UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: faithlilly on January 16, 2023, 01:01:53 AM
-
At Luke’s trial his mother’s presence at a tattoo parlour, where it was alleged that she lied about Luke’s age, was used to great effect to damage her credibility.
Jodi’s mother called her son’s mental health doctor on the day of Jodi’s murder and cancelled his scheduled home visit, claiming in her statement that she had used ‘the usual excuse’, so her son could smoke cannabis.
Could someone please explain to me why one falsehood undermined the veracity of one mother’s testimony whilst another, arguably more serious falsehood, did not impact the other’s? Wasn’t this simply rampant hypocrisy?
-
The simple answer is: JOSJ wasn't tried in court. He wasn't tried in court because there was no evidence pointing towards him as being the killer. It's a myth he wasn't thoroughly checked out and eliminated. The tattoo parlour evidence was apposite as it showed that CM was willing to lie for her son by means of using a false ID so he could get a tattoo (he was underage); CM, by her own actions, was clearly being dishonest and deceitful. Dishonest and deceitful so that, once again, LM got his own way. A spoiled and mollycoddled teenager treated as an adult, given free rein to do as he pleased; combine this with his underlying mental health issues at the time -- issues which teachers tried to highlight and address in both primary school & high school -- and you have a potentially very bad combination. (Also, on a more sinister note, CM allowing her son to get the tattoo could be construed as them having thought they'd gotten away with the it, as CM told the shop assistant (in October 2003) that the tattoo "was a celebration of sorts after going through a particularly hard time".) Of course they were going to use it as evidence in such a long and complex case. Why wouldn't they? And that evidence was allowed and led by the Crown to highlight CM's dishonesty and deceit. If she was capable of lies and deceit in October 2003, then she was most probably capable of it from June '03 and onwards. The crown succesfully made their point -- and that point, although not one of the main planks of evidence, was part of that mountain of circumstantial evidence used against LM at trial.
-
The simple answer is: JOSJ wasn't tried in court. He wasn't tried in court because there was no evidence pointing towards him as being the killer. It's a myth he wasn't thoroughly checked out and eliminated. The tattoo parlour evidence was apposite as it showed that CM was willing to lie for her son by means of using a false ID so he could get a tattoo (he was underage); CM, by her own actions, was clearly being dishonest and deceitful. Dishonest and deceitful so that, once again, LM got his own way. A spoiled and mollycoddled teenager treated as an adult, given free rein to do as he pleased; combine this with his underlying mental health issues at the time -- issues which teachers tried to highlight and address in both primary school & high school -- and you have a potentially very bad combination. (Also, on a more sinister note, CM allowing her son to get the tattoo could be construed as them having thought they'd gotten away with the it, as CM told the shop assistant (in October 2003) that the tattoo "was a celebration of sorts after going through a particularly hard time".) Of course they were going to use it as evidence in such a long and complex case. Why wouldn't they? And that evidence was allowed and led by the Crown to highlight CM's dishonesty and deceit. If she was capable of lies and deceit in October 2003, then she was most probably capable of it from June '03 and onwards. The crown succesfully made their point -- and that point, although not one of the main planks of evidence, was part of that mountain of circumstantial evidence used against LM at trial.
But by your reasoning then JuJ was also capable of dishonesty and deceit as she also lied for her son, and arguably in more serious circumstances. If JuJ’s son was eliminated it was, in the main, because his mum alibied him. How can that alibi possibly be believed if JuJ, by her own words, has a history of lying for her son ( ‘the usual excuse’)? Further the alibi JuJ gave for her son is further undermined by several other witness’s testimony. Couple this with an eyewitness who saw Stocky Man following Jodi and identified him as JuJ’s son and you have a case every bit as strong as that presented against Luke.
-
And again, we are back to the point - You are putting out what was far from the reality of the evidence, this simple application of lying about age, it had absolutely nothing to do with lying about his age, nor of him getting any tattoo!
That false narrative on repeat - The evidence. CM was asked about using false ID and she denied this, she lied that this had happened. She said none had been asked for, only his age. To, what if I told you the mans name, and again it was no, the man was in his 50's. Missing the whole point, this of course after DF had a fit of producing evidence from the staff.
Of the book, that ID given of a man, a family friend, of altered ID to have a date of birth of a younger person. To show the court how easily the woman would lie under oath to protect her son. That there was no way that the staff made that name up, they did not know the Mitchells nor the name of their friend.
So, not even a good try, bar those who soak any old nonsense up of course. It had nothing to do with allowing her son a tattoo, trivial, nor indeed of using fake ID, it was only around lying under oath, of denying that they had produced this fake ID under the name of a family friend - Caught red handed!
As we had with the knife, shall we have that again? In that station and asked about the new knife that had been purchased, the police wanted to know where it was, no idea was the claim, could not remember any knife or where it was. For it was not in the house whilst being searched. Leaving the station, discussion with lawyer and so forth, one again had the most amazing memory recall, they located the knife from its hiding place (perhaps it was with the other one, who knows?) and gave it to Beaumont.
