"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Parky41]

We need to bear in mind that the police took the crime scene photographs AFTER the police moved Jodi. Any scrunchie could have easily been hidden from this point compared to the finding of the body, however it’s well stated that this was a reporter who wrote a comment and he had no idea why he jotted that down in his diary. It’s got no substance at all

I seen a comment that he had sent him letters.  I can’t find it now which is annoying. Apparently he admitted in it he was never his lawyer. Scots totally destroying any credibility he and Sandra had (if he ever did). They’ve made a mockery of a very serious situation in a man’s life. They are sick to do what have done, all for publicity and attention. Who inserts  themselfs into a nitemare and makes it an even bigger nitemare for all involved?

Why therefore are you repeating their BS?

[rulesapply]

They saw him. No two ways.

[Chris_Halkides]

In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock."  The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road.  If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it.  If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches.  Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain.  Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.

[faithlilly]

In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock."  The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road.  If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it.  If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches.  Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain.  Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.

Andrina Bryson’s testimony is problematic in so many ways.

[Parky41]

In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock."  The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road.  If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it.  If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches.  Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain.  Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.

The timings were inclusive of those factors, highlighted by DF that the timings set by police were inclusive to the point of her reaching Carrick Crescent, seeing house and leaving. That very small compact scheme where you appear to imply getting lost, viewing whatever must have taken a considerable amount of time. It didn't. You are getting there Chris, good to see you have moved away from the ridiculous notion that her sighting was when she was driving into EH.

[Chris_Halkides]

An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.

[Parky41]

An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.

The point being you were wrong before trying to apply she had to have been driving into EH. You are wrong again with the lost/viewing not being put before the Jury with the summing up, the timing was included with the AD's approximations. Not forgetting the Jury had been listening, taken notes, summarizing whatever in each days events prior to the closing speeches. All tying together.

The guestimates re her husbands call, the lost/viewing made not a blind bit of different to this, those couple of minutes in that small housing scheme. It shows us just how off she was with her guestimates. There is nothing on that side pre sighting to make up that time she was off by. There is however ample on the other side to make up the time.

[faithlilly]

An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.

The problem is her timings could be absolutely accurate ( we know that they’re not) and the descriptions still don’t fit Luke and Jodi. It’s not even obvious from where Bryson describes them as standing that the couple were even that well acquainted.

[Mr Apples]

The problem is her timings could be absolutely accurate ( we know that they’re not) and the descriptions still don’t fit Luke and Jodi. It’s not even obvious from where Bryson describes them as standing that the couple were even that well acquainted.

You think she would walk down an isolated path that she was specifically forbidden from walking along on her own (by Judith) with someone she didn't know??? AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd (ie, his body language and arm and hand gesticulations); that comment was the last thing she said about their meeting, so it was more of an afterthought, after conveying the gist of what she thought about the sighting: that the male's actions were odd and were the reason why she noticed the male & female. Her description of LM was very accurate and, again, like RW & LF, when she saw a photo of LM in a newspaper she, in her own words, "was taken aback by how much it looked like the boy she saw that day". When looking at a book of police photographs, she commented that "she was as sure as she could be" that the photo she picked out was LM. RW, when she saw LM's photo in a newspaper, said: "Oh my God, it's him!" She also said that the aforementioned photo "jumped out at her
as being the boy she saw that day". LF agreed with her sister-in-law (RW) that the newspaper photo was LM, saying that he looked "up to no good". AB's timings could be ascertained by her bank statement. They all checked out and were another piece of the jigsaw that got LM convicted of murder.

[faithlilly]

You think she would walk down an isolated path that she was specifically forbidden from walking along on her own (by Judith) with someone she didn't know??? AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd (ie, his body language and arm and hand gesticulations); that comment was the last thing she said about their meeting, so it was more of an afterthought, after conveying the gist of what she thought about the sighting: that the male's actions were odd and were the reason why she noticed the male & female. Her description of LM was very accurate and, again, like RW & LF, when she saw a photo of LM in a newspaper she, in her own words, "was taken aback by how much it looked like the boy she saw that day". When looking at a book of police photographs, she commented that "she was as sure as she could be" that the photo she picked out was LM. RW, when she saw LM's photo in a newspaper, said: "Oh my God, it's him!" She also said that the aforementioned photo "jumped out at her
as being the boy she saw that day". LF agreed with her sister-in-law (RW) that the newspaper photo was LM, saying that he looked "up to no good". AB's timings could be ascertained by her bank statement. They all checked out and were another piece of the jigsaw that got LM convicted of murder.

‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’

No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.


This is part of Bryson’s testimony.

‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.

So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.

"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.

So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”


3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.

What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?

[Joe Blogs]

‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’

No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.


This is part of Bryson’s testimony.

‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.

So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.

"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.

So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”


3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.

What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?

Yes, from looking at Brysons testimony and also looking at photos of Luke Mitchell in his parka, a few things stand out, Faith.
Notably Brysons description of a high collar, this gives me a picture in my mind of a jacket with an obvious collar without a hood, although if the parka was well zipped up at the neck it may look like a high collar, I dont know.
Also, the Parka that LM bought from Flip after the murder is obviously too big for him. Did any of the ten witnesses describe his parka as too big for him, being too long in the sleeves?
This is important, because if Luke Mitchells alleged pre-murder parka was also too long in the sleeves then Andrina Bryson could not have seen his hands when his arms were hanging by his side.
Also, Bryson describes hair sticking up in clumps while Lukes hair has always been as straight as a poker.
One other thing, Turnbull kept refering to a male and female, yet Bryson didn't see the persons face at all who was standing on the pavement looking down the path, how can you determine what gender someone is without seeing their face? Did Bryson notice any of her other assets that suggested the person on the pavement was female, or was she going by the hair only?

[Mr Apples]

‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’

No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.


This is part of Bryson’s testimony.

‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.

So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.

"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.

So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”


3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.

What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?

The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood  up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).

[Mr Apples]

The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood  up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).

And when you combine this with all the other substantial circumstantial evidence, it becomes more robust and compelling. Occam's razor, and so on. There are far too many coincidences in this case that it couldn't not have been LM (and, again, Occam's razor is applied).

[faithlilly]

The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood  up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).

Yet Bryson also said in a statement that she probably wouldn’t be able to recognise the youth again. How do we square that circle? What made her so sure that it was the youth if she had earlier admitted that she probably wouldn’t recognise him?

One thing that’s always bothered me. The time between the murder and the photograph taken by the police on the 14th of August was six weeks. Luke’s hair would have grown in that time. I suppose it doesn’t matter as Bryson had no idea what length the youth’s hair was because of the collar on his jacket. Further it is clear from the photograph of 14/8 that Luke has wispy bits of hair that stick out at the side. My hair is straight like Luke’s and if not tamed with product my hair does the same. These stray hairs could in no way be called ‘a clump sticking up at the back’.

[faithlilly]

And when you combine this with all the other substantial circumstantial evidence, it becomes more robust and compelling. Occam's razor, and so on. There are far too many coincidences in this case that it couldn't not have been LM (and, again, Occam's razor is applied).

Occam’s razor suggests that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be correct. Do you really think that your jumping through hoops to explain the lack of DNA…Luke had a parka on and underneath a German shirt which he took off to retrieve a bomber jacket from where we can only guess but not before he’d either washed his hair in a brook….with no sign of the microbes from the brook on his hair…or showered at home in a ridiculously small timeframe but still managing to have dirty hair, but with no DNA on it, when examined by the forensic examiner…is the best way to find the simplest explanation?