Author Topic: The less talked about sighting on N’battle Rd by M O’Sullivan & D Hamilton...  (Read 8972 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.

Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.


I find it all overtly contradictory? - Whilst we know how these minute areas of truth show no context of the facts and relevant truth behind them - even with above there is that clear contradiction - of the handling of this crime scene, potentially destroying evidence - to then wanting the coroner and all else to traipse through other areas, in the dark which would definitely have had more potential of destroying evidence, would it not? Only the actual reports, the reasoning and timing of each and everything, laid out would show us the truth. We know how much is made of this wrongful claim, of the bike being seen at this V, without a shadow of a doubt that Ms Lean knows this is impossible - yet uses it. As she does with the above? - therefore it is what we are not being told that tells us - that the above is far from the actual truth. The cutting of branches for instance? - we know this was to allow for the heavier equipment of the videographer, for access. But what branches? Were they in the passageway, that narrow area down the inside of this wall? What time was this done and by who's request/orders/ permission? - And it was done after the initial crime scene photos. What time were these items carefully gathered up, and again on who's request/orders/permission? -what reason? Had the rain started to fall heavily? Did some branches have to be cut to allow for the erection of a tent finally? All of this, I am pretty certain would show us a completely different view, from the one being touted out - for we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reasons it is put out as it is - to disperse doubt, to give cause to your question - "what else did they miss or do wrong?" - When you actually do not know for a fact, that anything was done wrong in the first instance - do you? Without knowing all of the facts around this? And is it not wrong to be wanting a review on this basis? -when that horse has already bolted? Those clear assumptions have been made, that should not be made at all - prior to knowing one's facts - as it was with the female element of DNA in semen?

And of the review - tax payers money to answer Ms Lean questions, based around all that she does not hold in her hands? - that she wants access 'now' to everything, that this will show people, and I quote "if she is either wrong or right?" - Which clearly shows us two things, that it is a completely false premise to state "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" - which can only be so, if everything was actually available in it's full context in the first instance?

I watched a little of an Injustice speech in which Ms Lean took part in 2007. In this she puts out information of a discussion she had with a Jury member (not this case). Of the influence of the media. That this Juror had went home after a days proceedings. Got up in the morning, read the newspaper and the details they had read were in contradiction to the previous days evidence. That, she claims, this Juror then thought "Oh I must have nodded off, missed this somehow" - rather than simply understand that the report was wrong/fabricated? - not accurate, to show us how a Juror who had actually heard evidence could be influenced. Which ties in with this case and of the tactics used:

Of people knowing certain areas of evidence and then being swept away on a completely different tangent - by those very means of inaccuracy and fabrication - that narrative that is added to it. - And they simply accept this on the basis that the person putting out this information is both trusted and accurate in what they say? - Much the same as one gives claim to with this Juror? -That they put trust in something else over their own Judgement?

And to re-iterate yet again - that whilst one does not and never has had access to everything - Is not a basis for this person to sway public opinion in her favour, to give the access she seeks. Access to information that was always available in the first instance - to the Crown/Defence and subsequently the SCCRC in their review of the investigation and case - From which Ms Lean wants another one as she discovered that she had in fact been wrong around several areas? - Nothing hidden, nothing buried.

Surely therefore the way to show the public - that there are sound reasons for this independent review, would be to show people what this first one concluded from theirs, rather than, yet again having to sway people with long winded roads of obtuse reasoning? - Where, and let's face it, has been the whole basis of gaining support in the first instance? - By having no disclosure on what Ms Lean already holds? The Mitchells statements and evidence firstly and onto this report by the SCCRC - all of which can and should be shown? - The mere facts they are not shown, tells those who do not simply accept this persons word, that these things need to be kept undisclosed and hidden from public view? - For they would shown context and in doing so - the actual/factual truth in all of this.

Also to highlight yet again this Juror - who readily accepted they must have "nodded off" and onto Ms Lean herself, and every other person who did not sit through this trial - That they are being fed stuff, from someone who did not even see the evidence first hand in the first place? - are being swayed into believing that this Jury must have been influenced by outside forces? - Rather than of hearing and seeing a lot more than she or any other person did.