To evidence, the search team, the pictures taken of that search. No bag with any knife in it, as she tried to claim, that they had missed it, nope not true, evidence already heard. Of her having no idea of any knife nor of where it was. To miraculously locate it and claim it had been hidden for camping in winter.
To SM and being told that he had of course told the truth, caught red handed again, of turning ones face away and told about a "petulant child" the actions of one when being found out repeatedly! to not being truthful, of caught doing wrong.
So, this false narrative by manipulators and liars, who do this across the board, where Lean, to those a little lacking, attempts to apply that the new knife had the police attempt to place it as the murder weapon, again that deception - The only knife placed as missing and still missing is a Brown handled Skunting knife.
To Jodi's mother, the other half of this "Two Mothers" and again, manipulators and liars who put out a false narrative, attempt many illogical points that have no bearing in the slightest about testimony under oath. Lean tells us from statements of some cancelled appointment, which was told to the police as it is in the statements. Which again shows honesty and not deception. That whilst one had cancelled an appointment (not interested in those who lie and manipulate at will) without showing from statements what reason was given to the doctor. Where it would appear that the doctor via the son and/or mother made it clear to them of any cannabis use.
That in a murder investigation the family told truth and not lies to the police, of that cancelled appointment, of the cannabis use - And this has what bearing exactly upon lying under oath? I do wonder at points if you actually realise what you are saying? You are highlighting repeatedly honesty to the police in a murder investigation from Jodi's family.
Yet over ride every lie told to the police by the Mitchells? Along with lying under oath, and again putting out a false narrative around what the actual evidence was about?
-
And again, we are back to the point - You are putting out what was far from the reality of the evidence, this simple application of lying about age, it had absolutely nothing to do with lying about his age, nor of him getting any tattoo!
That false narrative on repeat - The evidence. CM was asked about using false ID and she denied this, she lied that this had happened. She said none had been asked for, only his age. To, what if I told you the mans name, and again it was no, the man was in his 50's. Missing the whole point, this of course after DF had a fit of producing evidence from the staff.
Of the book, that ID given of a man, a family friend, of altered ID to have a date of birth of a younger person. To show the court how easily the woman would lie under oath to protect her son. That there was no way that the staff made that name up, they did not know the Mitchells nor the name of their friend.
So, not even a good try, bar those who soak any old nonsense up of course. It had nothing to do with allowing her son a tattoo, trivial, nor indeed of using fake ID, it was only around lying under oath, of denying that they had produced this fake ID under the name of a family friend - Caught red handed!
As we had with the knife, shall we have that again? In that station and asked about the new knife that had been purchased, the police wanted to know where it was, no idea was the claim, could not remember any knife or where it was. For it was not in the house whilst being searched. Leaving the station, discussion with lawyer and so forth, one again had the most amazing memory recall, they located the knife from its hiding place (perhaps it was with the other one, who knows?) and gave it to Beaumont.
To evidence, the search team, the pictures taken of that search. No bag with any knife in it, as she tried to claim, that they had missed it, nope not true, evidence already heard. Of her having no idea of any knife nor of where it was. To miraculously locate it and claim it had been hidden for camping in winter.
To SM and being told that he had of course told the truth, caught red handed again, of turning ones face away and told about a "petulant child" the actions of one when being found out repeatedly! to not being truthful, of caught doing wrong.
So, this false narrative by manipulators and liars, who do this across the board, where Lean, to those a little lacking, attempts to apply that the new knife had the police attempt to place it as the murder weapon, again that deception - The only knife placed as missing and still missing is a Brown handled Skunting knife.
To Jodi's mother, the other half of this "Two Mothers" and again, manipulators and liars who put out a false narrative, attempt many illogical points that have no bearing in the slightest about testimony under oath. Lean tells us from statements of some cancelled appointment, which was told to the police as it is in the statements. Which again shows honesty and not deception. That whilst one had cancelled an appointment (not interested in those who lie and manipulate at will) without showing from statements what reason was given to the doctor. Where it would appear that the doctor via the son and/or mother made it clear to them of any cannabis use.
That in a murder investigation the family told truth and not lies to the police, of that cancelled appointment, of the cannabis use - And this has what bearing exactly upon lying under oath? I do wonder at points if you actually realise what you are saying? You are highlighting repeatedly honesty to the police in a murder investigation from Jodi's family.
Yet over ride every lie told to the police by the Mitchells? Along with lying under oath, and again putting out a false narrative around what the actual evidence was about?
Was the photographic ID allegedly given to the tattoo parlour ever produced in court or was that simply more lies? Don’t guidelines state that all tattoo parlours must keep photocopies of all documents that are given to then as proof of age? If they had then they would have been able to produce them in court. Was the tattoo parlour ever asked why they accepted the photo ID of a 45 year old man from a 15 year old boy? Surely that would have been a red flag?
Let’s look at the lies cited dispassionately. JuJ told the police that she had used the ‘usual excuse’ to the mental health team when cancelling her son’s appointment. This appears to suggest a pattern of behaviour where dishonesty wasn’t seen as a big deal…where the ends justified the means. Of course we all tell small lies at times…human interactions often demand it…but this wasn’t a lie without consequence and JuJ knew what those consequences were…boy, hadn’t she experienced them in May. Maybe that was the point…she couldn’t refuse.
