Author Topic: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"  (Read 118377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bullseye

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #600 on: April 12, 2021, 01:57:35 PM »
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.

That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.

For me the agenda has always been to ensure the correct person is behind bars and I think an independent review would be best way, then you don’t need to take Sandra word for anything, an independent team would go over everything and if Sandra is right on what she has said then that will all come out.

The police did a very poor job investigating the crime scene so many mistakes made that is a fact,  therefore I have no confidence what so ever they then carried out a full investigation correctly. Get it checked, be sure!

Offline faithlilly

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #601 on: April 12, 2021, 01:58:56 PM »
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.

That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.


After 18 years of biased propaganda against Luke it’s rather rich to cry foul when the shoe is on the other foot.

As to suggesting other perpetrators for the murder, I couldn’t agree more. You don’t have to prove someone else is guilty to prove that the case against Luke was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #602 on: April 12, 2021, 03:43:26 PM »
I couldn't have put it better myself. The agenda has always been to blame the others, even shamelessly naming them one by one, even blaming some within Jodi's own family. One lad is dead now but not much is said about that by those who accused him. Fortunately however his words are here on the forum for all to see.

That Channel 5 documentary must rank amongst some of the worst pieces of tv journalism ever produced. For sheer bias it would win an academy award.

If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.

Offline Parky41

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #603 on: April 12, 2021, 04:22:14 PM »
If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.

What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?

If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.

These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?

Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?

Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.

Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.

Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?

Offline Bullseye

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #604 on: April 12, 2021, 05:03:38 PM »
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?

For me it’s the was the crime scene was mishandled, some of the things were basic yet not carried out, that does not give me much confidence the investigation was done any better, which is why I’d fully welcome an independent review even though it’s unlikely to happen.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #605 on: April 12, 2021, 06:41:02 PM »
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?

If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.

No. it is common knowledge that most, if not all, miscarriages of justice begin with the police investigation having tunnel vision regarding a particular suspect

These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?

Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?

Is it SM? What evidence do you have that it was?

Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.

Was the case watertight? Hadn’t the PF already refused to sanction a charge once? Why did it take 10 months to charge Luke when all the evidence the Crown used to suggest guilt had been collected in the first month?


Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.

Clothing and image matter when you’re 14

Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?

Good question. Why wasn’t the information given by JaJ to the police immediately? In fact when did JaJ ‘remember’ that the t-shirt was hers? Was it after SK’s DNA was found all over it?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #606 on: April 12, 2021, 06:45:06 PM »
What makes people believe these 'others' were not investigated thoroughly?

If they do feel this, does that surely not back up that there must have been substantial reason/evidence for the focus to remain on LM? For these others to have been eliminated.

These more likelier candidates? Why Luke?

Question around these others not being investigated - puzzler of which I have yet to find an answer. The brother and the medical records. Is this SM? If so, apologies for my comment a couple of days ago, when I asked why he had not been included in 'people of interest' Medical records are quite the deal are they not, why does Ms Lean have them? Why did the investigation choose to source his medical records? They would have been applied for on the basis of investigation and elimination purpose? Thorough work is it not?

Failing that, yet again - an investigation has to be accepted by the Crown. The precognitions and so forth. All are investigated thoroughly, are they not.

Failing that again - Let's take SK, the DNA. We already know that one of the mains sources of borrowed clothing came from LM himself, when he described to a T the clothing that Jodi was wearing the evening. His memory was astute to say the least. Yes, I'm going to mention Ms Lean again. In defence of CM she claims, ' who of us could remember anything of what we were doing on a certain day at a certain time' - Really? This was within 24hrs of this girls death. The clothing was down to a T by both of what Luke was wearing, and that of Jodi, right down to her DC trainers. And of course that he knew and remembered they were borrowed from her sister.

Of Ms Lean again - That the 'borrowed t-shirt did not come into play until day 10 of the investigation by the 'Jones's' Why would if have come into play before then?


What makes you so sure that other potential suspects were investigated thoroughly?

Offline Rusty

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #607 on: April 12, 2021, 07:36:19 PM »

What makes you so sure that other potential suspects were investigated thoroughly?

This level of whataboutism will not help Luke in the slightest.

Offline Parky41

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #608 on: April 13, 2021, 10:51:29 AM »
Quote
an independent team would go over everything



One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.

You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi. 
 
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.

If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm

It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.

That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.

Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried?  The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.

90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.

90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?

Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.

90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back. 

That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.

The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?

These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?

