Misleading statements from the police or prosecution

[Parky41]

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that trauma caused all the searchers first statements to claim the same thing and then to change in an identical fashion later.

Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple - the search party were never some distance passed this V break together. They were not even a couple of feet passed it together. They always maintained from the off until they took the stand - than upon arriving at this V break LM went into the woodland. And yes shock does go a long way to explaining, as to why at first they may have thought the dog alerted LM to the V, upon approaching it, rather than LM leading, instructing his dog. "seek" That once this shock had worn off, that fog had lifted a little - they realised exactly what the dog had actually been doing. Sniffing about and pulling to the undergrowth, standing up at the V. Following it's masters instructions?

However, rather than just show clearly what each member of this search party had said from the off - one can't though. What Ms Lean does instead is give another reason for Luke Mitchell turning left - Just on the off chance he was lying/ mistaken about where the dog was?

SL:

alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.

One thinks of everything? - therefore, if one wishes to claim that this search party lied from their first statement to evidence in court - that they made the whole thing up 'upon reaching this V, of AW being handed the lead, of seeing LM turn left, of then continuing down this path, of being shouted back to this V. I mean, if one is claiming that this search party all said, the dog led 'us' to Jodi, why did they not just say it was some distance passed this V from the off? - because they were telling the truth. They had absolutely no reason to lie. They said it how it was. - this repetitive (i'm guilty too of this just now?) They changed their minds? No they did not, did they. Not a smidgeon of LM's claims fit together. Of the Gino spot - I know, again! Why did he take the notion to introduce the woodland to the search? - This wee boy, who was following the direction of the search party for safety and security - there is those bells again! And of DF to JaJ, "If it had not been for Luke taking the notion to search this woodland, Jodi would have been left lying there?" That is Luke, not his dog?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean

alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.

A 14 year old boy who’s mother suggested he go out looking for Jodi on his own 

‘Safety and security’ 

Corrine Mitchell’s claim to James English of saying to Luke “not at this time of night you’re not young man” also doesn’t fit with what Luke told police his mother had said to him

“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm

[Nicholas]

Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple -

Oh he did alright

He would have been an ab-so-lute IDIOT if he turned right

[faithlilly]

Time for some rabbits is it not? - perhaps that's what the dog sensed in the woodland? There is absolutely no point in spouting out this repetitive claim - There was not a snifter in any of this search trios statement that gave cause to LM turning immediately to his left. LM lied plain and simple - the search party were never some distance passed this V break together. They were not even a couple of feet passed it together. They always maintained from the off until they took the stand - than upon arriving at this V break LM went into the woodland. And yes shock does go a long way to explaining, as to why at first they may have thought the dog alerted LM to the V, upon approaching it, rather than LM leading, instructing his dog. "seek" That once this shock had worn off, that fog had lifted a little - they realised exactly what the dog had actually been doing. Sniffing about and pulling to the undergrowth, standing up at the V. Following it's masters instructions?

We are not talking about when they took the stand but in their first statements. By the time they took the stand the scene was set. SK refusing to categorically verify the what had happened...no doubt the spectre of perjury charges colouring his very utterings and JaJ, so insistently dishonest even when her own words caught her out...no realistic chance of deniability here though as she signed as true the very words she was now disowning.

As to trauma...are we really to believe that social amnesia was the result ? That the searcher’s trauma only affected their recollections of the parts of the narrative that damned Luke? That the only, collective, changes in their statements were those which damned Luke? How much contempt do you have for your reader? 

However, rather than just show clearly what each member of this search party had said from the off - one can't though. What Ms Lean does instead is give another reason for Luke Mitchell turning left - Just on the off chance he was lying/ mistaken about where the dog was?

You really can’t have it both ways....you can’t say that the search party was so traumatised that they gave a false narrative to the police, later to be collectively corrected, and in the same breath say they didn’t change their statements and that is why Dr Lean is running scared.

SL:
One thinks of everything? - therefore, if one wishes to claim that this search party lied from their first statement to evidence in court - that they made the whole thing up 'upon reaching this V, of AW being handed the lead, of seeing LM turn left, of then continuing down this path, of being shouted back to this V. I mean, if one is claiming that this search party all said, the dog led 'us' to Jodi, why did they not just say it was some distance passed this V from the off? - because they were telling the truth. They had absolutely no reason to lie. They said it how it was. - this repetitive (i'm guilty too of this just now?) They changed their minds? No they did not, did they. Not a smidgeon of LM's claims fit together. Of the Gino spot - I know, again! Why did he take the notion to introduce the woodland to the search? - This wee boy, who was following the direction of the search party for safety and security - there is those bells again! And of DF to JaJ, "If it had not been for Luke taking the notion to search this woodland, Jodi would have been left lying there?" That is Luke, not his dog?

