He looks like he's up to no good'. It was just the way he was standing. It just didn't look right at all”
as was Lorraine Fleming’s
What did Lorraine Fleming first tell the police?
And how did Donald Findlay attempt to magic away the other 4 witnesses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7232548.stm
What did Lorraine Fleming first tell the police that was anymore credible and damning that the evidence she gave in court and the four witnesses you refer to are they those who saw Luke at the top of the Newbattle road, standing in the very spot he said he was and wearing the clothes the police took from him that night?
-
What did Lorraine Fleming first tell the police that was anymore credible and damning that the evidence she gave in court and the four witnesses you refer to are they those who saw Luke at the top of the Newbattle road, standing in the very spot he said he was and wearing the clothes the police took from him that night?
What exactly did Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot first tell police?
-
Sandra Lean is an unreliable narrator and source
“Ms Walsh, 49, admitted that when she saw the paper she did nothing about it, despite a work colleague urging her to contact police.
Six days later, murder hunt detectives interviewed her at the Midlothian Council offices where she works, following a tip-off.
Whilst parts of Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Flemings evidence appears to have been influenced by the photograph of killer Luke Mitchell wearing his replacement parka - there’s no reason to doubt everything else they said they saw -
And they weren’t the only witnesses who saw him standing there at the times they gave
Carole Heatlie, Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot also saw him
So Walsh was so convinced that it was Luke she saw that she failed to even contact the police. That she had potentially explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child and it was a work colleague who informed the police. Do you really believe that?
Caroline Heatlie et al all describe Luke being where he said he was and wearing the clothes he said he was wearing.
-
‘But Mr Findlay said, despite their good intentions, the witnesses' evidence was confused and he questioned what value it had.
He told the court: "Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh were undoubtedly two ladies who came to give evidence, to do their best.
"But the reality was, in my submission, that by the end of this chapter of evidence, the evidence given by them was reduced to something akin to the chaotic.
It appears it was Donald Findlay who confused Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh and their evidence was ‘reduced to something akin to the chaotic’ following his lawyering tactics during the trial
If the witnesses were truthful DF wouldn’t have been able to confuse them.
-
What exactly did Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot first tell police?
Read the book.
-
What exactly did Andrew Holburn, Dean Houston and Grant Elliot first tell police?
Two of these three - Dean Houston and Grant Elliot - sometimes cycled to school with killer Luke Mitchell. If killer Luke spoke with either of these two boys after his murder of Jodi Jones he could have tainted their evidence with regards what he was wearing when they saw him - similarly to what Donald Findlay did to Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh during the trial
-
If the witnesses were truthful DF wouldn’t have been able to confuse them.
Their evidence reads like they were both truthful and also ‘confused’
-
Two of these three - Dean Houston and Grant Elliot - sometimes cycled to school with killer Luke Mitchell. If killer Luke spoke with either of these two boys after his murder of Jodi Jones he could have rained their evidence with regards what he was wearing when they saw him - similarly to what Donald Findlay did to Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh during the trial
Don’t be ridiculous. Are you now second guessing witnesses? What about Holborn? He described Luke in the same way as Houston and Elliot. Did he ‘confuse’ him too?
-
So Walsh was so convinced that it was Luke she saw that she failed to even contact the police. That she had potentially explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child and it was a work colleague who informed the police. Do you really believe that?
Jodi Jones murder has been solved
I don’t believe these two women had ‘explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child’ no
-
Jodi Jones murder has been solved
I don’t believe these two women had ‘explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child’ no
Why do you think that they didn’t go to the police after Luke appeared in the newspaper?
-
Read the book.
Innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean book does not include any witness statements in full
-
Innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean book does not include any witness statements in full
You have the newspaper reports too.
-
Caroline Heatlie et al all describe Luke being where he said he was and wearing the clothes he said he was wearing.
Carole Heatlie described killer Luke Mitchell with ‘dirty-blond, fairly long hair and wearing dark, baggy clothes in a 'grungy' style
-
If the witnesses were truthful DF wouldn’t have been able to confuse them.
Both witnesses came across as truthful albeit parts of their evidence was influenced by killer Luke Mitchell’s orchestrated and manipulative photo session on the 15th August 2003 in his replacement parka - as it was intended to do
-
Read the book.
You have the newspaper reports too.
Does the book include the full court transcripts of Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Flemings evidence ?
-
Carole Heatlie described killer Luke Mitchell with ‘dirty-blond, fairly long hair and wearing dark, baggy clothes in a 'grungy' style
Absolutely. Describes Luke’s that night to a t.
-
So Walsh was so convinced that it was Luke she saw that she failed to even contact the police. That she had potentially explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child and it was a work colleague who informed the police. Do you really believe that?
[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Both witnesses came across as truthful albeit parts of their evidence was influenced by killer Luke Mitchell’s orchestrated and manipulative photo session on the 15th August 2003 in his replacement parka - as it was intended to do
Please explain how they were influenced? In what way?
-
[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
How did they ‘identify’ Luke in the first instance? That’s the nub.
-
Absolutely. Describes Luke’s that night to a t.
[49]….the witness Carol Heatlie agreed that she had seen photographs in newspapers and on television of the person whom she claimed to recognise in connection with her evidence, namely the appellant. She had seen the interview conducted on television with the appellant and his mother. It was difficult to say that such influences had not affected the evidence of such a witness.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
What parts of Carol Heatlie’s evidence were influenced by killer Luke Mitchell’s 15th August orchestrated photo session and what parts weren’t?
-
So Walsh was so convinced that it was Luke she saw that she failed to even contact the police. That she had potentially explosive evidence that could help solve the murder of a 14 year old child and it was a work colleague who informed the police. Do you really believe that?
Maybe Rosemary Walsh thought other witnesses had already come forward?
[49] Counsel submitted that, in evaluating this ground of appeal, the court was in the realm of the assessment of risks to the proper administration of justice caused by the publicity which the case had attracted. In that connection he made reference to certain passages of evidence at the trial. At page 544 of the transcript of proceedings for 2 December 2004, in the cross-examination of Rosemary Walsh, there was a passage of significance: the witness agreed that by 15 August 2003 the murder inquiry had been running for some time with no person charged; there was much concern and anxiety in the location of the murder about that circumstance.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
How did they ‘identify’ Luke in the first instance? That’s the nub.
His Liam Gallagher/scooby doo hairstyle maybe?
[54] It was accepted by everyone that there had been extensive media coverage of the case, as appeared from paragraph [96] of the trial judge's report. However, the copies of the coverage produced showed that that publicity was of a national character, both in the press and on television. That had an important bearing upon the issue relating to the location of the trial. Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Please explain how they were influenced? In what way?
By killer Luke Mitchell and his lying mother Corinne Mitchell’s orchestrated PR stunts
The exclusion from school publicity
The replacement parka jacket photo shots
The Sky TV interview
The graveyard stunt
His Liam Gallagher/scooby doo hairstyle maybe?
[54] It was accepted by everyone that there had been extensive media coverage of the case, as appeared from paragraph [96] of the trial judge's report. However, the copies of the coverage produced showed that that publicity was of a national character, both in the press and on television. That had an important bearing upon the issue relating to the location of the trial. Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Although Andrew Holburn - who did NOT know killer Luke Mitchell (contrary to what charlatan Sandra Lean stated in her book) said he hadn’t seen photo’s of psycho killer Luke
[49] Likewise, at page 599 of the same volume, in the cross-examination of Andrew Holburn, the witness agreed that he had taken an interest in what had been reported in newspapers about the matter. He had seen certain photographs of the deceased published, but not of the appellant.
-
[49]….the witness Carol Heatlie agreed that she had seen photographs in newspapers and on television of the person whom she claimed to recognise in connection with her evidence, namely the appellant. She had seen the interview conducted on television with the appellant and his mother. It was difficult to say that such influences had not affected the evidence of such a witness.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
What parts of Carol Heatlie’s evidence were influenced by killer Luke Mitchell’s 15th August orchestrated photo session and what parts weren’t?
Not what he was wearing or she would have described him wearing a parka. How did she know what he was wearing on the 30th of June if she hadn’t seen the clothing?
-
Maybe Rosemary Walsh thought other witnesses had already come forward?
[49] Counsel submitted that, in evaluating this ground of appeal, the court was in the realm of the assessment of risks to the proper administration of justice caused by the publicity which the case had attracted. In that connection he made reference to certain passages of evidence at the trial. At page 544 of the transcript of proceedings for 2 December 2004, in the cross-examination of Rosemary Walsh, there was a passage of significance: the witness agreed that by 15 August 2003 the murder inquiry had been running for some time with no person charged; there was much concern and anxiety in the location of the murder about that circumstance.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
All the more reason to come forward then.
-
His Liam Gallagher/scooby doo hairstyle maybe?
[54] It was accepted by everyone that there had been extensive media coverage of the case, as appeared from paragraph [96] of the trial judge's report. However, the copies of the coverage produced showed that that publicity was of a national character, both in the press and on television. That had an important bearing upon the issue relating to the location of the trial. Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
I believe that it was from a newspaper article presented to her by the police.
It’s interesting that, much like AB, the police didn’t appear to follow up Walsh and Fleming’s sighting in any meaningful way until the coworker’s tip off.
-
By killer Luke Mitchell and his lying mother Corinne Mitchell’s orchestrated PR stunts
The exclusion from school publicity
The replacement parka jacket photo shots
The Sky TV interview
The graveyard stunt
Although Andrew Holburn - who did NOT know killer Luke Mitchell (contrary to what charlatan Sandra Lean stated in her book) said he hadn’t seen photo’s of psycho killer Luke
[49] Likewise, at page 599 of the same volume, in the cross-examination of Andrew Holburn, the witness agreed that he had taken an interest in what had been reported in newspapers about the matter. He had seen certain photographs of the deceased published, but not of the appellant.
I believe we were talking about Caroline Heatlie.
In what way did Luke wearing a parka influence Caroline Heatlie to describe Luke as wearing a bomber jacket and jeans?
-
A hypothetical question for anyone that wishes to consider (if you agree with the court decisions).
At what point in the evening do you think LM admitted what had happened to CM/SM? If there was burning at 6.30pm I find it hard to believe he would have admitted everything before then and gone back out?
Was it raining at 6.30pm and would it not have been easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence later perhaps when SM was out than have a fire in the garden?
-
A hypothetical question for anyone that wishes to consider (if you agree with the court decisions).
At what point in the evening do you think LM admitted what had happened to CM/SM? If there was burning at 6.30pm I find it hard to believe he would have admitted everything before then and gone back out?
Was it raining at 6.30pm and would it not have been easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence later perhaps when SM was out than have a fire in the garden?
Interesting question.
Was it just after he was allegedly seen by Walsh and Fleming…when he had at most around ten minutes to get home, wash, change , tell his mother that he’d murdered his girlfriend and be back on the Newbattle road to be seen by Holborn et al. Can you imagine that conversation?
Or perhaps after being seen by Holborn and friends for the second time on their way back at around 6.20-30? Luke’s friends who met him in the Abbey said that they met him around 7 and he’d already called them to see where they were.
Not much time there then to devastate those around you.
The rain I believe started around 7.30 that night and strangely that was around the time that the neighbour said that they had smelled the ‘strange’ smell. Rather odd trying to burn anything when it was threatening rain. Anyhow perhaps the rain put out the fire and Corrine lit the fire around 10 to finish the job…but wouldn’t the parka be sopping wet by then? It really is a puzzle.
