Author Topic: THE ALIBI.  (Read 8108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #90 on: May 15, 2021, 02:40:25 PM »
You are doing a startling Job of putting forward Ms Leans reasoning in one hand whilst again saying you are only Just reading the book.  Book or not. Ms Leans changes her mind quite literally like the weather - over time. We go from SM having complete amnesia within 24hrs. (he didn't have of course.) In his first account he did not see his brother and there was no dinner. within 36hrs he is back in contact with the police to change his statement. His second account is completely in line with what his mother told him to say.

The problem with this campaign - is the actual memory of those running it? - There is no consistency, which is hardly surprising. The more questions that have been asked over time - the more the answers change to suit. Of SM: - Of contacting the police and; The intricate details of the pie, of not wanting to upset his brother and so forth. Of where everyone was. - The times.

This was from that second account - the one in line exactly with his mothers. Of her arriving home at her usual time - before the CCTV and her arriving home at 5.15pm - then the narrative had to change. To include SM saying his brother was in on his arrival home.

Then we go to Shane not seeing his brother when he came in, that he only saw his brother when he came down for dinner, at 5.15pm when his mother came home.

And of course - all it did was draw more attention upon them. As, not in any of the scenarios could SM have collected any dinner at 5.15pm. Not until around 5.25pm - which tied with the second account - where he said he had returned upstairs for around 10mins until shouted for dinner at 5.15pm.

The point I am making here is that of the investigation - Of the information gathered, that the Crown sought to use at trial. They knew it was a complete pack of lies, they knew from the above it was all made up. And of course we had LM's claimed call from the estate entrance at 5.32pm. And every other piece of information. Of Jodi leaving to meet with him at a much earlier time and so forth. That the evidence used, was to highlight those main areas gained from these lies - That SM was coerced by his mother. That he had neither seen nor heard his brother at home. That whilst having his jollies he was making sure he was at home alone - No music, no sound, no sign of anyone else. That by producing those images of Jodi. He was letting SM know exactly what he was attempting to cover for - And SM was traumatised. The gravity and reality, another sledgehammer moment. This had not by any means, been an argument where there was an attack and stabbing.

Whilst it is all very well - giving SM every reason under the sun then, to have amnesia, to remembering and of police tactics and courtroom shock - to now hand him on a plate every reason as to why, he may step forward and use Ms Leans reasoning -  By making those very claims of being pressured into being confused. - It does not wash, does it? For anyone with a inkling of common sense, knows - That if there had been no doubt, whatsoever that his brother, had been home with him - It would have been in that very first statement that was given within 24hrs of this girls murder. Nothing causes that type of amnesia in such a short period of time. He was 21, there is absolutely no proof that he was brain damaged from heavy substance abuse. Neither is there proof that he was out of his head on the 30th of June. He was at work, he had been driving, he had helped a friend with their car. And he was back out driving again on more than one occasion that evening.


Again, Shane replied: 'Yes.' The witness then admitted he had been engaged in a sex act while watching porn.

He agreed with the prosecutor that he wouldn't have done that if he thought anyone else had been home.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509

‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2021, 12:20:12 AM »
Detective Inspector William Cravens, of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, tells the court he examined Shane's computer. He says that on the day Jodi was killed it was used to access porn websites.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3a+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382


There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what Detective Inspector William Craven told the trial ... I don't think he said anything about pop-ups.

The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.

The analyst also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t he name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.



« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 12:26:51 AM by Mr Apples »

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2021, 12:24:36 AM »
The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.

The analysts also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t the name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.

From a member called Lithrael on another forum

“ As a web developer, I’d certainly call all the bits and bobs files. But it’s highly misleading to numerate them like that in order to let your audience think you’re talking about a stack of .jpg’s.

Even then, for example, swinging by a Rule 34 webpage for a laugh will get you around 30 images accessed before you even click on anything, just in thumbnails and ads.”
« Last Edit: May 22, 2021, 11:47:20 PM by faithlilly »

Offline Brietta

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #93 on: May 19, 2021, 01:00:22 AM »
The analyst's testimony mentions "131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session" without any specifics. This suggest they were a mix of html, images and other types such as css, js et cetera. There is no evidence of 131 images. It's entirely possible for the loading of a single webpage to create dozens of separate files as images are separate from html.

The analysts also states that the files were of a "pornographic nature", however it's pointed out that several of the sites visited related to vehicles and at least one images, from such a site, was classed by the officer as "pornographic". He also failed to rebut, or address, the issue pop-ups. The quoted portion of the analyst's testimony strikes me as highly selective, not to say biased. Why didn’t he expand on these ‘files’? Why didn’t the name the individual website or websites that Shane had visited during his internet session between 1656-1716? His evidence is very misleading.