Offline William Wallace

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #609 on: April 13, 2021, 10:56:27 PM »
Am already seeing through Allan Jamieson in part 2

There’s been no mention of Luke Mitchell having had the opportunity to wash himself off in a nearby stream before heading home for a shower and then heading back out to get dirt under his nails

Also - if greasy hair isn’t washed properly it can still appear greasy once dried and not all shampoos are scented

And extremely greasy hair of not washed thoroughly can still smell greasy

Your entitled to your opinion, but what did he do with the blood soaked clothes? Did he walk home in the nude?

Offline William Wallace

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #610 on: April 13, 2021, 11:05:19 PM »
If it wasn't Luke, it must have been someone else, and probably (although not necessarily) someone known to Jodi. I don't think anyone is actually blaming any other particular person, just pointing out a number of people who could have been suspects, and who should have been investigated more thoroughly by the police, rather than them concentrating solely on Luke.

Exactly. Nobody else was properly investigated. The amount of lies told by all these witnesses" would shame Pinocchio. Funny how the one unrelated person's (A.O) statement which had to be "discovered" was never mentioned in Court and he was never asked to give evidence. A.O knows who was in that house between 430pm and 5pm and who went out and when. A.O also knows what was going on between 400pm and 430pm in the house because 8 texts were exchanged between Ju Jones and him between 415pm and 430pm, even although he was due back home in a few minutes. He was a key witness but his evidence was never heard in Court. Can anyone suggest a non-sinister reason for that?

Offline William Wallace

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #611 on: April 13, 2021, 11:20:07 PM »



One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.

You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi. 
 
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.

If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm

It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.

That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.

Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried?  The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.

90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.

90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?

Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.

90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back. 

That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.

The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?

These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?


The potential evidence that was burnt or destroyed and disappeared was not anything belonging to Mitchell. It was the moped ridden by 2 people who parked it at the V but "couldn't remember what they were doing there" and couldn't tell the Police where it went. Mitchell did not kill Jodi. He had no motive, but the Police failed to investigate other important suspects and uncover a possible motive.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #612 on: April 14, 2021, 12:14:51 AM »



One would imagine the reality of an independent review is neither here nor there for the majority of us/population. Whether there is enough from X amount of people, who may be steadfast enough in their belief to fight for one is however different. The reality yet again, being that this is no 'Hillsborough' Where sadly the lives of many were lost leaving a vast trail of devastation behind.

Agreed


You have mentioned before the timings around the crime itself - If you expand to all areas but firstly that of alibi. 
 
4.54pm: - 5.40pm approx: - AB to F&W
Then nothing for approx: - 18 - 20mins.

If the above was not LM, then 5.32pm - 7.30pm with only three sightings within a very short time frame of 6pm until 6.15pm

It's not just the oddity around not been seen outwith that short time frame, it is the reason giving behind that expansive time frame.

That of going out to wait for Jodi. That he got fed up around 7pm, that is 90mins later.
As you know there is much more in this, this is just the basic lay out of those time frames.

Let's Jump in first with that usual retort - It was around 45mins from Jodi leaving home when that call came through from Luke. Why weren't her parents worried?  The comparison is worlds apart, is it not? One boy is claiming to be waiting around, we all know how time drags when there is nothing keeping you busy. You are aware of the time. This is 90mins, double that time frame with a lad who was doing nothing but idle away.

90 mins - No teenage boy hangs around for 90mins then simply shrugs his shoulders and says/thinks she must be grounded again? He knows she is not grounded, he phoned the Jones's landline and was told she had left to meet him.

And Jodi’s parents would have known that it wouldn’t take her 50 minutes to meet Luke, especially if they thought that she was staying in Easthouses/Mayfield. Where did they think she’d got to? The same place as Luke perhaps? Their behaviour seems to suggest that they were used to her perhaps taking a diversion to, say, talk to friends. Perhaps Luke was aware of this side of her nature too?

90 mins before he calls his mother and claims to have asked "Has Jodi been?" "No Luke" "How would you know you are in the garden" "Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me" "Well if she turns up tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

So, we have this lad, who claims to have been at the entrance of this housing estate for most of that 90mins and would ask his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" - Odd is it not? He is claiming to have been waiting for her, looking out for her yet claims to have asked his mother "has Jodi been to the house?" Even odder that he had to ask his mother at all, his mother would of course have contacted him to say Jodi is here. - common sense here, this story is absolute rubbish, is it not?

Wouldn’t Corrine just have told Jodi that Luke was waiting for her at the entrance to the estate?

Let's add on further information that is gathered - It is claimed that Jodi was not supposed to walk this path alone and that there had been other occasions were Luke had to meet with her to ensure that she did not walk it alone. We are not concentrating on that here, we are simply looking at those 90mins.

