"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Parky41]

I did, when I previously wrote, "It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline." (05 September 2024 at 03:16:34 AM)

Here is the passage from the transcript that was in my mind at the time I wrote that comment:
"Donald Findlay: You talk about Luke being a couple of footsteps in front of us.  “The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.”  Now do you remember the dog doing that? (no answer).

To assist you I will read one more sentence.  “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.  Do you remember that happening? – As I says, I can remember him being at that part of the wall.  Now I can’t remember about the dog (sic).  Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."

Just now I found one additional passage of interest:
DF: Remember...in your 30th July statement saying this.  "I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps.  I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall."  Do you remember that?
SK:  I can't remember.

This, too, would have been fresh in his mind when he gave his statement.

Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.

“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.

You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.

Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.

Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.

[Parky41]

Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.

“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.

You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.

Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.

Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.

BTW a dog finding a body would have been its handler taken the dog over the wall, leading them to where the body was. Oh wait, LM didn't have to do that, why?  Because he said his dog had alerted at a "parallel" place near to where the body was. Wow, wait, look at the evidence, it couldn't be clearer, it didn't happen. Whatever that dog was doing standing up against that V break, or pulling to the wall prior to that point (fancy that a dog pulling to a wall). Which was also highlighted by the AD, that the dog had already been acting in a certain fashion anyway. What is it SL put it down to? False alerts - Comedy gold.

It's the thinking one has gotcha moments with DF's cross examination. My word, how dim did you take the AD to be? Did you imagine for one moment that these statements would not be read out? Of course not, he knew exactly what he was doing, placing the focus where it should be - No LM past that break, he was lying. Nothing of any alert showing him where to go, why? Because they weren't were he claimed to be. Take it all away, and you are left with the Crowns evidence. Which was, the dog could have been doing summersaults down that path and to the V break, it was not alerting LM to the position of the victims body. Never past it. What the evidence also show us, is that he had never walked that distance down that passage either.  He had all but not moved behind that wall. He didn't need to!

[faithlilly]

Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.

“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.

You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.

Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.

Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.

Kelly saw Mia “pulling Luke to the wall” which suggests that Luke was some distance away from the wall. Your thoughts?

Kelly, in his testimony, seemed to have forgotten much of what he had related in his statements. This included much of what happened during the search. Does that make him a liar or, like Luke, a human being who had just gone through a horrific experience?

[faithlilly]

From Alice Walker’s 5th of July statement.

“ This is the part where Luke actually climbed over. I don't know what drew us to that part, but l'm certain that it was Luke's idea. The dog didn't seem to be
bothered but I couldn't say if it jumped at the wall or not, I don't think that it did".

From various statements from Steven Kelly.

"The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.”

 “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.

"I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps.  I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall." 

And Janine Jones’s statement.

"Luke's dog was on a lead at all times but it started jumping about at the wall".

How can two people who saw the same incident recollections be so different? It makes you wonder what else was missed by the witnesses?

[Vertigo Swirl]

From Alice Walker’s 5th of July statement.

“ This is the part where Luke actually climbed over. I don't know what drew us to that part, but l'm certain that it was Luke's idea. The dog didn't seem to be
bothered but I couldn't say if it jumped at the wall or not, I don't think that it did".

From various statements from Steven Kelly.

"The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.”

 “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.

"I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps.  I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall." 

How can two people who saw the same incident recollections be so different? It makes you wonder what else was missed by the witnesses?

” Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it?”. Ring any bells?

[Kenmair]

” Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it?”. Ring any bells?

I would say Faith must be the supreme troll in the LM case, in managing to make so much out of so little and ignoring key issues in favour of trivialities that were not picked up by the defence QC, who at the time was at the peak of his powers. There's a few LM supporters, Lean included, who I wonder if they still believe in him, or just don't want to admit they've backed a wrong 'un.

[faithlilly]

I would say Faith must be the supreme troll in the LM case, in managing to make so much out of so little and ignoring key issues in favour of trivialities that were not picked up by the defence QC, who at the time was at the peak of his powers. There's a few LM supporters, Lean included, who I wonder if they still believe in him, or just don't want to admit they've backed a wrong 'un.

Trivialities? As one of the main planks of the prosecution’s case was focused on Luke finding of Jodi’s body I’d hardly call the anomalies between witness statements of the event ‘trivial’.

I feel as if if you have read the testimony of Kelly, Walker and Jones you certainly didn’t fully understand Findlay’s line of questioning and the doubt he so brutally brought to the fore regarding their honesty.

[Kenmair]

I've read all the court transcripts but yet to see anything that would cause me to re-evaluate that LM isn't guilty as charged. If DF was so sure of LM's innocence, why does he no longer represent him?

The three planks were: the witness sightings, his brother not being to alibi him, and LM finding the body within 5-6 mins.