Offline Mr Apples

There is little in the way of information from the original trial.  I have seen many claims made 'quoting' witness statements - which of course they do not.

Have you ever clapped eyes on a bona fide witness statement cos I haven't.  There has to be a little balance somewhere and I think Parky is one of those providing that balance usually with well thought out posts backed up with what we know are on record accurate timelines of events.

I have seen a load of ill researched nonsense put about much of it at variance with the facts.

Was Sandra Lean at the trial ~ she certainly has taken her part in shaping her interpretation of it into a career ~ but it seems you accept her interpretation as gospel.

What didn't you agree with in Parky's post.
Neither timelines or local knowledge are my forte but I followed the post quite well because it was so clearly thought out and well presented.  What am I missing here?

The conclusion of this case was a majority guilty verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence. Not one piece of direct evidence was led in court. As such, the crux of the matter is that none of us, judges, lawyers, police, cjsw, jurors, the media, friends & family of the convicted and deceased, Sandra Lean and the general public, have ever known the exact true facts of this case. No one will ever know the exact true facts of what happened to Jodi Jones between 1650 and 2340 on 30.06.03, unless we get a full detailed confession from the killer. Not even having every single witness statement, every police interview, every transcript, a video recording of the entire trial with audio, every single piece of info in conjunction with this case would make a single bit of difference. Nothing. Nada. We, the general public, along with the aforementioned people and authorities, have to make do with what we think we know, make do with limitations of human understanding, and make our own inferences from the circumstantial info available to us. An arduous, unenviable Herculean task, is it not?

And, just because Parky41 does often provide articulate, well-thought-out, lengthy posts, it does not mean he or she is right. He or she doesn’t possess the gift of omniscience.  As highlighted above, we are all merely guessing from our own inferences, interpretations and instincts, from the purely circumstantial evidence in the case. At this exact moment, as I type this, I am inclined to think that Luke Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied, judging from what I have read of the case so far (i.e, info gleaned from various forums, newspaper articles, tv documentaries and Sandra’s book, IB), that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt — which is extremely problematic given the seriousness of the crime.

Offline Rusty

It’s just my opinion guys, on the independent review. As for the errors made by police I can only go by info in Sandras book and info found online, Gathering up the clothes at crime scene, leaving Jodi out all night uncovered, forensic not able to get over the wall ( and for some reason didn’t simply go round the wall further up) so Jodi left until following morning uncovered before forensics carried out, cutting down branches at the crime scene, bleaching the crime scene, not taking everyone’s clothing that night, interview techniques being deplorable, just to name a few, and most within the first few hours of Jodi being found, so what else did they miss or do wrong is all I’m wondering. With so many questions still being asked all these years later a new look at all the evidence might close this all down once and for all.

Ive no idea who would conduct this review, a panel of independent experts I guess, also I’ve no idea who would pay for this, Scottish government if enough pressure was put on them maybe? Who knows. I agree it’s not very likely it will get an independent review but that doesn’t change my mind that there should be one.

Have some of those things not already been addressed by the authorities and accepted that some techniques used by the police were unprofessional?

As far as cutting down branches and climbing over walls, a bit nitpicky there, these are hardly errors, or in your words "catalogue" but no doubt, there are a catalogue of errors in Leans book, where is seems you are getting your information from. I'm also curious, you have gathered information online regarding this, care to share?

I also think, I read not too long ago on this forum. Someone suggested drawing a diagram of the locus, to show how it was possible to cover the crime scene, they did after all, have to cut away some branches to make semi manageable space to work. Care to take a crack at this diagram, to show us how a tent for example could have been erected?

So, you want the authorities, the government, who by all accounts are happy with this conviction to hand over more public money, for some private independent review. MSP's of various parties have already commented, regarding this case, and going by their comments, there is more chance that Jesus is reincarnated, than any more public funds being spent on a red herring.