90mins: - That LM not only claims to have been idling away waiting on his girlfriend walking this path. That it did not concern him in the slightest that Jodi had started at one end of this path and not arrived at the other - really? Remember here, that it is LM who has made these absolute claims - That Jodi was walking to Newbattle to meet with him. That she did walk this path alone regardless of her parents wishes. That he neither went to walk up to meet with her, nor call the Jones house back. 

He was 14. You can’t equate his thought process with that of an adult.

That he phoned the boys from the Abbey, we are not interested in these tales of going to wrongful places, are we?, as we have this claim that "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where" The boys were simply not quick enough, were they?, that LM had to phone them back to ask why they were taking so long. "where are you?" Does this show his character, that LM did not like been kept waiting? That Jodi would know where but not the boys? Does it matter? As LM did phone the boys back, he did not phone back, chasing Jodi up. To ask again if she were there, had she returned home, angry perhaps that he had been idling away 90mins. To say "well if she turns up, tell her I'm in the Abbey, she will know where"

He knew Jodi wasn’t at the Jones’s, AO had already told him that and I’m sure he wanted to avoid the ‘I’ve told you once she isn’t here’ reply he may have thought that he would get. Did Luke know that they were going to the cemetery? Was it perhaps a weekly visit? Anyway as Jodi didn’t have a phone what could the Jones’s have done?

Of 5.40pm until that sighting by the boys from school - What do we know? that it takes 7mins approx: To get from Roansdyke path to LM's house. That first and foremost LM would need an alibi. He needed to be seen on Newbatlle R'd. Seen to be waiting for Jodi. A further minute or two to get from his house to the estate entrance. 8 minutes leaving another 10 approx to put on that distinctive Jacket, change clothing/boots. IMO those boots would have been wet, not the best thing to burn granted but no trail of DNA into the house. Then we have this time frame from 6.15pm approx: until 7.30pm for that the rest of the story to be set, arrangement of disposal of evidence.

The distraction and concentration around there being no zips, nothing in this tiny burner. Really? Is one going to leave them there? - This burner was not taken away for 4 days. LM's house was not searched for 4 days. - yet these claims that they had it in for him before gathering statements and so forth. Really?

The burner was forensically tested. Residue from burned fabric would have clung to the bricks.


These surrounding woods - These claims that LM would have had to walk down Newbattle R'd, simply not true. Whilst it may have been far easier to dispose of any incriminating evidence, clothing and knife the story was something completely different, was it not? And it certainly is a tall tale, is it not? The basics. Of being home with his mother. Of being with the boys in the Abbey. Of his appearance being cleaner than that of normal (boys from the Abbey) Of then becoming very dirty from being in these wood for another 90 mins plus. These were the easy parts were they not?

”His appearance being cleaner than that of normal boys’? Who said that? We know from police statements that there was dirt on various parts of Luke’s body, dirt that does not happened in a few hours of horseplay. Yet again the true story is somewhat different from the narrative you seem to prefer.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #613 on: April 14, 2021, 10:00:23 AM »
Quote
Yet again the true story is somewhat different from the narrative you seem to prefer.

The true story? - You really are sounding 'cultish' Faithlilly. You comment repeatedly on the police having tunnel vision?, of cobbling together all and everything?

You are correct however, adults can not equate to that of the mind of a 14 year old. It was somewhat foolish of myself to raise any ? marks around a 14 year old boy twiddling his thumbs for the the best part of two hours. The ridiculous notion that Jodi would somehow have managed to have gotten past him to the house?

This endless 'cut and dry' repetitive reasoning of nonsense - That the police had absolutely no reason to be suspicious of LM

Quote
And Jodi’s parents would have known that it wouldn’t take her 50 minutes to meet Luke, especially if they thought that she was staying in Easthouses/Mayfield. Where did they think she’d got to? The same place as Luke perhaps? Their behaviour seems to suggest that they were used to her perhaps taking a diversion to, say, talk to friends. Perhaps Luke was aware of this side of her nature too?

I have absolutely no idea outwith these little areas that are factually known. Of making dinner, eating etc. Most certainly it would appear that they were not 'clock watching' Why would they be? If you feel that a young boy idling away for the best part of two hours is the same (of course you do) But let's expand that a little further.

LM phones and is told by Jodi's father that she had already left to meet with him? - All good.

You are of course correct, it wouldn't take 50mins to walk to the entrance of this path, it seems apparent though that Jodi did not say to her parents where she was actually meeting with Luke. Only that they would be "mucking around up here" Let's add a few assumptions here - you prefer these to the actual/factual truth it would seem?

