"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Nicholas]

SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy  -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages.

Sandra Lean
Push bikes featured with an almost ridiculous amount of significance in the early investigation, and it was literally years before I discovered why.

And there was a reason fraudster Sandra Lean omitted the ‘ridiculous amount’ of significant evidence regarding the push bikes

[Nicholas]

I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this  jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy  -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to?

Did this young guys mother give evidence/make a statement ?

[Nicholas]

You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.

Corinne Mitchell knew - just like she knew her killer son Luke Mitchell had owned that parka jacket before she replaced it with another one

[Nicholas]

Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo.

What did Shane Mitchell tell the police about the German shepherd dog the family had before Mia?

[Nicholas]

Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point.

On what date was killer Luke Mitchell’s missing parka first mentioned to the police?

[Nicholas]

The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:

Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.

90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.

How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.

Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him. 

CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying

CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"

CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne'  Lying.

We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.

In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.

Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:

We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?

Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.

Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.

Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.

We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.

But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.

This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states 

 "Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"

So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.

Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.

And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!

Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.

So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.

Suzy says;
“The author has mentioned the “jury” several times here. It is important for us to remember that the verdict against Luke Mitchell was NOT unanimous. It was a majority verdict. We never find out the voting ratio but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 juror, maybe more, did not believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that Luke Mitchell committed this heinous crime.”

Admin says;
“For ‘20 years’ you have been duped by this guilty killer and his toxic enablers innocence fraud.
You have stated; “I am very much of the opinion that you read the initial statements of witnesses”.
Psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page written statement was read to the jury during his trial.
At the time of making his 22 page statement he was a witness and his mother Corinne Mitchell was sat next to him when he made this statement.
Can you tell us all what he said in those 22 pages, as was read out during open court in November 2004?”

(See foot here👇)
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-24/

[Chris_Halkides]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unbelievable_Story_of_Rape
A woman (pseudonym Marie) claimed that she was raped.  Police repeatedly interviewed her and got her to recant; she was later charged with a gross misdemeanor.  Evidence later turned up against a serial rapist in another state linked him to Marie's rape.  At the NYT Emily Bazelon wrote, "An external reviewer said that if the two police officers who interrogated Marie hadn’t documented their own “bullying and coercive” behavior, he “would have been skeptical” that such conduct actually happened."  There have been several articles, a book, and a podcast about these cases, and my short summary above is merely meant to introduce these cases, not as a complete summary. 

Clearly the particulars of the crime are different.  My point is that police can convince a witness to say (and presumably believe) things that are not true, even when it is against that person's interests to say it.  As I have ruminated on the Mitchell/Jones case, I. have become increasingly troubled by the number of witnesses who made material changes between their initial statements and their courtroom.  It is one of the reasons why this conviction is unsafe.

[faithlilly]

From Alice Walker’s court testimony.

“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”

Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+The+finest+day+I+ever+had+was+when+tomorrow...-a0126288471
The link above has this quote.  One wishes that Pat Brown had dug into this sort of conflicting testimony.

[Parky41]

From Alice Walker’s court testimony.

“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”

Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?

You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.

10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.

10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
 
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.

11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.

10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.

10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.

After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.

Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.

And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.

So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?

So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.

[KenMore]

10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path. /

So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here. / Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.

The time spent loitering on the path is very revealing of his need for control in finding the body IMO. If LM defenders claims had an ounce of truth then the tracker dog, which was so good, missed the body first time round yet found it second time on the shortest leash with all those other woodland animals and various scents abound. If your girlfriend was missing after 11pm at night why would you wait 30 mins before putting it in "tracker mode"?

Of course, if it were all an elaborate sacrificial killing as put forth by Lean & Co then surely the search party would have lead LM to the V and encouraged him to go over and turn left in the darkness?

[faithlilly]

You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.

10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.

10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
 
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.

11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.

10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.

10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.

After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.

Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.

And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.

So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?

So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.

“ The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”

Except Jodi wasn’t going to the path, was she? According to Judith Jodi was ‘mucking about up here’ so why did Alice Walker think that the path is where she should look? What did Judith say to Alice in that first phone call? A logical question from Alice would obviously be “where was Jodi going” and from Alice’s testimony in court it doesn’t appear that the answer was ‘mucking about in Easthouses’.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799221.police-tore-up-the-guidelines-claim-lukes-defence-team/
"Mr Findlay maintains that if a proper ID parade had been held - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the 'stand-ins'.  'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,'" he [Donald Findlay] said.

[Chris_Halkides]

"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'. 

Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'

Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'

Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.

'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389

[faithlilly]

"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'. 

Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'

Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'

Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.

'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389

There was talk that Luke showed no emotion when photographs of Jodi’s body was shown to the court. Your second link seems to suggest otherwise.