No let’s not turn it around. What is the evidence that Jodi died at 5.15? It really is simple enough.
The truth you are trying furiously to avoid is that there is absolutely no evidence, forensic or circumstantial, that categorically puts Jodi’s death at 5.15. The timeframe was plucked from thin air because that is the time Luke had no one but his family as an alibi. That’s the truth of it. Smear the family, charge them with a crime that there is no evidence the police had any intention of going ahead with...remember your questions about SM and the bike etc that were never investigated...and it really is job done.
So again....what evidence is there for the TOD?
Absolute rubbish - plucking out of thin air. Smear the family?
You can airbrush this family as much as you care to. I am not smearing them, I am saying it exactly how it was. You want a repeat of this: - ok
CM told the police she arrived home around 5.05pm That this Monday was no different to any other. That Luke was in the kitchen brandishing brocolli, that the dinner was not ready. That LM asked his mother "was Shane home", clearly at this point that he had not been included in the dinner. His brother had not seen him. That they finished dinner. That LM had left around 5.45pm to wait for Jodi arriving around 6. - true? yes it is. Skip the t-shirt, the sunshine and all else.
That within 24hrs SM gave his account. That this day was like any other Monday. That he arrived home at his usual time, around 3.30pm He could not remember what he had for dinner or of seeing his brother.
That after speaking with his mother - he remembered her coming home, at her usual time of around 5.05pm. That he spoke with her. That he then got shouted for dinner some ten mins later. Ate it and went out just after 5.30pm.
That he contacted the police to let them know that he then remembered the above - and it fitted in exactly with CM arriving home at her usual time.
Two statements in less than 36hrs - is this correct? See I do not know everything. But if one was within 24hrs then the change shortly after - I'm doing basic math here.
Then by the Friday - it all changed again. SM had not arrived home at his usual time. Two statements tied to one. That he then did not see his brother still on his arrival home contrary to what Ms Lean changes around, from my post yesterday and her quotes. That CM had not arrived home until 5.15 or just after. That LM had left home no later than 5.30pm
Smearing them, no - clear to see, yes.
And further to this we have to add in more evidence do we not? - Those further claims of no fixed meet. Of phoning the landline, why? - we do not want assumptions made for him - what did he say? As it made no sense to phone if Jodi was not supposed to arrive until 6pm - Such a tangled web all of this. And of course walking this isolated path alone - and of claiming to be waiting until around 7pm to then phone the boys - We are not interested in passing the buck but we shall yet again highlight the Jones household:
That they had lost track of time. Not idling away. Concocted story - no? That they did not know where this meet was to be, they did not know if Luke was late - they knew nothing. Other than what they claimed. That it did not seem that long. That they were not worried and that we know if he had phoned back they would have been alerted/worried. What is blatantly obvious from all we do know - is her parents did not for one moment - think she had been walking to Newbattle on her own. Then they would have had cause to be worried. It could have been the grans, the caravan park anything - see we do not know, do we? But we do know not this path, and not alone - we know there was a ban. What we also know is, that as soon as Jodi's mother realised her daughter had not been with LM - she did not for one moment believe she had simply went elsewhere. She reported her missing in around 10mins. - We can see clearly from this, with pretty much a very fair assumption - that this mother was frantic - she knew something was wrong. And I ask again - did the penny drop, from the earlier call and so forth - we need to see this do we not, rather than these useless areas of 5%- as, as stated, showing more would no doubt show just how much manipulation is going on. We know how it works in a court room - with two sides and fair play.
We know JuJ asked LM when visiting their home that very question - "why did you not call back?" And he said "I thought you had grounded her" - Is this where she became suspicious? Again, those very relevant parts, that context, is always missing.
And we know that this ban, of walking this path alone, of "mucking around up here" - had absolutely no time to be thought of in detail, did it? - ridiculous to attempt to tie this in - From barely one moment to realising her daughter was missing, to barely drawing breath never mind thought - to bang, she is found dead - By LM, not his dog -which has also being showing with the utmost clarity. - None of this search party walked passed this V prior to him going over. It matters not one iota what the dam dog was jumping about at here. It was no where near Jodi - And not only that - the lies that LM told around this, that were never in agreement at any time with this girls family - he had not been some 40ft passed this V
And again - you want us to believe the police plucked this time out of thin air - nonsense and you know. On par with these ridiculous claims that AB drove a couple of hundred yards from the lane, passed this house she looked at for a second - turning it into nearly an hour?? - to ignore all an everything on the basis that AB had said she was not long home, when her husband phoned. - nonsense.
For you are ignoring and air brushing, consistently over - those clear, well founded areas of suspicion brought from LM himself. That there was no tunnel vision - we know who has this, don't we? - zoned completely on irrelevant matters, wafer thin as you say.
The police had every reason to be suspicious - and we know clearly and precisely why LM could not be eliminated whilst these others could. You can not change the evidence against LM. You do not even want to discuss his own account with rational.