This meet could have been in Mayfield, the caravan park, a mutual friends, the local community hall, a park - anywhere "up here." Wherever this meet may have been of 'anywhere' up here, Jodi at this point would still be waiting on the arrival of Luke surely? Had her parents at this time thought, simply that Luke was late for the meet, anything, as so many assumptions can be had here. This is the time frame up until that call. It is blatantly evident here that Jodi's parents were not concerned and why would they be? As you rightly point out, that main point - Luke had obviously not arrived for this meet at that point.

It does not change or alter the following in any way (the truth) - That of LM claiming that he had been idling away for the best part of two hours, 'after' he had been told Jodi had 'already left' to meet with him. That by his very account she would have 'only just left' as the meet was to take place 'after dinner' in Newbattle. That she would have been walking this path to get from  A-B. That by his very account, there was absolutely no reason as to why Jodi would have went anywhere "up here" The ball here very much in LM's court, the onus completely on him where concern and worry would/should have been. Of phoning the Jones household back, of letting them know that Jodi was supposed to have went to 'his' that she had not turned up - No assumptions needed as to why of course - Is there?, Just excuses it would seem for this very odd tall tale?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"
« Reply #614 on: April 14, 2021, 07:31:58 PM »
The true story? - You really are sounding 'cultish' Faithlilly. You comment repeatedly on the police having tunnel vision?, of cobbling together all and everything?


I meant ‘true story’ as in not made up to fit a narrative as you tried to do with your claims about the 999 operator.

You are correct however, adults can not equate to that of the mind of a 14 year old. It was somewhat foolish of myself to raise any ? marks around a 14 year old boy twiddling his thumbs for the the best part of two hours. The ridiculous notion that Jodi would somehow have managed to have gotten past him to the house?
 
Best part of two hours or barely 80 minutes...a large difference I’m sure you’ll agree.

This endless 'cut and dry' repetitive reasoning of nonsense - That the police had absolutely no reason to be suspicious of LM

I have absolutely no idea outwith these little areas that are factually known. Of making dinner, eating etc. Most certainly it would appear that they were not 'clock watching' Why would they be? If you feel that a young boy idling away for the best part of two hours is the same (of course you do) But let's expand that a little further.

LM phones and is told by Jodi's father that she had already left to meet with him? - All good.

You are of course correct, it wouldn't take 50mins to walk to the entrance of this path, it seems apparent though that Jodi did not say to her parents where she was actually meeting with Luke. Only that they would be "mucking around up here" Let's add a few assumptions here - you prefer these to the actual/factual truth it would seem?

This meet could have been in Mayfield, the caravan park, a mutual friends, the local community hall, a park - anywhere "up here." Wherever this meet may have been of 'anywhere' up here, Jodi at this point would still be waiting on the arrival of Luke surely? Had her parents at this time thought, simply that Luke was late for the meet, anything, as so many assumptions can be had here. This is the time frame up until that call. It is blatantly evident here that Jodi's parents were not concerned and why would they be? As you rightly point out, that main point - Luke had obviously not arrived for this meet at that point.

50 minutes after Jodi had left the house and AO didn’t say “ she left almost an hour ago” or “isn’t she with you”?

It does not change or alter the following in any way (the truth) - That of LM claiming that he had been idling away for the best part of two hours, 'after' he had been told Jodi had 'already left' to meet with him. That by his very account she would have 'only just left' as the meet was to take place 'after dinner' in Newbattle. That she would have been walking this path to get from  A-B. That by his very account, there was absolutely no reason as to why Jodi would have went anywhere "up here" The ball here very much in LM's court, the onus completely on him where concern and worry would/should have been. Of phoning the Jones household back, of letting them know that Jodi was supposed to have went to 'his' that she had not turned up - No assumptions needed as to why of course - Is there?, Just excuses it would seem for this very odd tall tale?

That’s the thing, if it was a very odd tall tale, why not do as everyone, you included, would have expected him to do...if he was innocent ? Why not call Jodi’s mum two or three times, asking where she was? Wouldn’t that have been a better way of covering your tracks? According to the police Jodi was dead soon after 5.15 so it would matter not a jot to Luke, if he was guilty, when the body was found after his 5.40 call to the Jones household. All he needed was a couple of minutes, according to the ‘Luke is guilty’ brigade for him to get home, get washed and get out to be seen sitting at the end of his estate around 6pm. Why draw attention to himself with a ‘very odd tall tale’? Could it simply be because it was true?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2021, 07:52:35 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?