"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[faithlilly]

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.

So why are you here?

Haven’t you got better things to do?

[Kenmair]

So why are you here?

Haven’t you got better things to do?

To expose and challenge innocence fraudsters and trolls like Lean and yourself. No sane person would consider this a MOJ. It's a scam that's fooled a few vulnerable people, no more.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Out of concern for her welfare?  I mean if I had arranged to meet a14 year old girl who I knew was walking down a reasonably secluded path to meet me and she never showed up I’d be concerned and want to make sure she was ok.  Why didn’t Mitchell?

[faithlilly]

To expose and challenge innocence fraudsters and trolls like Lean and yourself. No sane person would consider this a MOJ. It's a scam that's fooled a few vulnerable people, no more.

There are many legal experts who believe that this conviction is unsafe and have spoken publicly. I’ve yet to hear one who actually thinks it is safe…apart from perhaps Turnbull.

Who are you challenging?

To the uninitiated who perhaps mistakenly stumble upon this little corner of the internet you really must come across as a rather puerile man baby with a Sandra Lean fixation.

 I hate to break it to you sweetie but you ain’t exposing nothing apart from your ignorance.

[Kenmair]

There are many legal experts who believe that this conviction is unsafe and have spoken publicly. I’ve yet to hear one who actually thinks it is…apart from perhaps Turnbull.

Who are you challenging?

To the uninitiated who perhaps mistakenly stumble upon this little corner of the internet you really must come across as a rather puerile man baby with a Sandra Lean fixation.

 I hate to break it to you sweetie but you ain’t exposing nothing apart from your ignorance.

Your 19,000 posts suggests otherwise. Your hero is still in jail and about to fail his forthcoming parole while you sit at home "liking" posts by Jo Blogs aka Sandra Lean thinking you're making a difference with passive aggressive comments to anyone that doesn't agree, which is only Chris H and JB Lean. The LM campaign is finished.

[faithlilly]

Your 19,000 posts suggests otherwise. Your hero is still in jail and about to fail his forthcoming parole while you sit at home "liking" posts by Jo Blogs aka Sandra Lean thinking you're making a difference with passive aggressive comments to anyone that doesn't agree, which is only Chris H and JB Lean. The LM campaign is finished.

‘Hero’….have a word with yourself.

Every post reeks of immaturity. Hero, troll….i suggest that it’s time to grow up.

[Vertigo Swirl]

‘Hero’….have a word with yourself.

Every post reeks of immaturity. Hero, troll….i suggest that it’s time to grow up.

wow, breathtaking hypocrisy.

[Mr Apples]

Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw  LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!

[faithlilly]

Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw  LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!

Six of those witnesses did definitely see Luke and two probably but not where the said that they did.

Marion O’Sullivan and her partner describe Luke wearing the same clothes as Elliot and Houston.

“ Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.

She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw that Monday evening, the witness replied: "No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”

They didn’t go to Luke’s school so isn’t it a coincidence that they described Luke’s clothes in the same way? Although O’Sullivan and her partner were adamant that the boy they saw wasn’t Luke it’s obvious that it was. This again shows the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

Andrew Holborn said that he saw Luke using his phone. Luke used his phone three times after 6pm. Once to call David High just after 6.30, his mum and 6.39 and High again at 6.55 so Holborn couldn’t have got home at 6.15 if his statement is correct. If he saw Luke talking to High on the phone for the first time then it could only have been at 6.32. So Holborn couldn’t have been home earlier that 6.32 if he saw Luke on his phone.

[Mr Apples]

Six of those witnesses did definitely see Luke and two probably but not where the said that they did.

Marion O’Sullivan and her partner describe Luke wearing the same clothes as Elliot and Houston.

“ Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.

She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw that Monday evening, the witness replied: "No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”

They didn’t go to Luke’s school so isn’t it a coincidence that they described Luke’s clothes in the same way? Although O’Sullivan and her partner were adamant that the boy they saw wasn’t Luke it’s obvious that it was. This again shows the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

Andrew Holborn said that he saw Luke using his phone. Luke used his phone three times after 6pm. Once to call David High just after 6.30, his mum and 6.39 and High again at 6.55 so Holborn couldn’t have got home at 6.15 if his statement is correct. If he saw Luke talking to High on the phone for the first time then it could only have been at 6.32. So Holborn couldn’t have been home earlier that 6.32 if he saw Luke on his phone.

Refresh my memory -- who didn't see LM where they said they'd seen him? Where was LM when they saw him?

MO & DH probably didn't recognise LM in court as he'd changed so much between their sighting & the trial. As for their bomber jacket anomaly, it is possible LM quickly went home immediately after the F&W sighting and changed into the bomber jacket while still leaving his German army shirt on underneath (nobody saw him between 1740 -1805). An attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses? Or he could've had the bomber jacket planked nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at 1640ish (probably not, though)?

AH nor GE said anything about LM being on his phone -- it was DH who said that. DH never made it clear if LM was on a phone call or merely reading text messages at 1800/1805 (he said LM had his phone out in front of him and was looking down at it, strongly suggesting he was reading text messages). The puncture boy (GE) never mentioned LM being on the phone at all (nor did AH), he just said LM was at the exact same spot as he passed him the second time and said he got home about 1815 (despite saying earlier in his testimony that approximately  40 mins to 60 mins had elapsed between his first sighting of LM and the second). Messy. I'm surprised ADT didn't ask GE what clothing LM had on when he passed him the second time.