-
Interesting question.
Was it just after he was allegedly seen by Walsh and Fleming…when he had at most around ten minutes to get home, wash, change , tell his mother that he’d murdered his girlfriend and be back on the Newbattle road to be seen by Holborn et al. Can you imagine that conversation?
Or perhaps after being seen by Holborn and friends for the second time on their way back at around 6.20-30? Luke’s friends who met him in the Abbey said that they met him around 7 and he’d already called them to see where they were.
Not much time there then to devastate those around you.
The rain I believe started around 7.30 that night and strangely that was around the time that the neighbour said that they had smelled the ‘strange’ smell. Rather odd trying to burn anything when it was threatening rain. Anyhow perhaps the rain put out the fire and Corrine lit the fire around 10 to finish the job…but wouldn’t the parka be sopping wet by then? It really is a puzzle.
It is indeed a puzzle, perhaps only known by three people who were there on the night. I'm not convinced LM even went home to wash and speculative as it is (but not half as speculative as some of SL/SF's theories) may have had a change of clothes in a bag in the NBA woods. He wasn't witnessed near his house until 10pm I think.
Also, he called CM 7pm approx to see if Jodi had been and to re-direct her to the Abbey then when he returned when he claimed 9/9.30pm he asked CM if Jodi had been but he'd already told her he was at the Abbey which doesn't add up.
What was SM doing that night as it was claimed he was in and out the house all night and witnessed 10 miles away which he claimed he was getting petrol but there was a garage less than a mile away.
Is it possible LM was not at home at all that night from approx 4pm and only went back to get the tracker dog as a prop? Why didn't CM or SM not go out searching with him at 11pm and just sent him off with a torch in the dark for his girlfriend who had been missing for 6 hours.
-
Interesting question.
Was it just after he was allegedly seen by Walsh and Fleming…when he had at most around ten minutes to get home, wash, change , tell his mother that he’d murdered his girlfriend and be back on the Newbattle road to be seen by Holborn et al. Can you imagine that conversation?
Or perhaps after being seen by Holborn and friends for the second time on their way back at around 6.20-30? Luke’s friends who met him in the Abbey said that they met him around 7 and he’d already called them to see where they were.
Not much time there then to devastate those around you.
The rain I believe started around 7.30 that night and strangely that was around the time that the neighbour said that they had smelled the ‘strange’ smell. Rather odd trying to burn anything when it was threatening rain. Anyhow perhaps the rain put out the fire and Corrine lit the fire around 10 to finish the job…but wouldn’t the parka be sopping wet by then? It really is a puzzle.
Mangling times around to suit, confirmed times are much more realistic of course. - And adding all sorts of arms and legs on to make is seem all so impossible. Nonsense as per. You have no idea what he said to his mother, or perhaps you do?
He had no twin nor triplet, he was not seen in what he professed to be his real self where he attempted to place himself. He was seen by three people wearing the clobber, that army style khaki coat. Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that these were different people identical to LM wearing his coat. But nothing of the real him.
Seen again some 15-20mins later in this shiny green bomber, and again he claimed this was his twin, yet the real him wearing the other identical shiny green bomber was not seen just a little further down that road. The couple who could not identify him, only the exact clothing he was wearing before making his way down to the entrance of that estate.
He did indeed call his mother then the boys - Now pop the exact times of those calls up, including the two to chase them when they were running late.
It was a dismal day all round, grey skies, dreich, cooler weather as was evident with that heavier outer clothing being worn by people. Not the weather at all to be sitting for hours in ones garden burning giant candles to set off clouds of smoke is it, but certainly drizzly weather, constant at points with heavier outburst to make any fire smoke that could not be covered completely with that metal lid. Did you manage to find out what happened to the metal bin it belonged to?
Where the point is there was a fire going at different intervals - Whatever was being burnt was certainly being done at different points over the course of that evening. The neighbours not mistaken and no reason to be, five of them who all stated that there was no fire in their garden nor any giant candles being burnt, indoors as not the weather to be soaking up any fake sunshine at all.
Next thing you will be saying, is you too were out on your patio when a dirty black cloud appeared from nowhere in those blue skies and soaked you? Knowing his mother was still in the garden (cough).
So out with the actual times of the calls, then whilst you are at it, a full list of every call with the Mitchells that evening, along with that extensive list to the speaking clock. What time was PM called at? What time was SM up town fuelling that car? Where was SM when LM claimed to borrow a torch, in fact where was LM? at that time. That his mother was absolutely frantic an hour later, on repeat but nothing to the Jones household, the place he claimed he told her he was off to?
-
It is indeed a puzzle, perhaps only known by three people who were there on the night. I'm not convinced LM even went home to wash and speculative as it is (but not half as speculative as some of SL/SF's theories) may have had a change of clothes in a bag in the NBA woods. He wasn't witnessed near his house until 10pm I think.
Also, he called CM 7pm approx to see if Jodi had been and to re-direct her to the Abbey then when he returned when he claimed 9/9.30pm he asked CM if Jodi had been but he'd already told her he was at the Abbey which doesn't add up.
What was SM doing that night as it was claimed he was in and out the house all night and witnessed 10 miles away which he claimed he was getting petrol but there was a garage less than a mile away.
Is it possible LM was not at home at all that night from approx 4pm and only went back to get the tracker dog as a prop? Why didn't CM or SM not go out searching with him at 11pm and just sent him off with a torch in the dark for his girlfriend who had been missing for 6 hours.
If Luke had stowed away some clothes in the woods you seem to be suggesting that the murder was premeditated. What do you think his motive was then? Let’s put to one side that Jodi was grounded as far as he knew and focus on the alleged motive of Jodi finding out about the other woman. Now Jodi’s mother claimed that Jodi was looking forward to meeting Luke that night and LNS said Jodi left her house ‘joyfully’ so I think logic tells you that she certainly didn’t know about Kimberly before she met with Luke and yet Luke was ‘coming equipped’. So what do you think his motive was? This 14 year old boy who Jodi said ‘stroked her face when she cried’.
As to your second point is it beyond the realms of possibility for Jodi, when hearing Luke was at the Abbey might have decided not to go to the Abbey and mess about with him and his friends? Perhaps she’d have been annoyed that Luke hadn’t waited? That she had to share him, yet again, with his idiot friends? In conclusion perhaps he was just checking?
As to Shane, perhaps his friend lived 10 miles away and he needed petrol urgently? Does everything about the Mitchell’s movements raise questions in you? Is looking for sinister motives simply become a self fulfilling prophecy?
Why do you find Corrine and Shane not going out with Luke to find Jodi any more suspicious than Judith, Alan, and Joseph not going out to look for a member of their family? To be fair there needed to be someone in the house to give the police the information they needed but why did Alan and Joseph not go out?
-
If Luke had stowed away some clothes in the woods you seem to be suggesting that the murder was premeditated. What do you think his motive was then? Let’s put to one side that Jodi was grounded as far as he knew and focus on the alleged motive of Jodi finding out about the other woman. Now Jodi’s mother claimed that Jodi was looking forward to meeting Luke that night and LNS said Jodi left her house ‘joyfully’ so I think logic tells you that she certainly didn’t know about Kimberly before she met with Luke and yet Luke was ‘coming equipped’. So what do you think his motive was? This 14 year old boy who Jodi said ‘stroked her face when she cried’.
As to your second point is it beyond the realms of possibility for Jodi, when hearing Luke was at the Abbey might have decided not to go to the Abbey and mess about with him and his friends? Perhaps she’d have been annoyed that Luke hadn’t waited? That she had to share him, yet again, with his idiot friends? In conclusion perhaps he was just checking?
As to Shane, perhaps his friend lived 10 miles away and he needed petrol urgently? Does everything about the Mitchell’s movements raise questions in you? Is looking for sinister motives simply a self fulfilling prophecy?
Why do you find Corrine and Shane not going out with Luke to find Jodi any more suspicious than Judith, Alan, and Joseph not going out to look for a member of their family? To be fair there needed to be someone in the house to give the police the information they needed but why did Alan and Joseph not go out?
The same 14 year old boy who had history of threatening at least 3 other girls with knives. I think he is a psychopath - do they have motives?
He was told she'd left when he phoned at 5.40pm but waited until at least 6.15pm for a walk that takes 15 mins. Do you really believe that he would hang around 30-45 mins waiting when he was chasing his friends up twice to meet up and say she's not coming out tonight when he could have walked down the path to where they usually met in less than 15 mins. Oh aye, his pride was hurt for being stood up.
Yes, everything about the Mitchell's movements that night are sinister.
Perhaps AO wanted to be with JuJ when the police arrived for support. And Joe was probably out for the count after smoking copious amounts of drugs. LM was a 14 yr boy alone on a dark path - that's the difference.
-
Mangling times around to suit, confirmed times are much more realistic of course. - And adding all sorts of arms and legs on to make is seem all so impossible. Nonsense as per. You have no idea what he said to his mother, or perhaps you do?
He had no twin nor triplet, he was not seen in what he professed to be his real self where he attempted to place himself. He was seen by three people wearing the clobber, that army style khaki coat. Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that these were different people identical to LM wearing his coat. But nothing of the real him.
Seen again some 15-20mins later in this shiny green bomber, and again he claimed this was his twin, yet the real him wearing the other identical shiny green bomber was not seen just a little further down that road. The couple who could not identify him, only the exact clothing he was wearing before making his way down to the entrance of that estate.
He did indeed call his mother then the boys - Now pop the exact times of those calls up, including the two to chase them when they were running late.
It was a dismal day all round, grey skies, dreich, cooler weather as was evident with that heavier outer clothing being worn by people. Not the weather at all to be sitting for hours in ones garden burning giant candles to set off clouds of smoke is it, but certainly drizzly weather, constant at points with heavier outburst to make any fire smoke that could not be covered completely with that metal lid. Did you manage to find out what happened to the metal bin it belonged to?
Where the point is there was a fire going at different intervals - Whatever was being burnt was certainly being done at different points over the course of that evening. The neighbours not mistaken and no reason to be, five of them who all stated that there was no fire in their garden nor any giant candles being burnt, indoors as not the weather to be soaking up any fake sunshine at all.
Next thing you will be saying, is you too were out on your patio when a dirty black cloud appeared from nowhere in those blue skies and soaked you? Knowing his mother was still in the garden (cough).
So out with the actual times of the calls, then whilst you are at it, a full list of every call with the Mitchells that evening, along with that extensive list to the speaking clock. What time was PM called at? What time was SM up town fuelling that car? Where was SM when LM claimed to borrow a torch, in fact where was LM? at that time. That his mother was absolutely frantic an hour later, on repeat but nothing to the Jones household, the place he claimed he told her he was off to?
No mangling of times. Every one evidenced in many of my posts. I don’t expect the reader simply to believe me.
AB described green clothes like one would wear for fishing….and under oath verified that ‘it was not a parka’. W/F describe a green, hip length jacket that appeared ‘wet’ ( shiny ). Sounds a lot like Luke’s bomber jacket to me. No one described ‘an army jacket’….not in their statements. Why you keep posting this fallacy when it has been debunked time and time again heaven alone knows.
Luke, seen in his bomber jacket by at least 6 witnesses from 5.50 onwards at different positions on Newbattle Road. Probably by W/F too if their incorrect placement of the jogger is considered.
