"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Parky41]

His clothing MA, the age was a guess because of how he was dressed. She also made clear the jacket could have been drawn in thus not waist length. His trousers she took to be the same colour from that glancing view as she passed. Not therefore difficult to see why, thought waist length because it was drawn in, clarifying it could have been because the jacket had something that drew it in around the waist, colour below that khaki also she took to be his trousers. The AD making clear how ludicrous it would be to expect someone to get everything spot on. Pointing out that DF's exercise was not based upon reality, one didn't get to examine clothing in great detail when passing someone by. She saw Mitchell that day and she made clear she was in no doubt via the photo ID and image in paper that is who it was. And again, the image she chose re the jacket was likened to the one she saw that day. He also cleared up why AB could have missed that logo. As he did with the engaging in conversation with the male.

Damn right there weren't two or even 3 of Mitchell (according to some accounts) doing the rounds that day coincidently in the same quiet suburbs. AB also stated she had passed by the lane many times and never seen anyone standing in it before. Not the hive of activity that some like to make it out to be. We can see why Jodi had been forbidden to walk isolated areas by herself, we can see why she wouldn't be wandering off into a woodland strip for absolutely no reason on her own either. She had no phone, no security, no means of reaching out for help. We are told she was a bright intelligent young girl. Apart from Mitchell there is no evidence of her doing so, he himself omitting that ban, we know why, its not difficult. The AD also clarifying the evidence of her sister, it wasn't never walking the path, it was not doing it alone.

Disingenuous indeed. Someone was pulled up for being just that then they retort with more of the same. Back to the point being made. AB saw Mitchell that day, she clarified that he appeared to be wearing a jacket that was drawn in around the waist, giving it the appearance of being the bottom of the jacket with trouser that appeared to be the same colour. The AD highlighted that DF's exercise wasn't born from the reality of the sighting. The witness didn't have the advantage of being stopped and intricately examining each minute detail of clothing. How easily, under those conditions could that coat have been longer, giving the appearance of one item stopping and another starting. Same goes for the high collar etc. Studying many pictures of fishing style jackets that is exactly how they appear, very similar to parkas, we can see why she chose no 8 as being closest to what was in memory. He did well did Donald. 'Walking into a shop and multiple jackets all the same colour looking the same but with differences.' I can see why some people doubt his belief in Mitchells innocence. Of not representing as best he could? But they then fail to apply why that would be? Much the same with Tobin, I'm sure he believed he was innocent too (cough). But it is as he states, everyone is indeed innocent right up to the point of a guilty verdict being declared. Much the same as Fibs just now with his 'the house was illegally bugged' (Mitchell).Nonsense of course, but as the conspiracy nutters eagerly agree with him, they don't stop to think? What could possibly have been heard with the 'illegal bugging' that confirmed to the police Mitchell was the guilty party?

[faithlilly]

We can keep going round in circles here Chris. Will we play tit for tat here? Someone coming forward and stating it was me in the lane, there's your probative value. Did the defence produce someone, has all these years of it being broadcast far and wide produced anyone, no? I suspect (I know) that's because it really was Mitchell that day. Mitchells brother lying held probative value, Mitchell lying held probative value, his mother lying held probative value. He wasn't home.

Was something produced to show the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was her shop receipt mentioned, yes. Can you produce anything to prove the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was the bank statement accepted by the witness as correct, yes. And again, what was accepted by the witness holds value. At no point have I ever claimed that sighting was tip top, neither did the Crown. They applied many factors put together to give it probative value.

Zero evidence directly linking Mitchell to the murder holds value. Zero evidence pointing this murder elsewhere holds value. Zero evidence of Jodi walking down into that area with anyone other than Mitchell holds value. No evidence of any altercation taken place elsewhere. DF's feeble attempts with his massive big knife scenario. smh. Seen in that lane, girl murdered in an area the two frequented together. Hidden by someone who needed time on their side, the boyfriend who needed time because he was the one person to have been in her company. We can go on and on, rhyming off the same over and over again. Attempting to apply the defence tactics doesn't break that chain of events. As one places something to weaken it another is applied to add strength to it.