Why didn't Mitchell's defence ask all these pertinent questions?

Just as a matter of interest ... do you have a cite for all these popups? According to Shane's sworn testimony to the court he was in his bedroom in an empty house masturbating.

Now I know that young lads can get pretty excited about their wheels - but there is a limit and I think the best person to know what Shane Mitchell was doing is the man himself.  And he told judge and jury precisely what that was.

Quote from Sandra Lean

Shane had a very regular girlfriend.

He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records.

"Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected.

These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.  End Quote

Someone is lying here.
So the choice is between two witnesses who in effect are being accused in one instance of perjury and the other in embroidering the truth a wee bit and the 'crime expert' whose expertise seems to be the kiss of death as far as proving miscarriage of justice is concerned.

I know about her unsuccessful cases - can anyone point me in the direction of her successes?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Parky41

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #94 on: May 19, 2021, 01:54:26 AM »
From a member called Lithrael on another forum

“ As a web developer, I’d certainly call all the bits and bobs files. But it’s highly misleading to numerate them like that in order to let your audience think you’re talking about a stack of .jpg’s.

Even then, for example, swinging by a Rule 34 webpage for a laugh will get you around 30 images accessed before you even click on anything, just in thumbnails and ads.”

Does it matter - he was not even on his computer at all - In those first few statements. How many statements until we go to the porn/car/pop ups jpegs of any size - How long did it take him to ejaculate? Was it a right to the point kinda pop up?

So he got home at 3.30, did not see Luke did not have dinner. Mum reminds him - and he is still home at 3.30 but this time he pops to see mum just after 5. Pleasantries exchanged. He knows his brother is in one minute, then the next he does not see him at first until the pleasantries are exchanged. Pops back upstairs until dinner is served. Then he leaves, before 5.30 as Faithlilly speaks for him here, saying it was before Luke as he did not see Luke at the entrance of the estate. Luke had to leave at 5.30 and not 5.45 as he first claimed, for that claimed call to the Jones house at 5.32pm. However he has contacted the police to update them. Perfect fits in nicely with mums account. Then Friday comes and the police let him know he stopped to help a friend (was this the Friday? or after the phone records?) So he now gets in around 4.50pm - You like lots of detail for missing time Faithlilly (AB) So prior to him being remembered by the police about fixing the car? via the phone records. Revert back to the first account - what did SM say he was doing from around 3.30pm until he went back out again? In that two hours? So he is now home at this new time, he still see's his mother etc etc. Three changes of story in matter of 4 days. And it does not fit at all. As we have the CCTV. No mum just after 5 and a dinner and all it entailed, plus leaving prior to Luke at 5.30pm? Then the computer is taking and SM has been busy with cars.?? He is a bloke, he pays no attention to any pop ups, far too engrossed in cars. he was watching porn. And talking of cars - you went into great detail of how dirty he would have become, in your fabulous description of fixing his friends car - shower, clean up - anything. At what point? It's a pretty standard thing for a mechanic - to shower when they get home, to be rid of the days grease and oil? At what point and what different times, depending on which statement and which account did SM get cleaned up? And all those changes in statements - onto to number four now to include the the internet access from his computer? - every single part of the above is irrelevant as we need to discuss jpegs?

And not one bit of anything - shows anything other than the truth, that SM did not see his brother that afternoon. This meek, weak boy whom we are told was bullied into everything - DF, 'just because you did not see your brother, does not mean he was not at home, is that correct?' - yes. You can not get plainer than that. Yes, we know - DF was only in it for the bucks. I do not for one moment think DF had any doubt of Tobins guilt nor Lukes - but as he clearly states "Everyone is entitled to a defence, it is their basic human right" - does not mean they are innocent.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #95 on: May 19, 2021, 08:26:36 PM »
Does it matter - he was not even on his computer at all - In those first few statements. How many statements until we go to the porn/car/pop ups jpegs of any size - How long did it take him to ejaculate? Was it a right to the point kinda pop up?

