Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[Parky41]

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.

Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?

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

Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.

Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.

These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have. 

"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."

You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst,  of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.

'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.

This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating"  For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.

He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm

But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?

He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.

There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'

So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.

[faithlilly]

Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?


You have the evidence, gleaned from reputable sources. Best let it lie.

Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.

No, please read what I wrote. He would have acted innocent, if guilty. Isn’t that what a sociopath would do...and such a clever sociopath at that.

Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.

That found Luke guilty by a majority decision therefore a reasonable doubt existed in several of the jurors heads, possibly as many as 7. As to new evidence...you don’t have to rely on new evidence to make a case for innocence, simply look at the first statements and the statements that were presented in court to gauge something was terribly wrong with Luke’s trial.

These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have. 

I’m not sure what motivates others but I don’t wish, or need, to put anyone else ‘in the frame’. That is to do to someone else what was done to Luke. Your reasoning that Luke did it because he could have is spurious. The investigation was flawed from the very beginning. Who knows what proof there may have been against others if the police had done there job properly.

You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst,  of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.


What do you actually know about Luke’s personality other than what was presented by the prosecution ( they had an agenda) and the media ( the more ‘ not like us’ narrative that could be concocted by the media, the more papers sold). Do you know of anyone who personally knew Luke and his family before the murder? What did they say about him?

'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.

This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating"  For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.

He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm

But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?

He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.

There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'

So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.


Why was AB’s sighting ignored for the first six weeks? Why was CCTV of AB’s journey not accessed to prove categorically the time of her sighting? Luke said that he didn’t change clothes after school so why weren’t the pupils he went to school with asked what clothes he was wearing that day? Why did the first statements of many of the witnesses substantially change? Why were the charges of perverting the course of justice dropped against Corrine and Shane if there was evidence to substantiate the charge? Why were Luke’s school friends pressured into making statements? So many more but let’s just finish with...if Luke was as clever a sociopath as you say he would have made sure he had called Jodi’s parents more than once to ‘prove’ he was worried and would have been the one to direct the searchers down the path which he had already come....that’s simply common sense.

[mrswah]

Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?

Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.

Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.

These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have. 

You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst,  of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.

'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.

This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating"  For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.

He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm

But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?

He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.

There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'

So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.

What evidence is there that Luke had killed animals?

[Nicholas]

What do you actually know about Luke’s personality

The contents of Mitchell’s letter here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609 is interesting


Luke Mitchell: “You needn’t worry ‘bout the ‘risky’ pics being seized and falling into the wrong hands.

“The screws are usually very careful when it comes to do with me, due to me being high-profile.”

: “I’m sure you can think of a way for me to make it up to you! I’m sure I’ll be ‘up’ to the task!

“Yes, your photos are very hot! The more the better! I’m sure you could lay on your bed and think of ways for me to satisfy you!

“So, you’re thinking of a ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ thing to be happening? If that’s the case we’ll have to see 
where things take us.

“If you tell me what you like, and how you want it, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to accommodate you in both reality and a story to keep you going for now!

“It’s very much fine by me if you let your ‘rude mind’ run riot.”

[Bullseye]

What evidence is there that Luke had killed animals?

I’ve never seen any over the years, I’m sure if there was it would be used all the time here, but I may be wrong. 
From what I understand Luke loved animals, had horses in the past and adored his dog. I have never heard of him ever killing or even hurting animals. Please provide proof else stop coming out with such garbage. If the case on Luke is so strong people should not need to make up stuff like that and  ‘he through himself on the body’ or that he was a sociopath etc, there is no evidence of this he was check by an expert who said he had no mental issues.

[Bullseye]

The contents of Mitchell’s letter here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609 is interesting


Luke Mitchell: “You needn’t worry ‘bout the ‘risky’ pics being seized and falling into the wrong hands.

“The screws are usually very careful when it comes to do with me, due to me being high-profile.”

: “I’m sure you can think of a way for me to make it up to you! I’m sure I’ll be ‘up’ to the task!

“Yes, your photos are very hot! The more the better! I’m sure you could lay on your bed and think of ways for me to satisfy you!

“So, you’re thinking of a ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ thing to be happening? If that’s the case we’ll have to see 
where things take us.

“If you tell me what you like, and how you want it, I’m pretty sure I’d be able to accommodate you in both reality and a story to keep you going for now!

“It’s very much fine by me if you let your ‘rude mind’ run riot.”

Sounds like a typical young lad to me

[Parky41]

You have the evidence, gleaned from reputable sources. Best let it lie.

Ms Lean -

'I don't have the actual recordings played in court but I do have the court transcript of evidence led around them???'

to the effect of?

As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.

It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.

Ms Lean;

"I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"

Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.   

However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;

'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.

In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.

[Nicholas]

Sounds like a typical young lad to me

Do you know whether or not he’s gay?

And what is it about his ‘image’ he doesn’t want to portray?

