Those statements that CD refers to in the early hours of July the first: - We have already covered why LM was at Dalkeith police station - for easy walking distance for his mother. We know that a statement was taken from Luke with his mother, also independent ones from Jodi's mother, AW and the other two search party members elsewhere. What we also know, is that it was abundantly clear that Jodi's family had no ill feelings towards LM. That there was no reason to make anything up, of what had actually occurred whilst searching this path. We know the statements were independent of each other. None, knowing what the others were saying. The relevant factors that are clearly missing when we have been given information on these - is that of demeanor and we know that the police, as well as taken these individual accounts, will be taking careful note - of how these witness's come across. Shock, upset and of appearing truthful. We also know at this point, just prior to these accounts being given. That LM's clothing had been requested, that there is that apparent, initial belief - that only LM had been over the wall, and of believing that he had actually been at the locus - not some distance from it. And the police were to discover that the only member of this party of 4, to have went close to Jodi was AW. - After taken those statements and within hours just of this discovery. Those early hours of the Tuesday morning.
What we also know from these statements, unaware of the people who were given them (outwith LM) is those contrasts that can have left nothing short of several red flags being raised. We know, that there is much more to a statement of what a dog may have done. And we know now with clarity that this contrast, had always been as to where LM claimed the search party were, some 40ft passed this V break in the wall. (that exact distance Jodi was) We had one person against three people whom, all independently said, upon reaching this V break in the wall. I have mentioned this long road before - all that has ever been required is those sentences, from those statements that said - we all walked some distance, passed this V break in the wall, when Luke's dog ----------- Instead we are consistently drawn to this somewhat futile claim, that all agreed it was Mia who found Jodi then changed their minds. We have been over this time scale, of not walking passed this V and the ease in which LM handled, this claimed unfamiliar territory - No trepidation, he knew exactly where to go.
One person over three. We have SK making ref to this dogs head being level with this V - an impossible thing to have seen, had he even been 10ft passed this and continuing to walk. Of JaJ's, of this dog pulling to the V, not passed it but at it. Of AW and JaJ both saying Luke had started to walk down to the left. That AW had been handed the lead. It was not just AW who gave ref to this lead being handed over. And upon LM, starting to walk to his left. AW remained at this V, SK and JaJ had then continued their walk down this path. That they had walked a short distance when LM had shouted he had found something. That upon them running back this short distance - LM, was yet again on the other side of this V. - Did he make any claim to having ran back? - And this short distance walked, of running back, of LM being back at this V - was crucial in showing that LM was nowhere near to where Jodi lay. - The description and account he gave. Of the type of tree, of the red hair fastener, down to those socks. - the time factor, not only crucial but the actual claim of what was seen and of which happened.
It is easy is it not - to distract, of dogs finding bodies all the time, to make claim to statements being the same when the most part of them was in total contrast. - to lean on these witness's changing their minds. - to pretty much lean on each and every witness - to combat the continuous lies from the Mitchells. One can not change those lies, and one can not change those time factors. At any point throughout that evening. It is easy to ask for CCTV footage of AB to show her bank statement to be wrong? Of disregarding all else - to take her away from that sighting just before 5pm. We have this lady being called all sorts over these years - From span of a gnat recently - to yet another hypothetical line of reasoning, from Ms Lean. - that she was coerced by the police. That they put the idea in her head about the pocket. - No one needed coerced. We need solid reason and foundations around the lies, told by the Mitchells. This strive to pick an area from these others, to show they may have lied? - This is akin to showing LM had showed any signs of upset or trauma - completely empty of substance.
Stepping forward on those statements around this search and of the call to the emergency services and of LM. We know that LM had called and we know that LM had said "we", not him but "we" have found something. It was led in court that LM led the operator and the police a merry dance. That he would not say what he found, and that he gave no clear directions as to where they were. Full of erm. erm, you know where this is ---- and he did not say they had found a body. It was SK who took over the call, screaming "It's a f*****g body", and it was SK who phoned back, frantic, demanding to know why the police were taking so long - And we know why, as LM had led them a merry dance, of given no clear directions - already being evasive of his in depth knowledge of this area. And he did keep saying "we" it is therefore impossible for the police, along with Judith's information to have thought - only LM had been present, alone, in this search to when Jodi was (claimed) found. By the mere fact four people where there - when the police arrived.
And, again - Those recordings played at trial, that Ms Lean does admit to being played, that she does not have them in her possession, that she has the court transcript around them? Showed the distinction - of whom was calm, leading the operator a merry dance, changing to screaming down the phone. - so these, somewhat desperate attempts to show LM was effected in any way, two tiny areas that fell flat - which were weighed up against a mountain of evidence - that he showed no signs of trauma, shock and so forth. Of JaJ and everyone being in hysterics - of being asked at a later time, to think, to recall what each person was actually doing. - Something that is often sought from initial accounts, clarification around many areas.
There are no remarkable double standards - No wrong DNA testing - and Jodi Jones was most definitely not murdered elsewhere - this type of claim in itself, should distance oneself from believing anything that is said, from this claimed credible source? - Mr Apples, of working his way through the book, to then going to have a better idea whom the killer/s were? - which tells us one thing clearly - the books is no better than a who done it? - Fantasy, fact and fiction rolled into one? What If's, well what IF you are indeed being led a merry dance, as were the police by LM - as he is apparently still doing? - Michael Finkel and Christian Longo comes to mind here? Exclusive rights? - to tell it the way the Mitchells want? - Of confessions, and theories around scrap merchants?
Those statements, and this is only around the discovery - we have not even touched yet on that other contrast - Of LM claiming Jodi was coming to his house after dinner - and of Jodi leaving much earlier to meet with him --------
