Of those eight named people who gave evidence in court?
The problem and wrongful assumption people make are primarily based upon the book, not at all surprising is it? - when the author tells the reader that it is "everything" known to the public, put together for the first time in the same place. Further to this of course is that wonderful inside knowledge - the result that they actually equate this to being the whole case, with Ms Lean putting forward the problems, the questions, the supposition and the 'obvious conclusions. - And there we have this "wafer thin case" - stretched out (cough) in 378 pages of large text that is mainly made up of irrelevant narrative.
The result given of course is that minority, those easily led along this psychological approach of deflection to hide the actual truth in the case. For that minority it is "buy the book" it tells you everything you need to know. Once read, some have taken up the role of expertise on the case. Giving people answers directly from the book. Any real stumbling blocks then it is the author who is asked to clarify, the case?? As we witnessed recently with the debacle over Ovens, amongst many other areas coming to light. So much so, that when WW was playing their role in muddying up the direction of discussion on the thread - instantly those who favoured the book as being the bibliography on the case, liked and commented, 'excellent points!' Such is their actual lack of knowledge.
What one does do of course, is lean as heavily as possible to what one perceives to be in the public domain, to work around this. We have of course covered most of what Ms Lean has never actually been privy to, around 90% of everything "missing" (cough) it would seem. A good proportion of that 10% is actually the stuff that is in the public domain.
To this parka and those questions now of those 8 witnesses (at trial, not in total) testifying to this parka Jacket. The two main witnesses who's evidence alone was on the Parka, were the teacher who left that semester and the Eskbank Trading. Let us clarify this some more first. The teacher did not see LM at school after the 30th of June, he had left his job there. He gave witness to seeing him, clearly before the murder took place. Making reference to him looking like "a monk" with the hood up. The lad from Eskbank Trading and DF, where this "coz of the murder and everything" came from. Now this lad gave precise details also around the actual sighting being prior to the murder and of Mitchell in the shop. Centered around his mother and why there was no doubt of it being prior to the 30th, his mother owned and wore the exact same coat. He had not been in the shop after that date. Now the AD and some realism, in providing these two witnesses where no doubt could be placed upon the time of the sightings being prior to this date. To these other witnesses at court who were giving evidence on other areas, who had also seen Mitchell in the coat, some when in the company of Jodi - impossible for it to have been after the murder. Where DF attempted to use evidence from a witness who had been excused from court on medical grounds, to dispute this coat which again failed miserably. For the person who was closely linked to both Jodi and Luke had NOT said that LM did not wear such a coat. Where the clear attempt was to do as SM had done, not say either way, simply "I can't remember" - to the AD showing that she had stated, yes he could have. What the witness would not do, was directly lie and say NO. Or as it would, directly tell the truth and say NO! For they could not do this.
The German army shirt and the badge on the sleeve, the interview on the 14th just prior to the pictures being released and of course after the purchase of the new coat. To catch a killer indeed, and of course that tiny area from the questioning. Putting to Mitchell that he had been seen in this green khaki item of clothing with that distinctive badge. Tactics nothing more, they were not going to say, we know you were in a green parka, it is the last thing they wanted to make him aware of at that point. To let him know that they knew it was missing. And of course the burner, that brick item 30inches in height with no top other than a dustpan lid and removal base. Not just a bbq base, the whole thing. The nonsense still to this day of attempting to worm out of having that fire - and it is worming and it is blatant. And the obvious back up, just to add some weight? That Ms Lean herself had "accidently" set fire to a candle once also, as she did when she too could not find "the V", along with also enjoying the summer sunshine on her "patio reading"-------- And the gaslighting around that joint theory that CM humbly let her viewer learn of, to Ms Leans denial, that this had not happened........But they did discuss it with someone else as a possibility once, instigated by the third party?
So, no alibi, not simply that there were only 13mins there was none, it was concocted and only one reason can be given for this. When someone was striving to place themselves at home, exactly at the time needed. To the sighting by F&W with the parka on. Nothing for at least 15mins to then be sighted by the motorists, who saw him in the green bomber, at a point he claimed NOT to have walked to. Close to the gate by F&W and the entrance and exit to the woodland leading home. This sighting just short of 6pm. To the boys and the space apart actually timed up to 15mins, on the return as they had a puncture. To the other motorist. Than nothing until in the company of the boys at 7.30pm. And of course AB who like F&W and that straggly hair, likened LM to the actor in his role of "Shaggy" in the 2002 movie of Scooby Doo. She remembered him, the clothes and colour, style around 90%. Not bad at all. Both times the actions that drew attention. One with his hands beckoning the girl, looking confrontational. The other looking to the ground, up to no good, avoiding full on contact.
One other thing to note here, that deflection onto Jodi's parents. Firstly this other claimed no show, there was contact and there was no lad idling his time anywhere, waiting and waiting. Much like the boys from the Abbey when late, a little allowance given only. But of the ball (obvs) being firmly in Mitchells court, and of course that of his mother?! If your son had been waiting for the best part of 90mins? on a road, waiting on their girlfriend walking this isolated path, that she never denied the ban on. Would you simply say "she will be gabbing away somewhere" at that point it was hours later, but what of 7pm also? The advice surely would be to get your son to check, to contact, to make sure all was well?
Compulsive liars? - Ms Mitchell, ' when you catch a child being naughty and you confront them and they deny it, say I don't know, I don't understand and they keep their head turned away from you and refuse to answer and acknowledge, are you familiar with this type of situation?' - "yes" - 'Is that you? are you playing at being that naughty child? (AT - AD)
This Jury and all the were privy to, everything inclusive of visiting that locus - these two witnesses both the mother and son, played a massive part in highlighting just how made up most of that evening was. So when one wants to think logically and attempt to apply it, they had no control over what Luke did and as with Luke, disposal was the easy part, was it not? - Those wheels in motion that there could be no control over, were never going to be easy to cover for - and they didn't for it was nigh on impossible to do so. The best attempt was at that alibi. The logic to the other end of the evening, may very well have been to stay back, but? - what was the best option here, just in-case there was trace DNA found upon him, he needed to be part of that along with whatever horrors were in his mind. The very reason for being prepped and ready, of introducing the path to any search, of staying on that path and introducing the woodland, and of the find - of being there and as quickly as possible, before the police became actively involved. - that rush as things out of his control became part of it, namely the police. - were in turn to be his downfall? Planning ahead in case, for yes logically, as much as he had left Jodi hidden out of sight off the beaten track, It is certainly not something he could bank on. But one thing he did know, is that time was on his side, whichever way it panned out. The sole concentration until curfew time was of disposal and putting himself in others company just long enough for it to count, to serve purpose.
We know he was smoking in the Abbey with the boys but not much of anything else. The activities, the rain and so forth. Getting pretty dirty. Barely an hour and he was off again, not to arrive home however until 10pm. Of these boys seeing this coat before also, part of the other 8? Would that be DH, the "notorious little liar?" - rich to say the least?
"procedures in place" - that did not state ID had to be met this way, it had been standard practice to a degree which was in the process of the changeover. To the present day where it does not happen but by means of photo ID now more so. So are you saying that todays standards are wrong? That the 'old' way should never have been changed?