Of course JuJ knew that the police would find out about the missed appointment and her son’s mental illness, eventually, so she really had no option but to come clean. To claim this forced openness was somehow virtuous is ridiculous…it wasn’t….it was necessary.
Of course the prosecution’s, and by association, JuJ’s ‘honesty’ was never going to be fully embraced. How could it be when while they were trying to paint a young child as a psychotic killer, psychosis controlled the victim’s very family.
-
Luke Mitchell was “a young child” when he was arrested for this crime was he? A young child who had sexual relationships, smoked dope and threatened people with knives? It’s not the description I would give him. Madeleine McCann was a young child, Luke Mitchell was a teenager, and a fairly delinquent one it would seem.
-
But by your reasoning then JuJ was also capable of dishonesty and deceit as she also lied for her son, and arguably in more serious circumstances. If JuJ’s son was eliminated it was, in the main, because his mum alibied him. How can that alibi possibly be believed if JuJ, by her own words, has a history of lying for her son ( ‘the usual excuse’)? Further the alibi JuJ gave for her son is further undermined by several other witness’s testimony. Couple this with an eyewitness who saw Stocky Man following Jodi and identified him as JuJ’s son and you have a case every bit as strong as that presented against Luke.
Haven't really thought too much about the stocky man evidence (think I need to re-read SL's IB). As per a news report on 16.07.03, 2 independent witnesses came forward, 1 male and 1 female (and one of them supposedly knew Jodi personally), to say they'd seen a stocky man following (walking behind) Jodi on the Easthouses Road just after 1700 hrs on 30.06.03. Another news report, on 19.07.03, indicated that a male witness said he thought he saw the same stocky man again, on 07.07.03, when the police did the reconstruction of Jodi's last movements for news broadcasts -- but it turned out this guy (who the male witness thought to be stocky man and spotted in the reconstruction) was out of the country on the 30.06.03 (he came forward and it was proven he was in England at the time). So, it would have been interesting to see how much this guy resembled JOSJ and when the male witness gave his statements to police. More interestingly, the female witness came forward again, some 10 weeks after her first statement, to say she had seen stocky man again, and could show police exactly who he was (from a group of people who were strangers to her). Turns out it was JOSJ. Very interesting, though I'd like to see when and where she saw her evidence that featured JOSJ with a bunch of people who she didn't know, and like to know on which date she gave her first statement to police regarding this her sighting of stocky man with a grey hoodie and backpack following (or walking behind) Jodi on Easthouses Road just after 1700 on 30.06.03., especially if she was the one who knew Jodi personally. Can anyone shed some light?
-
Parky -- I didn't know CM denied under oath that Luke presented the fake id to the staff at the parlour (did he put his own photo on Mr Tyler's original id? Or was it a replica of Mr Tyler's original id with Luke's photo on it? Must have been one of those 2 possibilities, as I can't see a 45-year-old man's face passing a 15-year-old's, nor, by a remarkable coincidence, resembling Luke in any way).
Incidentally, I think you are completely wrong that CM going with Luke to get the tattoo had sod all to do with it. It was everything to do with it, imo. She was willing to lie that he was 18, in order that he could get that tattoo. She told a bare-faced lie to the staff that he was 18 (citeable and in public domain). It's certainly not the biggest of transgressions, but a lot of parents, on principle, wouldn't tell a bare-faced lie like that. Certainly, if she did deny under oath that he produced the fake id, that would be more the more damning evidence as it would, as you say, highlight that she would lie under oath (though, it is possible she didn't know about the fake photographic id, but I doubt it). But, like I said, I don't think her lies of telling staff that he was over 18 should be downplayed. Does anyone know how the tattoo evidence came into being? Did the police contact them initially or vice versa?
-
Parky -- I didn't know CM denied under oath that Luke presented the fake id to the staff at the parlour (did he put his own photo on Mr Tyler's original id? Or was it a replica of Mr Tyler's original id with Luke's photo on it? Must have been one of those 2 possibilities, as I can't see a 45-year-old man's face passing a 15-year-old's, nor, by a remarkable coincidence, resembling Luke in any way).
Incidentally, I think you are completely wrong that CM going with Luke to get the tattoo had sod all to do with it. It was everything to do with it, imo. She was willing to lie that he was 18, in order that he could get that tattoo. She told a bare-faced lie to the staff that he was 18 (citeable and in public domain). It's certainly not the biggest of transgressions, but a lot of parents, on principle, wouldn't tell a bare-faced lie like that. Certainly, if she did deny under oath that he produced the fake id, that would be more the more damning evidence as it would, as you say, highlight that she would lie under oath (though, it is possible she didn't know about the fake photographic id, but I doubt it). But, like I said, I don't think her lies of telling staff that he was over 18 should be downplayed. Does anyone know how the tattoo evidence came into being? Did the police contact them initially or vice versa?
