THE ALIBI.

[faithlilly]

Jodi had been on punishment. Her mother had lifted her restrictions after coming home from school. She had borrowed her mothers phone to text Luke (her own phone was broken). She had let her mother know she was going to meet with Luke. Her mother had obviously asked her what their plans were, to which Jodi had told her mum they would be "mucking around up here".

It would seem that Jodi, would have been out even earlier, but her mother had asked her to listen to some music first? I'll list all available verbatim at a later point - They do of course only fit around that of defence. Of the timings first given, between 5 and 5.30pm. Much the same as with the Mitchells - These timings were verified by other means. CCTV, til and ATM receipts. There is also more of Jodi and the ban from using this path it would seem. The accurate, approx: time of Jodi leaving home was determined around her father arrival home.

The question here is, why would Jodi's mother introduce this information in those first hours at all? Of getting out early, and of not using this path alone. - Highly relevant to the case against LM. We know that it was not concocted, and nothing to suggest it was. As we know that JuJ had visited Luke's house several times in the days following the murder. She obviously had no thought at this point of LM being responsible, therefore the evidence/account she gave is simply that of fact, which is proven.

Jodi’s sister, in court, admitted that her sister did walk the path to Newbattle alone and her mother knew that. Could you please provide a quote where Jodi’s mother mentioned Jodi ‘ getting out early’?

[faithlilly]

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 430pm 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.

Very good point.

[faithlilly]

Are you saying I am claiming that LM was only with his mother for 15mins?
That it is my claims he was on Newbattle R'd for 90mins.

As to claims - One does not need to back them up as in Ms Lean and so forth - that get out card. I can't release the information?

So are you saying that you have a vested interest?

If you can’t release the information you base your claims on, wouldn’t it be easy for you to just make things up? Who’s to know?

[Brietta]

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 430pm 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.

Your post puzzles me.

"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."

Do we know this?

What is your source?

[faithlilly]

Let's first of all perhaps have some clarity - LM was not witnessed on the wall until 6pm and after.
These sightings were by boys from his school who did know him. From 6pm - 6.15pm
There is no reason at all for LM to have been in his house after 4.25pm.
The dinner story being just that - a story?
The first text from Jodi was at 4.34pm - If? LM was still in his house when this text came through, there is no reason for him to have waited until 4.38pm. And that is only IF he was in the house at 4.34pm.
 

Jodi’s first text was 4.34 but her last text was at 4.38 to say that she would be down ‘later’. Why would Luke leave the house at 4.25 if he didn’t even know Jodi was coming out until 4.34? Are you suggesting that he was lying in wait just on the off chance Jodi might be allowed out?

As to the identification of Luke while sitting on the wall you are simply wrong.

Had LM been barred from the Jones household? - There is nothing to say, that he may very well have been heading up to meet with Jodi - after these chores, her dinner time? If one wants to add continuous supposition of course.

These claimed, unverified sightings of exact times by neighbours, and being followed are just that. It's all in the wording is it not? - That "Jodi" was being "followed" it was "after 5pm." And let us not forget here, those repetitive habits of manipulation? Of stitching different information together. Of LM being "stripped" of his clothing rather than it simply being taken for forensic analysis.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. The neighbour knew Jodi and had no reason to lie. Likewise the individual who spotted Jodi being followed by Stocky Man. She was obviously thought a credible witness by the investigation team.

Who really was the girl? that gave a verified sighting of Jodi? And what time was this at Faithlilly? I'll leave you with that.
As I did with the boys from the Abbey. Quite a turn around of events, now that there is no longer this denial, of LM smoking joints on the evening in question. Which of course answers, simply why, Jodi had cannabis in her system. From a joint with her regular companion. Just before her life was ended.

The girl was Jodi, identified by people who knew her, unlike Bryson. The answer to why there was cannabis in Jodi’s bloodstream was answered by Alistair Leitch, their school friend, in court :

‘“On June 30 last year, said Mr Leitch, there had been a school trip to Alton Towers, but he did not go. He met up with Mr Mitchell and Jodi in the China Gardens. ''They were smoking cannabis that day.''

