Credible source? - Of what exactly? For the Mitchells for that is the basis of all is it not? - Ms Lean holds the defence case files, she has never had access to everything. She has simply taken what DF put together and added to it. This has never been the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones, not in the slightest. Where Ms Lean makes claim to "examine the truth buried in those case files" - absolute nonsense. "disclosing for the first time, evidence of manipulating witnesses, forensic failings, crime scene contamination, dishonesty and more" "with reference to all the evidence"
Where to start? - "with reference to all the evidence" - Nope, Ms Lean has never had all of the evidence. As Faithlilly pointed out but in the wrong context. It was 10 mnths before LM was arrested. Not because there was little evidence, but because they were building up a case with an abundance of evidence. We know this trial went on for 9 weeks, it did not do so, on the basis of flimsy evidence. We know this was a circumstantial case - there was no DNA that could connect LM directly to this girls murder. The police were not simply letting a killer walk the streets, they were making sure that they got this right so that this killer did not continue to walk the streets. And not by manipulating witnesses nor this ridiculous suggestion that the wrong forensic tests were requested.
On this basis, of the amount of evidence gathered - we know that the case is led with only a fraction of what had been obtained. How long does one imagine it would have went on for - if every single piece of evidence was used. We know the intricate details alone of this claimed alibi. That there had never been this relaxed dinner event - That is was the gaping holes in this that brought about the evidence led. Of coercion between this mother and son. Ultimately that LM had not been at home. And of CM - that she was capable, quite easily of lying bare faced on this stand. There was never simply the word of the tattoo parlour staff - that booking and confirmation was shown from their records, The name used, clearly written. The mockery brought of this by Ms Lean and co - the ridiculous notion that they would used the ID of a man in his 50's - no mockery however that this man was a family friend. Not some random name plucked out a hat - by the staff in this shop. Something they could not have possibly known, far less enter it into their records, for what reason? - to frame LM for a silly tattoo? The Jury needed to see that this mother would lie easily and readily for her son. Of the knife, of not only allowing her son to have more, but this ridiculous claim she had hidden it from him? this skunting knife, exactly like the one still missing. That she claimed this professional search team had missed it, in a bag beside the dogs dinner. - After running their fingers through this. - Not on your life, they were hoping this purchase in itself would not be noticed where they not? That they would be able to produce - thee missing knife. As with the Jacket. That original army item, too heavy and big to burn in this tiny burner. And she knew this how? - she knew it as it was exactly the jacket he had, and exactly the type replaced by originality was it not? - and it is that very mockery, that play on words that is used to distract away from the reality. That same mockery we see from the innocence campaigners, over and over. Of AB and the span of a gnat - nope, AB had an amazing memory. Of Ms Lean, and her suggestion that the police MAY have put the idea of a pocket in her mind? - surprised they didn't put the idea of the Deftone logo there also, eh?
Of this buried evidence - ridiculous claim. The only thing that is being buried is the Mitchells testimony. The lies in their abundance. And the manipulation of all and everything to shore it over with these far fetched tales. The search party is paramount to what Ms Lean does. That she should blatantly push out that wrongful claim - that they all agreed with LM that his dog led them to Jodi - No they did not. Not once. The evidence has always been clear around this - and if Ms Lean can bend this so far out of shape - then we know what she is capable of across the board, don't we? She has never produced one single area of these witness statements - that could state anything other, than that upon approaching this V, whilst walking down this path - that LM entered this woodland. They have never stated that they had all walked passed this with LM - And what people are left with - that blindly put trust in this woman having all of the evidence - is this search trio lied, therefore they must be covering something up. For these are the very things that people are saying. Exactly what Ms Lean wants them to think. - it does not pay to think of LM, of those ten minutes and so forth. It pays to think only of this dog. Not where they were from any statement claims - just the dog. Which is completely irrelevant to anything.
