"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.

His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.

Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?

The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.

Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.

'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.

Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.

Except that Jodi was still grounded, or so Luke believed, so what would have been the point of leaving the house? The earliest that Luke would have known about the alleged lifting of Jodi’s grounding would have been at 1635 and the earliest he could have left the house was 1638. Is it really possible that he got to the Easthouses entrance to RDP in a scant 16 minutes?

Of course he could have taken any number of shortcuts to the Newbattle road which would have hidden him from prying eyes but he would have to have broken cover at some point to cross it. Was there any witnesses who claimed to see a youth running across Newbattle road or indeed up RDP between 1638 and 1654. Any at all?

BTW for clarity Shane called his home at 1604.

[Parky41]

Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.

His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.

Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?

The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.

Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.

'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.

Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.

Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same.  We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.

That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,

[Mr Apples]

Except that Jodi was still grounded, or so Luke believed, so what would have been the point of leaving the house? The earliest that Luke would have known about the alleged lifting of Jodi’s grounding would have been at 1635 and the earliest he could have left the house was 1638. Is it really possible that he got to the Easthouses entrance to RDP in a scant 16 minutes?

Of course he could have taken any number of shortcuts to the Newbattle road which would have hidden him from prying eyes but he would have to have broken cover at some point to cross it. Was there any witnesses who claimed to see a youth running across Newbattle road or indeed up RDP between 1638 and 1654. Any at all?

BTW for clarity Shane called his home at 1604.

He was on his bike.... literally. Could have been mere coincidence that he was out on his bike when Jodi contacted him from Judith's phone at 1634. Maybe boyo had planned the murder after arguing with Jodi in school that afternoon (newspaper articles state she was crying in class with her head down on desk and they had their backs uncharacteristically towards each other that afternoon in China Gardens). As Parky says, there was nothing to keep him home after Shane's call at 1604. He knew she had no phone and was already angry with her as per all the aforementioned. Then we factor in just how advanced he was for his age (forensically, for example) and his local geographical knowledge, his previous (pseudo?) attacks on females, his temper, his freedom to do as he pleased (no restrictions placed on him like many of his peers would have as per a normal family) and it really does all add up, does it not? And then those fires in his garden, phoning people he wasn't in the habit of meeting up with, right whe was normally with her, looking cleaner than normal and spent the next  5+ hours not enquiring about the girl who he'd normally be with?? Yeah, right! Guilty as hell!! And this is before you read his brother and mother's court testimony! Pull another leg! Sheesh!

[faithlilly]

Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same.  We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.

That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,

Leave his house at 1601 and hang around until her chores were done? Wasn’t that usually around 1800? You claim that he knew this so why would he leave his house at 1601 or indeed any time before the first text?

Think of the scenario:

Jodi…..Shall we meet tonight? You can come to mine but I won’t be able to come out before my chores are done.
Luke…..Okay but I’ll come between 1601 and 1635, ages before you can actually come out and hang around Easthouses. Why you ask? Mmmm…good question.

From a report on JuJ testimony:

“ Jodi quickly arranged to visit Mr Mitchell, texting him, and receiving a reply, as she sat with her mother on the sofa at around 4.35pm. Mrs Jones said she played a Rod Stewart song for Jodi, as it was a ''hopeful song'' which held special meaning for her, before the teenager got ready to go out.”

The timings don’t work…you know it and I know it and the more that you try to shoehorn what needs to have happened into the time the reader knows it too.

The transcripts were a really unwanted gift, weren’t they Parky?

[faithlilly]

He was on his bike.... literally. Could have been mere coincidence that he was out on his bike when Jodi contacted him from Judith's phone at 1634. Maybe boyo had planned the murder after arguing with Jodi in school that afternoon (newspaper articles state she was crying in class with her head down on desk and they had their backs uncharacteristically towards each other that afternoon in China Gardens). As Parky says, there was nothing to keep him home after Shane's call at 1604. He knew she had no phone and was already angry with her as per all the aforementioned. Then we factor in just how advanced he was for his age (forensically, for example) and his local geographical knowledge, his previous (pseudo?) attacks on females, his temper, his freedom to do as he pleased (no restrictions placed on him like many of his peers would have as per a normal family) and it really does all add up, does it not? And then those fires in his garden, phoning people he wasn't in the habit of meeting up with, right whe was normally with her, looking cleaner than normal and spent the next  5+ hours not enquiring about the girl who he'd normally be with?? Yeah, right! Guilty as hell!! And this is before you read his brother and mother's court testimony! Pull another leg! Sheesh!

Literally not one word of your post, apart from Shane’s 1601 telephone call, is evidenced in any of the transcripts.

Of course if you get your information from the tabloids….

[Parky41]

Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same.  We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.

That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,

Credible or clear lack of it, again. - The boy who had no restrictions. Nothing tying him to the house. Who again, could have left home at anytime, easily already on route to EH, the caravan park, his mothers work, meeting places they used. Possibly heading to get some money off her to buy his supper because he certainly wasn't home having dinner. When he is texted by his girlfriend, bringing that meeting forward. So many variables, when one was not stuck at home, with that ridiculous, incredulous application, that he had to have been there until 4:38pm. Whilst the lies are still being brushed over.