But taken all into account here - that of LM's defence team, that highly professional team of bodies. What did they make of these sightings? Much the same as the employee from the Tool Hire Place - Finlay used this to an extent, in his attempt to trip the boys up Faithlilly.

He did not use any of yours, in an attempt to show AB's sighting, nor that of the time of Jodi leaving home to be wrong - did he? Is it not better to put one's trust in these professionals than that of CM's friend? to leave aside these strawman arguments?

I have asked of Ms Lean before of this verification of times - What is in those accounts? that show these sightings were after 5pm? - There is none, there is of course good reason, it is after all a strawman argument is it not?  As:
 
https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-seek-youth-who-trailed-jodi-2469971

Around 5 o’clock and where was Luke? Hadn’t he been with Jodi at 4.49 when Bryson saw them?


None of it explains Luke Mitchells actions in the slightest. The above does not give him an alibi, and does not back any that he had made with his mother?

The math is not difficult at all - 15mins not 45mins of an alibi. Of a concocted dinner story? It is not hard at all. These clear sound reasons as to "why suspicion fell upon Luke" and why it remained there. Not the fault of the police at all?

[faithlilly]

As an aside,we were told by SIO Dobbie that they were looking for a parka that Luke had allegedly owned from the get go so why was Luke asked about a German army shirt on the 14th of August, 6 weeks after the murder?

“DC1 “Right, you’ve told us what you were wearing the day Jodi died. We have people saying you weren’t wearing that, you were wearing your murder dolls t-shirt. We also have people telling us that you were wearing your German army shirt.

Luke “I didn’t have a German army shirt at that time.”

DC1 “People are telling us you did….and not only that, people are telling us you were wearing it the day Jodi Jones died.”

DC1 “The obvious question is where is that German army shirt now?

Luke “I only bought the German army shirt on the Wednesday, a week after it happened.”

DC1 “What I’m telling you, you owned one and you were wearing one …prior to Jodi’s death.”

It always struck me as odd that Corrine would buy another parka if Luke had been accused of wearing one when he allegedly murdered Jodi but it’s now obvious that no one had claimed, certainly by the 14th of August, that Luke had owned let alone worn a parka on the 30th of June.

[faithlilly]

More observations from Rolfe.

“I am simply gobsmacked that the time needed for Mrs Bryson to go and look at the house seems to have been airbrushed from the narrative. Her original story was that she drove first to the supermarket, did the shopping, loaded it into the car, then drove to Easthouses where there was a house for sale she was interested in. This wasn't an arranged viewing, she just wanted to take a look at it from the outside. She got a bit lost trying to find the house, but found it, had a look, then drove back home. It was quite clear at that time that she had seen the couple at the eastern end of Roan's Dyke path on her way home, after she'd looked at the house, not on her way to the house.

She said she got home, unloaded the car, put away the shopping, and started to make the tea. Then her phone rang and she took a call. She estimated the call came in about half an hour after she got home, at about 6.20. In fact the call was logged on her phone as 6.17, so she was about right. That would put her return home at about 5.45 to 5.50. She originally said she saw the couple at the path about five or ten minutes before she got home, which is about right for the drive from there to her house. This puts the time of the sighting at about 5.35 to 5.45, without any need to reference the supermarket checkout time.

The till receipt time of 4.45 (and 31 seconds) tallies with Mrs Bryson's own estimate of what she did, giving her 30 to 35 minutes for the actual shopping in the store (she in fact estimated 35 to 45 minutes) and about an hour in total for the drive to Easthouses (12 to 17 minutes each way), the search for the house for sale, time to look at it, and then the drive back home again. If the bank statement time of 4.32 (and 45 seconds) is used instead, this cuts the time for the actual shopping to only 20 minutes maximum, including queueing up for the till and ringing up the purchases. I suppose it depends on how much she bought, but the till receipt tallies better with her own recollection of how the time went.

