Am guessing this is the same Suzy
Suzy Hall
I am a person who would need to be convinced of Luke's guilt as I have never, from the beginning, believed that he committed this henious crime.
Accordingly, I have been researching for quite a while now all available information in the public domain.
Upon reading a blog I did find this regarding the V in the wall and wondered if someone could help me with the following paragraph:-
“This access was easily and instantly found by Luke – who claimed not to know of this V, to have never been in this woodland. Yet easily located this access in the dark, both the V and the narrow passageway.”
Did Luke claim not to know of V or to have never been in the woods before?
Thanks in advance
Angie Timothy
Luke never denied knowing where the path was and just to clarify Mia didnt go straight to the V , she was someway past the V when she reacted and Luke doubled backed to the V where AW was as she was further behind the others, while Sk and JaJ continued down the path. also its not true that everyone knew about the path/woodland strip, many locals including the two officers on the scene and AB, herself didnt know about it.
Krissy Porteous
I believe the V in the wall has been blown up to be more than it really is…I think it could’ve been any one of the various Vs that Mia alerted to if, j was behind it,I think just because it was the closest way for Luke to get over,everyone immediately thinks that’s how Jody got over or got made to go over and Sandra’s made it really clear there’s other easier ways to get to behind the V.
Ana Azaria
Hi Suzy, the 2008 appeal documents make reference to this: Detective Constable (ML) said that the appellant told her he was aware that there was a hole in the wall at the junction and a small path close to the wall. The arrows were shown on the woodland side of the wall. She asked him if he had been down this route. He said that there was not a very good path and he had only been a short way down." I have never come across any statement where Luke said he didn't know where the woodland area was. Either way, this wouldn't have had any bearing on his dog reacting at the wall.
Suzy Hall
Ana Azaria thank you! I just wanted to blow this author's claim. I am very much of the opinion that you read the initial statements provided by witnesses. Accordingly, I believe that Mia did react as how all witnesses stated initially
Sharon Indy Sunshine
Thanks, Suzy (You know why) I have never heard that claim as Luke was local and everyone knew the paths woods etc and all the other local areas so it’s a strange claim by the ‘other person’. Luke’s claim was Mia his tracker dog was the one who went to the V, that was also the claim by the other 3 search party members in their first statements before they all changed them to the contrary some weeks later
Suzy Hall
Thanks for the quick reply, I have been leaving comments for the author of the blog but I doubt I’ll get a response
Sharon Indy Sunshine
You are very welcome Suzy and I agree! It’s why we try to avoid it
Suzy is being spun a yarn - Deflected from what she was actually asking. LM very much did say that he had not known of the V break and the Gino break prior to the search. He knew of the one off the lane, but LM denied fully having been in the woodland at all before, only admitting to going into that gap after the initials on the tree. Suzy may like to start reading forums and see the many conversations/confrontations with SL in this case.
The V break has not been blown out of anything - LM did not go past that break then return with AW, LM went directly to that break that he claimed not to have seen before. Telling the police he made his way back to a break he had noticed when walking past to access the woods - LM was lying.
It is the very essence of why SL said to me that she too had difficulty locating the V break the first time when looking actively for it. She claimed it was overgrown with greenery. She made this claim to back up LM's claims of not knowing the existence of that break, inferring that it was easily missed UNLESS actively searching for it. - So posters replying to Suzy, you are given over false answers, deflecting from LM's denial of those breaks until that evening.
LM Suzy, was the only person to make any claim of going past that V break he suddenly saw for the first time, to his dog alerting not quite 60ft past to exactly 43ft past and directly "parallel" to where that girls body lay in the woods.
The other three from the off told of LM going to the V break approaching from the east, they gave lots of descriptions that could not be seen from where LM made his ludicrous claims. LM was not past that break, they were all present and stationary at it. The full context "below the break" directly under its shape, to the dog then standing against the wall with "its head level with the V" of "scurrying in the undergrowth at the V break" Of watching LM enter the woods. So again, these new experts given over false answers. LM's dog alerted him to no body, he was not where he claimed with his dog and the others, the very essence of why the wall was built, to show the court that LM was lying, the the other three had been spot on from their very first accounts.
Deflected and manipulated around because the truth takes away the very reason LM gave for claiming why he knew exactly where to go - He was lying. Reality, I had never saw those breaks before but suddenly noticed them that night, we were not searching the wall but I just went to it conveniently at the first break, wading through undergrowth to scale up, because I just had a hunch, a gut instinct, then I saw this other big break and we all walked past is some 60ft, no it was 43ft when my dog alerted, making my way back bla bla bla bla bla - It was made up. His "hunch" his "gut instinct" had him go to the second break the same as the first, the easier one to access those woods, the one closer to the body, this time to "search about" directly to his left, down that narrow passage.
Suzy, LM had walked down through those woods with others to the V break in the wall - Again, spun a yarn. By all means believe he is innocent, it changes nothing of the evidence nor the lies on repeat from LM and from those spinning a yarn ----------- The only question you should be asking Suzy, is why are they lying? For the truth certainly does show the clear reasons why he was suspect, remained as such and convicted. 6mins active search and around 10-20seconds in those woods. You may not believe he is guilty but he sure as hell knew, without any doubt, where that young girls body had been hidden. No one finds a body in that time, not on their own, or with a dog on a short lead, not in the woods but upon a path, a path cut off from a high wall by several ft of undergrowth. But above all, to lie to try and scrape at reason as to why he knew where to go, he was no 10ft, 20ft, 30ft any ft past that break. And he would had to have been some distance past to go directly left and keep going as opposed to not going in front and searching around a certain diameter from there --