So he got home at 3.30, did not see Luke did not have dinner. Mum reminds him - and he is still home at 3.30 but this time he pops to see mum just after 5. Pleasantries exchanged. He knows his brother is in one minute, then the next he does not see him at first until the pleasantries are exchanged. Pops back upstairs until dinner is served. Then he leaves, before 5.30 as Faithlilly speaks for him here, saying it was before Luke as he did not see Luke at the entrance of the estate. Luke had to leave at 5.30 and not 5.45 as he first claimed, for that claimed call to the Jones house at 5.32pm. However he has contacted the police to update them. Perfect fits in nicely with mums account. Then Friday comes and the police let him know he stopped to help a friend (was this the Friday? or after the phone records?) So he now gets in around 4.50pm - You like lots of detail for missing time Faithlilly (AB) So prior to him being remembered by the police about fixing the car? via the phone records. Revert back to the first account - what did SM say he was doing from around 3.30pm until he went back out again? In that two hours? So he is now home at this new time, he still see's his mother etc etc. Three changes of story in matter of 4 days. And it does not fit at all. As we have the CCTV. No mum just after 5 and a dinner and all it entailed, plus leaving prior to Luke at 5.30pm? Then the computer is taking and SM has been busy with cars.?? He is a bloke, he pays no attention to any pop ups, far too engrossed in cars. he was watching porn. And talking of cars - you went into great detail of how dirty he would have become, in your fabulous description of fixing his friends car - shower, clean up - anything. At what point? It's a pretty standard thing for a mechanic - to shower when they get home, to be rid of the days grease and oil? At what point and what different times, depending on which statement and which account did SM get cleaned up? And all those changes in statements - onto to number four now to include the the internet access from his computer? - every single part of the above is irrelevant as we need to discuss jpegs?

And not one bit of anything - shows anything other than the truth, that SM did not see his brother that afternoon. This meek, weak boy whom we are told was bullied into everything - DF, 'just because you did not see your brother, does not mean he was not at home, is that correct?' - yes. You can not get plainer than that. Yes, we know - DF was only in it for the bucks. I do not for one moment think DF had any doubt of Tobins guilt nor Lukes - but as he clearly states "Everyone is entitled to a defence, it is their basic human right" - does not mean they are innocent.

I’m sorry Parky but are you saying that there is no evidence to substantiate SM’s amendment to his first statement ? That he didn’t get  back home at 4.40pm instead of the 3.30pm of his first statement because from your post it’s not absolutely clear? As to the time needed to wash....home at 4.40pm...on the computer from 4.55pm...therefore plenty of time to wash up before logging on or perhaps after he had logged off but I think that’s less likely.

I asked a colleague if he knew he was going out how long it would take him to eat his dinner...ten minutes was his estimate. CM home at 5.15...dinner served 5 minutes later...dinner eaten and out by 5.30. Younger brother leaves a few minutes later. Perfectly doable.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #96 on: May 19, 2021, 09:11:48 PM »
Perfectly doable.

It’s isn’t though is it

Frozen pies take about 40-50 minutes to cook in the oven

15 minutes minimum to defrost frozen prawns - they couldn’t have been fresh because Corinne apparently usually did her food shopping on a Tuesday

4.55pm phone call to office

A minute or 2 on the phone - another few minutes for the oven to warm up

5.00 - 5.05pm ? Frozen pies into oven

Excerpt from Corinne Mitchell’s police statement
"When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

5.15pm - the frozen pies have been in the oven for what 10 minutes?

How long did it take Luke to peel the potatoes ?

And how long did the potatoes take to boil ?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 09:31:57 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #97 on: May 19, 2021, 09:38:33 PM »
Did Sandra Lean ever establish the brand of frozen pies Corinne would buy and what brand were allegedly cooked that evening?

And what’s the story on the prawns?

If LM was allegedly draining the potatoes at approx 5.17/5.18pm - where were the prawns thawing out ?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 09:43:18 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #98 on: May 19, 2021, 09:45:00 PM »
I’m sorry Parky but are you saying that there is no evidence to substantiate SM’s amendment to his first statement ? That he didn’t get  back home at 4.40pm instead of the 3.30pm of his first statement because from your post it’s not absolutely clear? As to the time needed to wash....home at 4.40pm...on the computer from 4.55pm...therefore plenty of time to wash up before logging on or perhaps after he had logged off but I think that’s less likely.

I asked a colleague if he knew he was going out how long it would take him to eat his dinner...ten minutes was his estimate. CM home at 5.15...dinner served 5 minutes later...dinner eaten and out by 5.30. Younger brother leaves a few minutes later. Perfectly doable.

Corinne apparently got home at 5.15pm
Quote
When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them”

How long are you allowing for ‘straining, and ‘mashing’?

