A case of believing what you want to believe.
Janine Jones court testimony “ Luke went straight over the wall”
Janine Jones first statement “Luke’s dog was carrying on at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about”.
Source : BBC Scotland Frontline
Of course - this book just jammed back with outstanding proof of Mitchells innocence! So outstanding the author can't show statements to back this, to show the truth. Course one can't for it does not exist, so one goes into deceitful waffle instead. Is that what truthseeking is. Justice? - Not on your life.
Let us do a little reversal here - They all mentioned the dog at a wall, to the author in her deceitful interpretation of the statements = it must be the same as Mitchell, if they mentioned the dog then it must have been where Mitchell claimed. So she makes statements such as "Janine and Steven were telling that exact same story as Luke - that the dog alerted a little way past the V break" But further back in this also, the author states in her "agreed facts" that "they all walked several meters past the V break". There is nothing used from the statements, just that wide ref that the information given is from the defence files - must be true then, must it not? I mean this is a truthseeker, a Dr of criminology, studied this case for years - what reason could one have for lying, for misleading the reader - the answer is simple, one is backing a liar, and to do so one must do the same. The truth is the reason why Mitchell is in Jail, can't have that now, not when one is proclaiming innocence?
Firstly, you do know of course that this search trio did not use the word V in those first statements at all, they used breaks in the wall. The big and the little break. The big break being the Gino spot, a large break along the top of the wall, the smaller the V break, with it going down the wall. (The AD questioning, highlighting and reading from the statements to the Jury and witnesses) So they walked to the first break and Mitchell climbed the wall and they walked to the second break and Mitchell went into the woods. All down that path, they make reference to everyone, (each other) and of course the dog. Faith has obliged us many times with those lines from JaJ's statement and in court from the FS documentary, and we have some cross examination from DF at court. - We do not have, and never had anything, from those statements of this search trio going past that break with Mitchell, we do not have anything that states "alerting", "led them to" "because of the dog" - nothing. And it take little to realise, that along with those lines from the FS programme, that cross examination by DF, that if there had been anything of them going past, using any same terms as Mitchell - they would be shown clearly and repeatedly as proof. Turnball (AD) showed that clear sequence of events from the meet and down that path, until they reached the V break.
I have mentioned precognitions many times now, and for most we know what these are. - Where both the Crown and defence interview key witnesses, any witnesses they choose to, to go over those statements, highlighting and discussing those crucial areas. And everything around that search was crucial. It had to be shown clearly, that LM was leading the search with his dog in tow. Does one imagine, he simply took it in and out of this professionally claimed, trained seek mode at will? I mean, do dogs urinate and scent when in seek mode? Why was it out of seek mode at the Gino break, or that slight walk into the crop field with it, the dog was on a tight reign. And he climbed that wall and he was at haste to go back in front. And he did the same after walking several feet into the field, and he was at haste yet again to go in front. His dog was not seeking, scenting and leading him, he was taking the lead at all times, at haste. And he was in front when they approached that second break and not a foot past it did Mitchell go.
And not once has there been any denial that this search trio gave accounts of this dog at the V - that they could only ever have done this, with that stark reality that they were all at the V. There was no "several meters past" - They could not have seen the dogs head level with it, they could not have seen that lead getting handed to AW, they could not have seen him in the woodland, and they could not have seen him turning to his left, they could not have used terms then of, continuing to walk down after he went over, of walking those ten steps or more when he shouted out, that they darted back to the V break and Mitchell was there. They were all together, at the V with the dog. And AW made it clear to DF that she was just behind, they were in line. That when they stopped at the break, she was right behind them, and Mitchell handed her the lead.
And this is what the police saw in those first statements - that stark contrast of Mitchell and his cartoon image of a 'pointer dog' Like it had been zapped into this major alert stance! Diving to that wall and jumping up at it, air sniffing, alerting "them" to where Jodi lay. And the description does not match, and they are not saying it happened in the same fashion and not where Mitchell claimed. So they do seek further clarification, to the point that these witnesses are taken back to that path - to re live that evening, to think and clarify those statements. They are the same! They are still at the same spot, The dog is still there, going to the wall and all else, at and to the V break on approaching it. But what they clarify, is many actions of that dog all the way down that path, inclusive of it leaving it's scent in different areas? It was being a dog at Mitchells command. He put himself in front, not the dog and all times.This family/business guard dog, that was trained to protect property.
And Mitchell did the same, he went over and clarified that walk down the path - and he could not be clearer, to the point he drew a diagram/map - And he had those X's on the path that were him, Kelly and JaJ on the path, and one for Jodi in the woods directly over the wall, and he stated "parallel to" where she lay. Jodi was over 40ft down from the V break.
Mirror image, not on your life - truthseeker! - that is a joke, surely?
And those contradictions over and over - Where we know, and with the timings done over each account, that there was no time for any of Mitchells claims. The author tries as best she can, manipulatively with that deflective waffle to have that search trio there prior to 11.10pm, in her attempt to fit in all of Mitchells claims. To have him rushing up that path, to have the search trio there, to have this slower pace going down, scraping and scraping and contradicting oneself over and over. - For there is nothing to back any of it up. This slower pace in comparison to the brisk walk down from AW's was went over with the police, at the pace they walked - it does not change to suit the author. It most certainly does not change that very precise account that Mitchell gave, and as with most of his claims - they simply disintegrated under scrutiny.