Your first point of course is absolutely ridiculous. There was no appeal for the couple at the beginning of RDP. Not that the police weren’t staging appeals. There was of course one for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. So why not the couple at the beginning of the path? They could then have been eliminated and the focus could have changed to elsewhere. That there was no appeal does beg the question why not? Were the police afraid that they might actually find them?

The importance of the couple was only made public almost a full eighteen months after the murder during the trial. If the couple even heard the reports from the court would they even link the testimony to themselves after the passage of time? Would you know where you were at a certain time on a rather mundane day almost 18 months ago? Of course there’s always the chance that their interest in the case didn’t survive beyond the first flurry after the murder so still, to this day, know nothing about their place in the case.

Now here's the thing. We’re told there was a plan in Luke’s mind. A plan to confuse and divert attention away from himself. Part of that plan was the 5.40 call to the Jones’s home phone. Let’s look at this more closely. Luke calls to see if Jodi is still at home. This allegedly was to cover his tracks after the murder. The only thing is as soon as he made that phone call he must have known, if he was the killer, that he could be setting in motion a set of events that he had no control over. He would have known that Jodi had left home 50 minutes before and by calling her mum’s phone he was alerting her to the fact that Jodi was missing.

Now the prosecution would have Luke, still in his murder attire, inviting interest in Jodi’s whereabouts. How could he have known that Jodi’s mum wouldn’t panic and rope everyone close to her into finding Jodi. Of course Luke couldn’t have avoided being roped into such a search, with no time to return home, discard his DNA spattered parka etc etc. Luke could not have known that Judith may have been too busy to notice the passage of time. From that 5.40 phone-call Luke could not have been sure what would lead from it. Not much of a plan, was it?

[faithlilly]

Disingenuous indeed. Someone was pulled up for being just that then they retort with more of the same. Back to the point being made. AB saw Mitchell that day, she clarified that he appeared to be wearing a jacket that was drawn in around the waist, giving it the appearance of being the bottom of the jacket with trouser that appeared to be the same colour. The AD highlighted that DF's exercise wasn't born from the reality of the sighting. The witness didn't have the advantage of being stopped and intricately examining each minute detail of clothing. How easily, under those conditions could that coat have been longer, giving the appearance of one item stopping and another starting. Same goes for the high collar etc. Studying many pictures of fishing style jackets that is exactly how they appear, very similar to parkas, we can see why she chose no 8 as being closest to what was in memory. He did well did Donald. 'Walking into a shop and multiple jackets all the same colour looking the same but with differences.' I can see why some people doubt his belief in Mitchells innocence. Of not representing as best he could? But they then fail to apply why that would be? Much the same with Tobin, I'm sure he believed he was innocent too (cough). But it is as he states, everyone is indeed innocent right up to the point of a guilty verdict being declared. Much the same as Fibs just now with his 'the house was illegally bugged' (Mitchell).Nonsense of course, but as the conspiracy nutters eagerly agree with him, they don't stop to think? What could possibly have been heard with the 'illegal bugging' that confirmed to the police Mitchell was the guilty party?

Just because you are blind to the truth Parky does not make the truth disappear and you can’t simply cherrypick what part of a witness’s testimony suits your narrative.

“His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.

So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.

"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.

So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh”

And

“ BY THE COURT: - What would you have meant by saying that the jacket that you saw was pulled in at the waist. Would you have meant it was pulled in at the bottom edge of the jacket or some other part of the jacket?
- I meant it was pulled (incomprehensible) jacket to make it like a... to pull it in.

Pulled in at the bottom edge? - Yeah.

Thank you”

This is the evidence that Bryson gave both in her statements and under oath. You may not like it. You may wish it was different but it isn’t.

