Author Topic: The less talked about sighting on Newbattle Road by M O'Sullivan & D Hamilton...  (Read 93983 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bullseye

Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.

Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Hi first time posting. I think this case needs an independent review there is just far too many things that don't add up and questions needing answered. I DO NOT think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As for Corinne going to a visit with a crop top on so what she can wear what she wants.

Hi Jane, welcome to the forum. Could you please introduce yourself in the New Members' section. Thank you!

Offline JaneO

I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi

Offline Rusty

I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi

Well how about if I tell you I know some screws that previously worked in Shotts, that say different.

Offline Parky41

I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi

Absolutely no disrespect taken Jane - I understand totally where you questions come from. Hopefully one day they will be answered for you

Offline Rusty

I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.

Maybe you might know Bullseye.

Who is paying for it?
Who is going to conduct it?
What catalogue of errors did the police make?

Offline Rusty

I've not read the book. I have watched the Frontline doc, the other 2 docs and JE podcasts and read a lot online about the case. Well Rusty my brother was 41 on Xmas day and has only spent 1 birthday from his 16th on the outside. He got out again January and is now remanded again he admits himself he institutionalised but I'm not here to talk about him, when I was still talking to him and visiting he told me Luke wasn't on protection and a few other people that where in Shotts told me the same. I don't know where the money will come from I don't have answers to that, all I know is I don't believe it is a safe conviction and that's my opinion.
Parky no disrespect, don't take this the wrong way but I've read your opinion on some of the things that I think don't add up and I don't agree with your opinion on them but that's OK everyone is entitled to their own opinion but thanks for asking if there is anything I can't recall reading I'll ask you what your take on it is. I like to hear everyone's opinions on things (not just this case) whether I agree or not.
R.I.P Jodi

Have you asked Lean for the SCCRC report? You will find many answers in that.

Offline Rusty

The claim that this moped/bike was viewed from The Beeches? That's some superhuman eyesight right there!

Yes there was somebody on another forum, made a post regarding this. They posted several images from around the area, using street view, not perfect. But it certainly showed, that you would indeed need superhuman skills to see 300/400 yards across an undulated field, while driving and say with absolute certainty, with what you saw 300/400 yards away. It is amazing, that the same person peddling this nonsense, wants us to believe and went to the hassle of having two disgraced ex detectives role-play and try to discredit the AB sighting from YARDS away, not to mention the RW sighting, that happened FEET away. But we are to believe a sighting from 300/400 yards away. She had to go down this path though, she cannot back away, from her promotion of this sighting, she know she can't fool us sensible people into believing the tool hire worker seen it parked at the V, and she most certainly will not release his whole statement. So the tale of the sighting from the beeches from an unnamed witness had to be made up, it is more far fetched than that of the tool hirer worker, but she had to make something up i suppose.   

Offline Brietta

Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.

Do you have first hand knowledge of what the police did or did not do when they attended the crime scene which justifies an independent review?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Nicholas

Hi welcome to the forum. I agree it would be good if there was an independent review. From the moment police got on the scene there was a catalogue of errors made, what else might they have got wrong. Check their work, so to speak.

There wasn’t
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Very much the point is it not? - Of him phoning the Jones landline. As he knew for sure there was only one place her parents were expecting her to be going. To see him. You are completely missing the fact that he knew exactly what was in those messages. - the privacy of them, that almost non existent chance of Jodi not deleting them prior to giving her mother her phone back. But he could never count on that totally, nor of being able to be retrieved. So he had to have this different tale. Of the meet to be in Newbattle. Which he claimed was to be after dinner, after leaving home at 5.45pm for this after dinner meeting - around 6pm. This is the story he first told. - with that added proviso of course - this tangled mess of claiming - there was no fixed plans as such - of claiming to tell his mother, that if Jodi turned up - he would be in the abbey, that she would know where? He did not know that Jodi had said to her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here". He needed to delete those texts - and Jodi did also due to their privacy.


The point of the phone call? Nope, you’ll have to explain that to me and yes agreed he couldn’t have totally counted on Jodi deleting those texts so why push a different tale than the texts told? Would he really chance that? To tell a completely a different story from those incriminating texts. As to the ‘mucking around up here’ comment, was that a statement from Jodi or an assumption of Judith’s? If you are correct there was nothing particularly private about those last texts of Jodi to Luke. They only, allegedly, said what her mother knew already, that Luke would meet her in Easthouses and earlier than usual. Why the need for privacy? A more believable explanation? That Jodi deleted those texts because she didn’t want her mum to know that she was walking, alone, down a path she had expressly been forbidden from walking. Isn’t that a more believable explanation?

