Some realism of course, for most - Who instantly just think, bloody hell! Someone is known to be missing and 50 mins later a call is put through to the emergency services that they have been found dead. Not only found dead, but in an isolated area of woodland, hidden out of sight. And we add to this. That no one was actually in that woodland searching, just four people who met to walk down a path running alongside it, with a high, thick, dry stone dyke separating the two. Some 4-5ft in from it. They have a dog, not belonging to the family who it is claimed was partially trained to find toys!! That these four people reach more than 40ft away, on the path side of this thick, high, dry stone dyke, and it is claimed the dog picked up some scent. That the owner without that dog went into the woodland, walked around 10 steps and found the hidden body of this person. Who was over 40ft down from the break in the wall that they entered this woodland from.
So we think, well, 50mins to search an area with a dog and it seems feasible, just. But then you learn that the actual search was in fact less than 8 mins. And we tie in not being in that woodland but merely on the path, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. In the dark, overcast and damp. The air is not clear and full of smells/scents. It is a path used by other dogs, a woodland full of wildlife. And only one person, without the aid of that dog, decides it is a good idea to look over into the woods, they climb the wall and briefly shine their torch. (Gino break) To remember here, there is absolutely no reason why that missing person would actually be in the woods. For now we can add further information in at this point.
The reason why these four people are actually on that path. It is due to the person who has that dog. They are the missing persons boyfriend, they have stated that the girl was to meet them in Newbattle, but that she had not appeared on the other end of that path, some 6 hours earlier. They did not report this, they did nothing. She did not appear and they went off and did something else. No one is made aware that she is missing until she fails to arrive home by her curfew time. Her family (mother), who knew her daughter had left home, to meet her boyfriend and spend the evening with him, believed that is where her daughter had been. Upon her curfew time coming and going, the first person she contacted, was of course her boyfriend. The girl had no phone.
Now we add in some more information - When it is realised the girl is missing, that she had left home to meet with her boyfriend some 6 hours earlier, her mother finds out that this meet had not taken place. Told that she had failed to turn up in Newbattle to meet with him. So the mother tells the boyfriend she is contacting the police and she does. This is within minutes of realising she is missing, and before anyone even has a chance to think of searching, to think of much of anything. The boyfriend is first in there, to offer to search. Not a fragment of worry the whole evening, but instantly offers, not only to search but to search this path he claims she failed to appear at the other side of. The girl is reported missing. The mother contacts the boyfriend again, less than 10mins from that last call to him, and he is on that path (it is a good 7 mins walk from his house). She tells him the police have been called.
Now we add in some other information, it takes around 11 mins to walk that path from west to east. The time now is around 11.10pm and members of this girls family are walking to Easthouse's, the boy waits on them arriving. When they arrive he is still not at the top of that path, only around 3/4 of the way up it, 2/3 even. As when they arrive at the top of that path they see a torch light in the distance approaching them, and shout out "Is that you Luke?". They had torches, but not close enough to make him out. They walk to meet with him. They know of course that the path could not have been searched in it's entirety - he is not even at the top of it. He asks, if by his earlier request, if they had brought anything of Jodi's, they had not. And the gran naturally says, we will check properly, I mean? It has not all been checked and he is going to only then put that dog into seek mode.
Now we add in some more information - The dog is put into seek mode, it is on a short lead and harness. We have mentioned the intro to the woods above, and now we add a few steps into the field, again at random, nothing to do with the dog. It is being a dog, sniffing and scenting and leaving it's scent. And the boy takes himself in front again, after the Gino and after the field. They come to another break in the wall, and this time with his dog he goes to the break and he goes over. The dog, overtly excited. This break, in the shape of a V, the only place on that path, that has a large enough gap, to further it's excitement of heading somewhere, perhaps it had been before.
Now we add in some more information - He (boy with his dog) claimed that they (all) had walked well past that break, parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. The other three state the exact opposite, this is in those very first accounts.which were always upon coming to that break, of them all stopping at the break, and only two of them walking further, after the boy had entered the woods. Not at any point had the boy and his dog walked past, and no-one, until after he entered those woods. Something is clearly wrong, there can be no way that this search trio, consisting of member of Jodi's family, can be wrong in their description. For further down from that break, on this path side, there is no visibility, they simply could not have seen what all three gave a description of. Upon being asked to clarify, further information was added. They had been taken back to this path, and mapped and marked out where each person had been. The three still upon approaching and at that break, the boy still some 40ft past it, parallel he claimed to where his girlfriend lay in the woods, 4-5ft in, up and over that 8ft + high, thick, dry stone dyke. At no break.
So just stop for a moment, there is of course a hell of a lot more information - But we have one person who failed to raise any alarm. They are the first to mention search, and to mention that path. They are the first onto that path, and they stay on that path. They are the first to lead and to take the lead twice. They are the first to introduce the woodland. And they are the first over that wall into it. And they lie. The search trio did not lie, not from that first onwards. They always stated it was upon coming to that break in the wall. And we add in those 8 mins from walking down together. And it is straight to the point. That introduction to the woods, taking the lead and going into those woods at the first real opportunity where the wall is broken.
