Misleading statements from the police or prosecution

[Venturi Swirl]

I taught teenagers for over 30 years, much of the time in deprived areas. I've seen all sorts of things (although I will admit the urine storing is new to me).  Delinquent and disturbing behaviour is delinquent and disturbing behaviour, but, IMO, it's not unusual, and, although a few of my former students have been in and out of prison, none of them have (yet) committed murder.

Perhaps I have become immune to teenagers.

But would you be overly surprised to hear that one of the disturbed and delinquent teenagers that ended up in prison had committed murder?

[Paranoid Android]

Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?

According to some folk, LM was the only teenager that didn't lie - every other teenager in Midlothian made up stories for attention or cash from hack journalists.

The same folk want us to believe that LM's big bro is lying about the alibi.

LM carried knives. and smoked copious amounts of weed, but he's never told a lie.

 

[Nicholas]

It could have been any one of the three girlfriends he had at the time (there may have been more for all we know)

I concur

[Nicholas]

Thank you yet again for verifying that none of this search party, from those very first statements, made any claim to walking passed this V break, in line with LM's claim. And that yet again - you chose that predictive route of missing every part of those statements, inclusive of LM's to zone in on the dog only. We are not to consider either side of this. For you, every other part is irrelevant - you are not interested in context, of clarification - nothing. The only thing you can survive on are those tiny excerpts - that prove nothing. You know where this dog was. You know LM was Lying and you know those statements prove this. - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reason why you need to ignore every other part. As there was absolutely nothing, other than LM having knowledge of this locus that he was able to go directly to where Jodi lay. - And we know why, with common sense the reason DF chose not to bring irrelevant dog experts in - were they to go down some foolish route of 'dog whisperers?' Did LM read the way the dogs nose was twitching, whilst it was "air sniffing" at this V break?  - for he would have looked foolish, attempting to prove the dog sensed Jodi from this V break. It had nothing to do with funding. And the dog had absolutely nothing to do with LM turning left. - and you can ignore every other lie - of denying the existence of this V, of being in this woodland and so forth - For what? to make some foolish claim, of mincing words around to state . All of this search party agreed with LM, that it was his dog that led them "all" to Jodi.

And as you state, yet again, that this search trio were telling the truth in their first statement - then someone was clearly lying. And the lies were exactly to do with the search party - not going passed this V point. And the only person to make claim, that they had done this was LM. And you are correct, he was steadfast in what he claimed. That from going around "not even 20yrds" (40-60ft) to further given exactly where he claimed the search party were, which was bang on the 40ft mark - "parallel" to where Jodi lay on the wood side - There was no trauma, shock nor being confused. He knew he had to match it to the 'teddy up a tree' expertise of this dog?? Sniffing in the air at the exact spot where Jodi lay.

Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?

Words of a killer

"They would rather feel safe than be safe"

Sandra Lean states 🙄
‘So, on Luke's behalf, every time you meet a doubter, ask them - would you rather feel safe than actually be safe?

[faithlilly]

Thank you yet again for verifying that none of this search party, from those very first statements, made any claim to walking passed this V break, in line with LM's claim. And that yet again - you chose that predictive route of missing every part of those statements, inclusive of LM's to zone in on the dog only. We are not to consider either side of this. For you, every other part is irrelevant - you are not interested in context, of clarification - nothing.

Of course I verified none of your contrived narrative but I’m sure you know that already. The truth was there in their earliest statements, the agreement of JaJ and SK that with the dog’s reaction Luke doubled back to the v while they kept walking. And what of those  soon to be abandoned descriptions from SK of the dog, up on her front legs, nose in the air, nostrils filled with the horrific scent of what awaited them all over that life changing wall? They would not have been easy to forget....those last moments of normality....the seconds between before and after...but forget they did, maybe not truly, but for long enough to inflict the damage.

The only thing you can survive on are those tiny excerpts - that prove nothing. You know where this dog was. You know LM was Lying and you know those statements prove this. - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, the reason why you need to ignore every other part. As there was absolutely nothing, other than LM having knowledge of this locus that he was able to go directly to where Jodi lay. - And we know why, with common sense the reason DF chose not to bring irrelevant dog experts in - were they to go down some foolish route of 'dog whisperers?' Did LM read the way the dogs nose was twitching, whilst it was "air sniffing" at this V break?  - for he would have looked foolish, attempting to prove the dog sensed Jodi from this V break. It had nothing to do with funding. And the dog had absolutely nothing to do with LM turning left. - and you can ignore every other lie - of denying the existence of this V, of being in this woodland and so forth - For what? to make some foolish claim, of mincing words around to state . All of this search party agreed with LM, that it was his dog that led them "all" to Jodi.

And as you state, yet again, that this search trio were telling the truth in their first statement - then someone was clearly lying. And the lies were exactly to do with the search party - not going passed this V point. And the only person to make claim, that they had done this was LM. And you are correct, he was steadfast in what he claimed. That from going around "not even 20yrds" (40-60ft) to further given exactly where he claimed the search party were, which was bang on the 40ft mark - "parallel" to where Jodi lay on the wood side - There was no trauma, shock nor being confused. He knew he had to match it to the 'teddy up a tree' expertise of this dog?? Sniffing in the air at the exact spot where Jodi lay.