My final thoughts. Is do you seriously think Lean of all people want an independent review? It would be outwith her control, it would expose her innocence fraud. Like I have said previously.  Why do you think, she will never make public, the report she got from the SCCRC? Many of these so-called unanswered questions will be in that report. If there is any pressure that should be applied any-where, it should be from her very own supporters to herself, to get this report uploaded.

Offline Nicholas


I find it all overtly contradictory? - Whilst we know how these minute areas of truth show no context of the facts and relevant truth behind them - even with above there is that clear contradiction - of the handling of this crime scene, potentially destroying evidence - to then wanting the coroner and all else to traipse through other areas, in the dark which would definitely have had more potential of destroying evidence, would it not? Only the actual reports, the reasoning and timing of each and everything, laid out would show us the truth. We know how much is made of this wrongful claim, of the bike being seen at this V, without a shadow of a doubt that Ms Lean knows this is impossible - yet uses it. As she does with the above? - therefore it is what we are not being told that tells us - that the above is far from the actual truth.

Without doubt an exaggerated & manufactured story to keep the attention away from the real killer - Luke Mitchell

We’ve seen these malicious tactics used in many others cases - and Sandra Lean has written about some of them too

« Last Edit: May 31, 2021, 11:00:36 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

What I fail to grasp most in what you put out - is this lack of knowing factually, of what actually did happen? Those recordings and how they turned the tide on what DF was trying to show, as with the phone logs to the speaking clock and now with AO? - He did testify at court. So as well as those "statements" of his that Ms Lean refers to - there is his actual evidence in court. - one has to wonder, are you playing coy/games - or are you really lacking in all of this knowledge?

Okay...AO gave evidence in court, provide the evidence? Insinuating that you know something is really not the same as actually knowing it. Perhaps it’s a good lesson to learn?

And of this repeat of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what we have with Manson. We know LM liked and admired his work, so much so that he bought and viewed this DVD showing that awful depiction - of this girl murdered, naked in a woodland.

Now here’s the thing. Liking Manson, though there was no evidence that Luke particularly did more than any other musical artist, was only ever a bridge to what the prosecution really wanted to insinuate, that the images seen in the Golden Age of the Grotesque dvd, a dvd given free with an album, and the artwork by Manson of the Black Dahlia where a reflection of Luke’s sinister psychology in some way, even though none of it was true. Luke had no Manson CDs in his collection before the murder and had not accessed Manson’s Black Dahlia painting on any device he owned. The contempt shown to the jury with this nonsense is jaw dropping. A youth who owned no Manson albums before the murder of his girlfriend and had never accessed his art work was alleged to have committed a murder in a way that replicated that artwork...like some dysfunctional Mystic Meg. How ridiculous is that when you say it out loud. Of course the murders weren’t similar at all as the pathologist verified later.   

And of this phone call at the scene of his phone not being covered in blood. As above. Something we certainly discussed a lot when studying this case. Of this affluent adolescent boy. Of this data being scrubbed and that call to the speaking clock. Of that repetitive question of -"why phone when his phone would have the time?" When LM could of course had two handsets, old and new? - Of swapping the sim thus knocking the time out and losing data at the same time - we don't know if the handset he handed in was the one he was using - do we? And of course that of having gloves on, anything really. - But there was nothing on the one he did hand in, which tells us it was either not the handset he used or he had gloves on, or cleaned his hands first.. - and of course, it's not so ridiculous to suggest he would not have had gloves when one is wearing a heavy parka jacket?

Except there’s not a scrap of evidence for the above. The police never put it forward as a theory and they certainly never found another phone in any of their raids on Luke’s home or any receipt for another phone. Remember Occam’s Razor...there was none of Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s phone simply because Luke didn’t murder her. Anything else is just desperate speculation.

And we do have to ask ourselves - with the evidence led, of describing the best way to kill someone - how much was LM prepared for this becoming reality one day? Of carrying knives, what else did he carry with him?

More speculation without an iota of evidence.

