FAO Ms Lean: -and Faithlilly and to whom ever else requires it:
Are you saying that the finger is not being pointed by way of suspicion towards this girls family Faithlilly. Did I forget to put IMO
Here it is loud and clear, IMO this is exactly what I feel Ms Lean does. Apologies Ms Lean - I am not directly accusing you of anything - I am merely pointing out, that whilst one may, in one breath say "I am not directly accusing anyone" then pointing out many areas of doubt you have towards Jodi's family. And by the very response given by multiple people - who are trying this girls family for her murder - in some witch hunt, that come directly on the back of the book, the forum discussions and the C5 documentary - is it not just a little ironic - to sit back and say, on the basis of liable only IMO, that these trials by your followers do stem from the information you give out? - Is that better? You are not directly accusing anyone - everyone else is doing a startling Job of that for you - Is that better Faithlilly.
Directly saying I am not accusing Ms Lean - I am giving an opinion. And apologies should it have been taken the wrong way.
Ms Lean attended the trial - did she? Was she of such an affluent state or living off the state for 9 weeks that one could sit through this? - taking 9 weeks off work?
Does Ms Lean have all the court transcripts? - highly unlikely is it not? She has the defence papers and of evidence led from these at trial. She has never had everything of this case in it's entirety but has always made claim to having it. Of "No Smoke" of careful examination of witness statements - who's exactly?
The book/s - They do not give you any insight into the case - they give you Ms Leans reasoning to her claimed flaws. Of tunnel vision, of changing witness testimony, of forensics and so forth and of course - her more suitable candidates for the role of murderer.
An accusation has been levelled at me, time and again, that telling this story is disrespectful to the victim and her family. I disagree. What is disrespectful to anyone is accepting, at face value, information which is demonstrably false, scenarios which make no logical sense and gaping holes covered over to shore up weak and questionable explanations, especially when that information, those scenarios and explanations, are used to bring a false sense of closure to the bereaving and bereft and, at the same time, to rob innocent people of their freedom.
Ms Leans book - She does exactly what she claims this case was - That she is indeed disrespectful in asking anyone to accept, at face value - information from her which is demonstrably false. ("the willfully ignorant") - she gives us scenarios which make no logical sense - she attempts to cover up those gaping holes in the Mitchells testimony by way of excessively weak and questionable explanations. - she uses these scenarios and explanations to attack the bereaving and bereft, by being disrespectful, not only to their intelligence, or by way of keeping grieving wounds open and raw - she also attacks the bereaving and bereft continuously in the case of LM V HMA, by way of pointing the finger directly at them -
Ms Lean since day dot has infamously made claim that one family was treated differently to the other. That one's testimony was simply believed whilst the others was not. She talks constantly of double standards. - What Ms Lean fails to do is provide anything of any solidity to show this to be the case. - What she most certainly does do, is air brush completely over the investigation into the Mitchells - and there is very good reason for that. As those intricate details from the investigation, answer clearly why the police had no tunnel vision, why there was solid reason as to why LM could not be eliminated. Why there was neither reason or evidence to doubt the word of Jodi's immediate family. Both families gave testimony. One's simply continued to fall apart, expanding those gaping holes and continually trying to shore them over with those extremely weak and questionable explanations.
One family strived to give an alibi for that exact time needed around when Jodi had been murdered. It was never the case of the police fitting it into this timeframe, of shoe horning evidence into anything - It was the Mitchells who pushed this alibi in their face. They knew exactly when they needed it for. There is that stark reality. One family striving to give an alibi, whilst the other were simply given an account of the previous day. That clear difference in those personally pushing to give one, and of those the police would be seeking to obtain from the very accounts given.
You will not get to neither see nor figure out - That relaxed dinner tale. Of that very first account given that fitted nicely into around 45mins. You will be told SM was traumatised. That he simply forgot and was not believed. That his mother did not coerce him, that they were simply discussing it and he remembered. You will be told of police brutality and excessive Crown techniques - You will not be told SM's first account was within 24hrs, You will not be told that he contacted the police to change it within hours of arriving home. You will not be told that this account also tied in nicely with his mother arriving home at 5.05pm, and of LM claiming to have left around 5.45pm. You will be giving weak and questionable explanation of 'someone had to have cooked dinner - What you will not be told is that this relaxed dinner tale, fitted into less than 15mins. And of every detail in it. Of LM's clothing and so forth. It was their very alibi they pushed to give - that ended up being shoe horned tightly.
You will be told that the Jones account was all over the place - rightly so is it not? This family was only hours from finding out that Jodi was dead, that she had been murdered. That when the police checked their account there were no lies found. That AO had done exactly as he stated. That Jodi had left shortly after his arrival home. That her mother could not remember what her daughter had been wearing - only that she had gotten changed. Ms Lean does not tell you that, what she does, is attempt to give reason as to why Jodi did not change as we know LM described her clothing. Ms Lean will tell you in one breath that St Davids high had no strict dress code - yet in the next breath we hear that LM got into trouble for not wearing school colours. We do not hear of Jodi getting into trouble for this. St Davids did have a dress code. You will be shown absolutely nothing from those statements - that showed this family were attempting to put an alibi in place, not for one moment of that day and evening - they did not know when Jodi died - LM did. They had no reason to concoct stories and they did not.