You are making the point with regard to the phone calls so I’ll await those times with cites please?
Metal bin? You do make me laugh Parky.
What is interesting about the burning smell that night is that only a selected few neighbours actually smelled it….an odd state of affairs with all the houses being so close.
Can you explain why you think Corrine would have Judith or any other of the Jones’s phone numbers to contact them? Did your mum have your girlfriend’s/boyfriend’s mother’s phone number?
Yet again your curiosity only extends to the Mitchell family. Where were F/D when there bike was spotted at the wall? Where was [Name removed] when his mother said that he ‘called out’ but he said he’d slept all night? When he said he’d had dinner with Jodi yet his mum said he’d had it in his room? Go on….let your curiosity wander.
-
The same 14 year old boy who had history of threatening at least 3 other girls with knives. I think he is a psychopath - do they have motives?
He was told she'd left when he phoned at 5.40pm but waited until at least 6.15pm for a walk that takes 15 mins. Do you really believe that he would hang around 30-45 mins waiting when he was chasing his friends up twice to meet up and say she's not coming out tonight when he could have walked down the path to where they usually met in less than 15 mins. Oh aye, his pride was hurt for being stood up.
Yes, everything about the Mitchell's movements that night are sinister.
Perhaps AO wanted to be with JuJ when the police arrived for support. And Joe was probably out for the count after smoking copious amounts of drugs. LM was a 14 yr boy alone on a dark path - that's the difference.
[Name removed] said in her statement that she woke Joseph up to tell him Jodi was missing so he was definitely awake. Luke had Mia…he was perfectly safe.
3 girls who were not called as witnesses at Luke’s trial? 3 witnesses whose testimony would have been dynamite for the prosecution. It does make you wonder why they weren’t called, doesn’t it? Ah yes….the prosecution didn’t know they existed as they didn’t tell anyone about their ‘trauma’ until it was financially beneficial to do so.
Yes I do believe it…he was a 14 year old boy. As to Jodi ‘not coming out’…only one of Luke’s friends claimed to have heard him say that. The rest denied he did. So who was being truthful?
[Name removed] said in her statement that she woke Joseph up to tell him Jodi was missing so he was definitely awake. Luke had Mia…he was perfectly safe.
-
This is interesting.
“ FRIDAY
THE court hears that Mitchell smoked cannabis with his pals a little more than two hours after Jodi left home for the last time.
School pal David High, 16, says that Mitchell called him at about 6.30pm on June 30 last year and invited him round.
David and two other friends set out to walk to Mitchell's home but he called them and told them to go to Newbattle Abbey College instead.
Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC asks the teenager: 'Where did you go then?' David replies: 'We just stayed there.”
So Luke was seen by Holborn and friends for the second time on the Newbattle road at around 18.20-30. David High receives a call from him at 18.30 to go to his house. Luke’s decides to go to the Abbey instead and calls High. High arrives at the Abbey around 7 ( evidenced in court testimony). If Luke called High again to tell him to hurry up he must have been in the Abbey shortly after 6.30.
-
The manipulation;
“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.”
And the facts;
“He said (David Tulloch): 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.”
And again
-
A hypothetical question for anyone that wishes to consider (if you agree with the court decisions).
At what point in the evening do you think LM admitted what had happened to CM/SM? If there was burning at 6.30pm I find it hard to believe he would have admitted everything before then and gone back out?
Was it raining at 6.30pm and would it not have been easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence later perhaps when SM was out than have a fire in the garden?
If the courts were right then he would have to go right home after being seen by the witness around 5.30, giving him 15-20mins to get home from the spot he was seen, change clothes and explain to his mum then get to the end of the street to be seen by the boys. Is that likely? I don’t think so. Yeah maybe get home and get changed but explain to his mum as well and for her to allow him to leave all within 15/20 mins unlikely.
Only way I can see it is he sneaks in and gets changed, without his mum and brother seeing him. His mum may have been in the garden. Puts the bloody stuff and knife in a bag then heads out to sit at end of the street Then when he gets home later and takes dog out he bins the bloody stuff in any bin on his street, they would all have been out on street to be emptied the following day. Heads home and gets a txt from [Name removed] mum.
Could be his mum and brother did not know anything. I don’t think he would have time to shower also, maybe but going by the description of him at police station I don’t think he showered. There was no trace of blood found in his home and nothing found on him. I think if he did it he would need to have been wearing gloves for no dna to be under his nails but then that leans towards premeditation and Imo this was not premeditated
-
If the courts were right then he would have to go right home after being seen by the witness around 5.30, giving him 15-20mins to get home from the spot he was seen, change clothes and explain to his mum then get to the end of the street to be seen by the boys. Is that likely? I don’t think so. Yeah maybe get home and get changed but explain to his mum as well and for her to allow him to leave all within 15/20 mins unlikely.
Only way I can see it is he sneaks in and gets changed, without his mum and brother seeing him. His mum may have been in the garden. Puts the bloody stuff and knife in a bag then heads out to sit at end of the street Then when he gets home later and takes dog out he bins the bloody stuff in any bin on his street, they would all have been out on street to be emptied the following day. Heads home and gets a txt from [Name removed] mum.
Could be his mum and brother did not know anything. I don’t think he would have time to shower also, maybe but going by the description of him at police station I don’t think he showered. There was no trace of blood found in his home and nothing found on him. I think if he did it he would need to have been wearing gloves for no dna to be under his nails but then that leans towards premeditation and Imo this was not premeditated
It’s worse. F/W claimed to have seen Luke at 5.45.
-
3 girls who were not called as witnesses at Luke’s trial? 3 witnesses whose testimony would have been dynamite for the prosecution. It does make you wonder why they weren’t called, doesn’t it? Ah yes….the prosecution didn’t know they existed as they didn’t tell anyone about their ‘trauma’ until it was financially beneficial to do so.
Yes I do believe it…he was a 14 year old boy. As to Jodi ‘not coming out’…only one of Luke’s friends claimed to have heard him say that. The rest denied he did. So who was being truthful?
[Name removed] said in her statement that she woke Joseph up to tell him Jodi was missing so he was definitely awake. Luke had Mia…he was perfectly safe.
How much do you think these teenage girls got paid to tell their story? Could it not have been they were living in fear in case he was found not guilty and was released?
How do you know LM's friends were idiots? That's a bit presumptious unless they actually were. As to JuJ waking [Name removed] - was he just having a post-murder nap if we are to believe Det. Forbes latest theory? By the sound of it he was in a drugged state and not fit to walk about.
-
If the courts were right then he would have to go right home after being seen by the witness around 5.30, giving him 15-20mins to get home from the spot he was seen, change clothes and explain to his mum then get to the end of the street to be seen by the boys. Is that likely? I don’t think so. Yeah maybe get home and get changed but explain to his mum as well and for her to allow him to leave all within 15/20 mins unlikely.
Only way I can see it is he sneaks in and gets changed, without his mum and brother seeing him. His mum may have been in the garden. Puts the bloody stuff and knife in a bag then heads out to sit at end of the street Then when he gets home later and takes dog out he bins the bloody stuff in any bin on his street, they would all have been out on street to be emptied the following day. Heads home and gets a txt from [Name removed] mum.
Could be his mum and brother did not know anything. I don’t think he would have time to shower also, maybe but going by the description of him at police station I don’t think he showered. There was no trace of blood found in his home and nothing found on him. I think if he did it he would need to have been wearing gloves for no dna to be under his nails but then that leans towards premeditation and Imo this was not premeditated
That sounds possible. Whether people think it's LM or not, would luring a girl into the woods while carrying a knife not be considered premeditated - plus the story of him telling a friend he would like to do something like this?
-
How much do you think these teenage girls got paid to tell their story? Could it not have been they were living in fear in case he was found not guilty and was released?
How do you know LM's friends were idiots? That's a bit presumptious unless they actually were. As to JuJ waking [Name removed] - was he just having a post-murder nap if we are to believe Det. Forbes latest theory? By the sound of it he was in a drugged state and not fit to walk about.
Luke was in custody from April 2004. Surely if those girls wanted him to stay that way they would have gone to the police? It doesn’t appear that they told their parents either or they would definitely have gone to the police.
I was theorising that Jodi may have thought that, as teenage girls do about boys.
Luke had also been smoking dope. Doesn’t seem to have stopped him searching.
-
Luke was in custody from April 2004. Surely if those girls wanted him to stay that way they would have gone to the police? It doesn’t appear that they told their parents either or they would definitely have gone to the police.
Who were the 2 under 16 year olds charlatan Sandra Lean referred to who gave witness statements ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/
The police took ‘more than’ 3000 statements - doubt Sandra Lean will have seen the majority of them
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police - There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point of speaking with JuJ's, nor of any claim of making ones way to Easthouses. Within no time she is frantically trying to get a hold of him but makes no attempt to get him at the place he claimed to be heading to, which as most know was yet another false account.
Claiming to be on that path at 11pm, still not at the top by 11:20pm. LM just kept on given one set of false accounts into the next. We apply reality here yet again, within 20mins of telling Jodi's mother he had not seen her he claims to be upon that path, within 10mins of telling her, he instantly initiated an actual search to that path, nowhere else until upon it.
No mother or brother to go with the lad she claimed she was worried about on a "secluded path" which again ties in with LM not being home at 10:50pm.
The police contacted, and as has been shown, Jodi's mother was without doubt frantic, her own mother trying to calm her down over the phone, she is awaiting the arrival of the police with what should be in place, support around her at that awful time. She had her son and partner - No one with LM, which again shows that he was not leaving from home at 10:50pm, or that SM was certainly not home, nor a mother who was worried at all about her son going out at that time --- ALONE.
Rapid is the only way to describe what took place fully led by LM. Had not seen her, didn't turn up, I will go to the path to search, information related to AW and three people head to the path, whilst the police are expected at Jodi's house any minute. And again, the only reason that physical search is in place at all so rapidly, to that path is by LM's actions."
It is 11:18pm and the last contact to a mobile prior to the arrival of the police, prior to the four meeting is made, by this time LM by his claims has been on that path 18mins alone with his dog. The time is now 11:20pm, the police are in Jodi's house, the searchers see each others torchlight from the top of the path. "Is that you Luke?" and walk down to be in his company, he was only around 2/3 in what was now over 20mins, around 22mins by the time of being together. He had told Jodi's mother he had his dog, expecting something to be brought and he asks just that.
The time around 11:24pm and they set off together, LM is now in on that path for around 24mins, the police in attendance for around 5mins writing down those details. LM wades through several feet of undergrowth to the wall at the Gino break, he said he "just had a hunch, a gut instinct" that something was behind the wall, and indeed directly behind the wall is where he shone his torch.
We are now approaching 11:30pm, the police in attendance for around 10mins and the four are at the V break in the wall, LM enters the woods, and around 10-20secs he is shouting out he has found something. 4mins later, the police in attendance around 15mins, and a call comes through a body has been found - No need for any big organised search to be put in place, for any others to join in with. LM in a total time scale of less than one hour had placed her missing and found her ---------- Hidden some 43ft west of that break in the wall, in and around 6mins, in mere seconds of entering that dark woodland alone, with nothing other than special knowledge of knowing exactly where to go, rapidly.
