Swings and roundabouts Mr Apples - I merely go with those official timings and of all spoken around this V break. So if you wish to place it almost centre. I have no problem with that. It is of no consequence for what we are discussing.
Of "this did happen in less than 10mins" - From the time the four people met. LM, AW, SK and JaJ. Near the top of RDP. For that brief discussion to walking down. To LM scaling the wall at the Gino spot, of shining his torch around the woodland. Why? He was the only person to think of this woodland. That was cut off from the actual path they were meant to be searching by this high wall. On it, to the undergrowth of both the field and wall side. Of AW, worried that Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself. And I think it is important to reflect here. To what LM claimed afterwards - of his denial of ever being in this woodland strip and of the existence of the V. That climbing this wall, looking into the actual woodland should enter his head? - However he did. And as with the others. Shining that torch on the path, the undergrowth, the field. Those visible areas. This was the first introduction of the woodland. The second was when the search party came to the V break. When LM climbed over the V break. Witnessed turning immediately to his left by AW and JaJ. AW stayed at the V. SK and JaJ at this point continued to walk down the path. That they had walked around 10 steps when LM shouted he had found something.
From around 11.20pm of meeting to that shout around 11.30pm. To that first call to the emergency services at 11.34pm. Those 4mins approx: Of SK going over followed by AW.
What there was not time for was LM's claims - Of this search trio walking some 40ft passed this V break. For them all to return and so forth - but we know of course he had not. And we know of course there is that desperation - in trying to bring LM back to the V - at least here there is some consistency in manipulating everything. In these attempts to zone in on the dog, to hell with everything else - let's talk about the dog. No dog at the Gino doing anything. - And of course no dog air sniffing to the left, pointing its nose down the way. That gave LM cause to enter this woodland. To turn left, at complete ease, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - other than knowing exactly where he was going, in a place he knew very well. And of only going so far - and we do learn as we go along. Of Nicholas and of nothing upon his feet - Of the clarification this brings. That LM had not covered enough distance, in the woodland to - see this clothing, that hair band and of course the type of tree. - and it does tell us, as it told the police, the Crown and the Jury that only the killer would have been able to do and see this.
I did not say that they all had walked with the dog - together in this woodland strip. I mentioned RDP. Of LM, of the times he had walked this path. To Easthouse's over the course of time of seeing Jodi. Of walking it with her. Of walking it to go to his mothers work and back. And of his mother and brother, dog - of locals and locality. Of the Esk Trail, those circular walks - That are inclusive of the woodland beside where they stayed, to the Abbey grounds and up or down RDP which is part of the Esk Trail. Of day to the family business.
And of the inside of the wall - Of evidence led of LM doing so with others. Evidence led against his denial of frequenting this woodland. Of Jodi, of the point where the wall is completely broken away. At the end of the lane, that they used to meet. Just before the start of RDP. Where they went for a smoke. close to where those initials were carved into the tree? - and to the day in question. It is my belief that they entered this woodland at this point, the one they had used. To have that smoke. To follow the trodden path not the inside of the wall? - I do not know. But to the point where the attack happened.
And no - I was not a juror, social worker or likewise. I only started studying around this case in detail two years ago
And of your mention of expert witnesses - Which is something I think some people become confused with. Namely those who are relatively new to the case. From the books, podcasts and so forth - Of being under the impression that an expert in the field of criminology has studied this case and given expert opinion on it. Simply not the case.
It was first an foremost a person who became entailed with the Mitchells. Who at the time had become interested in the murder of Jodi Jones. Whom had taken information around the time of the murder and built from this. - Firstly by way of declaring LM as being not responsible. Of the ensuing friendship with both himself and his mother. Of the media attention upon the family. And is it not from here we have that steadfast interest in others, of this mystery man who the appeal went out for. From long before LM being arrested had already began this 'who done it?' And onto trial by media only.
And from this stemmed those first scribblings for the book "No Smoke" - Whilst becoming active around MOJ. Whom in those first years after the murder took up studying. Using this interest and these cases, as a student to obtain that diploma. That this person was very much still a student when she became POA and had those case files handed to them. There was no doctorate. The point here I am making is that anything that had been built up around this case, was already set well and truly in stone. That nothing has changed over the years. - There has not suddenly been some professional then taking the case on board to study it. The expansion into IB came through using direct material from the case notes. To expand on those thoughts and theories already in place?
Those theories, those assumptions - when gaining access to the defence files, were used to back up the theories and assumption already set in stone. That concentration around tunnel vision by the police. Of 'their' people of interest not being investigated thoroughly. Of the mystery man they had their mind set on being lost in the investigation. Of fitting evidence around their main suspect - All set in stone in "No Smoke". Which we know was full of errors. That guesswork around timings and so forth. Guesswork around a lot - the guesswork that had always been in place - from before LM's arrest?
And is this not where one gained their complete tunnel vision? - For once those defence papers were at hand. They were scoured in search of anything to back up "No Smoke" to have that expansion. To then have claim to further power. Of being someone who held the key to every door. That one could now quote from many statements and pieces of evidence to back up those long standing assumptions and theories? And for everything missing, not at hand, not inclusive of DF's defence of his client - we have these claims of evidence being buried, of an investigation that failed to do their duty with other, more viable suspects, that they were eliminated far too readily. Of missing statements and phone logs - when the truth simply is that something is needed is it not, to use by way of means to continue those long standing theories and assumptions? That these items have never been missing nor buried. That others were not simply eliminated. - That they were simply not part of what one has never had reason to have. Everything on this case, for it has only ever been the case built up by DF, in his defence of LM.
And this doctorate which was gained after having access to the case files. When the material for IB was well and truly under way. When all that was every going to be gained had already been had. - Therefore no. No leading criminologist in anything - A student who used material, as one needs to, for study purpose to gain that diploma and onto that PHD.
And as Faithlilly pointed out and appears to take umbrage at, of my using Ms Lean over Dr Lean - is for this very reason. For the person involved in this case over time was simply Ms Lean. - No expert criminologist - A student. And since gaining this doctorate and the right to use DR before ones name, are we not still waiting on some form of experience which goes hand in hand with professionalism? - It is still the same Ms Lean, from those many years ago under different guises - who is putting out that exact same information, those same questions - who then gained use of minute areas of verbatim and onto this DR in some hope that it would suddenly make it all seem, all the more plausible?
And it is tainted is it not? in the bias in which it has been pushed out? - When one can not, by a long shot claim to be telling the truth on the murder of Jodi Jones and the case around Luke Mitchell - When more than 95% of everything is missing? From what one does hold, to all that one does not - to everything that ultimately went into the investigation, the further investigation by the Crown, of all the defence did have access to that she has not? - Of those vital precognitions, the importance of speaking to key witnesses whilst going over their statements. Of being privy when each and every report came through around forensics, of discussion around them. Of the defence doing and accessing the same. - To someone who is not an expert, not a professional - attempting to make head or tail of them. Which has also continued from those early days and claims from "No Smoke" - That wrongful and damaging claims to there being DNA in excess of ten different males covering the body of the deceased. Appalling misinformation. For this to be narrowed down now to around 5, but still put out in such a way - that is completely OTT from the actual reality.
And that non correction on everything that has grown into the most horrendous deformities of the actual truth - yet to consistently pick people up on the most trivial of matters.
We have all witnessed it. - Those threads of discussion simply watched until someone dare say something that can be pounced on - the very essence in nature of what we are witnessing now with Jane Hamilton. And one dares to attack this ladies professionalism? When one is not of any professional standing oneself? - are they?
