The problem with everything is we don’t know anything
It’s said she would not smoke in her home, her brother was apparently smoking in his room that afternoon, how do we know she didn’t sneak some of his when he was out the room, or smoke it with him, we don’t.
How do we know Jodi was going to meet Luke there and then, she left the house saying she was meeting Luke but maybe she was going somewhere first, like maybe her friend Yvonnes as it is where they were alleged to smoke from time to time. We don’t know.
How do we know she didn’t bump into the boys on the bike on the path and have a smoke with them in behind the wall? We don’t.
How do we know she was killed at 5.15 behind the wall, because some boy heard a noise, come on! Again we don’t know.
Just because nobody came forward does not mean she didn’t meet someone else before she was killed. Just because someone hear a noise at a certain time does not mean that’s when [Name removed] was killed, also does not mean it was not Luke, what if she met someone first had a smoke, then met Luke just after 6, he could have killed her then, plenty time.
Also it could have been Luke she had a smoke with behind the wall at 515, then he killed her, but we don’t know that, you may believe it but that doesn’t mean it is true.
This whole case is based on what we believe. How we interpret the information to hand. Unfortunately there is no smoking gun, no hard fact evidence and over time the information on the case has been twisted and distorted to fit whatever each side want you to believe.
I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.
Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!
Well not shit? - "we don't know" "No smoking gun" - so anyone and everyone could be lying. That appears to be something you are pretty much sure of?
You lost me completely when you make claim to damning Mitchell, GUILTY! Before the lad even set foot in a courtroom. That classic 'Trial by media'. - Now you want a "full" review to prove Lean right or wrong? For you did say this before, did you not? Failing that review a nice statement from his brother/father will do? So if Shane steps forward and says I'm with Luke all the way, that will be enough for you to be sure of innocence? As at present you only think he is?
If you, yourself before, were guilty of not caring a Jot about actual evidence, hung someone out to dry on the basis of what was in the rags - It is hardly surprising how much ones mind has easily been twisted and fed with any old nonsense? Over the past ten years. You may claim to be sitting on the fence but you are not, are you? For if SM were to say he does not support his brother then you would have to "rethink"
Thankfully it would appear the majority of those claiming? to be sitting on the fence are the same, trial by media and now trial by Lean. - Which means for the time being, the conviction of Luke Mitchell is safe. For the very evidence, not "information" that brought about his conviction still stands. Leans clear distortions, her questions mean naff all in law. For the majority of people who actually do look at the evidence, not "information" trust in it. For they see that most of the actual evidence came directly from the Mitchells not the police, the Crown and so forth.
You put down some boy who heard noises, it was a grown man. A friend Yvonne, it was her cousin. I am however interested in the tittle tattle, just a little, of the ex g/f? For is this pic you talk of, actually her wearing it and not LM? The DNA confirmed to be LM's upon the zip of the trousers? When tested by the SCCRC - who did a "full" review. - Because Ms Lean may claim there is buried evidence, it does not mean there is. Ms Leans thoughts/opinions are irrelevant to being satisfied one way or the other. "Curiosity killed the cat" did it not? - So perhaps a review would not be such a bad idea after all, for there appears to be a hell of a lot of cats about? Myself included, I would love to see that pic of his ex wearing that jacket?
What really stands out for me in all of this, always has, are the lies. - Where we can see clearly the abundance of lies being told by the Mitchells and on behalf of them. You don't see the lies, which is fine. But I have equally scoured, and read over everything in an attempt to be shown where others have lied? There is none except where JF is concerned, and even if he was lying around this 4.30 on the path stuff, it was all rather foolish for he was half of a pair, the other telling the correct time.
I rabbit on a lot over Lean her methods. Trust and how far it can be thrown come to mind! But when it comes to talking about the actual events of that evening, I tend to, for the most part - stick to what the Mitchells actually said and those timings. Things that can not be distorted or changed, and it is in this the lies are clear. And still, no one has actually given Just cause for these lies, for there are none to give. If people lie continuously it is because they fear the truth, and the question is why? - And the answer is, for most who understand lies - is they were covering up the murder of this young girl.