Of this constant talk of putting LM down to being some masterminded murderer - well he was not, this is why he is in jail serving life for Jodi's murder.

The police couldn’t find one piece of direct evidence that connected Luke to Jodi’s murder, not one. Not one speck of DNA, even though the murder scene must have been swimming in blood. If Luke had been the murderer I think that alone would qualify him as a mastermind.

He flew into a rage and murdered her. Everything that happened after that point was never going to be easy. Disposal yes. That perfect cover - no chance. Those wheels firmly in motion. Jodi had left to meet with him and only him. At the time he knew. Thus why one had to have this time firmly at home, from his mothers arrival at 5.05pm. To cancel out AB's sighting.

How in those first interviews, when all this information was being given, could Luke possibly have known that he’d been seen by AB or RW?

 To not being on Newbattle Road untl 5.45pm and just after - to cancel out F&W's sighting. We can enter the simple realm of that call, to set alibi in place - but we know he was still towering over what he had done at 5.32pm - so we can also enter into the depravity of his mindset here. And of the call to connect at 5.38pm. 6 mins making sure he spoke to someone - whilst still at the scene. The fleeing and been caught by F&W at the gate at 17.42pm. Who else was around this path at those times of the calls? - where he was sure no one was going to be able to hear him speak? Did he hear other people? - We know the duo were back home by 5.30pm. No chance of escaping until they were well gone? Was LM waiting until he heard that noisy bike away altogether? Making sure that call was short and sweet, of no noise in the background of simply "cool, bye"

Making that phone call while still at the scene....his hands covered in the blood of is newly murdered girlfriend, yet not a scrap on Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s phone, not even in those hard to clean buttons...no touchscreens then. Of course there was no sign of flight by anyone on the Newbattle Road, was there? Just a young boy standing by a gate with no sign that he was wary of being seen. In fact no one on the busy road at 5.42 did see the youth, did they, no one except these two women hurrying to the shops.


But he was seen. And he had not left his house around 5.45pm, his mother had not gotten home around 5.05pm. And they did bring SM into the mix with the exact same story of her arriving home at 5.05pm - All lies, LM was not at home, And every single part of those first stories were rammed into less than 15mins. And he did appear back on this road again, with a different jacket on - at a point in the road, he claimed not to go as far as? Which was pretty much the same area that he had disappeared from - around the gate of the F&W sighting. And he had only hung around enough for approx 20mins - until LM was not seen again, until with the boys in the Abbey ar 7.30pm.

 No one but RW and FL came forward to say that they’d seen Luke on the Newbattle Road so, once again, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. What do you think Luke was doing at the time you allege he wasn’t seen?

And the above are only some of what lay behind all of this. - Of the ban on this path. Of his claimed non worry about his girlfriend not arriving at the other end of this isolated path. Of this initial short time he gave - expanding to nearly two hours. -

Two hours? His school friend said that he was standing on the Newbattle Road around 6.20 and had been from around 5.55. You yourself said he angrily chased his friends up so he must have been waiting for a while before he did that and he also must have been at the Abbey at that time to know his friends weren’t there already. So how long is really unaccounted for? Certainly not 2 hours if he met his friends around 7.30.

Due to those very calls. Because he then claimed to make them well away from this path - at the entrance of the estate. Which showed the lies in the story of being at home. For he then had to have left around 5.30pm - for a meeting at 6pm? To then claim he had phoned the Jones landline - to claim that he asked AO "is Jodi on her way?"  for 6pm?  - to claim he was told she had only just left? Rather than what AO did say "of already left to meet with him". Those holes just got bigger and the shoring over even more extraordinary.

AO never gave evidence in court so we have no idea exactly what he said.