The rest of your post is news to me and of course never happened.

[faithlilly]

This is very interesting from Steven Kelly.

'I think it was Janine's idea that we would go and search out Jodi. She knew that if she was meeting Luke she would sometimes walk down the path in the field that runs between Eashouses and Newbattle Road!'

More evidence, if more was needed, that Jodi did indeed walk down RDP alone to meet Luke.

[Parky41]

Yawn. "cherry picked" extracts that don't work now people have access to it all you bleat Faith in one breath whilst doing just that in the next. You can't get away with that anymore, eh? I know old habits die hard. Like that little extract you tried earlier. Now less of the hypocrisy and put the rest up or indeed just the link to the transcripts themselves. So again, just like that of AB, the AD swiftly righting the attempts made by DF to muddy the waters with most of the witnesses. There is no "hiding" of anything anymore. My interest in guilt/innocence is not on your level. My reasons for studying this case primarily round that false narrative, exposed.  But one really shouldn't take things so personally Faith with others belief in his guilt. You're not some martyr of injustice, you troll the web under many user names. Where is the pride to be had in that? Or indeed the hypocrisy you live and breath. Lighten up old gal.

[faithlilly]

Yawn. "cherry picked" extracts that don't work now people have access to it all you bleat Faith in one breath whilst doing just that in the next. You can't get away with that anymore, eh? I know old habits die hard. Like that little extract you tried earlier. Now less of the hypocrisy and put the rest up or indeed just the link to the transcripts themselves. So again, just like that of AB, the AD swiftly righting the attempts made by DF to muddy the waters with most of the witnesses. There is no "hiding" of anything anymore. My interest in guilt/innocence is not on your level. My reasons for studying this case primarily round that false narrative, exposed.  But one really shouldn't take things so personally Faith with others belief in his guilt. You're not some martyr of injustice, you troll the web under many user names. Where is the pride to be had in that? Or indeed the hypocrisy you live and breath. Lighten up old gal.

The difference between you and I Parky is that I evidence my claims with direct quotes from witnesses. You merely make claims, which are often down the line proved wrong…need I remind you again about the ‘strong majority’? Your interest in guilt/innocence is not on my level….now that did make me chuckle. You have no interest in innocence and AD righted nothing as there was nothing to right. Findlay’s closing speech to the jury was as thoughtful and concise as any I’ve seen and drove a horse and cart through much of AD’s rather tenuous narrative.

Time to put up or….well you know the rest Parky. Counter my claims with evidence, if you can.

BTW where is the pride in endeavouring to find out what names members post under elsewhere, if indeed they do? What does it achieve? Perhaps it’s being challenged by a woman that irks you? Is that it Parky or is it simply being challenged?

It does bring me endless amusement that far from blowing apart the case for Luke’s innocence which many guilters believed would happen the transcripts have actually amplified the paucity of the crown’s case.

[Joe Blogs]

This is very interesting from Steven Kelly.

'I think it was Janine's idea that we would go and search out Jodi. She knew that if she was meeting Luke she would sometimes walk down the path in the field that runs between Eashouses and Newbattle Road!'

More evidence, if more was needed, that Jodi did indeed walk down RDP alone to meet Luke.

No one questioned Jodi using RDP on her own to get to Newbattle/Lukes house on the night of the murder as far as I can see, Faith.
Luke told Judith about the arrangement/meeting place on the phone, then Judith relayed this to Alice on the phone who immediately set off to search RDP and RDP only [Alice's own words], that is where she was going with Janine and Steven to search, RDP and RDP only!
I'm sure Findlay pointed out to Janine that she knew exactly where RDP was and that Jodi used it on her own, and to be honest, why on earth would RDP hold any danger in daylight? , its absurd to suggest this!
Judith certainly didn't question Luke about Jodi using the path nor the meeting place in the days after the murder, she only quizzed Luke as to why he didn't phone again later on to say that Jodi still hadn't arrived.