And of the interviews of knowledge of being seen? - he would not have been aware of being seen. Of that car with AB when he met with Jodi and of standing at the gate with F&W - looking suspicious. - His alibi, without a shadow of a doubt, was concocted and reeked of such when they gave it to the police. Right down to enjoying the summer sunshine in the garden?

Looking suspicious....ah yes, that little nugget added under oath.

Offline Parky41

The conclusion of this case was a majority guilty verdict based on purely circumstantial evidence. Not one piece of direct evidence was led in court. As such, the crux of the matter is that none of us, judges, lawyers, police, cjsw, jurors, the media, friends & family of the convicted and deceased, Sandra Lean and the general public, have ever known the exact true facts of this case. No one will ever know the exact true facts of what happened to Jodi Jones between 1650 and 2340 on 30.06.03, unless we get a full detailed confession from the killer. Not even having every single witness statement, every police interview, every transcript, a video recording of the entire trial with audio, every single piece of info in conjunction with this case would make a single bit of difference. Nothing. Nada. We, the general public, along with the aforementioned people and authorities, have to make do with what we think we know, make do with limitations of human understanding, and make our own inferences from the circumstantial info available to us. An arduous, unenviable Herculean task, is it not?

And, just because Parky41 does often provide articulate, well-thought-out, lengthy posts, it does not mean he or she is right. He or she doesn’t possess the gift of omniscience.  As highlighted above, we are all merely guessing from our own inferences, interpretations and instincts, from the purely circumstantial evidence in the case. At this exact moment, as I type this, I am inclined to think that Luke Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones. However, I cannot say that I am satisfied, judging from what I have read of the case so far (i.e, info gleaned from various forums, newspaper articles, tv documentaries and Sandra’s book, IB), that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt — which is extremely problematic given the seriousness of the crime.


Think this needs to be split up into segments a little - For myself to answer that is.

Not one piece of direct evidence - tied in with the true facts of this case.  Are two separate things are they not? Firstly it can not be truer, and I have stated this myself on many occasions. That only the killer knows exactly what happened that night, and only the killer would know certain things. - And as you rightly say, no-one will ever know exactly what happened, over what we do know to have happened. That Jodi Jones was brutally murdered and that LM is in jail for that murder.  And even here, if we were to bring in some direct evidence. The knife, incriminating DNA - we would still not know exactly what happened, unless yet again the killer were to enlighten us. What direct evidence would have done - was close over the door of reasonable doubt substantially, and perhaps brought about a unanimous verdict. - But not necessarily so, as some due to the very nature of this crime, of not wishing to be responsible in playing a part in proclaiming guilt - are those who would have had to actually witness the crime itself being carried out.

But here we are, it was a circumstantial case - of which Luke Mitchell is the convicted person for this murder. - He is whether we like it or not. in law - a murderer. Then we move onto the realms of reasonable doubt and the endless debate as to whether there was enough evidence. - And it is mainly this we are discussing, is it not? - Of all, we as individuals do know. Thankfully, we did not have this "arduous, Herculean task" of having to be those people who had to decide.

And you are spot on - What a burden it must have been, for the police, onto the Crown and subsequently the Jury - That ended up with a young lad now spending his life in prison. The enormous task that his defence had - In fighting with all they had. to combat the evidence introduced - And I have stated, that it is not my place, and I am thankful for that - to state firmly that LM murdered Jodi Jones - that this burden had already taken place for the above. Of each and every witness who testified knowing the seriousness of the case - Which, and perhaps I am somewhat naive - makes it even more so convincing that LM was proven to have murdered Jodi Jones. - That due to the very nature of the case, of this horrific murder of this young girl, that people would be telling the truth. And keeping with the oath on which they swore. That the police also, due to the very nature of this case, would also have sought to being Just, of being fair and true in all they did. And onto the Crown, defence, Jury and the Judge. - And yes, it goes wrong and people are wrongfully convicted - It is not a basis for saying it happened here, it holds no water without solid foundation. 

