Author Topic: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?  (Read 22224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #345 on: February 24, 2024, 03:40:07 PM »
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. 

« Last Edit: February 24, 2024, 03:42:54 PM by Parky41 »

Offline faithlilly

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #346 on: February 24, 2024, 07:48:33 PM »
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?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #347 on: February 24, 2024, 08:38:22 PM »
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.

Offline faithlilly

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #348 on: February 25, 2024, 12:12:06 AM »
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?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #349 on: February 25, 2024, 01:37:07 AM »
There actually needs to be proof to back that up.

NB - Proof that he found anything, of not being the killer.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #350 on: February 25, 2024, 12:11:39 PM »
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.

Offline faithlilly

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #351 on: February 25, 2024, 07:00:45 PM »
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.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #352 on: February 25, 2024, 07:49:25 PM »
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.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline KenMair

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #353 on: February 25, 2024, 09:17:45 PM »
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.

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #354 on: February 27, 2024, 12:11:21 PM »
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.

Offline Nicholas

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #355 on: February 27, 2024, 03:10:12 PM »
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
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Parky41

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #356 on: February 27, 2024, 03:57:28 PM »
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.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #357 on: February 27, 2024, 04:43:05 PM »
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!
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Nicholas

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #358 on: February 27, 2024, 04:57:29 PM »
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL - I just LOVE your double standards depending on which case you are commenting on, utterly hilarious!

 8((()*/
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: What's Significant About LM Finding J J?
« Reply #359 on: February 27, 2024, 05:46:06 PM »
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.