You will be led to believe everything that Ms Lean feels this search trio should have done - this nonsense about searching "up here" You will not be told that the police had barely left Jodi's house, when the call came through that a body had been found. You will not be told that LM had barely come off the phone before he is on this very path. You will be told of this search trio agreeing with LM that the dog found Jodi, that they changed their statements around the dog. You will not be told that not once, did this search party make any ref to the dog, neither leading LM to finding Jodi, or of them being under the impression that his dog had done any such thing - That the only thing this search trio gave reference to, was of how this dog was acting upon reaching this V and at it - You will not be shown anything from their statements, that tie nicely with LM's, but will be led a merry dance of weak and questionable explanation. This same weak and questionable explanation of searching caravan parks and the such like. Not that this search party were heading to meet with LM. That it was LM who led them to this path. That LM should have been off this path.
You will be led a merry dance of weak and questionable explanation to distract away from this remarkable find. Of that short time frame - that showed without a shadow of a doubt - That Jodi's mother had barely had time to report her daughter missing before she found out she was dead. There was no opportunity to arrange an extensive search. To go through phone numbers, to even think of looking other places. Around 50mins from knowing she was missing, to reporting her missing, to the police attending at her house to Jodi being found dead. - And Ms Lean wants people to think of reasons why this family did not do X,Y and Z? Anything other than LM still being on this path. Of the search trio only heading out to organise a search. To sit and think about what to do - when they spoke with LM and headed to RDP. That they were barely on this path 10mins when he shouted out. - That he had introduced the woodland at the Gino spot. That he had most definitely not walked passed this V break - and there is nothing and will be nothing produced to show, any of this search party made any such claim of this. That it all happened at this V. That they most definitely did not say - Mia found Jodi, or that Mia led Luke to find Jodi - this is assumption and manipulation - Ms Leans take, her very questionable weak explanations.
And you will not be told of the lies heaped upon this - of LM denying the existence of this V and of frequenting this woodland. - these crazy questions of when the initials were carved? - Well they were found when the area was cordoned off - that tells you clearly when they were carved - prior to Jodi being murdered. You will be asked to think of the call to the speaking clock, of AB seeing LM at the exact same time? - and this really is how weak these explanations are -
You will not even be given LM's evidence you will be given Ms Leans narrative and explanation of it - her continuous excuses for him? - Maybe Luke thought this, maybe he did that etc - Ms Lean should have it precise and to the letter T exactly what LM said - not her assumptions on his behalf. - But that is pretty what Ms Lean does with everything is it not?
She states it makes no logical sense for the killer to phone the Jones landline as it may have raised alarm bells? - LM had not choice but to phone them. That is makes not sense for him to lead the family to her - LM thought he had it all covered, that he could not cover it anymore. - Plain and simple.
Often the case with a warped mind is it not - that they inadvertently speak too much, do too much - pointing the finger directly at themselves. Letting too much out. The hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. That they need the attention and they need control - Of LM telling the police how they should do their job?
So, yes the book is a great way to not learn of the actual investigation into LM. Of the massive holes in his testimony and of shoring these over, with very weak and questionable explanations.
You do very little in the way of speaking of what is in the book Mr Swah? - All of these timings, those small excerpts and many cites I use come directly from Ms Lean - And using these to show what she actually does not do. By means of 5% usage and a whole lot of assumption - She uses nothing that clearly proves any point made. Hopping from one statement to the next, hopping from one time to the next - each to suit the narrative given at the time.
She does not have all of the evidence, she has the defence files. She had not sat through 9 weeks of a trial. She writes on behalf of the Mitchells - such a very honest bunch - were/are they not?
PA - What exactly is it I have said that is not viable - it is direct from the evidence, from Ms Lean from the most part - I do trust those tiny excerpts verbatim, and i do trust the phone records she shows. It would be legally liable to change those. These accounts from the Mitchells, of those first statements have been gleamed from her on these forums - thus why I mention tripping oneself up. That dinner story did go from around 45 mins to just 15. The search party - have you seen anywhere, where they stated they had all walked passed this V when the dog was jumping anywhere. No. And it is clear and precise that Jodi was known to be missing at 10.40, reported missing at 10.50, LM speaking to JuJ at 10.59 at the path, of the police attending after 11 and of Jodi being found at 11.30. This is hard evidence.
When you take all of the information you do have - it is easy to work out those gaping hole and weak explanations. I have only touched on a fraction of it - Ms Lean holds no more power than anyone else - she does not use all has - she uses the same as other, around 5% direct from those case files - And it is common sense to know that one should look for the opposite of what a defence may say.
Lots of IMO to add to the above - should they be needed?
