What's Significant About LM Finding J J?

[rulesapply]

I've never understood the significance of LM finding J J.

In the case of Esther Dingley her body was found by her boyfriend, despite eariler searches by specialists from France and Spain, but no suggestion he was involved in her death.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58159591

The people in these articles were walking their dogs and happened to come across these bodies. I assume they weren't looking for bodies. Luke Mitchell wasn't a dog walker. He was part of a search team, looking for his missing girlfriend who happened to have his dog with him. I don't have time just now to read all of the articles but did any of those dog walkers even know the people they had found?

[Holly Goodhead]

In response to posts above I dont see how someone finding a body is evidence of anything?

I gave examples of dog walkers locating bodies.  I also referred to Esther Dingley's boyfriend locating her body despite detailed searches by experts in France and Spain.

[Mr Apples]

In response to posts above I dont see how someone finding a body is evidence of anything?

I gave examples of dog walkers locating bodies.  I also referred to Esther Dingley's boyfriend locating her body despite detailed searches by experts in France and Spain.

Per se, him finding the body isn’t evidence of anything. However, when taken together with all of the other circumstantial  evidence, and applying the principles of Occam’s razor, it is significant.

[Holly Goodhead]

Per se, him finding the body isn’t evidence of anything. However, when taken together with all of the other circumstantial  evidence, and applying the principles of Occam’s razor, it is significant.

With a body, numeous wounds and litres of blood spilled why the need to rely on circumstantial?  The lack of hard forensic evidence is astonishing. 

[Nicholas]

With a body, numeous wounds and litres of blood spilled why the need to rely on circumstantial?  The lack of hard forensic evidence is astonishing.

No it isn’t

[Holly Goodhead]

No it isn’t

How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?

[Nicholas]

How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?

Explain these alleged footprints you are referring to?

And what was the terrain like before it rained?

Is it usual to leave footprints on a pathway in the middle of summer?

What does the heat do to the terrain?

If there was a lack of ‘tyre tracks ‘ on the pathway maybe this is an indicator as to the type of terrain ?

[Paranoid Android]

How do you account for the lack of footprints/tyre tracks?

Why would there be tyre tracks?

[rulesapply]

Why would there be tyre tracks?

Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't LM have a bike? Didn't he sometimes cycle to school with a witness who saw him on Newbattle Road? I wonder what happened to his bike.

[Nicholas]

Why would there be tyre tracks?

I thought Holly might be referring to the moped?

[Paranoid Android]

I thought Holly might be referring to the moped?

Was the moped definitely there?

If it was, was there not a massive downpour that night? Would there still be tyre tracks after a massive downpour?

[Nicholas]

Was the moped definitely there?

Or maybe she was referring to the ‘tyre tracks’ of Leonard Kelly‘s mountain bike?

[Mr Apples]

Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't LM have a bike? Didn't he sometimes cycle to school with a witness who saw him on Newbattle Road? I wonder what happened to his bike.

Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)? Perhaps this would explain why he was able to get from N’battle to Easthouses so quickly? Even if he’d walked it from his home @ 1634-1644, he could’ve still made it to Easthouses for the AB sighting at 1654. But, I reckon he biked it; I reckon travelling at an average bike pace from his home to Easthouses would’ve halved his walking time (either taking him 7 mins at the fastest; or 15 mins at the slowest). Biking it from his house to Easthouses would also explain why he phoned the speaking clock @ 1654; he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to phone it from his bike as he was probably going at such a pace. He naturally would have been curious how long his bike journey would have taken and would no doubt have lost track of time, even on that short bike journey. So, curiosity got the better of him and he just had to phone that speaking clock to find out — and for more accuracy. More accuracy was needed as it was he first time in a while that he due to meet with Jodi due to her curfews; he didn’t want to let her down or be late; he was trying to make an impression after a couple of weeks of not seeing her due to her grounding; it was almost like a new date, like starting from scratch with Jodi? Luke was trying to be punctual and trying to impress? As you do on a first date? Also’ maybe he chose to bike it because he thought it was going to rain? The overcast weather? Would maybe explain why he wore a parka on top of bomber? Or, failing that, maybe he just wore the parka going over to see Jodi at 1638-1640, and he went home after the f&w sighting, got CM to get rid of parka, and changed back into bomber jacket that he’d worn to school, and was back in N’battle rd for 1755-1800. Or maybe he was wearing the parka on top of bomber jacket and merely hid the parka in the Eskbank woodland straight after the f&w sighting @ 1740 and was back in N’battle rd at 1800 with the bomber on.