However, why does it matter? If you take 13 minutes off the time spent in the supermarket, all this does is add 13 minutes to the time spent looking for and looking at the house for sale, because it doesn't affect the timing of her return home. It moves her arrival in Easthouses 13 minutes earlier, but it doesn't change her departure time. And yet it was on her way out of Easthouses that she was supposed to have seen the couple at the end of the path!

Using the bank statement time for the completion of the supermarket shop instead of the till receipt gets her arrival in Easthouses to about 16.53, which is exactly the time the prosecution needed Luke to have been seen at the end of the path with Jodi. But that's not when Mrs Bryson said she saw the people at the path!

Bear in mind that Mrs Bryson was driving her car, with two children in it, one of them only a two-year-old. She didn't stop to scrutinise these people, she simply noticed them as she drove past. The layout of the road is important here. If you're driving south from Easthouses on the road in question, the end of the path is at a fairly sharp bend. In fact at that point the path appears to continue on in a south-west direction while the road makes a fairly sharp left turn to continue in a south-east direction.

https://goo.gl/maps/bXJREZafGbzEsHyr5

Note that a driver coming from this direction is pretty much looking straight up the path for a few moments, and Mrs Bryson would have had a reasonable view of anyone standing at the path entrance, although only for a couple of seconds. (Zoom in to the path itself here. https://goo.gl/maps/sNUEqCb9Uw3fQkVB8) This is what Mrs Bryson originally said she saw. She wouldn't have had much time to see the couple, and she would obviously have had to concentrate on the left-hand bend in front of her, but it's a reasonable enough story.

Now look at it from the other direction, driving north towards Easthouses.

https://goo.gl/maps/eYqPxmuHt7PPmxRB6

It's a bit different, isn't it? There's an indication of an entrance there, maybe, but an entrance to what? You can't see. Mrs Bryson didn't know Easthouses at all well. If she had seen a couple of people standing under that tree, how could she have known they were at the end of a footpath at all? It simply doesn't compute.

There's no possibility that anyone could be mistaken about which direction they were driving in when they noticed something at that spot. You're either driving south, when you have a left-hand bend in front of you and you can see right into the footpath, or you're driving north, when you have a right-hand bend in front of you and you can't even see that there's a path there. Even when you're right alongside the path entrance, driving north, you can't see that it's a path, as here. https://goo.gl/maps/MqJo8eNVTcnHazsKA You actually have to go past the entrance and twist back to see the path!

Not only that, in court the suggestion was put to Mrs Bryson that the male that she saw was as much as 10 yards into the path. This is all quite confused as she originally said she saw both people together at the entrance to the path, nevertheless she seemed to accede to the suggestion that the male was some little way into the path, facing towards the girl who was at the entrance. Even more bizarrely there was a suggestion that she'd seen the male move down the path - which is completely impossible whichever direction she was driving in as she couldn't have had the path in sight for long enough to see this happening. However, the point is that it would only have been possible for her to see into the path, to see that the male was 10 yards down the path (wherever that suggestion came from), if she was driving south. It's impossible for someone driving north to see into the path at all.

In order for Mrs Bryson to have seen anyone at that path at 4.53, she must have seen this when she was driving north, towards Easthouses, before she went to look at the house for sale. But driving north you simply can't see what she is supposed to have seen. Driving south, you can see it (although to clock that much detail in the couple of seconds as you drive past is quite a feat), but if she saw this when she was driving south then the time was about 5.40, not 4.53.

So what the hell was Donald Findlay (more on him later) thinking about, in court? All he had to say was, Mrs Bryson, which way was your car facing when you saw these people? Was the bend (you should have been concentrating on, two children in the car and all that) a right-hand bend or a left-had bend? Could you actually see into the path itself when you noticed the two people?

