What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[Nicholas]

When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?

Sandra Lean’s followers might want to ask Donald Findlay what he meant when he said ‘catastrophic miscarriages of justice’

She stated,
“Findlay has been expressing for several years his concerns that the internet has driven a coach and horses through old assumptions about ensuring the jury considers only admissible evidence presented in court under oath and exposed to cross examination. He says and this is the quote,

“It worries be greatly that jurors can have access to all sorts of information by surfing the internet when they go home, partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort it will then turn out some years later that the verdict was improperly influenced by such information that was not part of the trial. This is not to imply that jurors are dishonest  or acting with malice but they should understand the temptation to Google or yahoo is almost irresistible. One a juror has that information it’s very difficult to ignore it even if he doesn’t tell the other jurors about it, it’s likely to influence his part in deliberations”

That’s to me basically admission that I’ve always said that I believe Donald Findlay approached the case from the old school err perspective that it’s for the crown to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence - which it should be but that this 2010 article demonstrates an awareness of just how prevalent that internet influence was - now add to that main stream media influence which as we know in this case was massive, absolutely enormous err what was the term he used - partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. We know now. We know now how much of the mainstream coverage of this case was prejudicial and wrong and Donald Findlay’s concern was ‘The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice’ - yet it had already happened by 2010 it had already happened erm ‘the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort’ yeah - how was Luke Mitchell described in the media in the run up to that trial in 2004 the end of 2004....’

[faithlilly]

Mute  point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?"  Who was vomiting? However:

Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.

The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.

Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up.  Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.

LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:

Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl. 
The sighting by  F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm

So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic.  Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.

And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours??  - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.

Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.

The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?

Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?

I’ll deal with the rest of your post later as I’m a bit busy constructing a hamster at the moment but I’ll address one point while I enjoy a break. The ‘laddie’ comment has proved to have been about Luke. I myself have posted two links, both from the BBC ( one direct testimony from the trial) and which had nothing to do with Sandra Lean which prove my claim. I can provide more cites if you wish but I’m really not sure it will make any difference as you seem terminally unable to debate a point with deflection and obfuscation.   

[Nicholas]

When does Sandra Lean plan to tell her followers what a ‘miscarriage of justice’ is and what it isn’t ?

A ‘miscarriage of justice’ is described as a ‘breach of the carriage of justice - nothing whatsoever to do with actual, factual innocence

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean’s followers might want to ask Donald Findlay what he meant when he said ‘catastrophic miscarriages of justice’

She stated,
“Findlay has been expressing for several years his concerns that the internet has driven a coach and horses through old assumptions about ensuring the jury considers only admissible evidence presented in court under oath and exposed to cross examination. He says and this is the quote,

“It worries be greatly that jurors can have access to all sorts of information by surfing the internet when they go home, partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice, the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort it will then turn out some years later that the verdict was improperly influenced by such information that was not part of the trial. This is not to imply that jurors are dishonest  or acting with malice but they should understand the temptation to Google or yahoo is almost irresistible. One a juror has that information it’s very difficult to ignore it even if he doesn’t tell the other jurors about it, it’s likely to influence his part in deliberations”

That’s to me basically admission that I’ve always said that I believe Donald Findlay approached the case from the old school err perspective that it’s for the crown to prove guilt and not the defence to prove innocence - which it should be but that this 2010 article demonstrates an awareness of just how prevalent that internet influence was - now add to that main stream media influence which as we know in this case was massive, absolutely enormous err what was the term he used - partly because the information they find is prejudicial and because it’s often completely wrong. We know now. We know now how much of the mainstream coverage of this case was prejudicial and wrong and Donald Findlay’s concern was ‘The danger is that there will will a catastrophic miscarriage of justice’ - yet it had already happened by 2010 it had already happened erm ‘the accused will have been described on the internet as a beast of some sort’ yeah - how was Luke Mitchell described in the media in the run up to that trial in 2004 the end of 2004....’