Can I ask Mr Apples what you think of a mother who tells a bare-faced lie to a mental health team, not once but it appears, several times ( the usual excuse), who are trying to prevent your son having a psychotic episode? A mother who has been the victim of her son’s psychotic rage. A mother who by that very lie is enabling her son to indulge in the use of the drug which causes him the psychosis and paranoia in the first place.
What do you think of a mother who does that?
More importantly if the information about JuJ son’s mental health record had been before the jury as well as the the phone call and her enablement of her son’s drug use, what do you think they’d judge more harshly, the lie to allow a son to acquire a tattoo or the lie to allow a son to smoke the drug which she knows causes violent psychosis and paranoia in him?
-
Can I ask Mr Apples what you think of a mother who tells a bare-faced lie to a mental health team, not once but it appears, several times ( the usual excuse), who are trying to prevent your son having a psychotic episode? A mother who has been the victim of her son’s psychotic rage. A mother who by that very lie is enabling her son to indulge in the use of the drug which causes him the psychosis and paranoia in the first place.
What do you think of a mother who does that?
More importantly if the information about JuJ son’s mental health record had been before the jury as well as the the phone call and her enablement of her son’s drug use, what do you think they’d judge more harshly, the lie to allow a son to acquire a tattoo or the lie to allow a son to smoke the drug which she knows causes violent psychosis and paranoia in him?
Well, like I said, JOSJ wasn't the one being tried in court for murder. And certainly not the person with 20 points of circumstantial evidence being used against them. 20 points is a lot for one person, most would agree.
-
Well, like I said, JOSJ wasn't the one being tried in court for murder. And certainly not the person with 20 points of circumstantial evidence being used against them. 20 points is a lot for one person, most would agree.
With respect I asked what you thought?
If the jury had known that the individual who was identified as stocky man’s mother had lied to his mental health team more than once in order for him to smoke cannabis and that that cannabis brought on psychosis and paranoia do you think that they would
A) Trust her evidence
B) Cause reasonable doubt.
-
Isn’t there one salient difference between these two mothers’ lies? One of them admitted telling a lie in her statement, the other has never admitted telling a lie as far as I’m aware?
-
With respect I asked what you thought?
If the jury had known that the individual who was identified as stocky man’s mother had lied to his mental health team more than once in order for him to smoke cannabis and that that cannabis brought on psychosis and paranoia do you think that they would
A) Trust her evidence
B) Cause reasonable doubt.
FL, you are evidently not a stupid person, but, these are stupid questions that are literally impossible to answer. Do you honestly think the Joneses would be capable of covering up for JOSJ and lying for him in order that someone else would take the blame for such a horrific and savage murder? Moreover, you don't think L&B police would've been able to suss out that JOSJ had done it if he had?
Btw, I am interested to know who this female witness was who supposedly identified JOSJ following Jodi on Easthouses Rd on 30.06.03 just after 1700 hrs and then again 10 weeks later amongst a group of people who were strangers to her. Can you assist me here?
-
FL, you are evidently not a stupid person, but, these are stupid questions that are literally impossible to answer. Do you honestly think the Joneses would be capable of covering up for JOSJ and lying for him in order that someone else would take the blame for such a horrific and savage murder? Moreover, you don't think L&B police would've been able to suss out that JOSJ had done it if he had?
Btw, I am interested to know who this female witness was who supposedly identified JOSJ following Jodi on Easthouses Rd on 30.06.03 just after 1700 hrs and then again 10 weeks later amongst a group of people who were strangers to her. Can you assist me here?
I think they are perfectly reasonable questions which you appear unwilling to answer. Would you believe a woman who had lied as proficiently as JuJ for her son? Further you believe that Corrine Mitchell was capable of covering up for Luke it appears because she lied about his age in order that he could be tattooed. Explain to me the difference?
The Joness seem to have gained credibility by dint of being the victim’s family yet even a cursory look at their statements on the night of Jodi’s murder raise many, as yet, unanswered questions.
-
I think they are perfectly reasonable questions which you appear unwilling to answer. Would you believe a woman who had lied as proficiently as JuJ for her son? Further you believe that Corrine Mitchell was capable of covering up for Luke it appears because she lied about his age in order that he could be tattooed. Explain to me the difference?
Proficiently?? Hyperbolic, is it not? Are you on the naughty stuff tonight? So, provide examples of Judith's many lies outwith her lies to Josj's mental health team so he could smoke cannabis? I think Judith would've known if her son was a potential killer, so it's no biggie her lying about her son not being able to attend appointments with his mental health team. Btw, did Josj have a criminal history in 2003?
-
I agree if the jury had that information, stocky man following [Name removed], medical history and mother lied then it may have caused reasonable doubt for some of the jury members.
Stocky man has now been named and information about him put out in public. Now we are seeing people make their mind up he is guilty based on this information alone. Bit like people did with Luke and the news reports. I think if his face and name had not been splashed all over the papers with some of the stories the reported and the trial had been held out of Edinburgh we may have seen a different result but we will never know and seems the appeal courts did not agree.
-
I agree if the jury had that information, stocky man following [Name removed], medical history and mother lied then it may have caused reasonable doubt for some of the jury members.
