If you mean going by the photo I would describe a girl with very baggy possibly black clothing on, with a symbol on the back. Not a navy hoodie with lighter colour trousers I took to be jeans…
I’ve asked many questions over the years about the ‘narrative’ as you put it, on here also. Regarding AB movements and where the house was, did AB get out the car and go into the house or just view from outside, how long did she stay etc etc but after all that none of that matters if I don’t believe it was Jodi she seen. Going by the info I would have put that bit of evidence down as reasonable doubt and moved on to the next piece of evidence. But that’s the point it’s up to each person to decide what they believe / interpret from the information we have. It’s not black and white and we will likely never know for sure. I for one have no idea if Luke is guilty or not I just hope he is and wish the Scottish legal system was more open with the information from trials then it might make things a whole lot clearer and stop all the misinformation from both side. But never going to happen.
You can get any information you want from the trial - Just got to fork out a pretty penny for it. But and again, after so many times of pushing the point forward, of SL and co NOT having access to full court transcripts, there has been the blanking in admitting this until recently, very recently. Access to LM attending his own trial of course, however what was proven beyond any doubt, is that he compulsively lied. - If some pigs should fly in this case, then the one person to blame for LM being where he is, is as always himself.
Of course it matters where house was, viewing and so forth, when people are punting out nonsense such as, it must have taken this amount of time to do what she did, without even knowing distance and so forth! It matters a lot, it is evidence as heard. Such as, that she did not physically view into any house, located it, turned around and headed home.
Did your two independent people give a description of the logo? Where were they? Where was the girl and the mystery male? What day did they first go forward, and again, what were the actual colour and type of trouser the victim was wearing? - So many questions.
We are, as always, left with the absolute fact that AB identified the male as being LM, that he was again identified on the west end in the same clobber, then his doppelganger was seen again just down from there, but NO LM anywhere else seen! That clear sequence of events, with nothing, and that is absolutely zero to show that anything else happened.
And to back up AB in court, those changes, we had the couple who saw LM after changing, not sure in being able to identify him at the time, by court they stated it was absolutely not the person in the dock! But is was LM, wearing those same clothes, that shiny bomber with orange lining and light coloured snow boarding boots. NO said LM, I was not there, it was not me. - But guess what? He was not where he claimed, all these bloody doppelgangers but no real LM - Yawn.