But then its obvious that once Luke was the main suspect, a credible scenario had to be formed around this, and the possibility of Jodi walking along RDP on her own and being attacked by someone other than Luke was simply not on, no way jose!
After all, this would cause severe doubt about the Andrina Bryson sighting. After all, if Jodi was allowed to use RDP and had arranged to meet at Lukes house that day, then why on earth could Luke have been at the Easthouses end  of RDP?
No no no, it was imperative to claim that RDP was taboo for Jodi to use on her own and that the 'usual' meeting place for Jodi/Luke was Easthouses.
So statements had to be changed and the claim of 'mucking about up here' was added so that it could be 'proven' beyond doubt that Luke met Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP that day, and undoubtably seen by star witness Andrina Bryson.
Of course, Donald Findlay pointed out in court how Janines statement about RDP changed, but it fell on deaf ears like so many other things.
So, all very good then! By the time of the trial the evidence had been manipulated to show that Jodi was forbiden to use RDP on her own, therefore it must have been Luke that Andrina Bryson saw meeting her in Easthouses, besides, Jodi had told Judith that she would be 'mucking about up here' remember! Although, it seems, Lukes version of meeting in Newbattle didn't seem to be questioned by Judith until she knew he was a suspect????
But!!! There was another big problem for the police, they could possibly manipulate the evidence to make it seem that LM was seen in RDP at the Easthouses end by Andrina Bryson, but what about the lack of blood and DNA on the clothing they took from him on the night of the murder? That is, his school clothes including his green bomber jacket.

Well again, the police needed to manipulate and twist the evidence to introduce a set of 'murder clothes'.
You see, Luke claimed that he wore the same clothes the whole day, and indeed on the face of it this was backed up by the two push bike boys who testified that LM was standing beside Barondale cottages in his bomber jacket, and indeed they were the only witnesses who actually knew Luke.

But!! This was no good for the police, after all, they had possesion of the bomber jacket and school clothes and absolutely no blood nor DNA from the locus was found on them, hence they were not worn by the killer that day!
So, again the police had to simply discount the bike boys evidence and say they were mistaken, that they simply presumed LM was wearing his bomber because they were accustomed to seeing him wearing it in school!

No no, in the eyes of the police it was imperative that LM was 'not' wearing his school clothing on the 'way home' as it were, from the murder scene.
So it was decided that Luke was actually wearing a parka jacket and other clothing when he was seen by all the witnesses, firstly by Andrina Bryson before the murder then by everyone else on Newbattle Road, 'including' the two pushbike boys, although all of the witnesses descriptions of the clothing they saw varied.
But alas,  a parka nor any other blood stained clothing were recovered, hence it was claimed they were burned in the Mitchells back yard. Although no remains were recovered!
But again, there had to be an explaination about the murder clothes and what became of them!
Without any murder clothes, there was no case against LM,although of course there was no tangible evidence of murder clothing, just a 'theory', nothing more! Although it was claimed by the police that the clothing was burned in fires seen in the Mitchells back yard by neighbours.
So, thats about it, how the main planks of the prosecution case were manipulated to point to LM as the killer, to place him at the scene as it were!

And it begs the question, if Janine lied about her knowledge of RDP, who was telling the truth about the prosecutions other' plank' of evidence, the finding of Jodi's body????

[Mr Apples]

Your first point of course is absolutely ridiculous. There was no appeal for the couple at the beginning of RDP. Not that the police weren’t staging appeals. There was of course one for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. So why not the couple at the beginning of the path? They could then have been eliminated and the focus could have changed to elsewhere. That there was no appeal does beg the question why not? Were the police afraid that they might actually find them?