And I have on many occasions now, used language such as "after he had murdered her". Of having to do X Y or Z - whilst using the evidence we do have. And whilst I use terms such as being overcome with rage and so forth to then becoming calm - it is again on the basis of what we do know. We do know that Luke Mitchell is in jail for this murder. And we work around this, around the evidence. And a lot of what I do use is to combat those direct claims by people - of how it had to be, when it simply did not - And again on the basis that this guilty verdict was brought about. So whatever evidence was gathered and heard - then the Jury accepted that there were means used - to thwart any DNA being present to incriminate himself?  As I did with the phone evidence earlier. I was not stating he had to have had two phones, or he had to have worn gloves - I was as people do, introducing possibilities around this, for the fact is - there was no incriminating DNA on the phone he did hand in. I also highlighted with this, the perfect area, if there was any basis at all for LM being fitted up, of this tunnel vision and so forth? - Would be to tamper with evidence - they simply did not, and we can say this, can we not? - When there is absolutely nothing, other than innuendo to make claim that they did.

So, yes - whilst I may speak at times from the basis of using language, such as "he had already murdered her" - it is on the basis of fact. The fact that he was found guilty, the fact that he was ID at both ends of this path, the fact that Jodi entered this path and did not leave it from that time. And at times, it is necessary to use this language, to drive some points home. What I do not do - is claim to knowing exactly what did happen. Of his every move, of why he murdered her and so forth. - for as you say - no one knows this but the killer. And again, whilst I may use the terms - I have stated, many time, categorically - it is not my place to lay guilt firmly upon this shoulders, but can speak with it - on that pure basis, that he is a convicted murderer.

And to revert back yet again. Of asking myself that question. "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" "Why could he not be eliminated, whilst others could?" And a lot of what I do post, as stated is in discussion of all that is known. And of the wrong in what I see is being done in the name of Justice by Unjust means. And again, as you rightly point out, of the exact facts and truth - it is exactly this that I try to make many points on, is it not? - As with this claim of Ms Leans book "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" Leaving aside what only the killer can tell us - It is a completely false premise, is it not? - For Ms Lean does not even hold all of the evidence, she does not have nowhere near enough of anything - to make claims of truth? - does she?

So - No Mr Apples, I do not make claim to knowing all the facts of anything, and I never have. All I do try to do, is highlight all that is missing. And of highlighting much more than what was led at trial, on the investigation side - Not because I have some insider knowledge or the gift of  omniscience. But of taken the time to understand those clear reasons for suspicion. Of that alibi - I did not make any of that up. Those were the ever changing accounts given, their evidence. - which resulted in this dinner being squeezed into less than 15mins. Of the search party. Those timings and so forth - all true. Of LM's very clear evidence and account of what happened in contrast with the search trio - and again, no omniscience required - Straight from the horses mouth. I did not make up LM's time out and about - he gave that himself - I did not make up his lies or the lies given for him - they did that. And yes some must come down to basic trust - Do I trust the words of LM over these other witnesses - then I choose the others. And I will say again, If someone has had to lie about all and everything - it is a clear sign of guilt, and this is one clear valid area of suspicion, as to why LM could not be eliminated.

And then we finish off with this reasonable doubt. Of that arduous task right from the beginning. For the police, for the Crown, defence and the Jury. For every witness and onto the Judge. - What do we do here? - Prohibit all circumstantial cases, allow only those with clear direct evidence. Do we stop MOJ this way? Or do we do as we must at present. And allow for every legal avenue to be used. That is there in the very first instance, due to the very nature of this case being circumstantial. For there is always going to be room, for that "Crux of the matter" is there not? - But as you say, not one person knows it all, other than, and in this case Jodi Jones and her killer. Right down to myself and of course Ms Lean, who is the very cause is she not - of the vast majority of any discussion. For she most definitely does not know everything, knows far less than the police, the Crown, those witnesses and of course this Jury. Yet she has invented some questions has she not?, and one is hardly surprised that anyone would have questions as such (not all of them) - when there is so much missing from all that she has had access to? - Are not your very own doubts around the books which led into FS, onto podcast and this documentary - stemmed from her? Of her claims that this case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt? Of a flawed investigation, in her opinion. Of tunnel vision, in her opinion. Of changing witness statements in her interpretation, of botched DNA testing, in her opinion, of more viable suspects?? being air brushed over, in her opinion and so on.

