(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”
This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
Led a merry dance down the garden path - Of everyone all agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi. You mention the parka and of how a statement may give a false impression, that they could be talking about the Jacket bought after this murder, you need to see more. - As with the above - Of everyone agreeing it was the dog who led LM to Jodi - completely false and misleading statement. Firstly the dog led no one to Jodi, the dog was not in this woodland. Secondly the dog was only ever at this V break in the wall. So what we can gleam from this, at the very most - is that the dog led LM directly to the V, for him them to enter this woodland. We know the evidence around this "the dogs head being level with the V" and "dog pulling to the V" - and that these statements changed to LM going directly to this V - Not changed however, clarified. As LM did go straight to this V, it was always stated this way. His dog was on the lead, a dog pulling towards a wall, how very unusual? - Now if this search trio were making statements to the effect, that the dog starting going crazy, she was barking, frantically jumping at the wall, and it had been well passed this V - you get the drift. But there was none of this, was there? There was simply this search party, going down this path - and of a dog sniffing at a wall and pulling. That LM entered this woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing. He turned immediately to his left.
And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that they did not say they had walked passed this V at the point of the dog doing anything, and we know there was no evidence of this dog alerting to Jodi in the slightest - it was a dog, doing what dogs do. When one wants to talk 'wafer thin' These claims and attempts to show any different are transparent to the max - And we know without a shadow of a doubt, that JaJ and AW could see LM on the other side of this V - we are being asked to disbelief this due to their height- really? Of these blatant lies that the base of this V is 6ft from the ground. And we know the torch light was the major factor of knowing exactly which way he turned, immediately upon entering this woodland.
And this was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That LM, the search trio and his dog were not passed this V break - and Ms lean, relies heavily upon them not and never saying, it was Luke's dog that found Jodi then they said it wasn't - And from this point and of every other lie that fell off his lips - we are being asked to believe the search trio were not being honest? -Really? With these wafer thin, transparent, empty of substance claims. Grasping and scraping to find something solid against the abundance of evidence against LM. - Of what happened on this brief time on that path.
Of introducing the woodland at the Gino spot. Of being unaffected, of leading the emergency services/ police a merry dance whilst others were screaming in the background. For that was what was in that call - the recording played in court. Ms Lean may have hoped over time that her need to troll and infiltrate every discussion may win the day - The hope that in 9weeks of a trial. A crammed court room. Of legal bodies, media, students, spectators and so forth - That her 'knowledge is power' cries - would be thwarted at every angle.
Of people getting told that what they say holds no water as they can not cite as much as she can? - for she holds the defence papers. - Complete and utter bias, that citing snip bits proves absolutely nothing. Completely empty of substance. The only part that is true, is those few words verbatim, the official timings of calls and so forth. Manipulating and playing around with these times to suit.
And of those recordings - Of LM toying with the operator. Of those screams in the background. Of SK taking over the call and screaming "It's a f*****g body". And like the statements of the search trio, of AB and just about anyone else - the same method is used - to add weight to air. Everything around what happened needs to be known - not these futile claims of the dog leading LM anywhere. - Of CM and Findlay not listening to them "my way or the high way" Of not speaking with SL? - of other legal teams not touching them with a barge pole - One wonders why? Is it not more of a case of "It's our way or no way" of CM "All Findlay had to do was walk in and say, we have blood, sperm, hair, none of it Luke's, I rest my case"
How honest do you feel the Mitchells were Chris?
