And again, we are back to the point - You are putting out what was far from the reality of the evidence, this simple application of lying about age, it had absolutely nothing to do with lying about his age, nor of him getting any tattoo!
That false narrative on repeat - The evidence. CM was asked about using false ID and she denied this, she lied that this had happened. She said none had been asked for, only his age. To, what if I told you the mans name, and again it was no, the man was in his 50's. Missing the whole point, this of course after DF had a fit of producing evidence from the staff.
Of the book, that ID given of a man, a family friend, of altered ID to have a date of birth of a younger person. To show the court how easily the woman would lie under oath to protect her son. That there was no way that the staff made that name up, they did not know the Mitchells nor the name of their friend.
So, not even a good try, bar those who soak any old nonsense up of course. It had nothing to do with allowing her son a tattoo, trivial, nor indeed of using fake ID, it was only around lying under oath, of denying that they had produced this fake ID under the name of a family friend - Caught red handed!
As we had with the knife, shall we have that again? In that station and asked about the new knife that had been purchased, the police wanted to know where it was, no idea was the claim, could not remember any knife or where it was. For it was not in the house whilst being searched. Leaving the station, discussion with lawyer and so forth, one again had the most amazing memory recall, they located the knife from its hiding place (perhaps it was with the other one, who knows?) and gave it to Beaumont.
To evidence, the search team, the pictures taken of that search. No bag with any knife in it, as she tried to claim, that they had missed it, nope not true, evidence already heard. Of her having no idea of any knife nor of where it was. To miraculously locate it and claim it had been hidden for camping in winter.
To SM and being told that he had of course told the truth, caught red handed again, of turning ones face away and told about a "petulant child" the actions of one when being found out repeatedly! to not being truthful, of caught doing wrong.
So, this false narrative by manipulators and liars, who do this across the board, where Lean, to those a little lacking, attempts to apply that the new knife had the police attempt to place it as the murder weapon, again that deception - The only knife placed as missing and still missing is a Brown handled Skunting knife.
To Jodi's mother, the other half of this "Two Mothers" and again, manipulators and liars who put out a false narrative, attempt many illogical points that have no bearing in the slightest about testimony under oath. Lean tells us from statements of some cancelled appointment, which was told to the police as it is in the statements. Which again shows honesty and not deception. That whilst one had cancelled an appointment (not interested in those who lie and manipulate at will) without showing from statements what reason was given to the doctor. Where it would appear that the doctor via the son and/or mother made it clear to them of any cannabis use.
That in a murder investigation the family told truth and not lies to the police, of that cancelled appointment, of the cannabis use - And this has what bearing exactly upon lying under oath? I do wonder at points if you actually realise what you are saying? You are highlighting repeatedly honesty to the police in a murder investigation from Jodi's family.
Yet over ride every lie told to the police by the Mitchells? Along with lying under oath, and again putting out a false narrative around what the actual evidence was about?
