So many assumptions in this one post but yet again.
Let’s start with this one.
‘Of a girl whom was prohibited from walking this path alone - to LM knowing this, yet keeping well back from it after 5.40pm’
Demonstrably untrue as her sister JaJ verified in a statement.
The timeframe? A noise heard from behind the wall by a cyclist informed time of death. A noise that neither JF or GD heard even though they were in the area at the time. No forensic evidence regarding time of death eg body temperature. Nothing but the much hoped for opportunity to put Luke in the frame.
Have you read the statements Faithlilly - JuJ's, all of JaJ's, Jodi's friends? All of the evidence led in court? In fact, have you read everyone's statements?
Common sense yet again would tell us - That if a person uses one or two small areas from multiple statements to show as proof that something was
"demonstrably" untrue then your demonstrably untrue is Poppycocks.
AS;
Where are AT's questions to these witnesses? - where are these witnesses answers? Why are they not shown?
Relatively simple common sense here - both have access to everything, it's called fair play - it's called a trial.
Why was the very factor of "not using this path" introduced by these witnesses in their statements?
So if you have knowledge of "all" of the statements, their full context - then you will be able to answer these two questions.
Had Jodi Jones been told by her mother not to use the path alone?
Lets's again use more common sense here and ask - why did Jodi's mother not want her to use this path?
The obvious answers yet again by using just a fraction of common sense is - yes and reason's to why would have been given, as,
Common sense yet again - Information is given, the police ask questions around it, answers are given.
So, I had said Jodi had been prohibited from using the path - this is true is it not, and again, if you have access to everything you will know that there is further verification of this from other witnesses?
LM would have known that this ban was in place - true.
LM most definitely did claim not to be near/at Roansdyke path at all until late that night.
Specifically so - by stating that he had at point point walked as far as "Barrondale cottage" an no further.
Assumptions? - LM claimed to have left his house at 5.30
LM met with the boys in the Abbey at 7.30pm approx:
Two hours. - there are no assumptions here, these are times given by himself and verification from the boys of the time of meeting as 7.30.
approx:
Two hours. Witnessed by F&W at the gate just yards from the entrance to this path. appox: 5.40pm
Nothing for approx 20mins: Is there enough time here for LM to get home, a quick change of jkt and shoes and be at the entrance of the estate for the next sighting at 6pm? 20mins
It took LM 7-mins to get from his house to the path later that night So even IF he had went down Newbattle R'd, easily done in around 10mins. But common sense would tell us he needed just a little bit more time.
There is, and this is no assumption yet again - a shortcut through the woods which take you out into the bottom half of the estate in which he stayed.
Off of Newbattle R'd. LM stayed in the bottom half of this estate.
6pm until 6.15pm approx : there are three sightings of LM around the estate entrance, two by boys from school one a motorist.
Then nothing - for 1hr and 15mins approx: Do you not find this surprising?
IF as the prosecution contend - the sighting by F&W was just after the murder, at the gate.
Then three sightings in the space of about 15mins where the contention is of putting alibi in place - to be seen
It fits perfectly does it not? as, If he had in fact been on this Road and just into the Abbey for nearly 120mins he would have been seen far more times?
The Abbey is not just a college it is also grounds to an industrial estate. So not just the traffic from Newbattle R'd to contend with but also that of those coming and going from this Abbey.
