Rolfe on Ms Leans book?
“I am simply gobsmacked that the time needed for Mrs Bryson to go look at the house seems to have been airbrushed from the narrative. Her original story was that she drove first to the supermarket, did the shopping, loaded it into the car, then drove to Easthouses where there was a house for sale she was interested in. This wasn't an arranged viewing, she just wanted to take a look at it from the outside. She got a bit lost trying to find the house, but found it, had a look, then drove back home. It was quite clear at that time that she had seen the couple at the eastern end of Roan's Dyke path on her way home, after she'd looked at the house, not on her way to the house.
Why was it airbrushed? - However. It has always been the case that AB saw this couple on her way home. She was driving towards Morris Road. Looking directly into the path, facing onto LM. From her first account to further clarification of times. That she had left the supermarket around 4.33pm. Aprox: 20-25 mins later she saw this couple. Lot's of missing information? Where is this supermarket? Where did AB stay. Which route did she drive?
She said she got home, unloaded the car, put away the shopping, and started to make the tea. Then her phone rang and she took a call. She estimated the call came in about half an hour after she got home, at about 6.20. In fact the call was logged on her phone as 6.17, so she was about right. That would put her return home at about 5.45 to 5.50. She originally said she saw the couple at the path about five or ten minutes before she got home, which is about right for the drive from there to her house. This puts the time of the sighting at about 5.35 to 5.45, without any need to reference the supermarket checkout time
.
But one very much does need to reference the checkout times, as all of this information is inclusive. That AB had been shopping, there would be receipts. That AB had received a call from her husband after arriving home. There is a starting point and a finishing point. There is a lot of estimates in between. Nothing more. These times needed to be determined. And where does one start, at the beginning. And upon clarification it was also known that AB had used the ATM. The wheat from the chaff. The starting point, upon completion of the shop, as it was after this shop AB drove to Easthouses.
The till receipt time of 4.45 (and 31 seconds) tallies with Mrs Bryson's own estimate of what she did, giving her 30 to 35 minutes for the actual shopping in the store (she in fact estimated 35 to 45 minutes) and about an hour in total for the drive to Easthouses (12 to 17 minutes each way), the search for the house for sale, time to look at it, and then the drive back home again. If the bank statement time of 4.32 (and 45 seconds) is used instead, this cuts the time for the actual shopping to only 20 minutes maximum, including queueing up for the till and ringing up the purchases. I suppose it depends on how much she bought, but the till receipt tallies better with her own recollection of how the time went.
Where is the fault of the till receipt? Upon checking AB's account, that Ms Bryson had did her shop, she used the ATM after her shop. As above the ATM was 12mins earlier than the till receipt, something was wrong? If AB's account was to be correct then one of these had to be faulty, and the till receipt time mechanism was out. This has been discussed many times. (will touch on this subject later, of what is actually evident, of "all" of this information that Ms Lean may have)
However, why does it matter? If you take 13 minutes off the time spent in the supermarket, all this does is add 13 minutes to the time spent looking for and looking at the house for sale, because it doesn't affect the timing of her return home. It moves her arrival in Easthouses 13 minutes earlier, but it doesn't change her departure time. And yet it was on her way out of Easthouses that she was supposed to have seen the couple at the end of
the path!
But you don't take 13mins spent off the time in the supermarket do you? There is no need to, as the till mechanism was out. Let's think about that. AB estimated she had been in the supermarket, as above for, 35-45mins. She had in fact only been in around 20mins, as you clearly deduced by the ATM receipt. These are estimations. Ms Bryson was not keeping tally. Much like the clarification of LM on Newbattle R'd. The police used clear starting and finishing points. The call to the Jones house at 5.32pm and to his friends after 7pm. His estimation was massively out, was it not? This short period turned into over 90mins. His claimed start point and finishing point. However, with LM there was nothing in this wait, was there? That could make him lose track of time??