Stocky man has now been named and information about him put out in public. Now we are seeing people make their mind up he is guilty based on this information alone. Bit like people did with Luke and the news reports. I think if his face and name had not been splashed all over the papers with some of the stories the reported and the trial had been held out of Edinburgh we may have seen a different result but we will never know and seems the appeal courts did not agree.
Garbage! Even if Josj was the one being tried for murder, he still would not have been found guilty, imo. Why? There would not have been enough evidence to convict him. Nowhere near 20 points of circumstantial evidence like there was against LM.
-
Garbage! Even if Josj was the one being tried for murder, he still would not have been found guilty, imo. Why? There would not have been enough evidence to convict him. Nowhere near 20 points of circumstantial evidence like there was against LM.
Some lawyers use the possibility of another suspect to try to cause reasonable doubt, that info might have done that.
I don’t think josj did it either. But as he was not a suspect we don’t know how many pieces of circumstantial evidence could have been found against him or even hard evidence so we don’t know if there would have been enough to convict him or not. Him or anyone else.
-
Clutching at straws, imo. You and FL are hewn from the same hopeless rock.
-
Proficiently?? Hyperbolic, is it not? Are you on the naughty stuff tonight? So, provide examples of Judith's many lies outwith her lies to Josj's mental health team so he could smoke cannabis? I think Judith would've known if her son was a potential killer, so it's no biggie her lying about her son not being able to attend appointments with his mental health team. Btw, did Josj have a criminal history in 2003?
Far be it for me to point out something that should be staring you in the face but if the two independent witnesses that came forward about Stocky Man are correct then JuJ must also have lied about the alibi she gave her son.
Did the individual above have a criminal record in 2003….no idea. Did Luke?
-
Far be it for me to point out the blatant obvious but liars and manipulators who pose questions based upon lies and manipulation have no place anywhere. Unless of course they are to each other, ones who live in the same head space? Just a thought.
Now we take something simple that smacks you between the eyes stamped - LIARS. Not at all hard to do. Lean and her version of the same person is 'the witness was sure of the time being 5:10pm' to Forbes and 'the time was 4:50pm.' Shall we have more?
Forbes and his video, they (stocky man and Jodi were seen right there by the garage) where there, is just feet from the path entrance at of course 4:50pm. FW a few days, then they were no longer there but that Jodi 'may' have walked down into Lothian drive, nowhere near the garage nor lane. To Lean and 'there was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi had taken ------' To down through the scheme, or along to the lane, or indeed past the entrance and up on to Morris Road.
These two people from a media appeal, let us talk about them. The mystery male, and we do not count the sensationalist headlines, have a word. We go to the article which was around what appeared good, appeared to be the first positive, "possible" sighting of the school girl on the Easthouses Road. Seen between the bus stops on both sides of the road, something just a little off, however, IF this had been around 5pm on the day Jodi had died, IF it had been that girl, then two people were important to trace, as;
One was walking behind that girl in the same direction, one was walking face on to both, walking past, up close and personal to both the girl who may 'possibly' have been Jodi, and of course the mystery male. An appeal for them to come forward, to clarify time, day and the hope they could give a positive ID of the school girl.
Now we revert back to the day of the murder and the following few days, the media reports of the murder, and no girl with any pushchair came forward, neither did the mystery male and neither did the two people mentioned in the appeal. We know this, for statements are timed and dated and Lean uses guesswork around when they 'may' have come forward based upon wording in the appeal.
So, in brief with all the guesswork, the manipulation, around time, of when, why, where and what - The two people, the male and female with pushchair did not come forward straight after the murder, for neither had seen that school girl around 5pm on the 30th of June. - Fact.
Two people, one who did know the school girl by sight saw her after getting off the bus, the time confirmed of that sighting was just after 4pm. A neighbour saw the girl walk past their window, she had went down off the Easthouses road, along Parkhead Place, the time confirmed as 4:10pm, the school girl was making her way home from school that day.
So, we take a big melting pot and we jumble everything around, we morph several pieces of information together, little slithering's of truth, combine them to put out something completely false!
For, those with actual sense, who actually attempt to decipher and analyse information, place the absolute obvious, the fact - That IF there had been any positive identification made of that schoolgirl around 5pm on that road, the witness would have been used at court to show the schoolgirls last movements, walking along that road to go and meet with LM. To tie in with the AB sighing. That hope that if it was her, that the male, IF, IF, IF and bloody IF again had continued along that road behind her, IF he had not walked down through the scheme or into any house, he may possibly have seen Jodi Jones meet with LM.
So the marvellous two "independent" people who came forward after the reconstruction, plucked a memory and an identity was made of a male who had not been around on the 30th of June, around 5pm. The weeks pass and a funeral takes place, and one calls the cops, to say they 'think again' that they may have seen the male. No statement taken, no formal identifications, nothing, because there was no Jodi Jones around 5pm walking along that road, it had been a false trail, deflated hope.