So, yes, whilst I and many others do not know everything - we are not claiming to - Ms Lean sadly always has. And she most definitely does not. And it is clear, of how much of everything she does have, can become a distorted reality for some. As we have with the bike at the V break in the wall. Which is for many who take the time to understand - based on a small fragment of truth with absolutely no foundation for being fact, in that anyone could see this V break, unless they were on this very path - And we know the witness she speaks of and the one DF mentioned is the employee from BTH who was driving at the time. And we know she has tripped herself up with this many times has she not? -when she made claim to the V being hard to see, unless you were actively looking for it on this very path.

So whilst my posts may be varied and - the only parts that I or anyone really do not know, and can not know - are exactly as this killer did, on this we have only the clear evidence of that sequence of events - of using what we can, to understand areas, such as - disappearing from sight to be seen again in different clothing. And for the most part of other areas - it is using the Crowns case, of other information gathered - to combat what is being put out, to show that there is nothing in this 5% of anything - In this the truth of the actual/factual evidence, does not lie. That it is empty of context and substance.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 01:06:20 PM by Parky41 »

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
  • Total likes: 786
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
I have removed several off topic posts.

Please would posters stay on topic.  Thank you.

Offline TruthSeeker2003

Yep - Dr Lean said recently that it would be great if the appropriate authorities would hand everything over to her, yet it seems she won't share what she has - you have to wonder why.

It seems her weekly address to the nation didn't go ahead as planned today - wonder if she's had her collar felt over the Jane Hamilton episode? She may not have made the offending comment, but she certainly heaped attention on Hamilton.

Wonder if she'll feel obligated to mention the episode next time she addresses the nation - probably not - just sly digs about the Jones family as usual.

Us talking about the case is exactly what Dr Lean wants, btw.

What was the outcome of the comment made? Sandra denied any wrongdoing in her last live. I would be interested to know the truth.
“I am a Truthseeker, searching for truth” “Make of that what you will”

Offline Nicholas

What was the outcome of the comment made? Sandra denied any wrongdoing in her last live. I would be interested to know the truth.

https://twitter.com/janehamilton22/status/1393524282362417156

&

https://twitter.com/janehamilton22/status/1398541628294549504
« Last Edit: June 27, 2021, 09:15:44 AM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Lynn

I am not sure how to reply to an earlier post but someone said AB went to the police the following morning to  report 2 people she saw at the entrance of the path.  If she did not know [Name removed] and all the pictures released at the time were of a much younger Jodi why would she think it was [Name removed] and LM

Offline rulesapply

I am not sure how to reply to an earlier post but someone said AB went to the police the following morning to  report 2 people she saw at the entrance of the path.  If she did not know [Name removed] and all the pictures released at the time were of a much younger Jodi why would she think it was [Name removed] and LM
The much younger pictures of Jodi weren't released the following day.

Offline rulesapply

The much younger pictures of Jodi weren't released the following day.

Andrina Bryson didn't go to the police the next day to say she saw LM and [Name removed]. She went to the police to say she had seen a male and a female.

Offline faithlilly

Andrina Bryson didn't go to the police the next day to say she saw LM and [Name removed]. She went to the police to say she had seen a male and a female.

Yes and at around 5.50.

I do wonder what weight the jury would have given to AB’s sighting if they had know the timing of the sighting in her first two statements?

Offline rulesapply

Yes and at around 5.50.

I do wonder what weight the jury would have given to AB’s sighting if they had know the timing of the sighting in her first two statements?

Andrina Bryson's statement to the police isn't in the public domain along with a lot of other things we're just expected to believe. I don't have the information you seem to have.

Offline faithlilly

Andrina Bryson's statement to the police isn't in the public domain along with a lot of other things we're just expected to believe. I don't have the information you seem to have.

You seem to believe information detrimental to Luke, Corrine and Sandra for which there is no evidence in the public domain…why not this?