However - it does change her departure time from Easthouses by 13mins. If one arrives 13mins earlier then they depart 13mins earlier. They arrive home 13mins earlier. And onto estimations yet again of the time in the house. Which clearly showed, that AB had been longer home than her estimate - before her husband called. That is all.
This lady had children, shopping, dinner and so forth - lot's to distract real time.
However again - The times were from leaving the store, to this sighting.
Using the bank statement time for the completion of the supermarket shop instead of the till receipt gets her arrival in Easthouses to about 16.53, which is exactly the time the prosecution needed Luke to have been seen at the end of the path with Jodi. But that's not when Mrs Bryson said she saw the people at the path!
No it does not - Let us think of other information missing here, that AB's children had been playing up, that she quickly gave up the notion of viewing this house in any detail at all. That upon her arrival in Easthouses, that she pretty much turned around to drive home. This yet again, has been discussed many times. AB arrived in Easthouses then went home again. This part of her journey was mere minutes. The sighting approx: 4.50-55pm, could have been slightly over this but not before. The lane is in Easthouses, AB was in Easthouses.
Bear in mind that Mrs Bryson was driving her car, with two children in it, one of them only a two-year-old. She didn't stop to scrutinise these people, she simply noticed them as she drove past. The layout of the road is important here. If you're driving south from Easthouses on the road in question, the end of the path is at a fairly sharp bend. In fact at that point the path appears to continue on in a south-west direction while the road makes a fairly sharp left turn to continue in a south-east direction.
At last - Clear cut information. However as you drive along Easthouses Road towards this bend (bearing in mind those children, speed restrictions and of approaching this bend.) You are looking straight onto the entrance of this lane. Here is the important part. This was not simply just two people standing at the entrance, was it? Where is the reason and explanation of why AB's attention was caught momentarily? You are correct there was no scrutinizing. AB, for those brief seconds was focussed upon this male, his actions, It was these very actions that captured her attention. They were odd. There appeared to be some form of altercation. It was this very reason, as to why, AB went forward the next day. Not simply, Just two people.
Note that a driver coming from this direction is pretty much looking straight up the path for a few moments, and Mrs Bryson would have had a reasonable view of anyone standing at the path entrance, although only for a couple of seconds. (Zoom in to the path itself here. Before you continue to Google Maps) This is what Mrs Bryson originally said she saw. She wouldn't have had much time to see the couple, and she would obviously have had to concentrate on the left-hand bend in front of her, but it's a reasonable enough story
.
It's not a story though, is it - it is the truth is it not? Interestingly here, think of the shade. Of that sandy coloured hair appearing darker. But most of all, think of one person facing out, and another looking right at them. The time it would take for a photograph. Click, there we have what was implanted in AB's mind, that image of LM, the person she ID.
In order for Mrs Bryson to have seen anyone at that path at 4.53, she must have seen this when she was driving north, towards Easthouses, before she went to look at the house for sale. But driving north you simply can't see what she is supposed to have seen. Driving south, you can see it (although to clock that much detail in the couple of seconds as you drive past is quite a feat), but if she saw this when she was driving south then the time was about 5.40, not 4.53.
And this I'm afraid is nothing short of guff. Where on Earth does Rolfe get this 48mins later from. Dear of dear?! Let's Just make this very simple, yet again. Remove all these IF's - AB drove to Easthouses. The lane and Easthouses are one and the same. Jodi stayed in Easthouses, a minutes walk from this lane. AB was going to view a house which she pretty much gave up on. She drove in and out of Easthouses. Her children were playing up. This part of her journey took no more than 2-3 mins. 4.50-55pm.
The police did not make up the ATM nor faulty till receipt. The police did not make up AB's route. AB did not make up anything. - AB ID LM and got the clothing pretty much 80% accurate. Not spot on, as Rolfe clearly states. There was not scrutinizing. It was LM who captured her attention. His actions for those brief seconds