To Lean again, surprise surprise - This person said (did they really?) that they had seen males dressed the same, closely grouped together, just like a proper identity parade should be, to implant a vision of 6-8 people huddled together dressed the same, side by side, and bingo they picked the mystery male, again. To the carrying the coffin saga, to people saying they had pictures of the brother doing just that, carrying his sisters coffin - No, No, No, one must not say that now, so she changed it again!! To say that they had only saw footage on the TV, and in that footage there were many males all over the place and from that she 'thinks she may have' saw her mystery male - So not like any blood proper identity parade at all, she has been spouting bollocks as per usual, to try and add weight, any weight to back up a false narrative.
So, no, it is NOT common knowledge who that mystery male is, it is ONLY common knowledge who liars and manipulators try to push him as. To suit a cause, that cause for their imaginary greater good! An over the phone few words, over five people seeing Mitchell that day out and about in places he claimed never to have been - Have a word! So, there is no, the brother was out and about when he was supposed to be at home. He was home, exactly where a family, who were nothing but honest with the police in a murder investigation placed him.
That girl with the pushchair, whom Lean states, when she was eventually traced, simply said she saw nothing, indeed, not around 5pm on the 30th of June she did not, did she now? Very much the reason one would imagine that she did not recognize it as being her they were trying to find.
So all in all, there are no two imaginary mothers, both given any false alibi, one blatantly lying to the police where the other just had to tell the truth according to Faith. There is only someone in a thorough investigation, who could NOT be eliminated.
-
Far be it for me to point out the blatant obvious but liars and manipulators who pose questions based upon lies and manipulation have no place anywhere. Unless of course they are to each other, ones who live in the same head space? Just a thought.
Now we take something simple that smacks you between the eyes stamped - LIARS. Not at all hard to do. Lean and her version of the same person is 'the witness was sure of the time being 5:10pm' to Forbes and 'the time was 4:50pm.' Shall we have more?
Forbes and his video, they (stocky man and Jodi were seen right there by the garage) where there, is just feet from the path entrance at of course 4:50pm. FW a few days, then they were no longer there but that Jodi 'may' have walked down into Lothian drive, nowhere near the garage nor lane. To Lean and 'there was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi had taken ------' To down through the scheme, or along to the lane, or indeed past the entrance and up on to Morris Road.
These two people from a media appeal, let us talk about them. The mystery male, and we do not count the sensationalist headlines, have a word. We go to the article which was around what appeared good, appeared to be the first positive, "possible" sighting of the school girl on the Easthouses Road. Seen between the bus stops on both sides of the road, something just a little off, however, IF this had been around 5pm on the day Jodi had died, IF it had been that girl, then two people were important to trace, as;
One was walking behind that girl in the same direction, one was walking face on to both, walking past, up close and personal to both the girl who may 'possibly' have been Jodi, and of course the mystery male. An appeal for them to come forward, to clarify time, day and the hope they could give a positive ID of the school girl.
Now we revert back to the day of the murder and the following few days, the media reports of the murder, and no girl with any pushchair came forward, neither did the mystery male and neither did the two people mentioned in the appeal. We know this, for statements are timed and dated and Lean uses guesswork around when they 'may' have come forward based upon wording in the appeal.
So, in brief with all the guesswork, the manipulation, around time, of when, why, where and what - The two people, the male and female with pushchair did not come forward straight after the murder, for neither had seen that school girl around 5pm on the 30th of June. - Fact.
Two people, one who did know the school girl by sight saw her after getting off the bus, the time confirmed of that sighting was just after 4pm. A neighbour saw the girl walk past their window, she had went down off the Easthouses road, along Parkhead Place, the time confirmed as 4:10pm, the school girl was making her way home from school that day.
So, we take a big melting pot and we jumble everything around, we morph several pieces of information together, little slithering's of truth, combine them to put out something completely false!
For, those with actual sense, who actually attempt to decipher and analyse information, place the absolute obvious, the fact - That IF there had been any positive identification made of that schoolgirl around 5pm on that road, the witness would have been used at court to show the schoolgirls last movements, walking along that road to go and meet with LM. To tie in with the AB sighing. That hope that if it was her, that the male, IF, IF, IF and bloody IF again had continued along that road behind her, IF he had not walked down through the scheme or into any house, he may possibly have seen Jodi Jones meet with LM.
So the marvellous two "independent" people who came forward after the reconstruction, plucked a memory and an identity was made of a male who had not been around on the 30th of June, around 5pm. The weeks pass and a funeral takes place, and one calls the cops, to say they 'think again' that they may have seen the male. No statement taken, no formal identifications, nothing, because there was no Jodi Jones around 5pm walking along that road, it had been a false trail, deflated hope.
To Lean again, surprise surprise - This person said (did they really?) that they had seen males dressed the same, closely grouped together, just like a proper identity parade should be, to implant a vision of 6-8 people huddled together dressed the same, side by side, and bingo they picked the mystery male, again. To the carrying the coffin saga, to people saying they had pictures of the brother doing just that, carrying his sisters coffin - No, No, No, one must not say that now, so she changed it again!! To say that they had only saw footage on the TV, and in that footage there were many males all over the place and from that she 'thinks she may have' saw her mystery male - So not like any blood proper identity parade at all, she has been spouting bollocks as per usual, to try and add weight, any weight to back up a false narrative.