[faithlilly]

I've read all the court transcripts but yet to see anything that would cause me to re-evaluate that LM isn't guilty as charged. If DF was so sure of LM's innocence, why does he no longer represent him?

The three planks were: the witness sightings, his brother not being to alibi him, and LM finding the body within 5-6 mins.

Why doesn’t Findlay represent Luke anymore? Really?

True Shane was not able to alibi Luke. That is clearly not the same as saying that his alibi was untrue. Shane could simply not remember. Corrine Mitchell could though and she gave her son a solid alibi and yes there was the tattoo incident but of course on the other hand we have Judith Jones lying to her son’s mental health team about her son’s whereabouts on the Monday afternoon of the 30th and you have no trouble believing her testimony. I can’t see the difference myself.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why doesn’t Findlay represent Luke anymore? Really?

True Shane was not able to alibi Luke. That is clearly not the same as saying that his alibi was untrue. Shane could simply not remember. Corrine Mitchell could though and she gave her son a solid alibi and yes there was the tattoo incident but of course on the other hand we have Judith Jones lying to her son’s mental health team about her son’s whereabouts on the Monday afternoon of the 30th and you have no trouble believing her testimony. I can’t see the difference myself.

His mother is his alibi?  Seriously??  And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….

[Kenmair]

His mother is his alibi?  Seriously??  And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….

Agree. The entire extended Mitchell family has ex-communicated LM/CM. LM has had to rely on local fruitcakes like Lean & Forbes. Nothing the Jones family said or did contributed to their daughter's murder. Legally, no one will touch the case with a barge pole.

[faithlilly]

Agree. The entire extended Mitchell family has ex-communicated LM/CM. LM has had to rely on local fruitcakes like Lean & Forbes. Nothing the Jones family said or did contributed to their daughter's murder. Legally, no one will touch the case with a barge pole.

As did Andrew Malkinson’s sister even when he was innocent. Your point?

As to the Jones family I didn’t say that Judith’s lies led to Jodi’s death but it did show her to be less than an honest individual. She obviously was prepared to lie when needed.

On the flip side many legal experts believe that Luke was not given a fair trial.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As did Andrew Malkinson’s sister even when he was innocent. Your point?

As to the Jones family I didn’t say that Judith’s lies led to Jodi’s death but it did show her to be less than an honest individual. She obviously was prepared to lie when needed.

On the flip side many legal experts believe that Luke was not given a fair trial.

You didn’t say it explicitly but your sly implication was clear to anyone with half a braincell.  And thank god for Andrew Malkinson’s sister, eh?  How many times is that you’ve dragged the poor woman into your posts despite her having absolutely nothing to do with this case?
ETA  Andrew Malkinson’s sister hadn’t seen her brother for 10 years prior to his arrest for rape.  They were described as “estranged”.  This is why dragging in comparisons with circumstances in other cases is really not all that helpful.  The Mitchell brothers saw each other every day, lived in the same house and Mitchell’s brother wasn’t even able to provide him with an alibi.  Two completely different sets of circumstances and relationships.

[Parky41]

His mother is his alibi?  Seriously??  And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….

Seriously indeed - Pulling up yet another lie to boot in an attempt to give weight to air. JuJ's testimony has been read by no one, it has never been transcribed. Exposure of yet another lie from SL & her alias. Inference that some claimed cancellation had the mother lie (nothing to do with the trial of course), with added "of her sons whereabouts" so building on an already existent lie anyway. This claimed cancellation, some tiny excerpt used with zero context as per. What has SL been proven to do? Add her own, building up those lies. Just like her alias did there, again. What has she also been discovered to have been doing? Making up s**t claiming it was said in statements. - There is no credibility in proven liars scraping to claim someone else did. Kindred spirits who care not a jot for the truth.

[faithlilly]

Seriously indeed - Pulling up yet another lie to boot in an attempt to give weight to air. JuJ's testimony has been read by no one, it has never been transcribed. Exposure of yet another lie from SL & her alias. Inference that some claimed cancellation had the mother lie (nothing to do with the trial of course), with added "of her sons whereabouts" so building on an already existent lie anyway. This claimed cancellation, some tiny excerpt used with zero context as per. What has SL been proven to do? Add her own, building up those lies. Just like her alias did there, again. What has she also been discovered to have been doing? Making up s**t claiming it was said in statements. - There is no credibility in proven liars scraping to claim someone else did. Kindred spirits who care not a jot for the truth.

Hmmm can I just point out that if we haven’t seen JuJ’s testimony we can’t know that the cancellation by JuJ was a lie.

Like the rest of us you do not have the slightest idea what claims JuJ’s original statements or her court testimony contained. Of course we do know for certain that you have no proof of several ‘facts’ you’ve relied on.