"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[rulesapply]

There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.

This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.

We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:

We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.

So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.

It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police.  These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.

For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.

I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity,  at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.

[rulesapply]

I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity,  at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.

Now I'm thinking of the people who defend him. The people who have manipulated, lied, accused others, veiled or not, encouraged others to bully by their silence and all of the people whose lifes have been destroyed along the path of the campaign trail for supposed justice. What about their justice? So I think this is not about justice. It can't be because none of it is just. This is about something else IMO. Shame on them.

[Mr Apples]

I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was  it checked out and able to be innocently explained?

[rulesapply]

There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.

This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.

We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:

We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.

So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.

It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police.  These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.

For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.

 Parky, sometimes I really don't understand. Good days/bad
 days. Some days I don't get it and some days I do. Today, I get it. Thanks for your replies and everyone who has replied to me and everyone else too.

[Parky41]

I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was  it checked out and able to be innocently explained?

Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.

For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.

If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:

That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.

Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.

Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.

Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.

Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.

MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.

"Neither description matches Luke or the descriptions given by Andrina Bryson, who described an older male with thick, messy, sandy brown hair, sticking up in a clump at the back" As late as August the 6th, Ms Fleming and Mrs Welsh were agreed that this youth had dark hair - it was a bright, sunny evening around 6pm on June the 30th, so the descriptions of dark hair can not be explained away by bad light"

A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.

Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:

LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it.  Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.

Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.   

The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.

So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.

[Natterjack]

“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”

Like 380 pages

[faithlilly]

“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”

Indeed.

Just look at the preceding post.

[Paranoid Android]

There you go, Parky - you've just been accused of being dishonest based on the length of your posts!

I would imagine directly accusing another forum member of being dishonest is probably a breach of the rules on most forums.

How many words has Dr Lean written on this case, btw? Using this kind of logic, Dr Lean must be extremely dishonest.

[Parky41]

Easy words, rather empty however as per. The wonderful thing about psychology is that infinity behind reasoning of actions. Nothing bog standard. That approach used, the use of language for manipulation and deception however is not so easy to hide behind where lies are concerned.

Good to know however Faith has been studying myself to further her knowledge on the case, a compliment indeed?! You will hopefully have found some of the answers you seek, one being of course the reason behind the length of my posts. Mentioned on more than one occasion by myself over time. Very much to do with psychology. Happy researching now.

This 380 pages of using that psychological approach of self interest of others from the police up/down, whichever way one wishes to be led at any point. CB and that advice. When every legal avenue, loophole included has been exhausted then swaying public opinion is the way to go. Show the public that other people involved in the case may have been deceptive through self interest of their own. We have this book of large text where the majority of it is that, about these others. When of course there should be page upon page first and foremost of Mitchells innocence, most of which should be coming from himself. There is of course nothing to lean on here, for there is nothing to use. And it is in these areas, those untruths tumble over themselves repeatedly.

Pages upon pages of waffle around these others, phones, aunts, lasagne, what others were doing in the days before that murder (clearly not investigated then??). Then we go into those areas of actually discussing some of the finer points that are evidence, and it is a mess of contradictions.

F&W? - In short, cut that multitude of waffle and we have. The authors statement that these two witnesses were blatantly and heavily manipulated and influenced by the police. We can skip the areas of attempting to apply intellect when talking of "police speak". Influenced so much that the author claims with her own attempts at being analytical, that the person they described was nothing like Luke Mitchell. Her words. So this heavy influence saw two people describing someone that was nothing like Mitchell. It gets better, for she introduces the jogger (as Faith does). Claims, that if they saw both almost together then that sighting was further down and not at the gate. OK, so she then states, that it is exactly everything like Mitchell and at a place he always claimed to be! That is was in fact him they saw. Then as Faith does again, claims they had a witness whom was willing to put a statement into the SCCRC (why did they not then?). That F&W actually may have saw this person at the Abbey entrance, again where LM claimed he was?

So we have this rewriting again of the evidence that tangled web of contradictory deception - LM did not claim to be at the Abbey entrance at all until much later, just prior to going in to meet with those boys. F&W always stated of this gate, of the youth at a standstill. LM was as he claimed (eventually), sitting on a wall, not standing still against anything. And this jogger, whilst the author leaves out most of her route has them coming out of that estate, directly past where LM claimed he was sitting and did not see him, saw no one. Neither of course did his brother. - so in the authors own words, what she actually says "makes no sense" - aimed at this OTT attempt of casting doubt, being so caught up in it, that they do not even realise themselves, their own blatant contradictions. Which when being economical with the truth is often the case, they simply lose track of that clear deception?

So there you have a much shorter version of the pages of large text of F&W in that book. That is exactly what is being stated, condensed down. Where I took out a small excerpt in my previous post to highlight how easily and wilfully IMO, someone can have no problem in misleading the reader. Of that area being under the shade of trees, and of course the weather. Where other than the time of year, there is nothing to back up these claims of blazing sunshine! That even with the sunshine, people not wearing heavier outer garments, there is still that shade of those trees! And we can simply switch this to that nonsense of seeing him where he stated to be, out of the shade of those trees at the entrance of his estate - it is a mess.

As we have with the search trio, when you get the most avid supported of innocence, telling the reader/member "40yards, 20ft, parallel, no one cares" - Telling people to pay no heed in the slightest to the evidence, Mitchell himself gave. Of course we know why, for it is by his very own evidence suspicion fell upon him, remained there. He just lied and kept on lying. And in that very same fashion of his original defence not putting him on the stand, we have those defending him wanting his evidence left aside, not to be noticed. And as the author aptly describes, simply "air brushed over" That "half a Mars bar situ" repeatedly?