The importance of the couple was only made public almost a full eighteen months after the murder during the trial. If the couple even heard the reports from the court would they even link the testimony to themselves after the passage of time? Would you know where you were at a certain time on a rather mundane day almost 18 months ago? Of course there’s always the chance that their interest in the case didn’t survive beyond the first flurry after the murder so still, to this day, know nothing about their place in the case.

Now here's the thing. We’re told there was a plan in Luke’s mind. A plan to confuse and divert attention away from himself. Part of that plan was the 5.40 call to the Jones’s home phone. Let’s look at this more closely. Luke calls to see if Jodi is still at home. This allegedly was to cover his tracks after the murder. The only thing is as soon as he made that phone call he must have known, if he was the killer, that he could be setting in motion a set of events that he had no control over. He would have known that Jodi had left home 50 minutes before and by calling her mum’s phone he was alerting her to the fact that Jodi was missing.

Now the prosecution would have Luke, still in his murder attire, inviting interest in Jodi’s whereabouts. How could he have known that Jodi’s mum wouldn’t panic and rope everyone close to her into finding Jodi. Of course Luke couldn’t have avoided being roped into such a search, with no time to return home, discard his DNA spattered parka etc etc. Luke could not have known that Judith may have been too busy to notice the passage of time. From that 5.40 phone-call Luke could not have been sure what would lead from it. Not much of a plan, was it?

Quite simply, he decided it was a risk he had to take; he had to make some kind of contact as no contact at all would've been very suspicious. He knew that when he phoned at 1740 there was less of a chance of Judith becoming suspicious or alarmed as him phoning about an hour later or 2 hours later; him phoning when he did would arouse little suspicion, particularly as most families are rushing about to prepare family dinners at 1740, clearing up after dinner, and so on. It was very crafty on LM's part phoning at 1740, imo; as I said, it was a ruse that served a dual purpose: to give the Joneses the impression that they hadn't met yet, and to buy Mitchell time to cover his tracks as he knew that by not phoning back the Joneses would've presumed they had eventually met up. The telling thing was that he didn't try and contact Jodi or the Jones landline again, especially as by that point they were in the habit of meeting most nights and Jodi had only failed to meet LM once during their entire dating history and even then she had phoned LM to tell him why she wouldn't make it on that single, solitary instance. Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).

[Joe Blogs]

Quite simply, he decided it was a risk he had to take; he had to make some kind of contact as no contact at all would've been very suspicious. He knew that when he phoned at 1740 there was less of a chance of Judith becoming suspicious or alarmed as him phoning about an hour later or 2 hours later; him phoning when he did would arouse little suspicion, particularly as most families are rushing about to prepare family dinners at 1740, clearing up after dinner, and so on. It was very crafty on LM's part phoning at 1740, imo; as I said, it was a ruse that served a dual purpose: to give the Joneses the impression that they hadn't met yet, and to buy Mitchell time to cover his tracks as he knew that by not phoning back the Joneses would've presumed they had eventually met up. The telling thing was that he didn't try and contact Jodi or the Jones landline again, especially as by that point they were in the habit of meeting most nights and Jodi had only failed to meet LM once during their entire dating history and even then she had phoned LM to tell him why she wouldn't make it on that single, solitary instance. Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).

Quite simply, Mr Apples, the 5.40 call would only makes sense to Judith Jones if she knew that Jodi was meeting Luke in Newbattle.
If not. Lukes call would have caused a raft of questions which would definately cause Judith to phone Luke back!
For instance, Ovens comes off the phone and tells Judith that it was Luke phoning to say that Jodi hadn't turned up, Judith replies, what? its only a few minutes walk to the end of RDP where she was meeting Luke! Where could she have gone, she asks herself?  Its almost an hour since she left! Then Judith would ask Alen Ovens where LM was phoning from, obviously presuming that it was the Easthouses end of RDP and probably wondering why LM simply didn't continue the short distance to her house to see if Jodi was there.