He gave further false account, told the police is was his dog, told the police "they" had been around 60ft past, narrowed down to exactly 43ft. That only he with AW were at the V break in the wall, that JaJ's with SK had kept on walking down from that 60ft to 43ft point. - Those first accounts chalk and cheese, which showed clearly everything took place at the V, the dog a red herring, it had nothing at all to do with LM knowing exactly where to go - Realism is placing multiple ? around the multiple false accounts handed over by him, his mother and his brother.
The obtuse questions to deflect away from that stark reality - There had been no big organized search in place, there was no time, a series of events, of missing, path, wall, woods and bang. Before that missing persons report had been put in place, taken place rapidly whilst a family were seeking help from the police. LM was off like a shot in control before the police took control - Fact. None of this can be changed ever, one cannot alter time, they cannot alter the many factors that backed what took place to a hilt. And you sure as hell cannot erase out every single false account handed over by LM, ever. Then we add every piece of damning circumstantial evidence together, piecing that jigsaw together. Whilst children having tantrums continuously attempt to scatter the pieces because they do not like the picture ------
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police -
Sandra Lean has recently suggested Shane Mitchell was on the phone ‘to a friend’ when his killer brother Luke asked for his torch
Did she include all of Shane Mitchell’s telephone logs in her 2nd book?
-
There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point of speaking with JuJ's, nor of any claim of making ones way to Easthouses. Within no time she is frantically trying to get a hold of him but makes no attempt to get him at the place he claimed to be heading to, which as most know was yet another false account.
Sandra Lean
I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452488.html#msg452488
Corinne Mitchell’s evidence in court was ”I kept trying to phone him as he was late and in trouble”
And Corinne’s last text to her killer son Luke was “You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452488.html#msg452488
”I'm sorry, I seem to have caused a bit of a misunderstanding. Of the incoming voicemail call on Luke's phone that night, I said“I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on, but got his voicemail - the timings given in her statement and both her and Luke's phone records all matched up. My point was that the police deliberately lied about Luke "checking his voicemail" when the log is clearly labelled "incoming."
All of the police assertions regarding the phone calls, texts, etc, were put to Luke in the Section 14 interrogation 6 weeks after the murder. By then, the police had the phone logs - they also recovered a text from Corinne to Luke saying, "Right, you tell me right now what's going on - I'm coming up to get you" (not recovered from Luke's phone).
Corrine Mitchell
“You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
-
No mother or brother to go with the lad she claimed she was worried about on a "secluded path" which again ties in with LM not being home at 10:50pm.
Killer Luke Mitchell was “late and in trouble” and ignoring his mothers phone calls
-
The police contacted, and as has been shown, Jodi's mother was without doubt frantic, her own mother trying to calm her down over the phone, she is awaiting the arrival of the police with what should be in place, support around her at that awful time. She had her son and partner - No one with LM, which again shows that he was not leaving from home at 10:50pm, or that SM was certainly not home, nor a mother who was worried at all about her son going out at that time --- ALONE.
Liar Corinne Mitchell’s text message wasn’t sent until gone midnight
“You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
Where was Corinne Mitchell heading - the Abbey?
-
LM by his claims has been on that path 18mins alone with his dog.
The neighbour seeing killer Luke Mitchell pass his house at around 10pm but didn’t see Mia the dog
And the timings fit with the 10pm fire in the garden
The twisted psycho killer blamed his fire on his mother and brother
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
-
No mother or brother to go with the lad she claimed she was worried about on a "secluded path"
*&^^&
-
He gave further false account, told the police is was his dog, told the police "they" had been around 60ft past, narrowed down to exactly 43ft. That only he with AW were at the V break in the wall, that JaJ's with SK had kept on walking down from that 60ft to 43ft point.
Toxic abuser Sandra Lean’s bare faced lies and smears are see through
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell spent the longest time behind that wall when he was with the ‘search trio’ - no doubt relishing in their distress, fear and horror
Pretend Criminologist & Innocence Fraud Pusher Sandra Lean’s Latest Smears & Attack On Murder Victims Gran (Part 162)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/14/killer-luke-mitchell-pretend-criminologist-innocence-fraud-pusher-sandra-leans-latest-smears-attack-on-murder-victims-gran-part-162/
-
The obtuse questions to deflect away from that stark reality - There had been no big organized search in place, there was no time, a series of events, of missing, path, wall, woods and bang. Before that missing persons report had been put in place, taken place rapidly whilst a family were seeking help from the police. LM was off like a shot in control before the police took control - Fact.
Yep
-
None of this can be changed ever, one cannot alter time, they cannot alter the many factors that backed what took place to a hilt. And you sure as hell cannot erase out every single false account handed over by LM, ever.
No they cannot
-
Liar Corinne Mitchell’s text message wasn’t sent until gone midnight
“You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
Wonder what time Corinne Mitchell became aware of the fire in her garden?
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police -
What date did Corinne Mitchell give her first statement?
-
Mr Turnbull: 'Isn't it nearer the truth to say you would be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'
Corinne Mitchell: 'That's not true.'
It was true
-
Yet again your curiosity only extends to the Mitchell family. Where were F/D when there bike was spotted at the wall? Where was [Name removed] when his mother said that he ‘called out’ but he said he’d slept all night? When he said he’d had dinner with Jodi yet his mum said he’d had it in his room? Go on….let your curiosity wander.
This has been proved over and over that no one spotted any moped at that wall. It wasn't possible from where the witness claimed on The Beeches.
-
Liar Corinne Mitchell’s text message wasn’t sent until gone midnight
“You will tell me right now what is wrong”
And what gave Corinne Mitchell the impression something was wrong?
Was it her killer son getting home and suddenly going back out again with Mia
Or was it the fire in the garden
Or a combination of the two?
Or something else?
-
This has been proved over and over that no one spotted any moped at that wall. It wasn't possible from where the witness claimed on The Beeches.
So how do you explain [Name removed] agreeing with DF, under oath, that the bike was at the wall? Have you started second guessing witnesses?
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police - There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point of speaking with JuJ's, nor of any claim of making ones way to Easthouses. Within no time she is frantically trying to get a hold of him but makes no attempt to get him at the place he claimed to be heading to, which as most know was yet another false account.
Claiming to be on that path at 11pm, still not at the top by 11:20pm. LM just kept on given one set of false accounts into the next. We apply reality here yet again, within 20mins of telling Jodi's mother he had not seen her he claims to be upon that path, within 10mins of telling her, he instantly initiated an actual search to that path, nowhere else until upon it.
No mother or brother to go with the lad she claimed she was worried about on a "secluded path" which again ties in with LM not being home at 10:50pm.
The police contacted, and as has been shown, Jodi's mother was without doubt frantic, her own mother trying to calm her down over the phone, she is awaiting the arrival of the police with what should be in place, support around her at that awful time. She had her son and partner - No one with LM, which again shows that he was not leaving from home at 10:50pm, or that SM was certainly not home, nor a mother who was worried at all about her son going out at that time --- ALONE.
Rapid is the only way to describe what took place fully led by LM. Had not seen her, didn't turn up, I will go to the path to search, information related to AW and three people head to the path, whilst the police are expected at Jodi's house any minute. And again, the only reason that physical search is in place at all so rapidly, to that path is by LM's actions."
It is 11:18pm and the last contact to a mobile prior to the arrival of the police, prior to the four meeting is made, by this time LM by his claims has been on that path 18mins alone with his dog. The time is now 11:20pm, the police are in Jodi's house, the searchers see each others torchlight from the top of the path. "Is that you Luke?" and walk down to be in his company, he was only around 2/3 in what was now over 20mins, around 22mins by the time of being together. He had told Jodi's mother he had his dog, expecting something to be brought and he asks just that.
The time around 11:24pm and they set off together, LM is now in on that path for around 24mins, the police in attendance for around 5mins writing down those details. LM wades through several feet of undergrowth to the wall at the Gino break, he said he "just had a hunch, a gut instinct" that something was behind the wall, and indeed directly behind the wall is where he shone his torch.
We are now approaching 11:30pm, the police in attendance for around 10mins and the four are at the V break in the wall, LM enters the woods, and around 10-20secs he is shouting out he has found something. 4mins later, the police in attendance around 15mins, and a call comes through a body has been found - No need for any big organised search to be put in place, for any others to join in with. LM in a total time scale of less than one hour had placed her missing and found her ---------- Hidden some 43ft west of that break in the wall, in and around 6mins, in mere seconds of entering that dark woodland alone, with nothing other than special knowledge of knowing exactly where to go, rapidly.
He gave further false account, told the police is was his dog, told the police "they" had been around 60ft past, narrowed down to exactly 43ft. That only he with AW were at the V break in the wall, that JaJ's with SK had kept on walking down from that 60ft to 43ft point. - Those first accounts chalk and cheese, which showed clearly everything took place at the V, the dog a red herring, it had nothing at all to do with LM knowing exactly where to go - Realism is placing multiple ? around the multiple false accounts handed over by him, his mother and his brother.
The obtuse questions to deflect away from that stark reality - There had been no big organized search in place, there was no time, a series of events, of missing, path, wall, woods and bang. Before that missing persons report had been put in place, taken place rapidly whilst a family were seeking help from the police. LM was off like a shot in control before the police took control - Fact. None of this can be changed ever, one cannot alter time, they cannot alter the many factors that backed what took place to a hilt. And you sure as hell cannot erase out every single false account handed over by LM, ever. Then we add every piece of damning circumstantial evidence together, piecing that jigsaw together. Whilst children having tantrums continuously attempt to scatter the pieces because they do not like the picture ------
LM wasn’t home at 10.50? One question….when did he collect Mia if he didn’t go home?
Where else was Luke supposed to Luke before the path? He was making his way to Judith’s house, looking out for Jodi on the way. What else was he supposed to do?
Again when did he collect Mia if he didn’t go home?
MIA WAS WITH HIM…he was not alone. Are you okay Parky?
It’s the Jones search team who have questions hanging over the veracity of the accounts they gave in court. Of course we now know how their statements changed over the months…the BBC showcased them in case anyone was in any doubt that they changed. When asked in court why they went to the path to the exclusion of everywhere else AW said “I just did”. Nothing of going to meet Luke in her testimony…”I just did”. Jodi’s gran determined to take the search party down RDP, back where Luke had just been and saw nothing and irrespective of Luke telling Judith that he would make his way to hers. Luke wasn’t the one driving the search and if he had had his way he would never have been searching the path again.
-
So how do you explain [Name removed] agreeing with DF, under oath, that the bike was at the wall? Have you started second guessing witnesses?
I haven't disputed that. I was stating the moped was not witnessed at the V break at 5.15pm by a toolhire worker or anyone else, either on the path or from The Beeches. I think it was yourself that second guessed that although it may be from SL's book it originates from which might explain the lack of clarity and how it ever came to be that someone witnessed something they didn't.
-
I haven't disputed that. I was stating the moped was not witnessed at the V break at 5.15pm by a toolhire worker or anyone else, either on the path or from The Beeches. I think it was yourself that second guessed that although it may be from SL's book it originates from which might explain the lack of clarity and how it ever came to be that someone witnessed something they didn't.
I’m not getting into an irrelevant debate about the source of the information that the bike was at the wall at the same time as Jodi was allegedly being murdered behind it. It was and both of the individuals riding it were not. That’s the point, surely?