Why did he lie? More so that clear realism here - why did this boy not raise any alarm, when by his claims, she failed to arrive on the other side of that path, some six hours earlier. He claims he was phoning her house, to let her know he was out earlier (only after the phone records were obtained, and his original claim of leaving at 5.45 changed to 5.30pm) So, by his claims, he knows she had left to meet him, she is not late , and that again by his claims, she was heading to Newbattle. And he claims to wait, that factual time being around 90mins. And she does not appear and he does not raise any alarm, as by his claims, she was coming to his, she had walked an isolated path and not appeared on the other side of it. Further, this claim after those phone records were obtained did no tarry, changed to suit as other evidence immerged. The first, simply leaving at 5.45 to meet her for 6, the arranged time. The second to then claim he phoned, to tell her he was out earlier and on that road waiting for her.
And we add in further information. For the only person whom the boy kept in the loop, of meeting his girlfriend, of her not appearing was the boys mother. And she did nothing, bar claim to tell him, that all will be well. The first time being around 7pm, when he told her, to tell his girlfriend, if she should show up, then to send her into the Abbey grounds, that "she will know where". The second time, when claimed to arrive home around 9pm and again, the claims are that she told him, "she will have been caught up with friends gabbing" And we add in more, the boy claimed to have been home and stayed home, until he took the dog out for the toilet at 10.30pm. He was however witnessed arriving home at 10pm.
And we add in some more, the girls mother, had said that her daughter told her, that she was meeting with Luke, that they would be "mucking about up here" - There is no dispute that the two were to meet, and to be spending the evening together. So one claimed meet in the Easthouse's end and one in the Newbattle end. Where Jodi's parent were left in the dark. No warning of anything being wrong, no insight into using an isolated path, one which a ban had been placed upon using. And of course, at the point of the phone call from the boyfriend, there was no concern from him, it was only to let her know he was out earlier. The briefest of conversation, "is Jodi there?" - "no, she has already left to meet you". It is dinner time, busy and occupied, the boy could have been late to meet the girl, anywhere. The only person, if by their claims, to have an incline of any worry, any danger is that boy, and of course his mother.
And now we tie in some more, that ban on the path, the claim is by the boy, that he knew of no ban. That he had never been in that woodland before and knew not of that break in the wall, never seen it before. Yet? Here we had this boy, not only infiltrating the idea and claim that the girl would have walked that path, failed to appear on the other side, he also introduced the notion that she could be in the woodland. A path, unlikely to have walked on her own, and a woodland he claimed not to have stepped in before. Where there was little chance the girl had walked the path alone, certainly less of being in that actual woodland alone.
And we add in some more - witnesses and evidence is produced that show the boy is lying. Not only had he been in that woodland before with others, and to that break in the wall he had frequented it with Jodi herself. To the point that they had carved their initials into a tree. And the lies are beginning to stack up. That he carried knives also, he denied this. That the area of woodland that the attack began in , was off the beaten track, deep into and going nowhere. Where it could not be clearer that this girl was only in that area, in the company of someone she knew and trusted.
Then we tie in sightings coming through. One which was to be positively ID as being Mitchell, wearing khaki green clothing at the East end of that path. Then of another positive ID of this youth, wearing khaki green clothing at the west end of that path, by two further people. And we tie in that Jodi had in fact left earlier and not for 6pm as the boy claimed.
Then we tie in the alibi. A clear sequence of events with lots of detail that ran precisely from five past five until 5.45pm. Then we tie in the inclusion of the brother, to match that very precise timings between five past five and 5.45pm. Then we tie in footage of CTTV and the phone logs, which completely wiped out approx 30mins of that alibi leaving around 13mins, to carry everything they stated out. Then we tie in the chopping and changing of accounts at will to match any evidence. That one could simply not have been mistaken about the time she had gotten home, when she then included her other son into areas that she had forgotten. That he could not have spoken to her at five past five at all, then waited around ten mins for dinner to be ready and all else. And we have to then revert to his clear evidence - that he had "popped his head round the lounge door, and no one was home" No music, no burnt pies and as he stated, no brother did he see. Not in the house or at any entrance of that estate when he left home, just after 5.30pm.
And we tie in those fires, of whatever was being burnt in the back garden that evening, and we tie in the denials, the admittance and all else - it matters not, there were fires and there were lies being told around this.
And we tie in that miraculous find, and every piece of evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Ignored his mothers calls, a mother who was evidently that frantic she reached out to no one else. Neither did this "child" Ignored his mothers calls and did not reach out to her, his father or his brother.
And there can be no clearer proof that physical evidence of how calm and collective this "child" was. Those recordings to the emergency services. Those screams of "hysterics" in the background and Mitchells flat effect tones. Kelly and his F'n and blinding, clearly distraught. Mitchell - nothing.