So, no, it is NOT common knowledge who that mystery male is, it is ONLY common knowledge who liars and manipulators try to push him as. To suit a cause, that cause for their imaginary greater good! An over the phone few words, over five people seeing Mitchell that day out and about in places he claimed never to have been - Have a word! So, there is no, the brother was out and about when he was supposed to be at home. He was home, exactly where a family, who were nothing but honest with the police in a murder investigation placed him.
That girl with the pushchair, whom Lean states, when she was eventually traced, simply said she saw nothing, indeed, not around 5pm on the 30th of June she did not, did she now? Very much the reason one would imagine that she did not recognize it as being her they were trying to find.
So all in all, there are no two imaginary mothers, both given any false alibi, one blatantly lying to the police where the other just had to tell the truth according to Faith. There is only someone in a thorough investigation, who could NOT be eliminated.
One thing that the Stocky Man sighting tells us is that 17 days into the investigation, and at a time when L&B had JuJ’s statements regarding Jodi’s movements that afternoon, and also AB’s statements the police believed Jodi could have been walking towards RDP at 5pm. Where does this leave the ‘Jodi’ who was seen at 4.49pm at the entrance to the path with ‘Luke’. Two witnesses with almost the same description, a description which matched Jodi, had seen the girl 10 minutes after the alleged AB sighting. Of course at that time AB’s sighting was too late to be Luke and Jodi..it was just one sighting of many from kind people wishing to help. When that changed we can only guess but change it did.
And what of the funeral identification? 6-8 man huddled together, all dressed the same and yet the witness picks out a particular individual. Of all the men at the funeral the witness picks out the individual who just happens to suffer from psychosis and paranoia….what are the chances? The individual who only weeks before had attacked family members with a knife…would you believe it? The individual whose only alibi is his mother and even then she has him eating dinner in his room while he has himself at the table with, coincidentally, Jodi. Stranger and stranger. Of course by the time of Jodi’s funeral Luke is well and truly in the frame, no turning back now.
One question…why didn’t Jodi’s brother appear in court?
-
One thing that the Stocky Man sighting tells us is that 17 days into the investigation, and at a time when L&B had JuJ’s statements regarding Jodi’s movements that afternoon, and also AB’s statements the police believed Jodi could have been walking towards RDP at 5pm. Where does this leave the ‘Jodi’ who was seen at 4.49pm at the entrance to the path with ‘Luke’. Two witnesses with almost the same description, a description which matched Jodi, had seen the girl 10 minutes after the alleged AB sighting. Of course at that time AB’s sighting was too late to be Luke and Jodi..it was just one sighting of many from kind people wishing to help. When that changed we can only guess but change it did.
And what of the funeral identification? 6-8 man huddled together, all dressed the same and yet the witness picks out a particular individual. Of all the men at the funeral the witness picks out the individual who just happens to suffer from psychosis and paranoia….what are the chances? The individual who only weeks before had attacked family members with a knife…would you believe it? The individual whose only alibi is his mother and even then she has him eating dinner in his room while he has himself at the table with, coincidentally, Jodi. Stranger and stranger. Of course by the time of Jodi’s funeral Luke is well and truly in the frame, no turning back now.
One question…why didn’t Jodi’s brother appear in court?
I do love simple questions - And the opportunity to highlight more deception, as per my other post. Did not appear as one would not have been cited to appear, and if not cited then usually because there was no value to being a witness.
All in one, from a family who were honest in a murder investigation into one of their own, their daughter/sister. Who by being honest had only one aim, to be open and not hinder that investigation in the slightest. It does not matter what slant you apply, the only thing that counts, is that word - Truth.
Four people are at home and one leaves, three remain having dinner together at what was of course that crucial time. Two people who had value as witnesses, one of whom had to testify, there was footage being used of him on CCTV around ascertaining the time of that person leaving home, the phone call with Mitchell and so forth, the other person the victims mother. So, two people with value as witnesses in more than one area. There was no requirement for a third around the victim leaving when two where already testifying to this. He held no other value.
And as per my other post and many other posts besides that - I am not interested in something, that without the slightest bit of doubt has been manipulated to hell and back dear. Kindred spirits who's only intention is to deceive for some imaginary greater good, which all comes down to attention, for the accused/convicted and for their own egotistic natures?
Shall we have another now since you want to discuss "mothers" - A mother gave a false account to the police and she tried her best to stick to that false account, a false account to place her son home. And we simply apply here that it was blown wide open as being false, also that five people and not just one saw Mitchell in places he claimed not to have been.
Now we go to what is doing the rounds yet again, we apply SF's take on it "That Luke had been stripped and forensically examined within an hour of discovery" From, without doubt CM herself to her voice piece (her description) in 2003. 'That by the time of her arrival at the station her son had been stripped and examined---' Now let us add further context to tie in with the above.
It is/was said that she had been told to make her way to the local station for ease of access due to being a 10min walk from the home, or short drive by car, the police could not have known, that her nor SM could drive to the station - Where was SM?