If she actually saw them on the way to the house viewing then that is not what her original account said, so how come she originally thought she was driving south towards a left-hand bend then revised her story so that she was actually driving north towards a right-hand bend? And how come she even realised there was a path there, let alone acceded to the suggestion that one of the people was as much as 10 yards down the path, when a driver travelling north can't see the path at all? And yet that's what we have to believe if the sighting was 4.53.

If she made the sighting as she drove south, as everything seems to suggest and indeed only a southbound driver could possibly see into the path or even realise there was a path there in the first place, then the time of the sighting was about 5.40. The prosecution case relied on Jodi having been killed at 5.15.”

[William Wallace]

Your post puzzles me.

"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."

Do we know this?

What is your source?

In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and enlarge and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".

The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden". It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.


C5 later edited out the comments next to the name. If you watch the programme again on Catch Up etc you won't see that name or the writing, but I and many others recorded it which they obviously can't edit.

[faithlilly]

In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and enlarge and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".

The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden" because that ties in 100% with AO never being cited to Court. It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.

C5 later edited out the above comments next to the name. If you watch the programme again on Catch Up etc you won't see that writing, but I and many others recorded it which they obviously can't edit.

Did he who shall not be named give evidence in court as I can’t find any reports of it?

[William Wallace]

Did he who shall not be named give evidence in court as I can’t find any reports of it?

No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.

[Brietta]

In the recent C5 documentary the 2 detectives had a suspect list. All the names had writing beside them. At the bottom was a name nobody's allowed to mention. The text in the box beside his name was blurry and was shown only momentarily, but it was long enough for people to freeze it and large and enhance it. I did it myself after someone pointed it out. The comments said......." Could it be that the discovery of a witness statement by AO". The rest of the text is harder to make out, but there is another part which can be read, it said......."happened on the day of the murder".

The use of the word "discovery" obviously means it was discovered, hence not known about at the time by the Defence. When it was "discovered" is not known. It could be months or even years later. There is no reason to believe anything other than it was "hidden" because that ties in 100% with AO never being cited to Court. It's obvious that what AO told Police at the time did not match with the "Mitchell did it" narrative which is why the statement disappeared.

Hmmm.  A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.

I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful.  If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.

Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.

Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable. 

In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.

[faithlilly]

No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.

So three people were in Jodi’s house on the night of the murder yet only one gave evidence in court. The police went to the bother of checking CCTV in relation to AO’s movements yet didn’t ask him to testify. Isn't that odd?

[faithlilly]

Hmmm.  A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.

I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful.  If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.

Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.

Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable. 

In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.

If you look at almost every miscarriage of justice in this country there is one golden thread that runs through them all....tunnel vision by the investigating police force. First they find a perpetrator then fit the evidence around him or her.

SK’s semen was found on the murder victim. To a less blinkered police force that should have sounded alarm bells so loud you could have heard them in Glasgow....but no, not a sound.

To avoid confusion I’m not suggesting that SK had any part in the murder but in any professional police enquiry he would certainly have come under more suspicion than he did.

[Paranoid Android]

No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.

I thought you were now saying the murderer was a female?

I can't help but notice that the person you're talking about here is male.

Also, the fact that this person's name was on Jack & Victor's list - that doesn't actually mean anything, in itself.

[Angelo222]

Hmmm.  A 'suspect list' allowed to be glimpsed in a discredited documentary.

I think your post is unsubstantiated speculation and I find the linking of named individuals distasteful.  If there is a miscarriage of justice being perpetrated here, it lies in the kangaroo court of the internet.

Am I the only one finding all the associated fabrication and the lack of primary sources evident in all of this extremely tiresome.
I am yet to see a valid justification that even hints that Mitchell is anything other than the murderer his trial found him to be.

Mitchell's alibi did not stand up in court because it was a lie and I think much of what has been said in attempts to get him out of jail are from the same stable. 

In my short experience of this case I am dizzy from the rotation and number of named individuals who have been put under the spotlight by internet detectives - none of which stood up when looked at by the real police.

And we all know from which stable it all comes from.