I have watched bits of the Shaun Attwood podcast.
Dr Lean speaks again of the search party changing their statements at the end of July. Saying it changed to the dog not reacting and LM did not walk beyond the V break.
I have read before about the change in statements about the dogs reaction. But I had not realised the search party had also said in their earlier statements that LM had walked beyond the break. Is this right or have I misinterpreted what has been said?
Just the same twisting. - The implication being as always, that they agreed with Luke then changed their mind to him going straight to the V. She is talking about at the actual V. From the dog pulling at it, to Luke leading the dog to do this. LM was on that path far longer than he should have been. Was he egging the dog to something he had left, or simply a dog doing what they do. Yet again it was his clear lies that trapped him. Much like the alibi saga. Over egging the pudding. All this "air sniffing", nose pointing and alerting nonsense. To the ultimate over egging. That drawing the map, to show the police exactly where he meant. Directly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. By also omitting his scaling of the wall at the Gino spot. There were plenty contradictions to the tale Mitchell told.
Don't forget those times, there was simply no time for anything of what Mitchell had been claiming. And of course, those OTT long winded roads to try and tie these accounts together. The very reason those clear sentences, in sequence from statements are not shown. Nothing to do with disclosure - Lean has done it with other areas. Pulling out those rabbits. Of Kelly and the dogs head being level with the V - Should be enough to tell people Luke Mitchell was at the V with his dog, not some distance past it, at any time. - Nonsense. Absolutely no need to fill pages of a book with utter tripe. - Well there is, for nothing else is going to fill them.
Does any of it really matter? - For LM was smoking all night, according to Lean now, everything was distorted? The times, his whole recall. - What a mess. The one thing she has tried so hard to draw away from, to attempt to show that Jodi could not have smoked with him that evening. To now using it as a means to get him out of other holes? - And the gullible are just soaking all this up?
Refreshing to have one clear area of truth in all though. of Luke, to this day being that "calm, steady guy" - cold and calculated.
The ID of the stocky man. To it being a possible ID now, of someone watching the funeral and picking someone out, who "may" have been him. I wonder if the funeral directors got onto her? Not happy for being ID as the stocky man carrying this girls coffin.
To the condom, and yet again more coffee being spat out! - SA, 'seems strange, if he had been involved surely he would have taken it away with him' - Lean, 'maybe he did go to put it in his pocket and dropped it?' .Of course he did Ms Lean, can't have some sensible reasons here now, can we - Got to keep auld Cotter in the mix.
But the discrediting of honest witness testimony, of that I am glad my coffee was finished. Of using CM as an example?! - The honest staff of the tattoo parlour. Who could not possibly have known the name of the family friend. Of his altered ID that they used that day. Recorded in the book. For CM to hammer some nails in her sons coffin. By denying point blank that they had produced any fake ID. So not as simple as lying to get a tattoo. It happens, no big deal, Maybe just a little more of a deal, when your mother is with you producing the fake ID. But to then lie, to attempt to discredit the honesty of the staff, as compulsive liars do, she lied on oath repeatedly. - I await the perjury stuff?
And it is not surprising in the slightest that the ego's use this trial by media nonsense. That total contradiction of stating they read and believed everything in the rags. To then say I always believed he was convicted upon solid, hard evidence - that level of intellect, should have used a dictionary for the meaning of circumstantial? - To soak up every piece of this nonsense, readily and easily. When the whole lot is just one contradiction after the other? From JF given a time to take him away from the TOD, to then saying "I believe the TOD was later?"
Review? - Psychiatric one perhaps?