All she produces are snip bits from multiple areas of statements - then goes to extraordinary lengths to make claim that they must have been in harmony with LM's, as she does with pretty much everything? - And it can not be any clearer. To where LM said he was, this 40ft passed this V parallel to where Jodi lay. And he needed to be here, to add any validity in the slightest of what he always claimed - that his dog found Jodi. No it did not. This search trio had never once used those words, far less agree or being in harmony with him to where he stated they were. She has taken what this trio said, of every piece of information, solely on this dog as proof they agreed with LM - That is how twisted it is. And as the police do, do - they would ask for clarification on the basis of LM's claims and the contrast in their statements. And, of what exactly it was this dog was doing as they came to this V. Was LM leading his dog or the dog leading LM? - It was LM leading his dog - directly to the V. Not a foot passed it. Every single piece of their account from that very first - always stated clearly - upon coming to this break in the wall. It has never been after passing it, of this dog then reacting some way down. For they do give sound reasoning from those very first accounts. Of the dog pulling - to the V. Of the dog jumping - at the V. And of the lead being handed to AW. And of LM going over. And of him walking down to his left. - Remember the Gino spot here - of LM simply shining his torch around. This search party simply pausing for a moment - to see if he was Just going to do the same? For they had no notion in the slightest that this dog was reacting to Jodi - utter nonsense. They were waiting to see what LM was going to do, waiting on him. That is why they saw which way he went, by height and by torchlight.
And if people think it is acceptable - to then have to got to these extraordinary lengths to try and add weight to LM's evidence, rather than simply producing, from those very first statements of all - Where exactly it was, they had said, they all walked some distance passed, that LM had returned to this V, that they also returned for them to make any ref of anything of this V . And I have highlighted this with Faithlilly. And we know she added extras on, when attempting to tie the search trio in with LM returning to this V - It did not happen. Four people, only one from the off, made any claim of the dog alerting to Jodi, and that was LM. And we know that everything else has to be tied in with this. The abundance of other evidence that backed to the hilt, of LM going directly to this V break, and directly in the direction Jodi lay. And we know he had only walked a couple of steps and stopped, waiting a few seconds before shouting he had found something - For as JaJ and SK ran back that 10 -15ft - LM was yet again on the other side of this V. To where they had been shouted back to. - And I will ask again Faithlilly - where the members of this search party taken to the path - to go over their account?
And we know why Ms Lean has to do this - we know she has to twist and use all she can - to distract away from LM, but she is being both disrespectful, not only to Jodi's family, to the truth, - but to Jodi herself. Is she not? - For she has never produced anything of any worth in the slightest to back up these wild claims, that the search trio where with LM some 40ft passed this V break. For it does have to be taken in its entirety. What the dog was doing at this V, whilst approaching it, on the way down this path - is completely irrelevant to LM's claims. For he was lying was he not? They had not walked this distance down at all, and they have never stated that they did. And they most definitely had not stated - that the dog led us/them to Jodi. It has only ever been LM who made these claims. - And of Ms Lean repeating them for him. And I know I am repeating this yet again - for I feel it is morally wrong, to use others, to paint them as liars whilst attempting to scrape together some evidence for LM, to cover those gaping holes in his testimony. These futile excuses are running out - of not being able to divulge witness statements - they certainly seem to be getting divulged to a lot of people when suits?
Show us those statements, show us clearly what each and every member of that search party said. All and everything of what LM claimed. Every single piece of his statements - for he can give permission for this. They are his. They should already have been included as should have CM and Shanes.
As with the recordings, as with Mr Kelly's statement as with those phone records - none of this is buried. Ms Lean is an author writing a book. POA at one point. Unlike the SCCRC - Ms Lean has never been entitled to access everything. The defence team were entitled, they chose what they wanted to use, they did their precognitions - nothing was buried. Ms Lean wants this independent review to have access to everything? - which in itself tells us clearly, that she has written a hell of lot, made a lot of assumptions and damming reports - when never having had access to everything in the first instance.
Of those botched forensics - really. This woman who knows absolutely nothing of forensics. Who we know sought no expert advice. That she wrote this book prior to even discovering the female elements of DNA in semen. And of all those "no reportable results" with this "we will never know" "as we do not know what was being tested for!" The person of interest, the jacket, the knife, the shoes with blood on them. It was a big knife by the way, we must not forget to include that part. - All tested, no reportable results - It was not Jodi Jones blood. It was not connected to this girls murder. There is none of this we will never know. Of RG of his DNA - we will never know, as was his DNA tested against the DNA from this murder! - Well one must wonder therefore how JaF flagged up? - because it is stored in a data base, that is why. - Which tells us yet again that CD was correct, there was nothing, no profiles attributing this murder to being that of a stranger, of An another. Of these hairs cut at either end? - She thinks the killer may have done this accidently - Ms Lean thinks a hell of a lot - she however can not back up most of these thoughts - can she. She consistently speaks for LM and his mother, adding all her explanations and maybe this or maybe that - It should be straight from the horses mouth.
Credible - what can be credible about someone writing a complete defence case for a convicted murderer - whom we know, without a shadow of a doubt, done noting but lie? - Credible to speak for a compulsive liar?