Of course Ovens didn't ask Luke any questions, so could not have given Judith any answers, hence the obvious need to phone Luke back to find out what the situation was.
Out of decency alone Judith needed to phone back, she couldn't just leave him standing at the end of RDP indefinately, surely?

Now at this stage, any further correspondence with Judith would have been devastating for Luke.
The first thing Judith would have asked Luke was where he was, and as soon as Luke said Newbattle he was in trouble, as Judith would simply say, 'well thats the problem Luke, Jodi is waiting for you at the Easthouses end of the path, get your arse over there now you dope!', hence Luke would be stuffed !
Even if Luke said, no no Judith, your wrong, Jodi was coming to my house in Newbattle, he would end up in trouble
as Judith would say, 'well if that is the case Jodi should still have arrived with you about half an hour ago, phone back soon if she doesn't appear!', this again setting in motion a search for Jodi sooner rather than later.
And also, there is the possibility that Judith would phone Lukes house and get Corrine on the line, who would inevitably tell her that Luke wasn't there and wasn't there when she got home from work, again, game over!

No, to be honest, logic tells us that Luke would only have phoned Jodi's mums house at 5.40 if he was innocent and was telling the truth about Jodi meeting him at Newbattle Abbey Crescent!
Otherwise, if the plan was to meet with Jodi in Easthouses then a phone call to Judith's house at 5.40 was total suicide! Had to be! And quite simply, the fact that the 5.40 call didn't cause any alarm for Judith proves that Jogi/Luke planned to meet in Newbattle that day!
Think it through, Mr Apples.

[faithlilly]

Quite simply, Mr Apples, the 5.40 call would only makes sense to Judith Jones if she knew that Jodi was meeting Luke in Newbattle.
If not. Lukes call would have caused a raft of questions which would definately cause Judith to phone Luke back!
For instance, Ovens comes off the phone and tells Judith that it was Luke phoning to say that Jodi hadn't turned up, Judith replies, what? its only a few minutes walk to the end of RDP where she was meeting Luke! Where could she have gone, she asks herself?  Its almost an hour since she left! Then Judith would ask Alen Ovens where LM was phoning from, obviously presuming that it was the Easthouses end of RDP and probably wondering why LM simply didn't continue the short distance to her house to see if Jodi was there.

Of course Ovens didn't ask Luke any questions, so could not have given Judith any answers, hence the obvious need to phone Luke back to find out what the situation was.
Out of decency alone Judith needed to phone back, she couldn't just leave him standing at the end of RDP indefinately, surely?

Now at this stage, any further correspondence with Judith would have been devastating for Luke.
The first thing Judith would have asked Luke was where he was, and as soon as Luke said Newbattle he was in trouble, as Judith would simply say, 'well thats the problem Luke, Jodi is waiting for you at the Easthouses end of the path, get your arse over there now you dope!', hence Luke would be stuffed !
Even if Luke said, no no Judith, your wrong, Jodi was coming to my house in Newbattle, he would end up in trouble
as Judith would say, 'well if that is the case Jodi should still have arrived with you about half an hour ago, phone back soon if she doesn't appear!', this again setting in motion a search for Jodi sooner rather than later.
And also, there is the possibility that Judith would phone Lukes house and get Corrine on the line, who would inevitably tell her that Luke wasn't there and wasn't there when she got home from work, again, game over!

No, to be honest, logic tells us that Luke would only have phoned Jodi's mums house at 5.40 if he was innocent and was telling the truth about Jodi meeting him at Newbattle Abbey Crescent!
Otherwise, if the plan was to meet with Jodi in Easthouses then a phone call to Judith's house at 5.40 was total suicide! Had to be! And quite simply, the fact that the 5.40 call didn't cause any alarm for Judith proves that Jogi/Luke planned to meet in Newbattle that day!
Think it through, Mr Apples.

Excellent post Joe.

[Kenmair]

Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).

