What's Significant About LM Finding J J?

[Nicholas]

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?

[Mr Apples]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Parky41]

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?

[mrswah]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Paranoid Android]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Nicholas]

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”

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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”

[Nicholas]

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”

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Parky41]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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?