What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[Nicholas]

So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth.

Luke and Corrine Mitchell could release in full what they told police

[mrswah]

So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:

A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:

The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?

Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.

LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'

The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted?  We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:

That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.

And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.

LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.

So the dog is actually irrelevant -  as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.

Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.

And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.

And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.

How do you know?

Were you in court?

Did you see Luke kill Jodi?

Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?

[faithlilly]

So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:

A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:

The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?

When Luke set out with Mia for Roan’s Dyke path he had no idea he would meet the other searchers, if he didn’t find Jodi on the way he was going to head for Judith’s house. He could also not have known that Alice Walker would want to double check the path he had just walked up. Do you see how the narrative changes with the truth?


Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.

LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'

The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted?  We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:

I think as there is unchallengeable evidence the Alice Walker, Janine Jones and Steven Kelly all changed their statements over time, to know any of the above is true you’d have to have sight of their first statements. Do you have that?

That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.

I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. The dog alerted, all four people in their first statements agreed. Mia was indicating that what she was smelling was from the left of the v so that’s the direction Luke took. Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. Luke had seen something and he pointed out to AW and SK where, unfamiliarity and trepidation didn’t come into it.

And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.

Nope, that didn’t happen and SK verified as much in court.

LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.

So the dog is actually irrelevant -  as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.

??

Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.

No it wasn’t. The other three searchers first statements mirrored Luke’s completely. Janine Jones was questioned about the changes in the witness box by Donald Findlay.

And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.

Luke had a torch, does that really need to be pointed out t you and why would the other searchers need to search the part of the path Luke had already walked. It would have been a complete waste of time. If they thought that Jodi was ‘mucking around up here’ surely it would have been better to search around Easthouses? Unless they all knew already that Jodi used the path to meet Luke...even then it made no sense for AW to suggest waking part of it again.

And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.

Jodi texted Luke to say her grounding had been lifted and that, according to Luke, she was coming to Newbattle.  Those texts were never recovered. Why? It was Judith’s phone so perhaps she deleted them before Jodi was found, I can’t imagine her doing it afterwards, but could it be that Jodi deleted them herself to stop her mum finding out that she was going to Newbattle?  Talking about phones, as there was doubt about where witnesses were at specific times did the police do a cell site analysis to verify their locations and if not, why not? I believe the defence had an expert lined up but were told by legal aid that they were too expensive.

[faithlilly]

How do you know?

Were you in court?

Did you see Luke kill Jodi?

Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?

Good questions.

[faithlilly]

A really good watch for anyone interested in miscarriages of justice.


https://youtu.be/x3adUcILOvM

[William Wallace]

How do you know?

Were you in court?

Did you see Luke kill Jodi?

Why should I believe you rather than Sandra Lean?

He's been getting beaten at Cluedo for years.

[William Wallace]

The lies from that very first account given until the present day. From LM, and from those who spearhead this campaign. There is only one reason for this. Using both here to tally in with each other. That kindred spirit at the core in all of this. Are lies not the best thing to cover up lies in the first place? Or extraordinary explanation. This fallacy of reasoning to excuse all and everything?

We know LM had no alibi, that he was not home any later that 4.35pm. We know this as there is absolutely nothing to put him at home, and he was seen by AB at 4.55 approx:

Of being home - SM is excluded from this alibi in its entirety. The only brow beating done of SM was by his mother when this pressure was put onto him to lie? - That first realisation for Luke and his mother, that their simple tale of a relaxed dinner was not going to be taken at face value? That dawning of further proof. So they get SM on board, which of course only added to the tale, as being more of a farce. We know this as SM then gives an account of coming downstairs just after 5pm, of speaking to his mother, of the burnt pie. Of returning back up stairs. Coming down again around 10mins later, once dinner was ready. Taking it up to his room and eating it. It was a farce, complete made up story as CM had not gotten home until 5.15pm at the earliest.

So we have no alibi - why all the lies? Why did he need to make up this story?
 
Then we have AB. As with the intricate checking of the story above, of timings and so forth. These guesses and estimates, went over in fine detail. AB was taken on her journey, timings established. And her sighting was before 5pm. After the call to the speaking clock. This fallacy of reasoning across the board. Does not change what it was. That LM was not home. that LM was seen by AB. Then see again by F&W -
Nothing for approx 20mins - then three sightings in the space of around 15-20mins. Then nothing for a further 80mins plus.

Every part of his story, a fabrication of void holes shored over by highly questionable reasoning. The only truthful part. That of those 15mins approx on Newbattle R'd and his 90mins approx with the boys in the woods, getting high and dirty?

