Thank you for answering my question, Parky.
I do look at other forums. I find them interesting, as I do this one, but I suspect that some people on them have an agenda of their own: either they are "pro Luke campaigners", or they are locals who are on the side of the Jones family. One never knows. Some might even be family members from one side or the other, with their own biased views.
It's hard to believe a 14 year old carried out such a brutal murder on his girlfriend----------.
It is extremely hard to digest that anyone so young is capable of such brutality.
Surely the only sides are, that of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty's Advocate.
The Jones family - Lost Jodi, she was murdered. The Mitchells - Luke was found guilty of this murder. They are not the same, where did this split begin that sought to make them so? Here I will mention Ms Lean, yet again.
I make no bones over Ms Lean, that is apparent, as it is with others over time on these forums. Of her manipulation of evidence, the additions and tall tales. Which for me highlights, the strength of the reasoning behind these attempts to show that of the evidence against LM to be Incorrect. That one's attention has to be drawn away from the facts and into fiction. But where did this case of LM V HMA morph into LM V these others? primarily the Jones family? Did this not stem from Ms Lean? Of "Why were these two families treated differently?" From a time, long before this case came to court. Of those days of attention and focus on LM. Why the Mitchells and not the Jones's? Of course, the simplest, obvious reason is that of suspicion. Therefore should the question, primarily not have been, what kept suspicion upon LM?
And she does focus on this but introduces many new ideas to these discussions, from those early days of 'Jigsawman' of "But what if I were to tell you?" - That power of suggestion? backed with, I have "all" the evidence. But this came long before having this claim to "all" the evidence did it not? Both Colin Bowman and Frontline Scotland using much of Ms Leans work to highlight and discuss this case, from those days of research and of writing "No Smoke"
And she is brought into discussion consistently as she enters these very discussions herself, has done from the beginning. With these very claims. Which in turn morphs LM V HMA into SL V 'others? It is no longer the defence from the trial that is primarily used but that of these books and so forth - heavily laden with this very bias. Is not the counteraction to this, that mainly of the Crown, of the evidence used? The agenda by posters to simply call out on this misinformation?
Truth be told - There is far more to this case than that of being different, a 'goth' of being 'picked upon' because he was different. Of carrying knives, two timing and smoking cannabis or urinating in bottles, these are mocked to simplify the case against LM. Used for distraction purpose. There is sound reason and evidence stacked against LM. The most fairest point in all of this is that Q? Was there enough evidence to show proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' But many come to the conclusion of no without actually looking at the case in detail. Declare innocence instead, whilst there is most definitely no proof beyond reasonable doubt of this? - And move onto trying others instead? Are they not confused with the confusion that is spread?
You can't take one or two areas of information, of multiple people and add them together to = one LM? To this "compelling story" against him?
The duo were on the path, they lied, MK wore a Parka, he had a scratch, Jaf left a condom with DNA he stood over the body?! SK had no alibi, [Name removed], his parents left him alone for a short while therefore no alibi. They all have history of some format or other, and? - Why were they eliminated? that is the sensible question is it not?
Perhaps the biggest misleading piece of information in all of this is - "they were never investigated"
A 14 year old boy, as you rightly point out. This factor alone brings about disbelief. A horrific attack on a 14 year old girl. The police. - Is it not foolish to claim that anyone was simply not investigated, that LM was simply chosen because he was different? Or because one police officer out of three 'may' have noted "with the boyfriend" Why is either side of this verbatim extract missing? Why is either side of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" missing? For that matter, why any of it? The reason is simple, is it not - it would not fit the narrative given around it. The bias.
To claim - That all of this search party were in agreement with LM that it was Mia who found Jodi. I have found nothing in this research to show this to be the case, more so, do we not go on the simple basis, first and foremost that if this were indeed the case, why were the police suspicious? Surely there is no 'self interest' (Colin Bowman) from this search party at all, if they all agreed with LM from the very beginning? That common sense does tell us, simply that there had to have been substantial difference in those statements for suspicion to stay/remain upon LM. Time being prominent, of scaling the wall at the 'Gino' break. That none of the search party had walked past this V.
That is why I chose my question "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?" Why were these 'others' eliminated, why did he remain at the fore, this 14 year old boy. For I took the stance two years ago of discounting first and foremost, that the police, in such a brutal murder case, kept Luke Mitchell in the loop, rather than Luke Mitchell keeping himself in the loop?