But one does not wish to claim that the search party lied from their first statement....quite the opposite. The first statements were absolutely true. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that miles apart and at different times Luke and the search party remembered the finding of Jodi’s body in exactly the same way? Where does the effect of trauma fit in to that narrative? That Luke steadfastly stuck to the truth in those first statements while the other searchers allowed their recollections to be distorted. DF knew the truth of those first statements...the statements that were signed as a true representation of the witness’s recall.....those statements that agreed with Luke’s and then, inexplicably, changed.

[Nicholas]

When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?

[Nicholas]

When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?

⬇️

Excerpt from Prof Jane Monckton Smith book ‘In Control: Dangerous Relationships & How They End in Murder’

The calm before the storm

’Threats of suicide and threats to kill are not necessarily idle; both could signal a future homicide in this context and should be taken very seriously every time.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/in-control/jane-monckton-smith/9781526613219

[Nicholas]

Luke Mitchell - 2018 to Rozlyn Little

“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.


‘In the months before he killed Jodi, Luke was seeing at least two other girls, one in Perthshire and another who lived closer to his Midlothian home. None knew about his relationship with the others.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg651052#msg651052

[Nicholas]

One thinks of everything? -

One would I suspect if they’d had access to numerous rapists and killers confidential case files and knew how they were manipulated by the prosecution and defence alike

She never refers to Luke Mitchell’s threats of suicide though

‘The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.’

Were the other girls also his ‘connection to the world’ or did he view Jodi as ‘special’ in his warped killer mind ?

”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/

[mrswah]

When did Luke Mitchell make threats of suicide and who did he make them to?

Perhaps to nobody other than himself.

It isn't unusual for teenagers to contemplate suicide. Very sadly, a few actually go through with it, but, IMO , most dont.

[mrswah]

Luke Mitchell - 2018 to Rozlyn Little

“The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world.


‘In the months before he killed Jodi, Luke was seeing at least two other girls, one in Perthshire and another who lived closer to his Midlothian home. None knew about his relationship with the others.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg651052#msg651052

Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???


Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???

[Venturi Swirl]

Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???


Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???

Is there anything unusual about teenagers at all in your book?  You seem to dismiss any sort of strange or delinquent or immoral behaviour as perfectly usual in teenagers, whether it’s threatening suicide or storing urine in bottles under the bed or carrying knives or three timing or smoking excessive amounts of dope or fighting other kids. 

[mrswah]

Is there anything unusual about teenagers at all in your book?  You seem to dismiss any sort of strange or delinquent or immoral behaviour as perfectly usual in teenagers, whether it’s threatening suicide or storing urine in bottles under the bed or carrying knives or three timing or smoking excessive amounts of dope or fighting other kids.

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.

[Brietta]

Perhaps he WAS happy with Jodi, and perhaps, he had nothing to do with her death???


Nothing unusual about teenagers two timing (or three timing, or four timing) their girlfriends/boyfriends.
We saw the photo of him at Jodi's graveside. Doo you think he looked happy???

Remembering press photos of the time one of his girlfriends resembled Jodi so exactly it was difficult to determine who was who.   So I think he was happy with a type.

Also at the time I found the graveside photoshoot more than disgusting similarly the Sky interview.  The self publicity certainly caused problems at his trial since he had flouted the anonymity he was due as a minor and then as a suspect.

I think Mitchell had everything to do with Jodi's death and I think the evidence heard at the trial for her murder proved that.

It was his choice to do what he did ~ Jodi didn't have any say in it.  It could have been any one of the three girlfriends he had at the time (there may have been more for all we know) but whatever triggered the brutal attack suffered by Jodi she obviously had no clue it was about to happen.

She thought he was her boyfriend and she thought she knew him - it turned out she was one of a few and she didn't know him at all.  What chance do you think anyone who didn't know him has of knowing what he was capable of when Jodi didn't?

[Brietta]

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.

I would not have associated Mitchell with deprivation - I think he had too much money to play with as well as just being out of control.

[Parky41]

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?