What did Donald Findlay say to David Wilson ⬇️ in 2019 regarding appeals Sandra Lean?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/


“Donald Findlay QC features in a new BBC Scotland show exploring those criminal cases which continue to fascinate us.
Crimes Files sees criminologist, Professor David Wilson, conduct in-depth investigations into both historic and contemporary crime cases as he interviews professionals who combat crime – high profile lawyers, pathologists, frontline police as well as some of the nation’s most notorious criminals.
https://scottishlegal.com/article/donald-findlay-qc-features-in-new-crime-show

Maybe in one of your weekly ‘power of persuasion’ updates you’ll quote that to your followers

‘In The Power of Persuasion, renowned social psychologist Robert Levine offers an incisive, anecdotal and humorous take on the mindsets of all those who prod, praise, debate, and manipulate us into doing things we'd never thought we'd do ― and are often later sorry we did.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-Persuasion-Were-Bought-Sold/dp/1851684646

[Parky41]

I’ll deal with the rest of your post later as I’m a bit busy constructing a hamster at the moment but I’ll address one point while I enjoy a break. The ‘laddie’ comment has proved to have been about Luke. I myself have posted two links, both from the BBC ( one direct testimony from the trial) and which had nothing to do with Sandra Lean which prove my claim. I can provide more cites if you wish but I’m really not sure it will make any difference as you seem terminally unable to debate a point with deflection and obfuscation.   

No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person.  We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.

This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi.  When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds.  - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!! 

So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits?  His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.

AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.

[Nicholas]

No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person.  We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.

This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi.  When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds.  - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!! 

So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits?  His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.

AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.

Telling statement isn’t it

[Nicholas]

I see Sandra Lean is using her old chestnut of a ‘batch of books went missing’

I don’t believe you Sandra - I’ve heard it all before and I suspect as her followers get to learn more about her (presuming they’ll be following her for much longer) some of them may come to the same realisation - They are all being lead down the garden path....

[Rusty]

I see Sandra Lean is using her old chestnut of a ‘batch of books went missing’

I don’t believe you Sandra - I’ve heard it all before and I suspect as her followers get to learn more about her (presuming they’ll be following her for much longer) some of them may come to the same realisation - They are all being lead down the garden path....

Is she still begging for money & claiming it will be for expenses? Iv'e always wondered what exactly she could be doing to farther this case that requires money.

[faithlilly]

No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person.  We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.


No let’s not. The point has been made. I supplied two unbiased cites which said Luke was in a panic. Add that to Janine’s ‘everyone was in hysterics’ and it’s futile to debate with you further.

This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi.  When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds.  - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!! 

The point has been made.

So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits?  His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.

That he could identify a tree in torchlight and if you do want a real discussion shall we discuss how the scrunchie comment came from?

AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.

Vomiting? After seeing the body? Not really true, is it? Again from the BBC.

“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.

By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.

Mr Kelly said: "I felt like I was being sick when I crossed the wall. It was like bile coming up."

Body found

Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."

The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.

Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"

Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."

The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".

Trial adjourned

Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"

"A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.

Questioned by Donald Findlay QC, defending Mr Mitchell, Mr Kelly was asked how close he had been to the tree he described when he saw the body.

After a long pause, Mr Kelly replied: "I cannot remember how far I was from the tree."

Mr Findlay then asked the witness to look at a photograph and a picture of Jodi's body was shown in court.

Mr Kelly then left the witness box.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm

It’s worth pointing out that Steven Kelly wasn’t sure what Jodi’s body was at first, just like Luke.

[Nicholas]

Is she still begging for money & claiming it will be for expenses? Iv'e always wondered what exactly she could be doing to farther this case that requires money.

Her supporters raised several hundred pounds for her and she forgot to thank them apparently - it slipped her mind.

Wonder if she’d spent any of the money they gave her before realising she’d forgotten to thank them?

[Rusty]

Her supporters raised several hundred pounds for her and she forgot to thank them apparently - it slipped her mind.

Wonder if she’d spent any of the money they gave her before realising she’d forgotten to thank them?

Wow, the first thing I would do if somebody was financially supporting me would be to thank them, in fact I would make it a priority. And i would be thanking everybody individually. Car insurance must be due.
I most certainly would not give them a half arsed apology a week? 2 weeks? Later. Huge red flag.

But aye, IMO. It has always been about milking it....

[Rusty]

Mute  point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?"  Who was vomiting? However:

Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.

The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.

Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up.  Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.

LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:

Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl. 
The sighting by  F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm

So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic.  Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.

And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours??  - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.

Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.

The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?

Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?

Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 

[faithlilly]

Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 

Have we got a copy of Judith Jones and Allan Ovens first statements? It would be interesting to see the time estimates for Jodi leaving the house. A neighbour says that they saw her leave just after five o’clock and another witness saw her being followed by Stocky Man about 5.05 which, of course, throws Andrina Bryson’s sighting into question. It would be good to see the times they gave when their recollections were freshest.

[faithlilly]

Mute  point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?"  Who was vomiting? However:

Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.

The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.

Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up.  Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.

Janine in the witness box testifying that Jodi often walked the isolated path by herself and that her mother ‘knew it fine’. Was that the reason why Alice Walker, Steven Kelly and herself went to search the path first rather than looking elsewhere in Easthouses?

LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:


A little over an hour.

Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl. 
The sighting by  F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.

Who was asked? The whole of Newbattle? When?

Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.

If that’s the case why wasn’t Judith Jones worried when Luke phoned to ask if Jodi had left...almost an hour after her daughter had allegedly left the house. This is especially strange if Judith thought, as she claimed, that Jodi was going to ‘mucking about’ in Easthouses. Not until 4 hours later did Judith show any concern for her daughter.

Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm

Luke phoned to see if Jodi had left. It would have taken her around 20 minutes to walk down the path to Newbattle and as their usual rendezvous time was 6 that would be about right. Once she had left what would be the use of calling her mother again? Jodi had no phone so her mother was as unable to reach Jodi as Luke was.

So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic.  Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.

See my post to Rusty. The Jones's timings are very relevant to the credibility of various sightings, especially Andrina Bryson, the neighbour who saw Jodi leave the house just after 5 and the witness who saw a girl she identified as Jodi being followed by Stocky Man.

And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours??  - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.

If Andrina Bryson is so bad at estimating the time it took her to do her shopping etc on the day Jodi was murdered how can we be sure that the time of her sighting wasn’t out be quite a large margin too and if that’s the case there is absolutely nothing to prove Luke saw Jodi after school.

Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.

”Jodi often walked the path on her own and my mum knew that fine”. Maybe Judith Jones didn’t want to appear like a mother who would turn a blind eye to her daughter walking down an isolated path alone but she certainly knew that Jodi did.

The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?

Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?

What evidence would he have given?

[William Wallace]

No it has not. - You can cite as much as you wish, it make absolutely no difference. does it? - This case is not yours, you are not superior in anyway to any other person.  We are all on the same playing field. Because someone chooses to recite bias upon bias with or without aid of Ms Leans claimed all knowledge, it makes no difference. The documentary, as with all else is based upon this slim chance of proof that LM had showed emotion. There is of course a world of difference between tone of voice to actual feeling is there not? "I could tell by his voice he had found something bad" Let's think about that basic sentence.

This search party are out looking for Jodi. The sister, her boyfriend, granny and Luke. He goes off into the woodland for a few seconds and shouts out he has found something. Connect the two, found and Jodi and it is nothing short of being bad in this shout, as it is likely to be Jodi.  When it is explained in context, it shows something completely different. Now let's think of what is actually indictive of bad. Let's be clear here, this it the body of his girlfriend, severely mutilated and you think shouting out "I've found something" as proof of emotion, are you actually for real? - This should have been screaming out, cursing, freaking, anything other than this loud "I've found something" Or complete dumfound silence whilst what he has seen actually sinks in. Then an explosion of reaction - not this few seconds.  - what you are actually trying to prove screams the actual opposite. And you do an exemplary job of it. He shouted out? wow!! 

So if you want to cite from "all" of this evidence that you have as proof beyond reasonable doubt that LM was effected by this murder, can you please give us multiple sound areas of evidence as proof, rather than these two repetitive rabbits?  His voice was raised, there was absolutely nothing in it of the horror he claimed to have just witnessed. Calm and clear - the tree, the 'scrunchie' and it's colour.

AW was screaming in hysterics LM was not - SK was vomiting and screaming his head off at the operator. So yes, Faithlilly your proof proves only the opposite. And of everything from that moment onwards, and yes we know - "I'm not that kind of guy" - be real please? But you can't , for the reality is the proof that LM did indeed murder his girlfriend.

The search party were out looking for Jodi? Funny why they walked right past a house she had been found in recently when she had failed to come back on time without even knocking on the door and also failed to phone around other relatives and friends, before they opted to walk up a pitch black path. NOBODY would do that. You would knock on that door first and be phoning other people, even if it was on the way to the path. There is absolutely no explanation for that because nobody would do it.

Your attack on the tone of the call is pointless. None of us heard it or witnessed it. One of the "search party" said LM looked shocked and his eyes were wide, then changed it in Court to he looked normal. There's a surprise, another changed statement.

I've asked you and others who keep saying Mitchell did it to explain numerous known facts like the one's above which don't make any sense and nobody has yet given a credible answer.

I've asked people why AO was never cited as a witness given he was a crucial one. Nobody has given a credible reason why he was not.