The search party did tell the truth in their first statements, of Luke doubling back at Mia’s alert, of Janine being convinced that Luke had found something bad beyond the wall ‘by the concern in his voice’ and of him looking like he was in shock. Of the hysterical behaviour of everyone, of everyone being so upset.....it was all there. The lies came later. 

Can you actually give us anywhere, were LM told the truth - perhaps his name? unless of course he was getting a tattoo?

[Nicholas]

‘by the concern in his voice’

What did Luke Mitchell say about Jodi’s grandmother ?


‘Alice Walker initially thought she had stumbled upon an animal until she realised it was the 14-year-old.’
Mrs Walker said at one point Luke Mitchell climbed over a v-shaped gap in a wall on the Roan's Dyke path, near Jodi's home, and said "there's something there". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4092213.stm

‘Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."

‘The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm



Not only did Luke Mitchell find Jodi’s body he knew it was her body whilst the others thought they saw an animal or a log - and he didn’t need to peer around a tree like SK did


‘Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
‘A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.[/b]

[mrswah]

But would you be overly surprised to hear that one of the disturbed and delinquent teenagers that ended up in prison had committed murder?

Afraid not , to be perfectly honest with you. Probably why I don't like reading the local paper!

[Parky41]

And there we have it - that predictive manipulation and blatant lies - That this campaign reeks of. Becoming quite the habit for you. One can only assume that LM himself is very close to your heart. Far too personally involved. Only someone close will continuously try to re-write the evidence, the statements and lie. Any measure used to add weight, yet again to nothing.

Mr Swah - In, response to your question, how do I know what the dog did, was I there? - Is it not relatively simple? - We have witnessed, time and again. Those excerpts of verbatim used. We know, do we not, that the same method would and should be used for such important points. For proof. It is nowhere near good enough to claim witness's did something, then use some long winded r'd in an attempt to prove that point? - Clear, precise, sentences from their statements would do the job. - When this does not happen, when we know a defence tactic is being used, of which we naturally choose the opposite of the point attempting to be made. As with the above. There is no dispute over SK claiming to forget about the dog standing at this V. It is where LM claimed this happened. One should show, with clarity that they said - 'we had walked some distance passed this V -------------- in line with LM's claim and his clarification. He did not clarify this by saying, oh it was slightly passed, or just to the left - he said exactly "parallel to where Jodi lay" He drew a diagram. Intelligent lad.

DF did not make ref to this search party being way passed this V and so forth - he spoke of what happened at this V. Of SK forgetting about the dog standing at it? Of the dog "pulling to it" whilst approaching on their walk down. How do I know this where Findlay is concerned? As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely. And of bringing in no dog expert, why? - How was this dog expert going to prove LM, the search duo and the dog were 40ft, parallel to where Jodi was? - we can see what a dismal job Ms Lean makes of it. They backtracked, how did they see LM on the other side and those blatant lies - That the base of this V is 6ft from the ground?
 
What did you make of CM's podcast about the jacket and the burner? - When she spoke of the jacket claimed to have been burnt. That it was an original army parka, very heavy and so forth - Freudian slip? Not really, no - as she went on to talk about buying the new one, the claimed replacement. She knew this claimed replacement was of the exact type - this original army surplus of it's heaviness and so forth? Not a replica but the exact same, an original.

[Nicholas]

And there we have it - that predictive manipulation and blatant lies - That this campaign reeks of.

Innocence fraud is very real

[Parky41]

Innocence fraud is very real

Most definitely.

[Nicholas]

As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely.

‘Telling the truth just doesn’t feel right to a compulsive liar who will bend the truth to fit her own needs and desires. Compulsive lying is often accompanied by other personality disorders like narcissism.
While the person delving into compulsive lies feels secure, the lies often hurt and damage relationships, family and friends. Compulsive lying is an addiction and becomes difficult to stop once it has become a way of life.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/understanding-people-who-lie/

[Nicholas]

he said exactly "parallel to where Jodi lay" He drew a diagram. Intelligent lad.

Psychopath

[Nicholas]

DF did not make ref to this search party being way passed this V and so forth - he spoke of what happened at this V. Of SK forgetting about the dog standing at it? Of the dog "pulling to it" whilst approaching on their walk down. How do I know this where Findlay is concerned? As yet again there is nothing clear and precise given. - It would be a tricky R'd if Ms Lean attempted to change those statements. Manipulate yes, change not? Omit 95% yes, cherry pick for a solo defence - most definitely.

Worth listening to Donald Findlay’s comment to Prof David Wilson on appeals

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/


“Donald Findlay QC features in a new BBC Scotland show exploring those criminal cases which continue to fascinate us.
Crimes Files sees criminologist, Professor David Wilson, conduct in-depth investigations into both historic and contemporary crime cases as he interviews professionals who combat crime – high profile lawyers, pathologists, frontline police as well as some of the nation’s most notorious criminals.
https://scottishlegal.com/article/donald-findlay-qc-features-in-new-crime-show

[faithlilly]

:0)

[Myster]

Worth listening to Donald Findlay’s comment to Prof David Wilson on appeals

Donald Findlay interview begins at 40:40 minutes in...

https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/david-wilsons-crime-files-s01e01-2019-aktak-bun-14wNMx6TZBB1ZD6m