-
I haven't disputed that. I was stating the moped was not witnessed at the V break at 5.15pm by a toolhire worker or anyone else, either on the path or from The Beeches. I think it was yourself that second guessed that although it may be from SL's book it originates from which might explain the lack of clarity and how it ever came to be that someone witnessed something they didn't.
The only point is the lies and that is the only thing that counts, on repeat. Saying something known to be impossible to use as a weapon to beat people with continuously. No viewpoint, two bikes upon that path, one we know was stationary, and perhaps in view up from the V break, a person said they saw a bike "close to---"
Now let us analyse whether there is any feasibility in seeing LM, IF they had entered that woodland briefly. First we apply times on the path, from around 15-20mins max, both paths and home. We know they entered after LK, we know he stopped at approx 5:15pm, and as above. We know they could not possibly have entered that path until after 5:10pm, in BTH after close of day, time to push out and up that hill, yada, yada, yada.
Cause to enter that woodland, if we apply they were, just to show the ludicrous in it all. They would have had to enter and for whatever reason with no sense, rapidly make their way down that narrow passage quite a distance until there would be any visibility, see horror and make their way back, up and over the break, think nothing of it and have a few plays on the bike, riding it up and down and home - Witnessed. Whilst it might make sense to have everyone as unresponsive as LM, it is not what actually happens in reality.
Which, when investigated thoroughly had them eliminated as suspect. The real times, the facts of being heard riding that bike, witnessed being home. Nothing of them in those woods of course and on it goes - The absolute fact, that IF they had entered that woodland, there was no viewpoint to where LM was with Jodi Jones, as above, having to make their way down at least 30ft, and this is in daylight.
We go to the search in the dark, we have someone who's dog had alerted to nothing past that break, that red herring, that false account by LM. Up and over and around 10steps and stop. Reciting what he could not see at all and we are back to that special knowledge.
It is such a mess of muddled up disinformation, that one of the most avid supporters just now has LM being examined at 11pm, another saying he was with the boys in woods at 6.30pm, support built upon sifting sand where most know very little of that actual case of LM V HMA.
Hopefully the FOI act will have it sooner than later, that people can see the actual case, the evidence, and decide from this rather than a false narrative based upon self interest of others, in a giant melting of crazed up conspiracy theories.
No bike nor riderless was seen at any V break in the wall, admitting to be stopped, and again, the only thing that counts of repeat are the lies, the wilful manipulation to deflect from LM, it doesn't, it has at it always had, was three people upon that path whilst LM was with Jodi in the woods. There is nothing that has ever been showing to disprove this, quite the opposite. We can already apply the noise of that bike heard and the boys voices by someone who knew them?
-
The only point is the lies and that is the only thing that counts, on repeat. Saying something known to be impossible to use as a weapon to beat people with continuously. No viewpoint, two bikes upon that path, one we know was stationary, and perhaps in view up from the V break, a person said they saw a bike "close to---"
Now let us analyse whether there is any feasibility in seeing LM, IF they had entered that woodland briefly. First we apply times on the path, from around 15-20mins max, both paths and home. We know they entered after LK, we know he stopped at approx 5:15pm, and as above. We know they could not possibly have entered that path until after 5:10pm, in BTH after close of day, time to push out and up that hill, yada, yada, yada.
Cause to enter that woodland, if we apply they were, just to show the ludicrous in it all. They would have had to enter and for whatever reason with no sense, rapidly make their way down that narrow passage quite a distance until there would be any visibility, see horror and make their way back, up and over the break, think nothing of it and have a few plays on the bike, riding it up and down and home - Witnessed. Whilst it might make sense to have everyone as unresponsive as LM, it is not what actually happens in reality.
Which, when investigated thoroughly had them eliminated as suspect. The real times, the facts of being heard riding that bike, witnessed being home. Nothing of them in those woods of course and on it goes - The absolute fact, that IF they had entered that woodland, there was no viewpoint to where LM was with Jodi Jones, as above, having to make their way down at least 30ft, and this is in daylight.
We go to the search in the dark, we have someone who's dog had alerted to nothing past that break, that red herring, that false account by LM. Up and over and around 10steps and stop. Reciting what he could not see at all and we are back to that special knowledge.
It is such a mess of muddled up disinformation, that one of the most avid supporters just now has LM being examined at 11pm, another saying he was with the boys in woods at 6.30pm, support built upon sifting sand where most know very little of that actual case of LM V HMA.
Hopefully the FOI act will have it sooner than later, that people can see the actual case, the evidence, and decide from this rather than a false narrative based upon self interest of others, in a giant melting of crazed up conspiracy theories.
No bike nor riderless was seen at any V break in the wall, admitting to be stopped, and again, the only thing that counts of repeat are the lies, the wilful manipulation to deflect from LM, it doesn't, it has at it always had, was three people upon that path whilst LM was with Jodi in the woods. There is nothing that has ever been showing to disprove this, quite the opposite. We can already apply the noise of that bike heard and the boys voices by someone who knew them?
And on and on it goes, misinformation upon misinformation, professing to have knowledge that one is not privy to. Making it up as you go along… a tangle of fact and fiction, knotted together so tightly it’s impossible to see where one begins and the other ends. “Luke was not at home at 10.50 and yet he had Mia. The boys met Luke in the Abbey at 7.30 when the boys themselves said it was 7.00. You are preaching to the converted…and you know it. You are quickly becoming an irrelevant echo chamber of fringe opinions but crack on.
The moped boys in court, on oath, said that they couldn’t remember where they where when the bike was parked against the fence and if they couldn’t remember…..well you know the rest.
-
Hopefully the FOI act will have it sooner than later
Sandra Lean could have and should have published killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page witness statement years ago
Sandra Lean (2 months ago)
I'm regularly accused of "cherry picking" or "hiding" evidence because I don't put all the statements, transcripts, etc, online, in full. The fact is, in Scotland, I can't.
His statement was read in open court ergo this is yet more BS
Sandra Lean (2 months ago)]The definition of disclosure of evidence to "third parties" essentially means that evidence can only be disclosed, in full, to those actively working on the case for legal proceedings (e.g. an application to the SCCRC or Court of Appeal) - the general public does not meet the definition of "third party" and disclosure to those people is prohibited. The best I can do is quote excerpts from documents, and even then, it's a fine line
*&^^&
-
Sandra Lean could have and should have published killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page witness statement years ago
His statement was read in open court ergo this is yet more BS
Sandra Lean (2 months ago)
The definition of disclosure of evidence to "third parties" essentially means that evidence can only be disclosed, in full, to those actively working on the case for legal proceedings (e.g. an application to the SCCRC or Court of Appeal) - the general public does not meet the definition of "third party" and disclosure to those people is prohibited. The best I can do is quote excerpts from documents, and even then, it's a fine line
*&^^&
“In the spirit of true justice and transparency”
This is what Sandra Lean stated on her flawed petition knowing full well she has been far from transparent
-
LM wasn’t home at 10.50? One question….when did he collect Mia if he didn’t go home?
Sometime after leaving the boys he’d met at the Abbey
He was spotted by a neighbour at 10pm - around the same time a fire was detected in his back garden
’Mr Frankland, the Mitchell's next door neighbour in the same street, described seeing a brick-built log burner alight in the garden on 30 June last year.
He said the burner was "typically" used by Mr Mitchell's mother.
Mr Frankland added: "It would be just before 2200 BST.
"I might have been aware of it earlier than that but I don't recall anything specific."
He told police he heard voices but could not definitely say who the people were.
The same night, he also saw Luke Mitchell walking in the street as he settled down to watch television at about 2200 BST.
‘George Ramage, 37, whose garden in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, backs on to the Mitchell family's back garden, said he was putting tools in his garage about 10pm when he became aware of smoke.
He told the High Court in Edinburgh: 'It was coming from the Mitchells' garden. It wasn't a food smell, it was an unusual smell.
'It was not like burning wood or anything you normally burn. I made a comment to my wife along the lines it was a strange time to have a barbecue and, if it was food, I wouldn't eat it.'
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police - There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point
Text from Corinne Mitchell to her killer son Luke Mitchell
“You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
Corinne Mitchell evidence during the trial
“I kept trying to phone him as he was late and in trouble”
Yet killer Luke Mitchell told police it was his mother Corinne Mitchell’s suggestion he go out searching
What was the story about killer Luke watching a video?
-
Yet killer Luke Mitchell told police it was his mother Corinne Mitchell’s suggestion he go out searching
Why didn’t Corinne Mitchell correct her killer son when he told police it was his mothers ‘suggestion’ he go looking for Jodi Jones?
She was next next to him in Dalkeith police station when he told police this
-
*&^^&
“In the spirit of true justice and transparency”
This is what innocence fraudster Sandra Lean stated on her fraudulent petition knowing full well she has been far from transparent
Where was Shane Mitchell and what was he doing? (Part 42)
‘Why has Sandra Lean lied about this search trio of walking passed the cousins and so forth, why has Corinne Mitchell lied? - why do people whom profess to seek 'Truth and Justice' find it necessary to lie?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/03/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-42/
-
So how do you explain [Name removed] agreeing with DF, under oath, that the bike was at the wall? Have you started second guessing witnesses?
Donald Findlay’s attempts to confuse John F e r r i s and the jury with any argument around the moped was cancelled out by the evidence of Leonard Kelly
-
Where was Shane Mitchell and what was he doing? (Part 42)
‘Why has Sandra Lean lied about this search trio of walking passed the cousins and so forth, why has Corinne Mitchell lied? - why do people whom profess to seek 'Truth and Justice' find it necessary to lie?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/03/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-42/
Yes, seen arriving home at 10pm, said took dog out for its last pee after this. Just over an hour later his mother is trying to get a hold of him wondering where he is on repeat. Claimed to be concerned for him and that "secluded path" No concern for a young girl with no phone, no security, no guard dog by her side at any other point in the evening. Frantically trying to get a hold of him but not frantic enough to contact the place they were claiming he was to be heading to if he didn't "bump into Jodi on the path -----------"
Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path at 11pm, the claim is he rushed up, not searching and wanting off it ASAP, he was again talking nonsense, he had rushed up no path. 11:20pm and not even 2/3 up it. Less than 10mins later shouting from those woods, less than 8mins from actually physically meeting, around 6mins of actually setting off together, and around 10-20secs in that woodland with complete ease, complete familiarity, no trepidation of step ---------
He gave a false account, made the claim of being well past that break, his one and only reason given for knowing where to go and he was making it up, again. Clearly waiting on the others making an appearance, one can only guess what he may have actually been doing whilst dallying around in that area, or what he had been doing since disappearing with the dog?
There is no changing, 10:40pm, saying he had not seen her, she failed to turn up, less than 10mins later initiating an actual physical search, less than 10mins later again and on that path, 20mins later still on that path and only around 2/3. Diverts instantly from that path to that wall, wading through the undergrowth, he just had a "hunch, a gut instinct" to do this --------
SF's has it that they (the trio) walked 3mls to get to the path, going with the narrative of walking backwards and past the cousins house. SL is said to have "fact checked" his book ---- Thick as thieves in this false narrative. To SF's then saying, 'they took every short cut imaginable to get to that path as quickly as possible' Open one's mouths and just let it all flow out, tripping constantly over every other piece of utter fantasy, it works a treat for those caught up the inference, the story, the fiction, and the facts are fading further and further away ----------- Truth is boring, a world of monsters, teleports, magic carpets, evidence erasing solution undetectable to forensic specialist, you really do have to make this s**t up. That again is fact --------
-
Yes, seen arriving home at 10pm, said took dog out for its last pee after this. Just over an hour later his mother is trying to get a hold of him wondering where he is on repeat.