'He's kept the gay fan mail quiet though. That's not the image he wants to portray of himself at all

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+killer+Luke%27s+Gay+fan+mail%3B+Sex+letters+from+men+make+schoolboy...-a0131219871

[Parky41]

I’ve never seen any over the years, I’m sure if there was it would be used all the time here, but I may be wrong. 
From what I understand Luke loved animals, had horses in the past and adored his dog. I have never heard of him ever killing or even hurting animals. Please provide proof else stop coming out with such garbage. If the case on Luke is so strong people should not need to make up stuff like that and  ‘he through himself on the body’ or that he was a sociopath etc, there is no evidence of this he was check by an expert who said he had no mental issues.

Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly.  Clearly put out as is mentioned in it. Someone who may post with the absolute belief of guilt as opposed to those of innocence. The 'killing' of animals, put in as there has been much mentioned of this before. Added on the basis, on top of the evidence of how Luke Mitchell is/was/would be with that stance of complete guilt. Of putting him without doubt as the 'killer' Those poor animals, how dare a poster say such a thing?

Instead of just jumping into the defence, perhaps noting, as I clearly stated what the intention of the post was. As was the 'other' post. In response to another poster who stated, categorically that there was 'equally' enough evidence against others.

Far too much, intimate 'touchy touchy' here, is there not?

NB - there is no diagnosis as such nor treatment as stated. However there had been concern on more than one occasion of LM as a younger lad.

[Nicholas]

Ms Lean -  to the effect of?

'I don't have the actual recordings played in court but I do have the court transcript of evidence led around them???'

As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.

It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.

Ms Lean;

"I believe I explained this before. It was a reporter who noted the words "red scrunchie" in his notebook during an off the record interview with Luke. He could not say whether these were Luke's words or what they were in relation to. I know, for example, that Luke was asked on one of the police interviews, "How did Jodi usually wear her hair?"

Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.   

However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;

'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.

In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.

Luke Mitchell to Grace McLean before his murder trial

“My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there,' he began. 'She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.

'Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think... no, she wasn't wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.


Did the police interview Grace McLean?

[mrswah]

Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly.  Clearly put out as is mentioned in it. Someone who may post with the absolute belief of guilt as opposed to those of innocence. The 'killing' of animals, put in as there has been much mentioned of this before. Added on the basis, on top of the evidence of how Luke Mitchell is/was/would be with that stance of complete guilt. Of putting him without doubt as the 'killer' Those poor animals, how dare a poster say such a thing?

Instead of just jumping into the defence, perhaps noting, as I clearly stated what the intention of the post was. As was the 'other' post. In response to another poster who stated, categorically that there was 'equally' enough evidence against others.

Far too much, intimate 'touchy touchy' here, is there not?

NB - there is no diagnosis as such nor treatment as stated. However there had been concern on more than one occasion of LM as a younger lad.

So, where is the evidence that Luke had killed animals???

[Brietta]

Ms Lean -  to the effect of?

As to the red bobble, perhaps you need to look more deeply to where the red bobble story originated from.

It came from Luke, no one else. Let us turn that around.

Ms Lean;

Is this what you are going to refer to? Which of course is used for one purpose only, to distract away from what LM actually did say in his statements.   

However, Ms Lean (perhaps because this is more public) Goes to great lengths to explain why? Luke saw this "scrunchie". A brief summary of this explanation;

'The body had been moved which could give reason as to why the 'scrunchie' them became out of sight, cause as to why the pathologist did not see it at first, due to it being buried/tangled out of sight in Jodi's hair. Outwith Luke, the only other people to have seen the body before it was moved were AW and SK. Admittedly they do not mention seeing this bobble, however they simply were not asked. They may have seen it.

In depth explanation as to why Luke saw this as opposed to the others, primarily the pathologist. However; These witness's as with Luke would have been asked to describe what they had seen. It is hardly surprising that they did not see this bobble, firstly and primarily because it was out of sight, and secondly the actual horror of what they had witnessed. Who would actually pick up on the type of tree and the bobble as opposed to the horror before them. Clearly points to the killer only having knowledge of this bobble and of the tree.

I don't think it would have been possible for Mitchell to have seen what Jodi was wearing in her hair let alone what colour it was.  When found it was dark and she was lying on her back.
If he knew that she had her hair tied back using the method described he must have seen it that way before she was killed.

[Nicholas]

I don't think it would have been possible for Mitchell to have seen what Jodi was wearing in her hair let alone what colour it was.  When found it was dark and she was lying on her back.
If he knew that she had her hair tied back using the method described he must have seen it that way before she was killed.

Para 92 CoA Judgement
(10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school

[Bullseye]

Dear oh dear? - The post was written in response to Faithlilly.

And mine was in response to mrswah

So, where is the evidence that Luke had killed animals???

There is none that I have seen. I would have thought we would have seen/heard of this by now. Another misleading or untrue post it seems?

[faithlilly]

Sounds like a typical young lad to me

Just what I was thinking.