It's obvious that if he made any contact after 6pm he would have been rumbled. Yet while he waited at the end of his road he called his mum and friend (twice) and gave many different reasons for her not turning up to various people and different versions in his police interviews. AO says she's already left (on a 15 min walk) yet LM doesn't walk 5-10 mins to check but waits over an hour doing nothing. Only a troll would believe him. Let's see who is the first to blame the Jones.

[Joe Blogs]

It's obvious that if he made any contact after 6pm he would have been rumbled. Yet while he waited at the end of his road he called his mum and friend (twice) and gave many different reasons for her not turning up to various people and different versions in his police interviews. AO says she's already left (on a 15 min walk) yet LM doesn't walk 5-10 mins to check but waits over an hour doing nothing. Only a troll would believe him. Let's see who is the first to blame the Jones.

If Luke was guilty, Ken, then honestly, it makes zero sense to stand on Newbattle Road at all.
What purpose did it serve? Did witnesses seeing him stand there waiting give him any kind of alibi?
Far far more important for Luke to rush home as soon as possible and get things into motion before phoning anyone.
Get Corrine on side, after all without her assistance it was all over for him, change clothes and shower, then and only then when things were in place and every eventuality covered phone Jodi's house!
Luke could have done all this before 6.00, and after all, Luke claimed that Jodi was coming to his house anyway, so why not wait there?
Look at it this way, Ken, doesn't it make more sense to get changed and start disposing of the evidence before risking phoning anyone as opposed to phoning to report Jodi missing and then standing in the murder clothing for another hour, another hour without putting anything in place?? Why? Talk about back to front or priorities!
And it isn't as if Luke really wanted to be seen on Newbattle Road anyway for heavens sake! Head down, standing back into a driveway etc.,  Certainly didn't look like he was displaying himself to all on the pretence of waiting for Jodi.
Why didn't Luke stand on the edge of the pavement in full view gesturing as if he was looking for someone coming?
Ach! None of it makes sense from a guilt point of view at all! He's either decided to stand on Newbattle Road to claim he was waiting for Jodi, and on the other hand he's standing there in his parka jacket for all to see for an hour before going home to burn it!
Gee whizz, all Luke had to do was sneak home and no one would have seen the parka, hence the Andrina Bryson sighting would have had far less impact on things.
Just rush home, get things in order, then if need be walk to the end of his street in the bomber jacket before six while Corrine is burning the parka, everything in place ready for any eventuality. Job done!
Alternatively, phone Jodi's house and then stand on Newbattle Rd for an hour with nothing in place?
Come on, Ken! Who are you kidding son!

[Kenmair]

If Luke was guilty.....

You didn't address any of the previous points. He phoned various other people after 6pm but didn't phone the person he'd already agreed to meet despite knowing she would be only 10 minutes away. He called DH twice despite apparently not knowing J's whereabouts. Why no second call to Jones/AO?
Behave yourself with your hypothetical trolling.

[faithlilly]

You didn't address any of the previous points. He phoned various other people after 6pm but didn't phone the person he'd already agreed to meet despite knowing she would be only 10 minutes away. He called DH twice despite apparently not knowing J's whereabouts. Why no second call to Jones/AO?
Behave yourself with your hypothetical trolling.

A…Jodi didn’t have a phone so how could he call her?
B…Why call the Jones household when he had already been told that Jodi had left? If she had returned in the meantime she’d have been told that Luke had called and would have called him.

With nothing valuable to add to the debate I believe that it’s you who are trolling.

[Kenmair]

A…Jodi didn’t have a phone so how could he call her?
B…Why call the Jones household when he had already been told that Jodi had left? If she had returned in the meantime she’d have been told that Luke had called and would have called him.
With nothing valuable to add to the debate I believe that it’s you who are trolling.

I've nothing to add to the debate because LM knew at 5.40pm he'd already killed his g/f and was desperately trying to put his alibi in place. Nothing in the past 20 years has shown otherwise apart from endless dribbling on forums.