Of lying of his whereabouts from 9pm, of being home until around 10.30pm - no he was not. Of all of the search party walking some distance passed this V break - no they did not. It was a lie, in total contrast to the account given by those who were with him. The story of the dog was made up, we know this as the dog was not some 20 yards passed the V. It was at the V. You can not claim a dog reacted to something, at a specific spot - parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side, when all the dog was doing was scurrying about at the V. And of LM turning immediately to his left due to this. - poppycock. The dog was at the V, at the V it was impossible for LM to make claim that he walked to his left due to this. However, Ms Lean does give reason as to why he walked to the left - he was on his own in the woods, he may have wanted to head in the direction the search party were going, feeling safe? - even this doesn't explain it, as, JaJ saw him turn to his left. That they only continued to walk this path, after he had started to walk down, on the inside of this wall. It was only then that this couple had to do any backtracking.

He lied about knowledge of both the V and the woodland.
He lied about carrying knives and possession of cannabis.
He named both the tree and the bobble/scrunchy of sight and colour.
He lied about contact of any sort with KT.
Let's not forget here that complete lack of anything. These ridiculous claims of slight change in voice are proof of what exactly? - Reason as to why there was nothing the other 99.99999% of the time?
He described what Jodi was wearing that evening - right down to those DC shoes and of borrowed clothes?

There is of course much more.

 These lies continue today - anything is required to add weight to, all of the lies told in their first instance?

Of CM - none of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence in court. - lies?
Of theories discussed with Sandra - lies as Sandra firmly denies any such conversation took place, but which one was lying?
That the search trio "had to walk directly passed YW's on their way to the path" - lies?
The V break is hard to see, unless you know what you are looking for - lies?
A witness saw the bike parked at the V - lies and manipulation around this. You can not see the V from where this witness was. - yet the V break is hard to see whilst on this path - lies?
'A mystery man was seen following Jodi onto the path' - lies?
SK, GD, JF and DD were on the path at the crucial time - lies? DD was in his house, he witnessed the boys arrival home at 5.30pm. SK's full name being typed out, is not a typo.
That the search party had to come from the top of Mayfield - lies? They came from just behind Scotts Caravans.
That JF said in his statement that the search party walked passed YW's on their way to the path - lies? This was quickly removed. I remarked of my surprise that Ms Lean would take the word of JF, the liar he is portrayed to be. She said she had a mystery witness to this also (sound familiar?) However, the search trio would have had to walk backwards to do so, not what the did do as they did walk directly to this path. - lies?
That there is clear evidence in phone records that showed that LM had phoned the speaking clock whilst in the house - lies? There is phone records of calls to the speaking clock - they only verify that he had used it, not that he was in the house.

This campaign is wrought with the same type of manipulation, misinformation and lies across the board is it not?  When one can not disprove the damming evidence against LM, other means are required are they not?

After all. everything LM lied about, these further lies, the manipulation is excusable when we have a call that is not inclusive in the defence records - Of AW phoning her daughter. Intelligence?

There is so much wrong with all of that I genuinely don't have the time to respond. I will mention one thing. You seem to believe this "search party" were credible witnesses but there is as usual nothing to suggest they were. One basic fact explains a lot...........they walked right past the door of a house Jodi had been found in the last time she had failed to come home on time. They failed to phone around friends and relatives before going up a horrible dark creepy path in pitch darkness. I mean honestly, there is not one normal person on the planet who wouldn't have knocked on that door and phoned around before going up that path, WHY WOULD YOU GO STRAIGHT UP THAT PATH? Oh and one of this "search party" was a huge Manson fan and had all of his album collection but it wasn't Mitchell. Strange that eh?

[William Wallace]

Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.

Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him.  But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.

We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.

I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.

I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.

I see that you didn't offer any explanation for any of the points below?

1. How did he manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path?
4. Why was it claimed ******  never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing......to say Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt? Sorry the transference borrowed T-shirt story doesn't count as it's too ridiculous for words.
12. Why did ****** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same?

You see this is the problem with the "Mitchell did it" brigade. They can't answer any of the above with credible explanations. I would like someone to try but I know they won't because they can't.

[mrswah]

I think we have three choices, William!

We either believe Sandra Lean, or we believe those who, for some reason that I can't fathom,  don't like Sandra Lean, or we read as much as we can and come to our own conclusions.

I do wish someone had written a book from the point of view of Luke being guilty, but nobody has. At least Sandra has researched the case for years, and I can't see any reason why she would lie, although she may well be mistaken about some things.

I would like answers to all your questions too.

[Parky41]

I think we have three choices, William!

We either believe Sandra Lean, or we believe those who, for some reason that I can't fathom,  don't like Sandra Lean, or we read as much as we can and come to our own conclusions.