This mastermind we are told - who left no dna at the scene - who had already had many thoughts on the best way to kill someone. Carried this out. He could not have, ever banked on the police being the police though - Or of that clear other evidence coming through - He just kept on tripping himself up, heaping that suspicion upon himself - not in a million years was LM framed. There was absolutely no way - that he could be eliminated. And that naivety of his non arrest, of believing he had gotten away with it. Carries on with those campaigning for innocence - that the evidence was so weak they had to wait 10 months for that final arrest. Exactly how LM thought, until just after those celebrations of getting that tattoo, when CM said to staff "we are celebrating" - and the only knocking to be had on anyone's door - was LM's in the early hours of that morning in April 2004 when he was last to see freedom. He was simply not arrested on the basis of this being a circumstantial case - that due to no incriminating DNA - that arrest could not be made imminently. That naivety again, of believing that DNA was everything - it simply was not. For whilst there was none incriminating LM - there was none of a stranger murder either.

Even the PF didn’t think the police had sufficient evidence to charge in September and delayed the decision in November for over 4 months when L&B police submitted their report again. Perhaps they were waiting, hoping that the FBI would come up with the goods, would suggest that Luke fitted the profile for such a murder but they didn’t, did they, or we’d have heard about it in court.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Bullseye

Maybe you might know Bullseye.

Who is paying for it?
Who is going to conduct it?
What catalogue of errors did the police make?

It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.

Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.

Offline Paranoid Android

Yes there was somebody on another forum, made a post regarding this. They posted several images from around the area, using street view, not perfect. But it certainly showed, that you would indeed need superhuman skills to see 300/400 yards across an undulated field, while driving and say with absolute certainty, with what you saw 300/400 yards away. It is amazing, that the same person peddling this nonsense, wants us to believe and went to the hassle of having two disgraced ex detectives role-play and try to discredit the AB sighting from YARDS away, not to mention the RW sighting, that happened FEET away. But we are to believe a sighting from 300/400 yards away. She had to go down this path though, she cannot back away, from her promotion of this sighting, she know she can't fool us sensible people into believing the tool hire worker seen it parked at the V, and she most certainly will not release his whole statement. So the tale of the sighting from the beeches from an unnamed witness had to be made up, it is more far fetched than that of the tool hirer worker, but she had to make something up i suppose.

Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.

It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.

Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.

Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.

Offline Parky41



What I fail to grasp most in what you put out - is this lack of knowing factually, of what actually did happen? Those recordings and how they turned the tide on what DF was trying to show, as with the phone logs to the speaking clock and now with AO? - He did testify at court. So as well as those "statements" of his that Ms Lean refers to - there is his actual evidence in court. - one has to wonder, are you playing coy/games - or are you really lacking in all of this knowledge?

And of this repeat of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what we have with Manson. We know LM liked and admired his work, so much so that he bought and viewed this DVD showing that awful depiction - of this girl murdered, naked in a woodland.

And of this phone call at the scene of his phone not being covered in blood. As above. Something we certainly discussed a lot when studying this case. Of this affluent adolescent boy. Of this data being scrubbed and that call to the speaking clock. Of that repetitive question of -"why phone when his phone would have the time?" When LM could of course had two handsets, old and new? - Of swapping the sim thus knocking the time out and losing data at the same time - we don't know if the handset he handed in was the one he was using - do we? And of course that of having gloves on, anything really. - But there was nothing on the one he did hand in, which tells us it was either not the handset he used or he had gloves on, or cleaned his hands first.. - and of course, it's not so ridiculous to suggest he would not have had gloves when one is wearing a heavy parka jacket?

And we do have to ask ourselves - with the evidence led, of describing the best way to kill someone - how much was LM prepared for this becoming reality one day? Of carrying knives, what else did he carry with him?

And of the interviews of knowledge of being seen? - he would not have been aware of being seen. Of that car with AB when he met with Jodi and of standing at the gate with F&W - looking suspicious. - His alibi, without a shadow of a doubt, was concocted and reeked of such when they gave it to the police. Right down to enjoying the summer sunshine in the garden?

Offline Parky41

Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.

It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.

Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.

Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.

And Luke Mitchell of course. Ms Lean however not so much with those who question and believe in guilt. Those question times and groups - controlled with what is asked and answered are they not? I noticed someone tried to link this forum and it was removed instantly.

Of it being cancelled this week yet again. - the main topics for questions quickly drying up are they not? And nothing from Ms Lean directly on the JE podcast up and coming? - yet again controlled however, of this live one where questions have to be asked in advance and chosen on the night to answer? When there is no indication of who will be on - thus one can not ask relevant questions anyway - perhaps it will be Mr Mitchell and Shane? As he does say it will blow everything about this case wide open?