Where was Corinne Mitchell’s car all night?
Why did she tell the court he was ‘late and in trouble’ ?
‘In trouble’ over what exactly?
-
Yes, seen arriving home at 10pm, said took dog out for its last pee after this. Just over an hour later his mother is trying to get a hold of him wondering where he is on repeat. Claimed to be concerned for him and that "secluded path" No concern for a young girl with no phone, no security, no guard dog by her side at any other point in the evening. Frantically trying to get a hold of him but not frantic enough to contact the place they were claiming he was to be heading to if he didn't "bump into Jodi on the path -----------"
Corinne Mitchell had no idea where he was
And in all these years it’s never been explained why she told the court he was ‘in trouble’?
Why?
Why did Corinne Mitchell choose to tell the court he was ‘in trouble’?
What had he done that warranted her saying this whilst being questioned by Alan Turnbull?
-
Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path at 11pm, the claim is he rushed up, not searching and wanting off it ASAP, he was again talking nonsense, he had rushed up no path. 11:20pm and not even 2/3 up it.
Yep
-
Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path at 11pm
And tells his mother Corinne Mitchell nothing!
-
Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path at 11pm, the claim is he rushed up, not searching and wanting off it ASAP, he was again talking nonsense, he had rushed up no path. 11:20pm and not even 2/3 up it. Less than 10mins later shouting from those woods, less than 8mins from actually physically meeting, around 6mins of actually setting off together, and around 10-20secs in that woodland with complete ease, complete familiarity, no trepidation of step ---------
None
And he even stayed over the other side of the wall - which was the opposite behaviour of the ‘search trio’
Killer Luke Mitchell: The Untold Truth II (Part 163)
‘He said he "Just had a hunch, a gut instinct that something was behind the wall" At the first break, the Gino break.
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/18/killer-luke-mitchell-these-times-events-cannot-be-altered-at-all-part-163/
-
There is no changing, 10:40pm, saying he had not seen her, she failed to turn up, less than 10mins later initiating an actual physical search, less than 10mins later again and on that path, 20mins later still on that path and only around 2/3. Diverts instantly from that path to that wall, wading through the undergrowth, he just had a "hunch, a gut instinct" to do this --------
Did Shane Mitchell’s police statements ever state he gave his brother a torch that night?
-
SF's has it that they (the trio) walked 3mls to get to the path, going with the narrative of walking backwards and past the cousins house. SL is said to have "fact checked" his book ---- Thick as thieves in this false narrative.
Yep
-
To SF's then saying, 'they took every short cut imaginable to get to that path as quickly as possible' Open one's mouths and just let it all flow out, tripping constantly over every other piece of utter fantasy, it works a treat for those caught up the inference, the story, the fiction, and the facts are fading further and further away ----------- Truth is boring, a world of monsters, teleports, magic carpets, evidence erasing solution undetectable to forensic specialist, you really do have to make this s**t up. That again is fact --------
That’s an understatement
-
SL is said to have "fact checked" his book ---- Thick as thieves in this false narrative. To SF's then saying, 'they took every short cut imaginable to get to that path as quickly as possible' Open one's mouths and just let it all flow out, tripping constantly over every other piece of utter fantasy, it works a treat for those caught up the inference, the story, the fiction, and the facts are fading further and further away ----------- Truth is boring, a world of monsters, teleports, magic carpets, evidence erasing solution undetectable to forensic specialist, you really do have to make this s**t up. That again is fact --------
And fraudsters Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes have being making ‘s**t up’ for years
That is also fact!
-
Yes, seen arriving home at 10pm, said took dog out for its last pee after this. Just over an hour later his mother is trying to get a hold of him wondering where he is on repeat. Claimed to be concerned for him and that "secluded path" No concern for a young girl with no phone, no security, no guard dog by her side at any other point in the evening. Frantically trying to get a hold of him but not frantic enough to contact the place they were claiming he was to be heading to if he didn't "bump into Jodi on the path -----------"
Why didn’t Corinne Mitchell hop in her car to go looking for her killer son (and dog) who she told the court was ‘late and in trouble’?
Was Shane Mitchell also ‘frantic’ ?
What did Shane tell the police about his mothers behaviour that night?
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police - There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point of speaking with JuJ's, nor of any claim of making ones way to Easthouses. Within no time she is frantically trying to get a hold of him but makes no attempt to get him at the place he claimed to be heading to, which as most know was yet another false account.
Why was Corinne Mitchell evidence to the court that he was ‘late and in trouble’
‘Trouble’ for what?
‘She said: 'I kept trying to phone him as he was late and in trouble. He would not answer…
-
No one with LM, which again shows that he was not leaving from home at 10:50pm, or that SM was certainly not home, nor a mother who was worried at all about her son going out at that time --- ALONE.
Mr Turnbull: 'Luke calls you twice and didn't tell you what had happened to Jodi?'
Mrs Mitchell: 'That's right.'
-
The Mitchells repeatedly handed over false accounts to the police - There is nothing placing LM home at 10:50pm and everything to show us that his mother knew nothing at this point of speaking with JuJ's, nor of any claim of making ones way to Easthouses.
Corinne Mitchell during that TV show;
“Luke came to me in a bit of a state - Jodi’s missing - and he borrowed the torch and off he went ”
*&^^&
-
Sandra Lean stated during that TV show,
“Waiting for him at the top of the path were Jodi’s sister Janine, her gran Alive and her sisters boyfriend Steven Kelly”
The ‘search trio’ were not ‘waiting’ as Sandra Lean claimed
It was killer Luke Mitchell who was doing all the ‘waiting’
*&^^&
-
Sandra Lean also stated during the TV show;
“And Luke goes over the wall and he calls out “I think there’s something here”
*&^^&
Killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence on the 1st July 2003 was;
“Mr Mitchell told police that he said to the others: "I think she has smelled something".
When exactly did killer Luke Mitchell tell the police he called out and said “I think there’s something here”?
-
Hopefully the FOI act will have it sooner than later
A previous FOI request appears to have been made but that request included other statements
-
He gave a false account,
Which Corinne Mitchell also knew to be false (in parts)
-
Claiming to be on that path at 11pm, still not at the top by 11:20pm. LM just kept on given one set of false accounts into the next. We apply reality here yet again, within 20mins of telling Jodi's mother he had not seen her he claims to be upon that path, within 10mins of telling her, he instantly initiated an actual search to that path, nowhere else until upon it.
What exactly does Sandra Lean say in her book about phone call and texts between Corinne, Shane and Luke Mitchell that night?
And did Corinne Mitchell erase her mobile phone records ?
What exactly did Corinne say in her police statement (s) regarding the times of the phone calls she made to her killer son that night - which presumably must have contributed to her arrest for perverting the course of justice
-
The neighbour seeing killer Luke Mitchell pass his house at around 10pm but didn’t see Mia the dog
And the timings fit with the 10pm fire in the garden
The twisted psycho killer blamed his fire on his mother and brother
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
I'm not sure if it's been discussed before but do you think LM did the fires himself and kept CM & SM in the dark?
-
The time around 11:24pm and they set off together, LM is now in on that path for around 24mins, the police in attendance for around 5mins writing down those details. LM wades through several feet of undergrowth to the wall at the Gino break, he said he "just had a hunch, a gut instinct" that something was behind the wall, and indeed directly behind the wall is where he shone his torch.
We are now approaching 11:30pm, the police in attendance for around 10mins and the four are at the V break in the wall, LM enters the woods, and around 10-20secs he is shouting out he has found something. 4mins later, the police in attendance around 15mins, and a call comes through a body has been found - No need for any big organised search to be put in place, for any others to join in with. LM in a total time scale of less than one hour had placed her missing and found her ---------- Hidden some 43ft west of that break in the wall, in and around 6mins, in mere seconds of entering that dark woodland alone, with nothing other than special knowledge of knowing exactly where to go, rapidly.
Has this ever been discussed by LM supporters? The fact he did this suggests he was "setting up" the V break manouvre that he claimed the dog found - yet the dog didn't react at the Gino section?
-
Has this ever been discussed by LM supporters? The fact he did this suggests he was "setting up" the V break manouvre that he claimed the dog found - yet the dog didn't react at the Gino section?
None of them attended psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell’s trial so won’t be aware of his Gino section manoeuvre
-
Has this ever been discussed by LM supporters? The fact he did this suggests he was "setting up" the V break manouvre that he claimed the dog found - yet the dog didn't react at the Gino section?
What were the four different locations
‘The case had taken nearly three months, was restarted before a new jury, convened in four different locations and even ventured into the fresh air
-
Corinne Mitchell to James English (At around 58:00’
Why didn’t they check my place
Why did killer Luke Mitchell tell police it was his mother Corinne’s suggestion to send him out looking for Jodi Jones?
-
Has this ever been discussed by LM supporters? The fact he did this suggests he was "setting up" the V break manouvre that he claimed the dog found - yet the dog didn't react at the Gino section?
Isn’t this the Gino section - near the clock https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042870
-
Isn’t this the Gino section - near the clock https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050
And the V break here https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042930
-
And the V break here https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042930 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52042930)
It's the same V break in all three photos, viewed from different positions... not the Gino.
-
Sandra Lean stated during that TV show,
“Waiting for him at the top of the path were Jodi’s sister Janine, her gran Alive and her sisters boyfriend Steven Kelly”
The ‘search trio’ were not ‘waiting’ as Sandra Lean claimed
It was killer Luke Mitchell who was doing all the ‘waiting’
*&^^&
A witness claimed to see killer Luke Mitchell at around 10:00pm
Killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence was that his mother Corinne Mitchell had suggested he go out searching for Jodi Jones
It has never been explained why Corinne Mitchell didn’t telephone the Jones family or anyone else
What did Corinne Mitchell’s telephoning records show ?
And why did she say in court her killer son was ‘late and in trouble’ ?
-
It's the same V break in all three photos, viewed from different positions... not the Gino.
So the broken wall - near the clock in this photo - isn’t the Gino part?
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050
-
So the broken wall - near the clock in this photo - isn’t the Gino part?
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050 (https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050)
As I understand it there is only one break in the reproduced RD wall, which was to show the V where Luke Mitchell et al climbed over. The rest of the undamaged wall was to show how far he walked with his dog beyond the V... unless others can correct me?
-
The rest of the undamaged wall was to show how far he walked with his dog beyond the V...
Someone at the BBC claimed in January 2005;
“A 30-metre section of the wall was recreated in the courtroom.”
30-metre section ?
This truck is 30 metres https://youtu.be/6TXZkpRl6TU
Did the jury have to move from where the trial started in the high court, to another room in Parliament House in order to view and hear this evidence?
And were there any reporting restrictions regarding this?
-
So the broken wall - near the clock in this photo - isn’t the Gino part?
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/in-this-undated-handout-issued-by-lothian-and-borders-news-photo/52043050
This 👆🏽part of the broken wall looks like it’s a different size to the other photos
-
What were the four different locations
‘The case had taken nearly three months, was restarted before a new jury, convened in four different locations and even ventured into the fresh air
If two of the locations were in the high court building
One was Roan’s Dyke path
Where was the other location?