It is all very personalised is it not?  - Is it not two choices? Of the defence and the Crown? Of LM V HMA? That because someone may show around 5% of statements those who counteract this with the actual evidence do not need to cite every area of statements to show what Ms Lean claims to be false. An example of this is the search party?

You asked me if I had attended court, if I had seen Luke kill Jodi and why you should believe me?? over Ms Lean.

It is not me, is it? It is the Crowns case - one does not have to have attended court. One does not have to provide cites everywhere to disprove 5%, as this 5% is actually nothing on it's own. It is completely empty of context. 

The search party - We know that the search party had not walked some distance passed this V break in the wall. From those very first statements, we know this, for if they had, and if they had said this, it would be shown from their statements. There is no long road required. LM stated clearly 'We had walked some distance passed a V in the wall, not even 20yrds when Mia alerted me' The search trio - 'when We got to a V in the wall' and 'the dogs head was level with the V' and 'the dog was pulling at the V'  No one is disputing the mention of the dog and neither did the Crown - the dispute was where everyone was.

They go hand in hand, as LM had went over and he had turned immediately to his left. And he did not turn left due to the dog, as the dog had not been anywhere near to where Jodi lay, which was some 40ft down from the V on the inside of the wall. And even if the dog had been standing up directly to the left of this V as SK stated - it went a long way to explaining why LM, who claimed to know nothing of this woodland would turn immediately to his left. No deliberation, no trepidation. He did not go over the wall, shine his torch around to see for any pathways, to quite literally find his feet. He turned immediately to his left. To what was at the time - a very narrow access along the inside of the wall. He did not even stand around, shining his torch for a few seconds before making his way along it - he did all with complete ease, with complete familiarity. And there is absolutely nothing to disprove this. There was not the slightest bit apprehension - upon entering this dark woodland, torch or not - he did not shine his torch around. And he had absolutely no way of knowing what his dog may have been scurrying at the wall, at the V for - this is a woodland , a rabbit, fox - anything. LM knew exactly where he was going. The evidence is yet again in abundance to prove this - We know there was absolutely no time for LM's claims and we know with certainty that  his actions upon entering this woodland were that of familiarity. He knew them intimately.

And we know they were questioned as to how they saw him turn immediately to his left - it was by torchlight. And because they were right there to see it. 

And he did lie - he did claim never to have been in the woodland before that night, in those first statements, and when he was confronted by the initials on the tree he still lied. Then claiming to have only been in the top end of this woodland strip. And yet again the evidence is in abundance to show this to be false - those friends, of walking down to where this V is along this narrow passage. 

And that time factor - You may find it completely believable, that is of course your choice. That this search party had been on this path less that 10mins - it takes approx 6-7 mins to get to the V by police timings at an even pace. Time pretty much correct. That initial discussion. 4 people looking in different areas but all walking down the way. LM did look into the woodland at the 'Gino' spot, why? The notion of the woods did not enter the search trio's minds, why would it?  It was completely cut off from this path by this wall which was 8-10ft in places. The search trio met near to the junction of the paths. Near the top. Both saw the other approaching by torchlight. Why did LM, look into the woodland? Why did he lie about walking some 40-60ft passed this V break in the wall? Why was LM still on the path? Why was LM already set to search? That call to the police at 10.49pm and of speaking to Juj at 10.51pm his offer to search and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm

You find none of the above strange - as you choose to believe that the search party changed their mind? Ignore every piece of evidence against LM on the basis of Ms Lean stating that they all said it was the dog and changed their mind. When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt - that LM could not have found Jodi Jones, under the above circumstance, in that time frame without prior knowledge?  When there is absolutely no proof in the first place that any of this search trio had stated they walked some distance passed this V at all, until those steps of 10ft or more after LM entered the woodland.

And none of the search party knew at first they were going to meet on this path, they did end up on the path as LM was on it. It happened and no amount of theories or otherwise can change this. No one put LM on the path, LM did put the search trio on the path. His hesitation it would seem thwarted the meet at Jodi's house. There was no opportunity to get something of Jodi's to scent with. And we know clearly and precisely why AW wanted to look thoroughly, she tells us why. "I thought Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself" What else did she say? One things for sure - she knew LM had, had no time to look thoroughly on his own.

[Nicholas]

It is all very personalised is it not?  - Is it not two choices? Of the defence and the Crown? Of LM V HMA? That because someone may show around 5% of statements those who counteract this with the actual evidence do not need to cite every area of statements to show what Ms Lean claims to be false. An example of this is the search party?