[Mr Apples]

“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”

You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.

[Parky41]

“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”

You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.

A little word play nothing more. Alluding to an attack on another person where the author simplifies it. Stating that all he did was launch half a Mars bar at the person. That in general all and everything of Mitchell is played down in the exact same fashion, brushed over and simplified. Where it becomes ludicrous pushing out that he was picked upon, that there was nothing at all to warrant why suspicion fell upon him. Where we have this repetition by those who take on board the contents of the book, and make statements such as 'wafer thin case, tunnel vision' and so forth. Leaving aside that clear evidence from Mitchell himself, air brushing him over. That staunch refusal to admit to anything at all.

[Mr Apples]

While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?

[faithlilly]

While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?

Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.

Just a thought.

[Parky41]

While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?

What he did not have to do was be at home from that call at 4.25pm. He was not making dinner for the family and without doubt had already planned to meet with Jodi that evening. They spent every day/evening together, even when this girl had been fully grounded, he was allowed to visit with her at home. Outwith of course those weekends he may have been at his fathers.

Again what was clearly proven was that of time. He had up to 30mins to be in Easthouse's and no one knows exactly where LM was when Jodi texted him. He most certainly did not have to wait until the exchange of that last text. (as the author infers, first text simply could be 'I'm off my punishment, meet you about 5?') Obviously heading to that place of meeting once she had let him know that her punishment was lifted, getting out earlier than whatever time had been previously arranged from school.

Of going home and we look at what was needed. That complete change, of putting story/alibi into place with help. And we look at time - Around 60mins minimum from around 5.40 then from around 6.15pm. That realism that he was mere minutes from his house at any point on that road/woods from those sightings.

Interestingly and telling of course is the author speaking for him, on behalf of him, when she claims the call to his mother coming on 7pm, asking if Jodi had been to the house yet? Nearly 90mins after claiming he left  home. (eventually) Claiming to be on this stretch of road between two points of around 50yards. Not at the Abbey entrance before this yet she easily inserts "he may have popped into the Abbey entrance for a smoke and out again to phone his mum, thus may have missed Jodi?" Those grey areas outwith one's comfort zone where the answer opens up other cans of worms - The first of course, those year long claims that LM was not smoking cannabis, thus could not have been the person Jodi had a smoke with. Coming out with excuses, willfully and easily to answer that stark reality that Jodi simply could not have gotten past him.

Reality of course that the call was not about asking his mother if Jodi had been to the door, but of course around whatever aid she she may have gave him in this cover up?  That this lad would not have been phoning his mother about Jodi, but would naturally be contacting Jodi's home to see where she was. That a parent would be advising their offspring to make sure all was ok? Not simply shrugging their shoulders along with him. (claimed)

Therefore this going home over the evening, he certainly had time and he needed that change of clothing. He needed that alibi set in place and help with disposal? There are no witnesses to his whereabouts for expansive amounts of time. Not only this 60mins but of course not actually arriving home until 10pm and not just after 9pm as he claimed.

This dark foot wear where one is being led along the lines of black trainers? - black boots, army type boots (cadets). Again the author opens up these claims of MB, AB's brother in law, that he was saying to people that she had seen someone in army type clothing! That green khaki coat, German badge and black boots? And of course CM's mockery of burning big boots in a small burner? - this open burner with removable  base, a fire pit that did not have to be contained within that brick surround? It is not at all surprising that nothing was found some 4 days later.

A lad who was forensically aware above all else would not have two coats on, that trace/transfer contamination. But above all, what this lad did not have was the luxury of copious amounts of time on his side. Those missing areas with no sightings are all the time he had, time he desperately needed. He was the only person to be with this girl and that needed covered for. As did that knowledge of no doubt knowing he had been seen.

And from here we can step into that concocted story, that alibi from minutes after 5pm until around 5.45pm. Of having him cooking prior to his mothers arrival and not leaving until after the F&W sighting. (handed this over on a plate, instantly, the exact times needed, only the murderer could have known for) Crumbled when that call he cut off from at 5.32 had actually been enough to be logged. The CCTV footage of his mother not arriving home until at least 5.15pm - and of course the complete shambles around SM.

Whilst many, and no doubt an avenue looked at by the police and prosecution of the possibility of this murder having an element of premeditation around it. That relevant ease (outwith the time), of managing to change and have himself seen in that very short period of time. Changed from one coat to another, dark footwear to distinctive lighter coloured snow boarding boots? This lad, as stated on the whole had every ability to think on his feet. To be calm and collective at all times.

Painting this picture (as his original defence attempted), of someone who clearly appeared unfazed, that a murder would not be acting in this manner - then one assumes all the Jury had to do repeatedly was look directly at him. Completely unfazed at all times. And not oddly at all has there ever been, not once any proof of this lad being heavily medicated. Not it in his interviews, not throughout that trial - nothing.

And I agree with Faith - looking at exactly what was proven, applying those times correctly, letting people see the finer details over the obtuse fallacy of reasoning applied. Not leaving out Mitchells own evidence. - and it is the biggest give away of all, having to leave out Mitchell where it really matters.

[Mr Apples]

Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.

Just a thought.

Speculation is synonomous with message forums; it’s inevitable, and interesting. Besides, this was an entirely citcumstantial case, so speculation was, and is, unavoidable. As I’ve indicated many times now, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. There, I deigned to respond.