Killer Luke Mitchell’s house and the entrance to Roan’s Dyke path?
“THE jury in the Jodi Jones murder trial will next week visit the spot where her mutilated body was found.
After the visit, they will hear evidence in a courtroom where a replica of a wall near which she was found has been erected.
The moves were revealed at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday by trial judge Lord Nimmo Smith.
He told the eight women and seven men: 'On Wednesday, I am going to go with you to walk the length of the Roan's Dyke path, east to west.
'The reason is to help you to better understand the evidence you have heard and are going to hear about the path and the wall.
'On Thursday, I am going to be convening the court in the Laigh Hall of Parliament House, where a temporary courtroom has been set up.
'The reason that has been done is that one of the Crown productions is a full-scale replica of a stretch of the wall.'
-
Someone at the BBC claimed in January 2005;
“A 30-metre section of the wall was recreated in the courtroom.”
30-metre section ?
This truck is 30 metres https://youtu.be/6TXZkpRl6TU
Did the jury have to move from where the trial started in the high court, to another room in Parliament House in order to view and hear this evidence?
And were there any reporting restrictions regarding this?
Who from the media reported on the evidence heard and seen in the temporary courtroom in Leigh hall?
-
This 👆🏽part of the broken wall looks like it’s a different size to the other photos
It's the same V in all three photos you linked to. Perspective and distance make it look smaller in the one above than in the other two.
-
It's the same V in all three photos you linked to. Perspective and distance make it look smaller in the one above than in the other two.
I agree
Were there reporting restrictions in place during the time spent in the temporary court in Leigh hall?
-
I agree
Were there reporting restrictions in place during the time spent in the temporary court in Leigh hall?
How many days of killer Luke Mitchell’s trial were spent in the temporary court in Leigh Hall?
-
If two of the locations were in the high court building
One was Roan’s Dyke path
Where was the other location?
Killer Luke Mitchell’s house and the entrance to Roan’s Dyke path?
“THE jury in the Jodi Jones murder trial will next week visit the spot where her mutilated body was found.
After the visit, they will hear evidence in a courtroom where a replica of a wall near which she was found has been erected.
The moves were revealed at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday by trial judge Lord Nimmo Smith.
He told the eight women and seven men: 'On Wednesday, I am going to go with you to walk the length of the Roan's Dyke path, east to west.
'The reason is to help you to better understand the evidence you have heard and are going to hear about the path and the wall.
'On Thursday, I am going to be convening the court in the Laigh Hall of Parliament House, where a temporary courtroom has been set up.
'The reason that has been done is that one of the Crown productions is a full-scale replica of a stretch of the wall.'
The address for Leigh hall is
11 Parliament Square
Edinburgh
EH1 1RQ
And the address for the high court is
11 Giles St
Edinburgh
EH1 1PT
So were there reporting restrictions in place in the temporary court in Leigh hall?
UPDATED - Sandra Lean - On How To Say There Were Reporting Restrictions Without Saying There Were Reporting (Part 164)
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/
-
So were there reporting restrictions in place in the temporary court in Leigh hall?
“THE jury in the Jodi Jones murder trial will next week visit the spot where her mutilated body was found.
After the visit, they will hear evidence in a courtroom where a replica of a wall near which she was found has been erected.
What evidence was heard in Leigh hall?
-
What evidence was heard in Leigh hall?
And when did the evidence heard switch from Leigh hall back to the high court?
-
I'm not sure if it's been discussed before but do you think LM did the fires himself and kept CM & SM in the dark?
It’s very possible he used the log burner/or other burning pit in the back garden prior to meeting with the boys at the Abbey and again when he arrived home from the Abbey
-
It’s very possible he used the log burner/or other burning pit in the back garden prior to meeting with the boys at the Abbey and again when he arrived home from the Abbey
Why did LM say his mother and brother had a fire in the back garden that night, yet CM denied such?
-
I don’t think you can compare this case with the Jodi Jones case. And you certainly can’t compare the circumstances in which they were both found. The boyfriend in the case you posted was 100 miles away from his girlfriend who was hiking alone in secluded snowy terrain. Moreover, he didn’t find the body until 10 months after she went missing (4 months at its lowest, if you factor in that this was when it became feasible for him to physically search for her personally, after the heavy snow disappeared between nov 2020 and April 2021). Luke Mitchell, on the other hand, found Jodi’s body within 40 mins! Now, per se, Luke finding the body within 40 minutes is, imo, is not enough to be overly incriminating, but it is still suspicious, especially when taken together with the rest of the circumstantial evidence against him. Jodi’s body while admittedly being found ‘off the beaten path’, it was not off the beaten path for locals. And many locals used this secluded woodland area behind the V to walk their dogs (Gd’s father, for example) and it was a common area for gangs of youths to gather, and yet Luke was the only person to find it despite more than 6 hours having elapsed since Jodi was last seen alive. The crux of the matter is that only a local would know to hide the body there, and Luke did know this area well and found the body within a few seconds of climbing over that V; it’s like he was a robot programmed to find Jodi. Very suspicious, imo, and it’s even more suspicious when you consider all the other circumstantial evidence used against him. In fact, many people consider Luke to be highly intelligent, but I’m of the opinion that he displayed stupidity by finding Jodi as quickly as he did. Why didn’t he distance himself from it? Maybe he thought at the time it would’ve worked in his favour? I mean, sure, it was only a matter of time before the other circumstanstial evidence caught up with him, but it was still a strange and stupid thing for him to do, imo. Luke’s emotions at the scene of the body just slight (slight intonation in his voice whe saying, “I’ve found something!” and Janine saying that Luke’s eyes were larger than normal; notice these are the signs of someone who isn’t all that perturbed or distressed by the finding of a mutilated body — Luke was acting normal throughout it all according JAJ and, by the ambulance crew’s account, Luke was nonchalantly texting away on his phone. And then there were Luke’s taunts to the police (ridiculing them that they’d never solve the case, being forensically aware, and calling them ‘retards’ for allowing the bins to be emptied so soon; a young man in control, being calculated, underhand, deceitful, cocky, lippy, advanced for his age, undisciplined by his mother, spoiled, man about the house, left to his own devices most of the time, having a very short temper and used to getting his own way. A recipe for disaster, was it not?
Btw, not to be morbid, but does anyone have a photo, video, a link, etc, of the exact spot where Jodi’s body lay on the evening golf 30.06.03? I’ve seen some pics & videos of the woodland behind the V, but does anyone have a pic of the exact location?
The main cause of miscarriages of justice is when Police suffer from 'confirmation bias' which is very clearly what happened with Mitchell's case. I remember a couple of years ago you were less than convinced about whether LM was guilty or not (unless I've mixed you up with someone else). I assume you've read the transcripts. The evidence of Janine Jones would have canned laughter over it if it wasn't a murder trial. Consider this:
1. Most of her answers in Court were "I don't know".
2. She claimed in Court LM showed no reaction to the body being discovered, but her original statement said "everyone was in hysterics".
3. Janine Jones claimed in Court she did not know of Roan's Dyke Path. So she lived with her mother for about 16 years less than 5m walk away and was never told by her mother not to go up the path when she was a child or teenager? Seriously? Janine knew Jodi used the path to meet Luke as well, but apparently doesn't know this path?
4. Neither Janine Jones nor Alice Walker could explain why they went straight to Roan's Dyke Path, nor why whilst walking up said path towards the V, failed to even look in the wooded area before the wall. If a body was going to be found it wasn't going to be on the path - obviously.
[Name removed] and [Name removed]'s answers also consisted of nothing other than "I don't remember" and "I don't know".
Don't you think there is something wrong with all this with 4 people in particular seemingly being hit by amnesia?
-
It’s very possible he used the log burner/or other burning pit in the back garden prior to meeting with the boys at the Abbey and again when he arrived home from the Abbey
@)(++(*
I like the way you come out with this completely unsubstantiated drivel, but fail to answer any of the 4 points I made above.
-
The main cause of miscarriages of justice is when Police suffer from 'confirmation bias' which is very clearly what happened with Mitchell's case. I remember a couple of years ago you were less than convinced about whether LM was guilty or not (unless I've mixed you up with someone else). I assume you've read the transcripts. The evidence of Janine Jones would have canned laughter over it if it wasn't a murder trial. Consider this:
1. Most of her answers in Court were "I don't know".
2. She claimed in Court LM showed no reaction to the body being discovered, but her original statement said "everyone was in hysterics".
3. Janine Jones claimed in Court she did not know of Roan's Dyke Path. So she lived with her mother for about 16 years less than 5m walk away and was never told by her mother not to go up the path when she was a child or teenager? Seriously? Janine knew Jodi used the path to meet Luke as well, but apparently doesn't know this path?
4. Neither Janine Jones nor Alice Walker could explain why they went straight to Roan's Dyke Path, nor why whilst walking up said path towards the V, failed to even look in the wooded area before the wall. If a body was going to be found it wasn't going to be on the path - obviously.
[Name removed] and [Name removed]'s answers also consisted of nothing other than "I don't remember" and "I don't know".
Don't you think there is something wrong with all this with 4 people in particular seemingly being hit by amnesia?
Just a couple of things to correct and highlight here WW.
JaJ's did not stay near to the path for 16yrs. She only moved to EH (Easthouses) when she was 14yrs old, stayed there until her 16th yr then returning to stay at her former home which was the grans house. She did not attend the local school, no friends in the area, had no reason in that brief time to learn of the RDP. She knew not the names of any paths, knew of a path behind the school, not familiar with the path itself. We can see the gran knew which path and that Jodi's mother had knowledge of it also.
[Name removed]'s on the other hand, same as her sister was not brought up in EH, moved there around 10/11yrs old. Still stayed frequently at the grans (her former home) thus in contact with friends in the area. Also did not attend the local high school. We know she learnt of the RDP via LM, of his home being located on the Newbattle side of it. And as above, her mothers clear knowledge of it, the isolation, placing a ban therefore on her younger daughter using it alone.
As before I will place this question. Did LM make claim to being in hysterics? AW, SK, Ambulance crew, police arrival, make any claims to him being in hysterics? We can see DF picked this up from her 1st account, we can see it was clarified in later accounts as to who was in hysterics. Reality is both JaJ's with her gran, both screaming hysterically. SK retching, females shaking, SK freaking out on the phone. We can see clearly why it was accepted that not "everyone" was in a hysterical state.
We also see clearly that 99.9% of original statements were adopted as evidence in court. As in, no denial in place of what was said at the time into following accounts.
We could forever and a day debate around opinions, ones perceptions around memory of all witnesses. That is fair enough, it is however refreshing to see that self interest route being quashed bit by bit. How morally wrong it was to place focus by way of deception upon Jodi's direct family. They did nothing wrong, they told the truth, which we can now see clearly.
Therefore the two main points you make are both wrong, did not have direct knowledge, familiar with that path, was not brought up in the area. That the "hysterics" was as she stated firmly wrong, that not everyone was, least of all LM who made no claim himself to being in such a state.
One last thing, I touched on this elsewhere. Might it be best to apply some logic around reality of the facts one does know. Such as two people being closely connected to the victim, both her sister and her gran. The difficulties that must have unfolded whilst given testimony, knowing and being led into reliving that awful night, the massive trauma they suffered as a result. As with SK also, he may not have known the girl a very long time, but he certainly was reliving that horror/trauma also. Which might just explain somewhat the fight to not have some memories, they may have tried to blank out, until having to again. - Just a thought.