5 minutes to peel the potatoes
15-20 minutes to boil them

Takes the time to around 5.20pm

LM hasn’t ‘mashed the tatties’ yet and he’s only got one pair of hands and he’s still got to boil the broccoli, ruin it and then allegedly heat beans instead





« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 10:18:58 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2021, 08:26:02 PM »
As I’ve stated several times now, the more I familiarise myself with this case and the more I read up about it, the more I am convinced that LM is guilty. Have I firmed up in my mind that I could say confidently and categorically that he did definitely murder Jodi? Alas, no — which is extremely problematic. DF tried to weave a narrative of uncertainty into an appeal by basically saying that there were aspects of the case that would make people feel ‘uneasy’ — the inference being that the individual grounds of appeal when taken in totality would render the conviction unsafe (verbatim quote from 2008 appeals document: ”Counsel submitted finally that, even if no particular ground of appeal on its own warranted quashing of the conviction, the matters complained of when taken together were such as should lead to that result. Anyone looking at the evidence in totality, he said, would "be left with a sense of unease"” ). Personally, I think the opposite is true of what DF proposed: that when looking at the evidence against LM, as a whole, there is a feeling of unease. And, yet, still, I cannot say for certain that he is guilty.

I’ve also mentioned a few times already on here that Shane not being able to give his younger brother an alibi is a major red flag for me; it is the one plank of evidence that, particularly, fills me with unease. And then taking all the other evidence together, along with no alibi from Shane, it presents a very strong circumstantial case against LM, imo. Watertight? No. Unequivocal? No. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. It’s very, very problematic for me, that I am still not 100% convinced he did it — or beyond reasonable doubt. The salient point for discussion in terms of what would cast doubt on Shane’s testimony, imo, is the fact that he had completely forgotten about repairing his friend’s car on the 30.06.03 and had to be reminded by his friend and the police (p.304 from SL’s book, IB). If he could forget about this as early as the 03.07.03 (when he gave his first statement to police), then it stands to reason that he might not have remembered seeing LM when he got home that day at 1640. (I know it is unlikely that he couldn’t have been sure if he saw Luke at home, even accounting for his supposed memory loss due to substance abuse, given their house was merely medium sized, detached and 2-storey, but it is not impossible; improbable, but not impossible.) In addition, it is important to remember that Shane was interrogated aggressively (9 months after the murder and not being offered a lawyer) by way of ‘The Reid Technique’ and threatened with being charged with perverting the course of justice, in order to elicit desired one-word answers to suit the police’s narrative and theories (Sandra covers this in her book, IB, in chapter 17, p303-320). There is a side of me that thinks SM became scared of the police’s tactics and was worried of saying anything for fear of being incarcerated. However, it does beg the question: was the ‘I don’t know’ answer, in response to the police’s question of had he seen Luke in the house between 1640-1730 that day, an outright lie or the truth? I personally feel it was a cop-out; after all, if you’d seen your own brother in the house, one would simply say so, would they not? Something doesn’t sit right with the SM’s version of events in the Mitchell household between 1640-1730, especially as he changed his statement to align exactly with his mother’s and then changed again in court (alarm bells ringing and the word ‘uneasy’ becomes apposite once again). But, I can’t be sure. I’ll reiterate: this case is frustrating and messy.

While I’m here, what do you think would’ve happened if Shane had said at court he did see Luke as Corinne did? Do you think Luke would’ve been a free boy? Had SM said he did see LM in the house and LM was still found guilty, what would have happened to SM? Finally, the calls to and from the Mitchell landline (1605 & 1622 respectively), we know who made them and call logs proved the phone calls connected, but was it confirmed in statements what was discussed during those phone calls? Was it definitely Luke who was using the landline on both occasions?

Thanks.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #100 on: June 20, 2021, 08:54:26 PM »
As I’ve stated several times now, the more I familiarise myself with this case and the more I read up about it, the more I am convinced that LM is guilty. Have I firmed up in my mind that I could say confidently and categorically that he did definitely murder Jodi? Alas, no — which is extremely problematic. DF tried to weave a narrative of uncertainty into an appeal by basically saying that there were aspects of the case that would make people feel ‘uneasy’ — the inference being that the individual grounds of appeal when taken in totality would render the conviction unsafe (verbatim quote from 2008 appeals document: ”Counsel submitted finally that, even if no particular ground of appeal on its own warranted quashing of the conviction, the matters complained of when taken together were such as should lead to that result. Anyone looking at the evidence in totality, he said, would "be left with a sense of unease"” ). Personally, I think the opposite is true of what DF proposed: that when looking at the evidence against LM, as a whole, there is a feeling of unease. And, yet, still, I cannot say for certain that he is guilty.