You asked me if I had attended court, if I had seen Luke kill Jodi and why you should believe me?? over Ms Lean.

It is not me, is it? It is the Crowns case - one does not have to have attended court. One does not have to provide cites everywhere to disprove 5%, as this 5% is actually nothing on it's own. It is completely empty of context. 

The search party - We know that the search party had not walked some distance passed this V break in the wall. From those very first statements, we know this, for if they had, and if they had said this, it would be shown from their statements. There is no long road required. LM stated clearly 'We had walked some distance passed a V in the wall, not even 20yrds when Mia alerted me' The search trio - 'when We got to a V in the wall' and 'the dogs head was level with the V' and 'the dog was pulling at the V'  No one is disputing the mention of the dog and neither did the Crown - the dispute was where everyone was.

They go hand in hand, as LM had went over and he had turned immediately to his left. And he did not turn left due to the dog, as the dog had not been anywhere near to where Jodi lay, which was some 40ft down from the V on the inside of the wall. And even if the dog had been standing up directly to the left of this V as SK stated - it went a long way to explaining why LM, who claimed to know nothing of this woodland would turn immediately to his left. No deliberation, no trepidation. He did not go over the wall, shine his torch around to see for any pathways, to quite literally find his feet. He turned immediately to his left. To what was at the time - a very narrow access along the inside of the wall. He did not even stand around, shining his torch for a few seconds before making his way along it - he did all with complete ease, with complete familiarity. And there is absolutely nothing to disprove this. There was not the slightest bit apprehension - upon entering this dark woodland, torch or not - he did not shine his torch around. And he had absolutely no way of knowing what his dog may have been scurrying at the wall, at the V for - this is a woodland , a rabbit, fox - anything. LM knew exactly where he was going. The evidence is yet again in abundance to prove this - We know there was absolutely no time for LM's claims and we know with certainty that  his actions upon entering this woodland were that of familiarity. He knew them intimately.

And we know they were questioned as to how they saw him turn immediately to his left - it was by torchlight. And because they were right there to see it. 

And he did lie - he did claim never to have been in the woodland before that night, in those first statements, and when he was confronted by the initials on the tree he still lied. Then claiming to have only been in the top end of this woodland strip. And yet again the evidence is in abundance to show this to be false - those friends, of walking down to where this V is along this narrow passage. 

And that time factor - You may find it completely believable, that is of course your choice. That this search party had been on this path less that 10mins - it takes approx 6-7 mins to get to the V by police timings at an even pace. Time pretty much correct. That initial discussion. 4 people looking in different areas but all walking down the way. LM did look into the woodland at the 'Gino' spot, why? The notion of the woods did not enter the search trio's minds, why would it?  It was completely cut off from this path by this wall which was 8-10ft in places. The search trio met near to the junction of the paths. Near the top. Both saw the other approaching by torchlight. Why did LM, look into the woodland? Why did he lie about walking some 40-60ft passed this V break in the wall? Why was LM still on the path? Why was LM already set to search? That call to the police at 10.49pm and of speaking to Juj at 10.51pm his offer to search and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm

You find none of the above strange - as you choose to believe that the search party changed their mind? Ignore every piece of evidence against LM on the basis of Ms Lean stating that they all said it was the dog and changed their mind. When it is proven beyond reasonable doubt - that LM could not have found Jodi Jones, under the above circumstance, in that time frame without prior knowledge?  When there is absolutely no proof in the first place that any of this search trio had stated they walked some distance passed this V at all, until those steps of 10ft or more after LM entered the woodland.

And none of the search party knew at first they were going to meet on this path, they did end up on the path as LM was on it. It happened and no amount of theories or otherwise can change this. No one put LM on the path, LM did put the search trio on the path. His hesitation it would seem thwarted the meet at Jodi's house. There was no opportunity to get something of Jodi's to scent with. And we know clearly and precisely why AW wanted to look thoroughly, she tells us why. "I thought Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself" What else did she say? One things for sure - she knew LM had, had no time to look thoroughly on his own.

And fearless 14 year old Luke Mitchell didn’t for example ask SK to accompany him over the wall either

[Parky41]

And fearless 14 year old Luke Mitchel didn’t for example ask SK to accompany him over the wall either

Excellent point!

[Nicholas]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12057.msg648845#msg648845)

Sandra Lean making claim to her followers on ‘statement analysis’ and saying ‘i’ll be honest’

She’s said she’s going to look into it but don’t think they’ll come up with anything useful

 

[faithlilly]

Excellent point!

Really? Did he know what was over the wall? What did he have to fear?

[William Wallace]

Please tell us what the motivation is for post mortem mutilation.

De-sexualisation because the killer was an enraged female.