-
Just a couple of things to correct and highlight here WW.
JaJ's did not stay near to the path for 16yrs. She only moved to EH (Easthouses) when she was 14yrs old, stayed there until her 16th yr then returning to stay at her former home which was the grans house. She did not attend the local school, no friends in the area, had no reason in that brief time to learn of the RDP. She knew not the names of any paths, knew of a path behind the school, not familiar with the path itself. We can see the gran knew which path and that Jodi's mother had knowledge of it also.
[Name removed]'s on the other hand, same as her sister was not brought up in EH, moved there around 10/11yrs old. Still stayed frequently at the grans (her former home) thus in contact with friends in the area. Also did not attend the local high school. We know she learnt of the RDP via LM, of his home being located on the Newbattle side of it. And as above, her mothers clear knowledge of it, the isolation, placing a ban therefore on her younger daughter using it alone.
As before I will place this question. Did LM make claim to being in hysterics? AW, SK, Ambulance crew, police arrival, make any claims to him being in hysterics? We can see DF picked this up from her 1st account, we can see it was clarified in later accounts as to who was in hysterics. Reality is both JaJ's with her gran, both screaming hysterically. SK retching, females shaking, SK freaking out on the phone. We can see clearly why it was accepted that not "everyone" was in a hysterical state.
We also see clearly that 99.9% of original statements were adopted as evidence in court. As in, no denial in place of what was said at the time into following accounts.
We could forever and a day debate around opinions, ones perceptions around memory of all witnesses. That is fair enough, it is however refreshing to see that self interest route being quashed bit by bit. How morally wrong it was to place focus by way of deception upon Jodi's direct family. They did nothing wrong, they told the truth, which we can now see clearly.
Therefore the two main points you make are both wrong, did not have direct knowledge, familiar with that path, was not brought up in the area. That the "hysterics" was as she stated firmly wrong, that not everyone was, least of all LM who made no claim himself to being in such a state.
One last thing, I touched on this elsewhere. Might it be best to apply some logic around reality of the facts one does know. Such as two people being closely connected to the victim, both her sister and her gran. The difficulties that must have unfolded whilst given testimony, knowing and being led into reliving that awful night, the massive trauma they suffered as a result. As with SK also, he may not have known the girl a very long time, but he certainly was reliving that horror/trauma also. Which might just explain somewhat the fight to not have some memories, they may have tried to blank out, until having to again. - Just a thought.
Yet no allowance is made for the trauma of a 14 year old who has just found the mutilated body of his girlfriend? How coherent do you think your recall would have been in similar circumstances?
-
Yet no allowance is made for the trauma of a 14 year old who has just found the mutilated body of his girlfriend? How coherent do you think your recall would have been in similar circumstances?
There actually needs to be proof to back that up.
-
There actually needs to be proof to back that up.
Proof of trauma? There is proof from the operator who took Luke’s call that he was in a panic.
Further different people react differently to trauma. It’s rather ridiculous to base any kind of opinion of a person’s guilt on how they react to a situation which must have been devastating for them.
Susan Smith wept profusely over the death of her children who she claimed had been abducted in her car. It was later found that she had killed them. By your logic you’d have exonerated her of guilt simply because she was hysterical. Can you see how simplistic your thinking is?
-
There actually needs to be proof to back that up.
NB - Proof that he found anything, of not being the killer.
-
Proof of trauma? There is proof from the operator who took Luke’s call that he was in a panic.
Further different people react differently to trauma. It’s rather ridiculous to base any kind of opinion of a person’s guilt on how they react to a situation which must have been devastating for them.
Susan Smith wept profusely over the death of her children who she claimed had been abducted in her car. It was later found that she had killed them. By your logic you’d have exonerated her of guilt simply because she was hysterical. Can you see how simplistic your thinking is?
These other cases you refer to . . . I'm betting they didn't have the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that LM's case did. Cherry-picking one or two areas from another case and applying it to this one is obtuse and pointless. LM's conviction was secured by the whole and not individual parts. Logic and Occam's razor -- far too many coincidences in LM's case; no one could be that unlucky.
-
These other cases you refer to . . . I'm betting they didn't have the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that LM's case did. Cherry-picking one or two areas from another case and applying it to this one is obtuse and pointless. LM's conviction was secured by the whole and not individual parts. Logic and Occam's razor -- far too many coincidences in LM's case; no one could be that unlucky.
In Luke’s case there’s not one piece of circumstantial evidence that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
-
In Luke’s case there’s not one piece of circumstantial evidence that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
Either his defence in court was completely non existent or the evidence DID stand up to scrutiny and was sufficient to convince the majority of the jury of his guilt.
-
Either his defence in court was completely non existent or the evidence DID stand up to scrutiny and was sufficient to convince the majority of the jury of his guilt.
If anyone can explain the abomination of CM/SM's testimonies I would love to hear. Also, LM's police interview recently uploaded was very revealing. Swearing at police officers etc and showing no empathy towards [Name removed]. The foxheads who still defend him have rounded on Jane H and others as being responsible for his plight.
Lean now reinvented herself as dumb Joe Blogs on Twitter pretending she's looking into the case.
-
Either his defence in court was completely non existent or the evidence DID stand up to scrutiny and was sufficient to convince the majority of the jury of his guilt.
A unanimous jury convicted Jonathan Fleming of a murder in NYC on the basis of eyewitness testimony that was later recanted. It was at night, and the eyewitness was over 100 meters away. Further, Mr. Fleming had evidence that he was in Orlando, FL, which is roughly 1600 km away. Juries sometimes favor weak eyewitness testimony over strong alibi evidence.
-
If anyone can explain the abomination of CM/SM's testimonies I would love to hear. Also, LM's police interview recently uploaded was very revealing. Swearing at police officers etc and showing no empathy towards [Name removed]. The foxheads who still defend him have rounded on Jane H and others as being responsible for his plight.
Killer Luke Mitchell Orchestrated Interview With Journalist Grace McLean After His Section 14 Interview On 14th August 2003
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/KGPtIXY8lXQ?si=I1F5GEh4Gx00djHN
-
A unanimous jury convicted Jonathan Fleming of a murder in NYC on the basis of eyewitness testimony that was later recanted. It was at night, and the eyewitness was over 100 meters away. Further, Mr. Fleming had evidence that he was in Orlando, FL, which is roughly 1600 km away. Juries sometimes favor weak eyewitness testimony over strong alibi evidence.
However in the case of LM V HMA there was anything but strong alibi evidence. Several of your "weak eyewitness testimony" over 1 in the dark of 100 meters away.
-
Proof of trauma? There is proof from the operator who took Luke’s call that he was in a panic.
Further different people react differently to trauma. It’s rather ridiculous to base any kind of opinion of a person’s guilt on how they react to a situation which must have been devastating for them.
Susan Smith wept profusely over the death of her children who she claimed had been abducted in her car. It was later found that she had killed them. By your logic you’d have exonerated her of guilt simply because she was hysterical. Can you see how simplistic your thinking is?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL - I just LOVE your double standards depending on which case you are commenting on, utterly hilarious!
-
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL - I just LOVE your double standards depending on which case you are commenting on, utterly hilarious!
8((()*/
-
However in the case of LM V HMA there was anything but strong alibi evidence. Several of your "weak eyewitness testimony" over 1 in the dark of 100 meters away.
One of the reasons that I brought up the Fleming case is to make the point that juries may weigh the evidence in a surprising way; therefore, one should not treat a jury's verdict as being the end of the discussion (as Jane Hamilton did in one of her unfortunate articles). I agree that the alibi evidence that we know of was stronger in the Fleming case than this one. I would point again, however, to the lack of known cell phone triangulation evidence that might have provided independent and objective evidence of where LM was. IMO the strongest evidence against LM is the testimony of AB. Yet regardless of which direction she was traveling, she still had to be turning in one direction as she was looking in the opposite direction. That alone would give me pause, but there are other well-known problems with her testimony.
-
Just a couple of things to correct and highlight here WW.
JaJ's did not stay near to the path for 16yrs. She only moved to EH (Easthouses) when she was 14yrs old, stayed there until her 16th yr then returning to stay at her former home which was the grans house. She did not attend the local school, no friends in the area, had no reason in that brief time to learn of the RDP. She knew not the names of any paths, knew of a path behind the school, not familiar with the path itself. We can see the gran knew which path and that Jodi's mother had knowledge of it also.
[Name removed]'s on the other hand, same as her sister was not brought up in EH, moved there around 10/11yrs old. Still stayed frequently at the grans (her former home) thus in contact with friends in the area. Also did not attend the local high school. We know she learnt of the RDP via LM, of his home being located on the Newbattle side of it. And as above, her mothers clear knowledge of it, the isolation, placing a ban therefore on her younger daughter using it alone.
As before I will place this question. Did LM make claim to being in hysterics? AW, SK, Ambulance crew, police arrival, make any claims to him being in hysterics? We can see DF picked this up from her 1st account, we can see it was clarified in later accounts as to who was in hysterics. Reality is both JaJ's with her gran, both screaming hysterically. SK retching, females shaking, SK freaking out on the phone. We can see clearly why it was accepted that not "everyone" was in a hysterical state.
We also see clearly that 99.9% of original statements were adopted as evidence in court. As in, no denial in place of what was said at the time into following accounts.
We could forever and a day debate around opinions, ones perceptions around memory of all witnesses. That is fair enough, it is however refreshing to see that self interest route being quashed bit by bit. How morally wrong it was to place focus by way of deception upon Jodi's direct family. They did nothing wrong, they told the truth, which we can now see clearly.
Therefore the two main points you make are both wrong, did not have direct knowledge, familiar with that path, was not brought up in the area. That the "hysterics" was as she stated firmly wrong, that not everyone was, least of all LM who made no claim himself to being in such a state.
One last thing, I touched on this elsewhere. Might it be best to apply some logic around reality of the facts one does know. Such as two people being closely connected to the victim, both her sister and her gran. The difficulties that must have unfolded whilst given testimony, knowing and being led into reliving that awful night, the massive trauma they suffered as a result. As with SK also, he may not have known the girl a very long time, but he certainly was reliving that horror/trauma also. Which might just explain somewhat the fight to not have some memories, they may have tried to blank out, until having to again. - Just a thought.
So she hadn't been there 16 years, so in the 2-3 years she did live 300 yards from the path are you telling me she had never heard it mentioned at school by anyone or other locals and never been told by her mother not to go up there, or ever heard her mother tell Jodi not to go up the path?? Even if she supposedly had never been up there, her mother would still have told her there's a path up there into the woods - don't ever go up there on your own. You are saying her mother warned her younger daughter not to go up there when she was about 10 but didn't warn her older daughter who was about 14 not to go up it? So Janine at age 14-16 never heard her mother telling Jodi not to go up that path? A warning for the 10 year old but nothing for the 14 year old? That just wouldn't happen. No parent warns one child and not the other. This is the problem with this case - people bending reality to make it fit.
So JuJ knew the path, Ovens knew the path, Jodi knew the path and he who cannot be named knew the path and was even seen following Jodi very near the path, but for some reason JaJ has never heard of the path? I mean honestly, seriously, keep it real.
What's your explanation for F and D being up there at the alleged time of the murder but not remembering what they were doing?