I’ve also mentioned a few times already on here that Shane not being able to give his younger brother an alibi is a major red flag for me; it is the one plank of evidence that, particularly, fills me with unease. And then taking all the other evidence together, along with no alibi from Shane, it presents a very strong circumstantial case against LM, imo. Watertight? No. Unequivocal? No. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. It’s very, very problematic for me, that I am still not 100% convinced he did it — or beyond reasonable doubt. The salient point for discussion in terms of what would cast doubt on Shane’s testimony, imo, is the fact that he had completely forgotten about repairing his friend’s car on the 30.06.03 and had to be reminded by his friend and the police (p.304 from SL’s book, IB). If he could forget about this as early as the 03.07.03 (when he gave his first statement to police), then it stands to reason that he might not have remembered seeing LM when he got home that day at 1640. (I know it is unlikely that he couldn’t have been sure if he saw Luke at home, even accounting for his supposed memory loss due to substance abuse, given their house was merely medium sized, detached and 2-storey, but it is not impossible; improbable, but not impossible.) In addition, it is important to remember that Shane was interrogated aggressively (9 months after the murder and not being offered a lawyer) by way of ‘The Reid Technique’ and threatened with being charged with perverting the course of justice, in order to elicit desired one-word answers to suit the police’s narrative and theories (Sandra covers this in her book, IB, in chapter 17, p303-320). There is a side of me that thinks SM became scared of the police’s tactics and was worried of saying anything for fear of being incarcerated. However, it does beg the question: was the ‘I don’t know’ answer, in response to the police’s question of had he seen Luke in the house between 1640-1730 that day, an outright lie or the truth? I personally feel it was a cop-out; after all, if you’d seen your own brother in the house, one would simply say so, would they not? Something doesn’t sit right with the SM’s version of events in the Mitchell household between 1640-1730, especially as he changed his statement to align exactly with his mother’s and then changed again in court (alarm bells ringing and the word ‘uneasy’ becomes apposite once again). But, I can’t be sure. I’ll reiterate: this case is frustrating and messy.

While I’m here, what do you think would’ve happened if Shane had said at court he did see Luke as Corinne did? Do you think Luke would’ve been a free boy? Had SM said he did see LM in the house and LM was still found guilty, what would have happened to SM? Finally, the calls to and from the Mitchell landline (1605 & 1622 respectively), we know who made them and call logs proved the phone calls connected, but was it confirmed in statements what was discussed during those phone calls? Was it definitely Luke who was using the landline on both occasions?

Thanks.

Remember that SM and CR Mitchell had been charged with perverting the course of justice and faced, possibly, a long jail sentence. It’s obvious that this was done to put pressure on both witnesses but also to destroy their credibility with the jury. TBH I don’t think by the time the case came to court it would have mattered what SM had said, he was already seen as a dishonest witness.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #101 on: June 20, 2021, 10:52:20 PM »
Excellent reply. It's amazing how much information is in the original post and your own, very good. My own view is somewhat shorter...............AO came in from work at about 440pm. He saw who was in that house. He saw if anything was going on. He saw if Jodi left, when she left and who she left with. Despite this information being absolutely crucial.......what happened? AO is never cited to give evidence in Court. We recently find out that a statement made by him was "discovered" later, maybe years later and was clearly put in a locked drawer in 2003. AO holds the key to all these debates about timings and who was in the house between 440pm and 5pm, but we're still waiting after 17 years to find out what he told the Police.

There is obviously no non-sinister reason why AO's statement was buried. He was a key witness, as much as Ju J.

Firstly I have no idea whether the police appealed or not. I have not looked at witness statements or police transcripts. Have you? I would like something more solid than the word of one person, wouldn't you? When did you last mention Jodi Jones?

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #102 on: June 20, 2021, 11:21:35 PM »

Firstly I have no idea whether the police appealed or not. I have not looked at witness statements or police transcripts. Have you? I would like something more solid than the word of one person, wouldn't you? When did you last mention Jodi Jones?

In the post above.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #103 on: June 20, 2021, 11:54:42 PM »
In the post above.
But I don't have to trawl through posts, do I? You and I both remember this. Why ask me to look back?

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #104 on: June 21, 2021, 12:27:34 AM »
But I don't have to trawl through posts, do I? You and I both remember this. Why ask me to look back?

I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make.

You asked WW when he last mentioned Jodie Jones. He mentioned her in the post you were replying to so no trawling needed.