The transcripts - backing the two things I studied this case upon. The deception and reason as to why LM became prime suspect. Guilt or innocence was not a factor in it. Where people continuously forget, that no one has to prove LM guilty. The burden of proof lies with LM to prove his innocence. Erasing, re-writing, full on lies, is not going to achieve that. And as has been exposed, that loss of credibility with his farce of campaign, shows why this fight has gotten nowhere to date.

It is claimed he actually has a legal team now, something he has never had for many years. Even though many lies were in place, claiming such. The new leaders (claimed) are stating this, but this is the same people who have wilfully spread so many lies before - Who or what to trust?

[Kenmair]

The transcripts were a really unwanted gift, weren’t they Parky?

I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

fascinating stuff.  No wonder Sanda Lean’s biggest supporter on here seems a bit embarrassed by these transcript revelations, it just goes to show what a charlatan the woman is.

[faithlilly]

I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

I think the last comment on this subject should be left to Shane Mitchell himself, in his own words.

‘ I think the final question I have to ask you is this, Mr Mitchell. As at 14th April 2003, did you believe that Luke had been in the house and had been making the tea that
night? - As at 14th April.

Yes,prior to being interviewed by the police. Was that your best recollection, that he had been in the house
and had been doing something with the tea?
- (incomprehensible).

Or by then didn't you know

I DIDN’T KNOW.

[Kenmair]

I think the last comment on this subject should be left to Shane Mitchell himself, in his own words.
‘ I think the final question I have to ask you is this, Mr Mitchell. As at 14th April 2003, did you believe that Luke had been in the house and had been making the tea that
night? - As at 14th April.
Yes,prior to being interviewed by the police. Was that your best recollection, that he had been in the house
and had been doing something with the tea?
- (incomprehensible).
Or by then didn't you know
I DIDN’T KNOW.

Where did you get that cite/quote? No wonder you're confused if you're using dates from several months before the murder took place.

From the transcripts: Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.

Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement)

Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..." Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties". Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"

Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes

He's never spoken since to support his brother.

[faithlilly]

Where did you get that cite/quote? No wonder you're confused if you're using dates from several months before the murder took place.

From the transcripts: Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.

Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement)

Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..." Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties". Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"

Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes

He's never spoken since to support his brother.

Page 2243…14 of the transcripts.

Thank you for your quote from page 2238 which is basically what I’ve already posted.

Can you imagine the pressure put upon Shane in his interview on the 14th of April when the police tell him that he may be looking at 3 years in prison if convicted of perverting the course of justice and still he will not admit to remembering something that he doesn’t? Further he repeats his lack of recall in court under oath.


Shane never, ever….and this is worth remembering….said that Luke wasn’t in the house when he came home. He simply couldn’t recall if he was and that’s a very different thing.

[Kenmair]

Can you explain your quote from April 2003?

He also never said he saw him. It's not a matter of winning an argument. Both CM & LM said they saw SM but SM claims he never saw LM and has never spoken up since. He had a selective memory and only changed his recall when shown murder scene photos in court and was noticeably upset during questioning. Why did he give two different versions of what happened then change his mind in court, and has never spoken up since? Not even "ok I might not have seen my brother but I don't believe he would have done this"? Not a peep.

You're whole Lean-esque argument is based on what if's/maybe's/unverified sightings etc. There's a reason LM is in jail and been refused parole.

[faithlilly]

Can you explain your quote from April 2003?

He also never said he saw him. It's not a matter of winning an argument. Both CM & LM said they saw SM but SM claims he never saw LM and has never spoken up since. He had a selective memory and only changed his recall when shown murder scene photos in court and was noticeably upset during questioning. Why did he give two different versions of what happened then change his mind in court, and has never spoken up since? Not even "ok I might not have seen my brother but I don't believe he would have done this"? Not a peep.

You're whole Lean-esque argument is based on what if's/maybe's/unverified sightings etc. There's a reason LM is in jail and been refused parole.

I have given you the details of where you will find the quote from Shane’s testimony and he was talking about his April 2004 not 2003 interview I believe.

And yes he absolutely didn’t say he saw Luke, he said he didn’t know if he’d seen him. A brave stance when you have the whole force of the law bearing down on you.

Another interesting snippet from Shane’s April 2004 interview.

And that is pursued. For example when he keeps saying no, towards the foot of 5 the policeman says, "Well hundreds of murderers
throughout time have also had brothers and
sisters (incomprehensible)". And Shane says,
"Because I've never seen him hurt a fly". The policeman says, "You never seen him hit a
fly". "Hurt a fly". "Hurt a fly". "Hurt anybody".

[Kenmair]

I have given you the details of where you will find the quote from Shane’s testimony and he was talking about his April 2004 not 2003 interview I believe.

And yes he absolutely didn’t say he saw Luke, he said he didn’t know if he’d seen him. A brave stance when you have the whole force of the law bearing down on you.

If he's so brave why has he never spoken up in 20 years. Even a written statement if he didn't want to get involved with Lean's rabble. Nor a word from his dad in 20 years. As I said earlier, it's not about winning an argument, but when the killer's family don't support him it's rather obvious.

[faithlilly]

If he's so brave why has he never spoken up in 20 years. Even a written statement if he didn't want to get involved with Lean's rabble. Nor a word from his dad in 20 years. As I said earlier, it's not about winning an argument, but when the killer's family don't support him it's rather obvious.

If he spoke up would you believe him that Luke wasn’t Jodi’s killer?