[Joe Blogs]

Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw  LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!

With all due respect, Mr Apples, I dont think your scenarios come under the heading of 'Occams Razor' by any stretch of the imagination, with LM running back and forth between Newbattle Road, the woods and his mums house, 'planking' various items of clothing here there and everywhere to confuse the witnesses!
You're certainly confusing me anyway Mr Apples! I would describe your scenarios more as 'jumping through hoops' to achieve a guilty LM!

[faithlilly]

Refresh my memory -- who didn't see LM where they said they'd seen him? Where was LM when they saw him?

MO & DH probably didn't recognise LM in court as he'd changed so much between their sighting & the trial. As for their bomber jacket anomaly, it is possible LM quickly went home immediately after the F&W sighting and changed into the bomber jacket while still leaving his German army shirt on underneath (nobody saw him between 1740 -1805). An attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses? Or he could've had the bomber jacket planked nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at 1640ish (probably not, though)?

AH nor GE said anything about LM being on his phone -- it was DH who said that. DH never made it clear if LM was on a phone call or merely reading text messages at 1800/1805 (he said LM had his phone out in front of him and was looking down at it, strongly suggesting he was reading text messages). The puncture boy (GE) never mentioned LM being on the phone at all (nor did AH), he just said LM was at the exact same spot as he passed him the second time and said he got home about 1815 (despite saying earlier in his testimony that approximately  40 mins to 60 mins had elapsed between his first sighting of LM and the second). Messy. I'm surprised ADT didn't ask GE what clothing LM had on when he passed him the second time.

Apologies MA you are absolutely right. It wasn’t Grant Elliot but Dean Houston who saw Luke with the phone. Elliot, who had the puncture, did estimate however that it was 30 -40 minutes between first seeing Luke and seeing him on his return journey. This means that he couldn’t have been home by 6.15. It also means that Luke was still standing on Newbattle Road around 6.40 with the same jacket on as previously seen by Elliot. A bit of a stretch to believe that Elliot saw Luke twice and still potentially mistook what he was wearing.

Marion O’Sullivan and her partner saw a youth with exactly the same clothes on as described by Elliot and Houston. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that they all saw the same youth? That O’Sullivan and her partner may not have recognised Luke due to the passage of time and his change in appearance but that doesn’t seem to have hindered Walsh and Fleming.

I’m confused. Do you think that Luke wore his German shirt under his parka, went home, burned the parka then put a bomber jacket on top of the possibly contaminated German shirt? Though not only a German shirt but under the shirt and parka must have been a t-shirt with writing on because Rosemary Walsh says this.

“What I could see was he had on some sort of dark t-shirt with some writing on it on the front’.

Why all the changing of outfits? You say that it may have been to confuse potential witnesses but why would he want to confuse them? Surely if he was setting up an alibi he would want all eyewitnesses to see him in the same clothes?

[Mr Apples]

With all due respect, Mr Apples, I dont think your scenarios come under the heading of 'Occams Razor' by any stretch of the imagination, with LM running back and forth between Newbattle Road, the woods and his mums house, 'planking' various items of clothing here there and everywhere to confuse the witnesses!
You're certainly confusing me anyway Mr Apples! I would describe your scenarios more as 'jumping through hoops' to achieve a guilty LM!

I admitted that LM planking his bomber jacket nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at approximately 1640ish was unlikely. Everything else in my previous post is still a possibility, though. He could've potentially and feasibly went home and changed into the bomber jacket immediately after the F&W sighting and been back on the NB rd to be seen by the 3 push bike boys, CH, and the couple MO & DH in said bomber jacket (though push bike boy AH was adamant that it, in his own exact words in his first statement to police in early July 03, "definitely wasn't a jacket, it was a shirt .").

[Mr Apples]

Apologies MA you are absolutely right. It wasn’t Grant Elliot but Dean Houston who saw Luke with the phone. Elliot, who had the puncture, did estimate however that it was 30 -40 minutes between first seeing Luke and seeing him on his return journey. This means that he couldn’t have been home by 6.15. It also means that Luke was still standing on Newbattle Road around 6.40 with the same jacket on as previously seen by Elliot. A bit of a stretch to believe that Elliot saw Luke twice and still potentially mistook what he was wearing.

Marion O’Sullivan and her partner saw a youth with exactly the same clothes on as described by Elliot and Houston. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that they all saw the same youth? That O’Sullivan and her partner may not have recognised Luke due to the passage of time and his change in appearance but that doesn’t seem to have hindered Walsh and Fleming.

I’m confused. Do you think that Luke wore his German shirt under his parka, went home, burned the parka then put a bomber jacket on top of the possibly contaminated German shirt? Though not only a German shirt but under the shirt and parka must have been a t-shirt with writing on because Rosemary Walsh says this.

“What I could see was he had on some sort of dark t-shirt with some writing on it on the front’.

Why all the changing of outfits? You say that it may have been to confuse potential witnesses but why would he want to confuse them? Surely if he was setting up an alibi he would want all eyewitnesses to see him in the same clothes?

Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).

Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.

LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).

[Joe Blogs]

Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).

Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.

LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).

Why did LM step back into the driveway at Barondale cottages if he wanted to be seen in his bomber jacket, Mr Apples?