[rulesapply]

Very interesting point. Wasn’t his bike seen parked at N’battle High School that day/evening (I’m sure Parky41 has alluded to this in one of his previous posts)? Perhaps this would explain why he was able to get from N’battle to Easthouses so quickly? Even if he’d walked it from his home @ 1634-1644, he could’ve still made it to Easthouses for the AB sighting at 1654. But, I reckon he biked it; I reckon travelling at an average bike pace from his home to Easthouses would’ve halved his walking time (either taking him 7 mins at the fastest; or 15 mins at the slowest). Biking it from his house to Easthouses would also explain why he phoned the speaking clock @ 1654; he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to phone it from his bike as he was probably going at such a pace. He naturally would have been curious how long his bike journey would have taken and would no doubt have lost track of time, even on that short bike journey. So, curiosity got the better of him and he just had to phone that speaking clock to find out — and for more accuracy. More accuracy was needed as it was he first time in a while that he due to meet with Jodi due to her curfews; he didn’t want to let her down or be late; he was trying to make an impression after a couple of weeks of not seeing her due to her grounding; it was almost like a new date, like starting from scratch with Jodi? Luke was trying to be punctual and trying to impress? As you do on a first date? Also’ maybe he chose to bike it because he thought it was going to rain? The overcast weather? Would maybe explain why he wore a parka on top of bomber? Or, failing that, maybe he just wore the parka going over to see Jodi at 1638-1640, and he went home after the f&w sighting, got CM to get rid of parka, and changed back into bomber jacket that he’d worn to school, and was back in N’battle rd for 1755-1800. Or maybe he was wearing the parka on top of bomber jacket and merely hid the parka in the Eskbank woodland straight after the f&w sighting @ 1740 and was back in N’battle rd at 1800 with the bomber on.

I read somewhere a while back that LM's bike was seen on the day of Jodi's murder, close to where her murder happened and around the same time, leaning against a fence or railings. I don't remember where I read it so I don't have a cite. Whether Holly meant tyre tracks from a bicycle or not,  I had forgotten all about reading that until Holly mentioned tyre tracks. I'd be interested to know what happened to LM's bike. Just out of curiosity.

[Holly Goodhead]

Explain these alleged footprints you are referring to?

And what was the terrain like before it rained?

Is it usual to leave footprints on a pathway in the middle of summer?

What does the heat do to the terrain?

If there was a lack of ‘tyre tracks ‘ on the pathway maybe this is an indicator as to the type of terrain ?

The CoA doc explains the environment:

In circumstances more fully described below the deceased's body was found in the wooded area behind the wall bordering the path, about 13.6 metres west of the "V" point. Access was gained to the wooded area via the "V" point. There were foliage, overhanging branches and a tree stump, which obscured the view westwards on the north side of the wall at that point. To obtain a view westwards along the inside of the wall it was necessary to walk some distance northwards beyond this tree stump. Once beyond the stump, the presence of other vegetation, including a large tree, again restricted the view westward along that side of the wall. Only from about that point could one see the feet of the deceased, which were lying closer to the wall than her head.

I have attempted to find out the weather conditions on 30th June 2003 and the days leading up to but in any event given the description above which refers to foliage, overhanging branches, other vegetation and a large tree the ground should remain moist enough from dew alone to obtain some sort of footprint/tyre track evidence.