That one had grabbed shoes and coat and ran like the wind to get there, cover that 10min walk. What time would you apply here for that son to be stripped and forensically examined by the time of her arrival? However -------
To her surprise a car pulls over to speak with her on Newbattle Road and her son is in it, rolling down the window and she stated matter of fact "Jodi's dead!" aware fully of the girls death yet had not discussed any discovery with her son. She then asked "Is he under arrest?" further adding that, not only did one know the girl was dead but that it was suspicious?
But we are here highlighting that fable for effect, still pushed out for the same effect - That the son had been stripped and examined before she had a chance to be with him. This stopping on Newbattle road had that distance even less, one had in fact then arrived directly behind her son, a couple of minutes max - To have been stripped and examined all over, really?
Now we tie this together, a false account given for alibi, handed over on a plate for the time they knew it was needed for, before the police had even begun to ascertain when that young girl had left home. To knowing the girl was dead, to instantly believing her son would be arrested for that death, to then making things up for effect around being stripped and examined upon her arrival? - Where yet again when Ms Lean discovered the truth, knew that could not possibly have been true, still pushes it out for the same effect, knowing that the majority of people who will read her story will take no time to actually analyse or question anything, that blind faith - Do they now?
And again, highlighting reason (the realistic reasons) why suspicion fell upon LM, remained there, why he could not be eliminated, charged, tried and convicted - Is for, as it always had been, to show reality here, the utter nonsense that the police had tunnel vision and sought to fit that lad up. When most of the suspicion came directly from themselves. And as my hypotheses highlights, people can naturally have doubt around capability, more so around those time factors from 4:50pm until seen at 5:40pm, then again touching 6pm. - It does not cancel out everything else, it does not equate to there being no evidence, not in the slightest. It does not give him alibi and it sure as hell does not cancel out the absolute fact he knew where that young girls body was - Reality of time of setting off together as four, around 6mins - Have a word, and again, an area that is manipulated to hell to hide that absolute fact! From people who it is second nature to do so with?
-
Now we go to what is doing the rounds yet again, we apply SF's take on it "That Luke had been stripped and forensically examined within an hour of discovery" From, without doubt CM herself to her voice piece (her description) in 2003. 'That by the time of her arrival at the station her son had been stripped and examined---' Now let us add further context to tie in with the above.
It is/was said that she had been told to make her way to the local station for ease of access due to being a 10min walk from the home, or short drive by car, the police could not have known, that her nor SM could drive to the station - Where was SM?
That one had grabbed shoes and coat and ran like the wind to get there, cover that 10min walk. What time would you apply here for that son to be stripped and forensically examined by the time of her arrival? However -------
Did you mean her 2011 nonsense here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI
What was the exact time doctor Kranti Hiremath arrived at the police station?
More on doctor Kranti Hiremath here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/17/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-64/
-
Did you mean her 2011 nonsense here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI
Do all the people who posted comments on Billy Middleton’s (wronglyaccusedperson) video above know about this
Unconvicted Child Killer, Abuser & Predator Billy Middleton - Part 18b
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/30/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18c%ef%b8%8f/
Twisted Reciprocal Relationships – Part 18c
https://wordpress.com/post/theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/16149
Partners In Crime: Abusers Sandra Lean & Billy Middleton & The WAP Org - Part 18i
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/further-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-part-18i%ef%b8%8f/
-
Do all the people who posted comments on Billy Middleton’s (wronglyaccusedperson) video above know about this
Unconvicted Child Killer, Abuser & Predator Billy Middleton - Part 18b
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/30/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18c%ef%b8%8f/
Twisted Reciprocal Relationships – Part 18c
https://wordpress.com/post/theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/16149
Partners In Crime: Abusers Sandra Lean & Billy Middleton & The WAP Org - Part 18i
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/further-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-part-18i%ef%b8%8f/
You can hear Sandra Lean speak to and laugh with her then boyfriend un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SgU0w48jyi8 at around 02:27
This was around the time Sandra Lean claimed she was carrying out ‘research’ for her fraudulent PhD
You can hear baby killer Billy Middleton singing too (02:18/03:13-14) and Sandra Lean laughing and speaking (02:28)
This was on the last Tuesday (26th) in January of 2010
In March 2010 Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton were in London and attended killer Simon Hall’s pre appeal hearing
Sounds like baby killer Billy Middleton mentioned the ‘bus’ too - they were travelling around in an old Royal Mail post office van around the time
Sandra Lean’s distinctive laugh again at around 03:48
-
You can hear Sandra Lean speak to and laugh with her then boyfriend un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SgU0w48jyi8 at around 02:27
This was around the time Sandra Lean claimed she was carrying out ‘research’ for her fraudulent PhD
You can hear baby killer Billy Middleton singing too (02:18/03:13-14) and Sandra Lean laughing and speaking (02:28)
This was on the last Tuesday (26th) in January of 2010
In March 2010 Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton were in London and attended killer Simon Hall’s pre appeal hearing
Sounds like baby killer Billy Middleton mentioned the ‘bus’ too - they were travelling around in an old Royal Mail post office van around the time
Sandra Lean’s distinctive laugh again at around 03:48
Un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton can be heard in Part 3 too at around 0:31 and 01:24
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFfekRvsP88