Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews  (Read 16950 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #315 on: September 13, 2021, 05:18:56 PM »
Anyone know what happened to the ‘what lessons did Sandra Lean learn from the exposure of Simon Halls guilt’ thread?

The thread was getting far too personal and was dragging up stuff from the past which really has no relevance now.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #316 on: September 13, 2021, 05:20:19 PM »
The thread was getting far too personal and was dragging up stuff from the past which really has no relevance now.

So you hid it ?

No ‘relevance’ ?

How so?

‘Far too personal’ - for whom exactly?

And how could it have been ‘dragging stuff up from the past’ if the evidence was never in the public domain to drag it up from?

Were any of the posts ‘reported to a moderator’ or was this your decision John?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 05:29:33 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #317 on: September 13, 2021, 07:48:58 PM »
Absolutely. LM was a minor. CM couldn't drive. The police had a responsibility to keep LM safe regardless of anything.

IM humble opinion, the police kept LM safe as a minor when CM wasn't capable because if one isn't fit to drive then one certainly isn't fit to parent.

Offline rulesapply

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #318 on: September 13, 2021, 08:11:10 PM »
My, my I do appear to have struck a nerve.

And while I admire your tenacity my quote had nothing to do with Dr Lean so I’m not sure why she’s relevant. Lest we forget Dr Lean didn’t have the case files in 2007 when Frontline was produced so the quotes from the witness statements must have come from an official source.

BBC Scotland took direct quotes from, arguably, two of the most important witnesses’s statements and demonstrated how there were very real, and damning, differences between those and the testimony given in court. Turnbull said while summing up that if the family's account were consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer, except as Frontline proved so conclusively that that wasn’t the case.

Janine Jones court testimony “ Luke went straight over the wall”
Janine Jones first statement “Luke’s dog was carrying on at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about”.

Source : BBC Scotland Frontline

And further

“LM, JaJ and SK all gave statements to police over the following weeks that it was the dog who was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall.”

Source : BBC Scotland Frontline

Also from the BBC.

“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.

By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.”

So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too and of course the comment in his first statement that Kelly saw the dog ‘pull’ Luke to the break makes perfect sense.

Or come from no source? Imagination maybe? I'm only curious. Do you have a cite for any sources please?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #319 on: September 13, 2021, 09:09:27 PM »
The thread was getting far too personal and was dragging up stuff from the past which really has no relevance now.

Given it’s you John - I would be interested to hear why you think this ⬇️

So you hid it ?

No ‘relevance’ ?

How so?

‘Far too personal’ - for whom exactly?

And how could it have been ‘dragging stuff up from the past’ if the evidence was never in the public domain to drag it up from?

Were any of the posts ‘reported to a moderator’ or was this your decision John?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #320 on: September 13, 2021, 11:28:33 PM »
Given it’s you John - I would be interested to hear why you think this ⬇️

Think my post may have vanished. Not too sure. However, the James Matthews interview was just another cringeworthy episode of The Mitchell Saga, IMO.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #321 on: September 14, 2021, 03:46:36 PM »


Quote
“LM, JaJ and SK all gave statements to police over the following weeks that it was the dog who was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall.





Quote
Also from the BBC.

“ Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.

By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.”

So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too and of course the comment in his first statement that Kelly saw the dog ‘pull’ Luke to the break makes perfect sense.


Yes we know Kelly went past the break with JaJ - it was important evidence in his trial, that they had walked past after Mitchell entered the woods. And this nonsense of "the dog was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall" - Really?

Firstly - The "first" look into any woodland was with Mitchell at the Gino break area of that wall. This "So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too" Let's split that up. Yes they were all, apart from AW past that V in the wall at/around the same time. JaJ and Kelly on the path and Mitchell in that narrow passage on the inside of the wall. Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that they did not walk past on that path side together. One does not have eyes in the back of their head, neither can they see through walls. Neither could they see around 40ft back up that path! with the torch, neither did they claim to look back up it! For seeing that lead being handed over, seeing Mitchell in the wood turning to his left, and the dog standing up on that V. Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it. And they did not just describe, they used words "when we came to" ....... There was no going back with Mitchell to that break.

But you know all of this. So let us cut to the chase again here and why it was important, this "he ran after hearing a shout" For in those statements, both him and JaJ spoke of walking around 10-15 ft past that break once Mitchell commenced to his left. And he shouted out, and at haste they went 'back' to that break in the wall, and low and behold, Mitchell, was once more on the other side = that Mitchell had not walked the same distance as them, at an almighty push, no more than 10ft. The reality, around five steps! after they saw him walk that initial one or two, to the left. Now you see him on the other side, step or two, now you don't. They walk several feet, haste back and now you see him again!

Four accounts and one of them with precision - This family business guard dog/pet. Trained to 'seize' as opposed to 'seek'. The reality, having a professional team of bodies and setting them to task, with trained dogs. The dog if it had picked up on anything would not have been left behind!! It would have been over that V with the person leading it, and still seeking. - But you know all of this of course, as you rightly say "you're not daft" -So was it a case of third time lucky here? Up at the Gino, few steps into the field, hasting back in front, straight to that V break, and bingo! No dog needed, nothing, seconds later, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, few steps to the left and 'Hey presto!' Where every area of context is required here:

That denial of ever being in that woodland - denial of that V. - mere seconds it is found, he is over and instantly spies that narrow passage. And that tree, the clothing, the hair fastener, right down to those DC shoes. But as his mother clearly states 'super torch, that lit up the entire woodland, like someone flicking a switch!' Walked that path a plenty! and in the dark he sees not one but two breaks. The second one you claim whilst the dog has it's nose firmly to the ground, Mitchell following precisely were it was "seeking" . But he just happened to see that break, that he claimed he "backtracked" to after walking around 40ft past it - jingle jingle.

And all this "it makes no sense" To phone, to want to be part of a search and all else - sense? in the mind of someone who can not only murder then mutilate!!

And of "daft" the police certainly were not, neither the crown and onto that Jury.  Going to that path, the locus. Mere minutes for Mitchell to do the impossible without special knowledge. And it was impossible.

Everything rapid bar that time going up that path. 10.49pm - 'I will search the path, if I do not find Jodi! I will come to yours'.(SL) 10.59pm and he is on that path. After 11.20pm and he is on that path. Gino look, field look, over the V and bang - Around 7 - 8 mins. Alibi in place, disposal in place. And his mother, ring, ring , ring , ring, ring and ignore. She is frantic, her son is 'supposed to be at Judith's' - did she phone there in her worry? - No she did not, did she?  How long exactly had her son been out that house, that she did not know where he was, exactly?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #322 on: September 14, 2021, 06:08:25 PM »






Yes we know Kelly went past the break with JaJ - it was important evidence in his trial, that they had walked past after Mitchell entered the woods. And this nonsense of "the dog was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall" - Really?

Firstly - The "first" look into any woodland was with Mitchell at the Gino break area of that wall. This "So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too" Let's split that up. Yes they were all, apart from AW past that V in the wall at/around the same time. JaJ and Kelly on the path and Mitchell in that narrow passage on the inside of the wall. Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that they did not walk past on that path side together. One does not have eyes in the back of their head, neither can they see through walls. Neither could they see around 40ft back up that path! with the torch, neither did they claim to look back up it! For seeing that lead being handed over, seeing Mitchell in the wood turning to his left, and the dog standing up on that V. Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it. And they did not just describe, they used words "when we came to" ....... There was no going back with Mitchell to that break.

But you know all of this. So let us cut to the chase again here and why it was important, this "he ran after hearing a shout" For in those statements, both him and JaJ spoke of walking around 10-15 ft past that break once Mitchell commenced to his left. And he shouted out, and at haste they went 'back' to that break in the wall, and low and behold, Mitchell, was once more on the other side = that Mitchell had not walked the same distance as them, at an almighty push, no more than 10ft. The reality, around five steps! after they saw him walk that initial one or two, to the left. Now you see him on the other side, step or two, now you don't. They walk several feet, haste back and now you see him again!

Four accounts and one of them with precision - This family business guard dog/pet. Trained to 'seize' as opposed to 'seek'. The reality, having a professional team of bodies and setting them to task, with trained dogs. The dog if it had picked up on anything would not have been left behind!! It would have been over that V with the person leading it, and still seeking. - But you know all of this of course, as you rightly say "you're not daft" -So was it a case of third time lucky here? Up at the Gino, few steps into the field, hasting back in front, straight to that V break, and bingo! No dog needed, nothing, seconds later, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, few steps to the left and 'Hey presto!' Where every area of context is required here:

That denial of ever being in that woodland - denial of that V. - mere seconds it is found, he is over and instantly spies that narrow passage. And that tree, the clothing, the hair fastener, right down to those DC shoes. But as his mother clearly states 'super torch, that lit up the entire woodland, like someone flicking a switch!' Walked that path a plenty! and in the dark he sees not one but two breaks. The second one you claim whilst the dog has it's nose firmly to the ground, Mitchell following precisely were it was "seeking" . But he just happened to see that break, that he claimed he "backtracked" to after walking around 40ft past it - jingle jingle.

And all this "it makes no sense" To phone, to want to be part of a search and all else - sense? in the mind of someone who can not only murder then mutilate!!

And of "daft" the police certainly were not, neither the crown and onto that Jury.  Going to that path, the locus. Mere minutes for Mitchell to do the impossible without special knowledge. And it was impossible.

Everything rapid bar that time going up that path. 10.49pm - 'I will search the path, if I do not find Jodi! I will come to yours'.(SL) 10.59pm and he is on that path. After 11.20pm and he is on that path. Gino look, field look, over the V and bang - Around 7 - 8 mins. Alibi in place, disposal in place. And his mother, ring, ring , ring , ring, ring and ignore. She is frantic, her son is 'supposed to be at Judith's' - did she phone there in her worry? - No she did not, did she?  How long exactly had her son been out that house, that she did not know where he was, exactly?

How long indeed !?!

None of their stories make any sense - and killer Luke Mitchell appears to have been out of the house - at least since he was seen by his neighbour at approx 10pm - which just so happened to have been [Name removed]’s curfew time
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 06:15:50 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #323 on: September 14, 2021, 06:46:15 PM »






Yes we know Kelly went past the break with JaJ - it was important evidence in his trial, that they had walked past after Mitchell entered the woods. And this nonsense of "the dog was first to alert to something on the other side of the wall" - Really?

Firstly - The "first" look into any woodland was with Mitchell at the Gino break area of that wall. This "So if Luke was leading, as you claim, then Luke must have been past the break in the wall too" Let's split that up. Yes they were all, apart from AW past that V in the wall at/around the same time. JaJ and Kelly on the path and Mitchell in that narrow passage on the inside of the wall. Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that they did not walk past on that path side together. One does not have eyes in the back of their head, neither can they see through walls. Neither could they see around 40ft back up that path! with the torch, neither did they claim to look back up it! For seeing that lead being handed over, seeing Mitchell in the wood turning to his left, and the dog standing up on that V. Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it. And they did not just describe, they used words "when we came to" ....... There was no going back with Mitchell to that break.

But you know all of this. So let us cut to the chase again here and why it was important, this "he ran after hearing a shout" For in those statements, both him and JaJ spoke of walking around 10-15 ft past that break once Mitchell commenced to his left. And he shouted out, and at haste they went 'back' to that break in the wall, and low and behold, Mitchell, was once more on the other side = that Mitchell had not walked the same distance as them, at an almighty push, no more than 10ft. The reality, around five steps! after they saw him walk that initial one or two, to the left. Now you see him on the other side, step or two, now you don't. They walk several feet, haste back and now you see him again!

Four accounts and one of them with precision - This family business guard dog/pet. Trained to 'seize' as opposed to 'seek'. The reality, having a professional team of bodies and setting them to task, with trained dogs. The dog if it had picked up on anything would not have been left behind!! It would have been over that V with the person leading it, and still seeking. - But you know all of this of course, as you rightly say "you're not daft" -So was it a case of third time lucky here? Up at the Gino, few steps into the field, hasting back in front, straight to that V break, and bingo! No dog needed, nothing, seconds later, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, few steps to the left and 'Hey presto!' Where every area of context is required here:

That denial of ever being in that woodland - denial of that V. - mere seconds it is found, he is over and instantly spies that narrow passage. And that tree, the clothing, the hair fastener, right down to those DC shoes. But as his mother clearly states 'super torch, that lit up the entire woodland, like someone flicking a switch!' Walked that path a plenty! and in the dark he sees not one but two breaks. The second one you claim whilst the dog has it's nose firmly to the ground, Mitchell following precisely were it was "seeking" . But he just happened to see that break, that he claimed he "backtracked" to after walking around 40ft past it - jingle jingle.

And all this "it makes no sense" To phone, to want to be part of a search and all else - sense? in the mind of someone who can not only murder then mutilate!!

And of "daft" the police certainly were not, neither the crown and onto that Jury.  Going to that path, the locus. Mere minutes for Mitchell to do the impossible without special knowledge. And it was impossible.

Everything rapid bar that time going up that path. 10.49pm - 'I will search the path, if I do not find Jodi! I will come to yours'.(SL) 10.59pm and he is on that path. After 11.20pm and he is on that path. Gino look, field look, over the V and bang - Around 7 - 8 mins. Alibi in place, disposal in place. And his mother, ring, ring , ring , ring, ring and ignore. She is frantic, her son is 'supposed to be at Judith's' - did she phone there in her worry? - No she did not, did she?  How long exactly had her son been out that house, that she did not know where he was, exactly?

Firstly did Corrine have Judith’s number? I think it would have been very odd if she did. My mother didn’t have any of my boyfriend’s mother’s numbers. Did yours?

Secondly, there are two undeniable facts related to the finding of the body scenario. One, that Janine and Steven’s statements in the first month after Jodi’s murder agreed with Luke’s in that his dog alerted Luke to the break in the wall. Two that by the time the case came to court Janine and Steven, under oath, had changed their recollection completely and described a scenario where Luke, of his own volition, climbed over the wall. There is really no getting away from those facts.

Steven Kelly described in his first statements seeing the dog pulling Luke towards the wall. That couldn’t have happened if Kelly was walking on past the break and Luke was some way behind. That couldn’t have happened if Luke was over the wall and Kelly was brought back by Luke shouting. So how did it happen? Isn’t it more plausible that Kelly, Janine and Luke all walked past the break together and that’s where the dog started to pull Luke to the wall? That’s when Kelly and Janine saw what they described in their first statements, the dog ‘carrying on’ at the wall. That’s when Luke went over the wall.

And this ‘ Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it.’ Perhaps…except the pair, under oath, testified that the dog didn’t alert to the wall at all, that Luke, of his own volition, simply jumped over it….and therein lies the rub.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 07:59:36 PM by faithlilly »

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #324 on: September 15, 2021, 09:21:02 PM »
Firstly did Corrine have Judith’s number? I think it would have been very odd if she did. My mother didn’t have any of my boyfriend’s mother’s numbers. Did yours?

Secondly, there are two undeniable facts related to the finding of the body scenario. One, that Janine and Steven’s statements in the first month after Jodi’s murder agreed with Luke’s in that his dog alerted Luke to the break in the wall. Two that by the time the case came to court Janine and Steven, under oath, had changed their recollection completely and described a scenario where Luke, of his own volition, climbed over the wall. There is really no getting away from those facts.

Steven Kelly described in his first statements seeing the dog pulling Luke towards the wall. That couldn’t have happened if Kelly was walking on past the break and Luke was some way behind. That couldn’t have happened if Luke was over the wall and Kelly was brought back by Luke shouting. So how did it happen? Isn’t it more plausible that Kelly, Janine and Luke all walked past the break together and that’s where the dog started to pull Luke to the wall? That’s when Kelly and Janine saw what they described in their first statements, the dog ‘carrying on’ at the wall. That’s when Luke went over the wall.

And this ‘ Every action the trio described, was not a foot past that break, it was on approaching it, watching Mitchell go to it.’ Perhaps…except the pair, under oath, testified that the dog didn’t alert to the wall at all, that Luke, of his own volition, simply jumped over it….and therein lies the rub.

 It did not happen, that's why. The dog was 'standing' up at the wall in one place only. The V break. The search trio did not describe what Mitchell claimed, that's why. There was no dog "alerting to" "air sniffing" "bounding" " tail and ears up! some distance past any break in the wall. There was no Mitchell "backtracking"  - they all approached that break in the wall, and Mitchell with his dog went directly to it and over. And walked no more than 10ft - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he knew exactly what was there, and he had been in that woodland countless times before. Does one imagine that the Jury did not get to hear all of the accounts, of course they did. And is one forgetting the dog was up at the V, looking for it's master! who had went over! Standing there when Kelly and JaJ, then and only then walked past those 10 - 15 steps.

The author states - "that all of the earlier statements "indicated" that "Steven and Janine had overtaken Luke a couple of times" ( they did not indicate this they stated this as fact, at the Gino break and into that field a few steps) then the lies "indicated" therefore, "that they carried on walking down the path after Luke doubled back to the V point" - No they did not "indicate" this ever, and as above - They could not have witnessed anything at that break, it was as they clearly described, upon approaching it. Not once did any of that search trio state LM had "doubled back" anywhere. And yet again this "alerted to" and all else - these were Mitchells words.
 
And here is an excerpt from page 64 under "How the stories changed" Where she states the wall was reconstructed on the basis of "altered stories" - no it was not, it was on the basis of what they all stated at first. LM stated he was some 40ft down past with Kelly and JaJ. Kelly stated at the V, JaJ at the V and AW at the V. The reconstruction on each individual account of where they each stated,, they were.

"However on the basis of altered stories a reconstruction of the wall was built for the trial and the prosecuting QC placed each member of the search trio at the V point. He then walked 16.3 metres away (the distance Jodi's body lay from the V point) and then back towards the person standing at the V and, asking "is this what you saw?" and she states

"Not one witness (including Luke himself) had ever suggested this had happened, either in court or in statements, yet this dramatic reconstruction was used to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V"

My poor head yet again from all that shaking! The reconstruction was done on the basis of exactly what each stated happened. The trio at that V where they stated Mitchell and his dog had not walked past, and Mitchell who stated they were "parallel" to where Jodi lay in that wood. Where it was shown clearly, that they made it clear from that very first account that they had not walked past. That if Mitchell had taken the lead here again, past that V break, to where he stated he walked and his dog reacted! Then why did none of the search trio see him walking past, or state they had all walked past with him?  And the AD asked at different points, not just from 16.3 meters. He stopped every few feet, and asked that same question. "from here?"  until he was upon them - And SL's last part "to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V" - Really? but Ms Lean, Luke gave no account of what happened at that V with his dog, only that he had walked past it, around 16.3meters "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods, then and only then did his dog "alert" was his claim. It was to show that the search trio were always telling the correct account, from that first statement, "on approaching that break" that "Luke with his dog went straight to it" To show the Jury that the search trio could not have been past it with Mitchell, to then continue walking, by his claims, after he had "doubled/backtracked" to it. For it was impossible to see anything that the dog did, at that break, of him being in the woods, the lead and all else - it was to show the jury that LM was yet again telling a whole load of 'porkies!'


And the AD stated clearly to that Jury 'how could the search trio not remember such graphics as a dog doing what Mitchell claimed, and where he claimed. That "air sniffing" and all else, how could they not remember Mitchell walking back to that break?' How could  they not remember him backtracking/doubling back? - in short Mitchell was lying, it mattered not a jot what he said that dog was doing at the wall, for him and his dog - were not where he claimed to be. That the only reason for Mitchell hopping over that V and going left, as he had been in that woodland with Jodi earlier in the evening. He knew every inch of those tracks. That narrow passage! - and he just kept on given and he just kept on lying.

And  DF is asking SK, of that dog at the V and the Jury are thinking in reality, so what! Mitchell himself stated that SK could not have seen that dogs head level with that V, he has already stated that JaJ could not have seen him in the woods, he has already stated that the dog was not pulling to the break in the wall, he has already stated that they could not have seen that lead being handed over, he has already stated, without a  shadow of a doubt, that his dog went nowhere near that break in the wall, pulling to the break, that it did not stand up at that break in the wall, - That his dog only jumped, bounded to that wall, some 40ft past it. That it's nose was twitching like b....ry and he just knew Jodi was on the other side, that he then backtracked to that V and JaJ and Kelly walked on down. - and this is from those 1st statements. The search trio were spot on, when they went over that walk a couple of weeks after the murder. There was no agreeing with Mitchell in the slightest. Not alerting, not leading them to, nothing. For they were at that V and Mitchell could not have been clearer, that his dog did nothing at that V - to alert, lead to anything. The very reason he was making it clear of some distance past, as he knew it had to look like the dog had actually picked something up, that could even scrape at explaining the ease in which he hopped over - no unfamiliarity, not trepidation of step, straight to where he had left her earlier!

And the AD had all of that on his side, he had those statements from that first one - that he could place that trio firmly at the V break and not a foot past it! No Mitchell walking back towards them, no back tracking if with them, absolutely nothing - but a dog with its master, doing what dogs do.

So Faith it does not matter a jot, if SK said he could not remember the dog up at the wall, from his first statements, of it's head up at the V. level with it - for it had naff all to do with Mitchells account, in the slightest! What Kelly, JaJ and AW were making clear, is that dog had not been alerting to anything at that break, and if the rest of those statements should be shown - one will see mention of that dog, scenting, scurrying at other areas on the way down, to that V break.

The one who prompts a search, Mitchell as he was the very first to mention, and not just to offer to search, but to search that path. Less than ten minutes from uttering those words he is on that path. And he is still on that path, and he had asked for something of Jodi's to be brought with the search trio, and they had not diverted to Judith's to get it. And the first thing he did ask, was "do you have anything of Jodi's?" And in enters the notion of that isolated woodland, by Mitchell at that Gino break. In around 7mins from commencing on that path together. He introduces the notion of the woods at the first break and he enters that wood at the second - and he shouts out. He may have been adverse to any God, but he certainly had a miracle happen, did he not?! - he knew exactly what he was doing!

And again, the "why, it does not make any logical sense?" does not come into it, at all - murdering and mutilating someone, makes no logical sense, does it? Prepped and ready, and chapping at the bit from that girls curfew time. And as soon as correspondence is made - less than 50mins later he has miraculously found her, less than ten mins with that search trio and bang!! 

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #325 on: September 15, 2021, 10:10:30 PM »
It did not happen, that's why. The dog was 'standing' up at the wall in one place only. The V break. The search trio did not describe what Mitchell claimed, that's why. There was no dog "alerting to" "air sniffing" "bounding" " tail and ears up! some distance past any break in the wall. There was no Mitchell "backtracking"  - they all approached that break in the wall, and Mitchell with his dog went directly to it and over. And walked no more than 10ft - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of step, he knew exactly what was there, and he had been in that woodland countless times before. Does one imagine that the Jury did not get to hear all of the accounts, of course they did. And is one forgetting the dog was up at the V, looking for it's master! who had went over! Standing there when Kelly and JaJ, then and only then walked past those 10 - 15 steps.

The author states - "that all of the earlier statements "indicated" that "Steven and Janine had overtaken Luke a couple of times" ( they did not indicate this they stated this as fact, at the Gino break and into that field a few steps) then the lies "indicated" therefore, "that they carried on walking down the path after Luke doubled back to the V point" - No they did not "indicate" this ever, and as above - They could not have witnessed anything at that break, it was as they clearly described, upon approaching it. Not once did any of that search trio state LM had "doubled back" anywhere. And yet again this "alerted to" and all else - these were Mitchells words.
 
And here is an excerpt from page 64 under "How the stories changed" Where she states the wall was reconstructed on the basis of "altered stories" - no it was not, it was on the basis of what they all stated at first. LM stated he was some 40ft down past with Kelly and JaJ. Kelly stated at the V, JaJ at the V and AW at the V. The reconstruction on each individual account of where they each stated,, they were.

"However on the basis of altered stories a reconstruction of the wall was built for the trial and the prosecuting QC placed each member of the search trio at the V point. He then walked 16.3 metres away (the distance Jodi's body lay from the V point) and then back towards the person standing at the V and, asking "is this what you saw?" and she states

"Not one witness (including Luke himself) had ever suggested this had happened, either in court or in statements, yet this dramatic reconstruction was used to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V"

My poor head yet again from all that shaking! The reconstruction was done on the basis of exactly what each stated happened. The trio at that V where they stated Mitchell and his dog had not walked past, and Mitchell who stated they were "parallel" to where Jodi lay in that wood. Where it was shown clearly, that they made it clear from that very first account that they had not walked past. That if Mitchell had taken the lead here again, past that V break, to where he stated he walked and his dog reacted! Then why did none of the search trio see him walking past, or state they had all walked past with him?  And the AD asked at different points, not just from 16.3 meters. He stopped every few feet, and asked that same question. "from here?"  until he was upon them - And SL's last part "to convince Jurors that Luke was "lying" about what happened at the V" - Really? but Ms Lean, Luke gave no account of what happened at that V with his dog, only that he had walked past it, around 16.3meters "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods, then and only then did his dog "alert" was his claim. It was to show that the search trio were always telling the correct account, from that first statement, "on approaching that break" that "Luke with his dog went straight to it" To show the Jury that the search trio could not have been past it with Mitchell, to then continue walking, by his claims, after he had "doubled/backtracked" to it. For it was impossible to see anything that the dog did, at that break, of him being in the woods, the lead and all else - it was to show the jury that LM was yet again telling a whole load of 'porkies!'


And the AD stated clearly to that Jury 'how could the search trio not remember such graphics as a dog doing what Mitchell claimed, and where he claimed. That "air sniffing" and all else, how could they not remember Mitchell walking back to that break?' How could  they not remember him backtracking/doubling back? - in short Mitchell was lying, it mattered not a jot what he said that dog was doing at the wall, for him and his dog - were not where he claimed to be. That the only reason for Mitchell hopping over that V and going left, as he had been in that woodland with Jodi earlier in the evening. He knew every inch of those tracks. That narrow passage! - and he just kept on given and he just kept on lying.

And  DF is asking SK, of that dog at the V and the Jury are thinking in reality, so what! Mitchell himself stated that SK could not have seen that dogs head level with that V, he has already stated that JaJ could not have seen him in the woods, he has already stated that the dog was not pulling to the break in the wall, he has already stated that they could not have seen that lead being handed over, he has already stated, without a  shadow of a doubt, that his dog went nowhere near that break in the wall, pulling to the break, that it did not stand up at that break in the wall, - That his dog only jumped, bounded to that wall, some 40ft past it. That it's nose was twitching like b....ry and he just knew Jodi was on the other side, that he then backtracked to that V and JaJ and Kelly walked on down. - and this is from those 1st statements. The search trio were spot on, when they went over that walk a couple of weeks after the murder. There was no agreeing with Mitchell in the slightest. Not alerting, not leading them to, nothing. For they were at that V and Mitchell could not have been clearer, that his dog did nothing at that V - to alert, lead to anything. The very reason he was making it clear of some distance past, as he knew it had to look like the dog had actually picked something up, that could even scrape at explaining the ease in which he hopped over - no unfamiliarity, not trepidation of step, straight to where he had left her earlier!

And the AD had all of that on his side, he had those statements from that first one - that he could place that trio firmly at the V break and not a foot past it! No Mitchell walking back towards them, no back tracking if with them, absolutely nothing - but a dog with its master, doing what dogs do.

So Faith it does not matter a jot, if SK said he could not remember the dog up at the wall, from his first statements, of it's head up at the V. level with it - for it had naff all to do with Mitchells account, in the slightest! What Kelly, JaJ and AW were making clear, is that dog had not been alerting to anything at that break, and if the rest of those statements should be shown - one will see mention of that dog, scenting, scurrying at other areas on the way down, to that V break.

The one who prompts a search, Mitchell as he was the very first to mention, and not just to offer to search, but to search that path. Less than ten minutes from uttering those words he is on that path. And he is still on that path, and he had asked for something of Jodi's to be brought with the search trio, and they had not diverted to Judith's to get it. And the first thing he did ask, was "do you have anything of Jodi's?" And in enters the notion of that isolated woodland, by Mitchell at that Gino break. In around 7mins from commencing on that path together. He introduces the notion of the woods at the first break and he enters that wood at the second - and he shouts out. He may have been adverse to any God, but he certainly had a miracle happen, did he not?! - he knew exactly what he was doing!

And again, the "why, it does not make any logical sense?" does not come into it, at all - murdering and mutilating someone, makes no logical sense, does it? Prepped and ready, and chapping at the bit from that girls curfew time. And as soon as correspondence is made - less than 50mins later he has miraculously found her, less than ten mins with that search trio and bang!!


“ And is one forgetting the dog was up at the V, looking for it's master! who had went over! Standing there when Kelly and JaJ, then and only then walked past those 10 - 15 steps.”

So Mia wasn’t ‘carrying on” on the way to the break as you alluded to last night but after Luke had gone over the wall. Wouldn’t that make it impossible for Kelly to see Mia ‘pulling Luke to the wall”? You really must try harder Parky.

I have only quoted the BBC. That’s the only source I need to prove my point. No hyperbole, no speculation, no ‘private’ group discussion…just the good old balanced BBC.

BBC Scotland Frontline :  “the dog was carrying on at the wall and then Luke jumped over” Janine Jones July statement
BBC website : “ When they arrived at a V-shaped opening in the wall Mr Mitchell went over.” Janine Jones court testimony

BBC Scotland Frontline : Steven Kelly described Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall” Steven Kelly July Statement
BBC website: “ The group walked down the path until they came to a V-shaped break in the wall which borders the walkway.
Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court. Steven Kelly court testimony.

How, after reading the above, anyone can believe Steven Kelly and Janine Jones are credible witnesses heaven alone knows.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2021, 10:18:05 PM by faithlilly »