No apology necessary, it’s always good to see other people take on the details and what other info they can add.
It’s my understanding there was no dna of Luke anywhere at or near the scene what so ever but there was some from Jodi on a pair of his trousers, agreed not related to the murder? There was other full profile identified persons dna on Jodi and other partial profiles (which by now they might get more from if they were to be retested possibly?)
I only ever heard he was grubby and appeared unwashed, You said “The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed.” This is info I’ve not heard before, where did you hear this?
The timings it a hard one, the boys at the v at around 5.15 and Luke making his call at 5.35, then being seen at end of his street 10/15 mins later, just doesn’t leave much time but yes it’s possible I’d think, just not likely. To kill, strip, then carry out all injuries after death, seems to me someone took some time and sick pleasure from this, it was not a simple quick murder I don’t think.
On the other hand I’ve always thought if it was Luke it would be more likely to have been between 6 and 7 when there was no sightings of him, maybe met Jodi then headed back up to hang around at hers, like she told her mum. But the time of 5.15 I just don’t think is enough time.
The sightings at top of path imo is not even close to Luke or especially Jodi. I’ve never been sure of the significance of the sighting at the bottom of the path though, genuine questions if someone can clarify even if it was Luke how does that connect him to Jodi or the murder? Was he not waiting for jodi on that road?
As for the dinner, Shane could not confirm Luke was home but he did confirm he had his dinner that night, if his mum was not home til 5.15 then who made dinner. It could of course be that Luke put it in the oven then went out and hims mum made the rest. But his mum did confirm he was home. Comes down to if you believe her or not I suppose, the jury didn’t
No witnesses, the person at the top and bottom of the path might be the same person, might be 2 different people or might be Luke. If it was someone that knew him then for me that would be a different story altogether. Also the person who saw him did not identify him in court. I know he looked completely different but she knew exactly what she was being asked and did not point him out.
It all comes down to people’s take on the information to hand. What we really need is a fully impartial documentary showing the facts as they are written in the statement etc rather than people’s interpretation of the info from both sides (including me lol) Was there dna or not, get it rechecked with today’s technology, were the statements changed or not, what is in the police notes for that night, was there a parka, what does Shane remember, is there a missing knife, how was the crime scene handled and the investigation in full, did the police check all avenues of information or focus on one person etc so many questions but 2 different sided answers, an impartial documentary or review is the only was to sort out this whole mess else it will never end unless Luke admits to it or other evidence found, both unlikely.
Unfortunately not - You are asking for a review due to the book onto the documentary. So no it is not the only way forward to appease who exactly? Let us make this as simple as possible, really, really simple.
Sure I have said this rather silly thing before. The trial starts and only the defence show up, it is allowed to go ahead. There can be no doubt that guilt can not be proved. Silly?
But that is exactly what the author has had, only the end result of the case his original defence built up, and handed over to him. Along with anything else one has managed to gleam from the public domain and so forth.
Now work back, to all that one has never been privy to. Those investigation files, that were used for the defence to build that case and take to court. The prosecution. The DNA, that professional feedback at the time of the results, in order and explained. Precognitions of vital, key witnesses.
Now step back to court and include the prosecution - what is still missing. Non attendance of hearing and seeing that evidence first hand. Incomplete trial transcripts. Not every part of every witness statement (GDPR), only that which was used and handed over to his client, copies.
Now some further basic realities here - This self proclaimed expert. Ok, so who could not even say that certain witnesses testified or not, why? As above, for she has neve been privy to or had full court transcripts. That is pretty massive. Of non inclusive witness statements. Now R, Kelly is a prime example of this, his son was not on trial, GDPR and not inclusive of those defence papers handed over to Mitchell. Certain phone records/conversations and so forth. Nothing to do with the boy on trial, irrelevant and not included. This is just a small example, without going into any deceitful behaviour.
The point - There is absolutely no basis for demanding a review, upon someone who has made up a list of questions? That she demands need answered. When, the stark reality is, she has never, ever had enough insight into nearly enough information and so forth, to even come close to having any proof, that there were flaws in an investigation she knows naff all about?! Outwith the standard which is known. i.e The non erection of a tent etc.
And you will not like the next part - for it is mockery, but we are talking about someone's ability, someones strength in having analytical skills, any type of expertise or professionalism.
This leading the police a merry dance, where they appear to have ended up on the Reeds Drive side of Lady Path. Now this is within half an hour of that call to the emergency services, before the police were on the scene, before they knew if it were Jodi, how she died or if any crime had taken place - The author gives an alternate reason as to why they may have headed to Lady Path at Reeds drive first, for she discovered that a known sex offender stayed there, thus reason why the police may have been checking there first. - ludicrous and severely lacking. They were trying to get to the search trio, to see if a crime had been committed.
Now if one feels, that this type of repetition throughout the book, shows anything other than a clear lack of much of anything upstairs - then it is not surprising that some bow to her questions and all else. Demanding a review alongside her, on the basis of her claims.
Yes, we all know that if a crime is committed, it flags up similar crimes and culprits that are then checked out - not before any bloody crime has been discovered though!
And, how do you not know about the evidence of Mitchell not being his usual unkempt self? How do you not know that he firmly denied going anywhere near that path. This is evidence heard at the trial, no review needed for this. But to answer your question around F&W:
The significance of that sighting was of two youths being positively Identified as being LM. One in the East end and one on the West end of that path. The sighting was just over and slightly down from the entrance, at a gate. Not just that they were positively ID as being Mitchell, similar clothing, army/fishing style parka khaki coat with a German badge. Michell denied being anywhere near that gate or the entrance to that path - and really? 90mins he claimed to be on that road, and he went nowhere near to the path he claimed this girlfriend would walk down. And at first Mitchell claimed to be in the house at the time of that sighting. It was only after the phone calls coming to light, did he change to being on the road some 15mins earlier than originally stated.
And of AB, and again, with no knowledge of the actual evidence heard at court - which completely wipes out some of the ludicrous, deceitful claims. People are being led to expect far too much. How the hell is anyone supposed to take in every single thing, to a T? She took Mitchell in and ID him, and she would not waiver a Jot. As with the girl, not far off at all, was she? Hair dark, possibly contained, wearing a dark navy/black hoodie with slightly lighter coloured trouser, baggy around the bottom. Possibly jeans/cords. That was her clarification after given that first account. Where not once did she state the girl had on light denim jeans. It was lighter than the the top. Not light denim.
But I agree it would be good to get an accurate documentary on the actual/factual evidence. Balanced. Mitchell may very well release his witness statements in full along with his mother? Perhaps the Jones family may do the same. - Perhaps the law will change and full disclosure may take away the options, we never know. But bias is certainly no cause for a review.