The less talked about sighting on Newbattle Road by M O'Sullivan & D Hamilton...

[Mr Apples]

There are many sources one of which I believe was said in evidence given at Mitchell's trial.

Snip
Mitchell told police that his mother Corinne and brother Shane were using the stove that night. Corinne said it was not being used and Shane was not able to say either way. "We also had reports from neighbours saying they had smelled burning coming from the Mitchell’s back garden that night," said Mr Dobbie.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

Thanks. It’s interesting she said that it wasn’t used that evening and Luke said it was . . . will need to do some further reading on that. Also interesting is that the article indicates that family members of Luke’s said he owned a parka jacket before the murder, though I suspect this to be either erroneous info or a misquote.

[faithlilly]

Absolutely zero point in posting anything that Lean's Rottweiler will twist.

Then why allude to knowledge you have no intention of revealing? How does it progress the debate?

[Parky41]

So many unanswered questions....so many alternative scenarios but, sod it, let’s go with the answer that’s most detrimental to Luke.

You’re exposing your bias Mr Parky !

When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now. 

Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category. 

That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so.  I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.

So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.

That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.

And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.

Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.

Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?

[faithlilly]

When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now. 

Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category. 

That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so.  I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.

So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.

That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.

And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.

Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.

Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?

Apologies if you feel that my first posts to you were too aggressive. I had seen you debating on the blue forum with Dr Lean and assumed you were used to the rough and tumble of lively debate...that your opinions were robust enough to take the clinical dissection that is commonplace in such forums. It was my mistake.

[Paranoid Android]

Then why allude to knowledge you have no intention of revealing? How does it progress the debate?

I'll progress the debate by confirming that the Mitchells were under surveillance.

You now no longer have to worry that LM was free between the murder and being banged up.

[faithlilly]

I'll progress the debate by confirming that the Mitchell's were under surveillance.

You now no longer have to worry that LM was free between the murder and being banged up.

And I’ll continue the debate by asking you how you can be certain ?

[Bullseye]

When I was first studying this case, and whilst posting on the blue forum, a lot of what I pushed out were bullet point with little narrative. Done mostly to obtain further information - for there were so many unanswered questions, as at points when reading up, I could make no sense of certain areas. Scratching my head, wondering why certain things were being brought up, over and over. I understand them a lot more now. 

Joining discussion here again - after the recent bout of media attention. I made the choice to discuss yet again - suspicion where LM was concerned. And instantly you were on my back. In that usual predictive manner. Attack, ridicule and attempt continuously to tell anyone who may be reading - that all I said was rubbish on the basis of providing no cites, no back up. Continuously at Ms Lean defence. Then you decided to dump me into the guilty brigade camp? So rather than continue to speak of the evidence from understanding why LM was suspected, could not be eliminated and convicted - I changed my stance to speaking completely from a guilty point of view. At your request, by way of dismissing me clearly into that category. 

That very first post I made, to highlight, of how someone would/could speak from this stance, was instantly jumped upon, from yourself, Bullseye etc. It did not matter that I had explained why I had made the post - For I have always maintained, that placing guilt firmly upon LM's head has already been done - he is in prison serving life for it, I do not have to prove anything and it is not my place, neither do I wish to make that complete decision of condemnation. But speak now in the manner from the convicted point of view - rather than the suspicion. And if fits perfectly, for I was already armed with complete understanding as to why he was suspect and remained so.  I did not start completely at one end of the other. Whether he is guilty or not - is of no consequence to myself, which I feel makes it easier to understand, and to not have tunnel vision.

So showing my bias? - LM is a convicted murderer and I have still yet to find anything, in the slightest that shows the evidence against him to be wrong. Quite the opposite. From one end of that evening to the next. Starting from that text to LM from Jodi's mother. I was, I presume like most people. That simplicity that this girl was missing. A search was organised. Four people and a dog were out looking. That Luke had claimed his dog found Jodi and the Crown showed this to be wrong - And it was a long time reading over these many discussions. Of dogs not scenting on the way up, of expert dog training - you know the norm. And I was shocked when I pieced that information together. And it was Ms Lean who gave me most of this information by means of above.

That text at 10.42pm. The call back, JuJ putting the phone down. The call back again. The call to her mother. The call again with LM. The call to the police and of Luke's claimed time of leaving home around 10.52 and of being on/at this path at 10.59pm. And of the search trio leaving Mayfield around 11.05pm. Of the call from the complex at 11.18pm and of this meet at around 11.20pm. And that call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.

And those excerpts from statements - and the long winded roads and that distraction. Of searching caravan parks and the such like and everything else I had read. Was answered completely by the above - This girls family had little chance of thinking of anything, far less putting in place some organised search. And it can not be any clearer and you can not change that. That the police had attended and bang Jodi is found dead. And I see clearly and without a doubt why this must be distracted away from - For the volume is so loud on what actually did happen - no amount of tuning can lesson it. And even when faced with what you can not change - you still attempt to distract with futile questions, such as "at what point did JuJ ask the search party why they were on the path?" I'm pretty sure Jodi's mother had other things on her mind, facing just being told her daughter was dead, than ask stupid irrelevant things such as - why where you on the path? When we know exactly why they were on this path - as LM was on it, he led them right there. And you can not change that. He told this family she had failed to turn up, he told this family he was on this path. And JuJ is busy with the police and you want to know, why in that space of time she was not saying - Oh you must search the caravan park anywhere, I'm not caring what LM is saying - My daughter told me she was going to be "up here".- Absolutely ridiculous. Less than 50mins. Less than ten minutes together and bang.

Stop making excuses and start explaining with some actual rational. Everything, right down to every lie, about the V, about not frequenting this woodland.

Then we jump to the other end of this evening and those initial 4 changes in story from the Mitchells of this claimed alibi? And onto the incredulous time waiting on a meet that was based upon no fixed plans?

I’m not sure what you are referring to saying I instantly jumped on your post, I’m sorry if you feel like that. I believe Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say what they believe, you included, I do not ridicule or attack in my posts,  but if I see someone else being unfairly treated I will speak out. I also have been ridiculed and attacked as I think alot of us here have, but I think we need to stick to what we each believe and accept when we are wrong, which I have been on a few thing regards this case but that’s why these discussions are important. If I see something I think is incorrect or misconstrued I try to make it a bit clearer for new readers or ask further questions as I’ve found it difficult to work out what it true and what is not over the years. There is so much mis information out there on both sides. Also I seem to be slotted into the innocent camp, which I am not. Imo so far I’ve just not seen anything that convinced me of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of evidence against him, added to the news reports at the time I can totally see why he was found guilty. I personally just think it’s worth a look at dna after all these years. But IMO it could very well have been Luke, probably was but probably is not enough for me.  Hope to god it was him!

[Parky41]

I’m not sure what you are referring to saying I instantly jumped on your post, I’m sorry if you feel like that. I believe Everyone is entitled to their opinion and have the right to say what they believe, you included, I do not ridicule or attack in my posts,  but if I see someone else being unfairly treated I will speak out. I also have been ridiculed and attacked as I think alot of us here have, but I think we need to stick to what we each believe and accept when we are wrong, which I have been on a few thing regards this case but that’s why these discussions are important. If I see something I think is incorrect or misconstrued I try to make it a bit clearer for new readers or ask further questions as I’ve found it difficult to work out what it true and what is not over the years. There is so much mis information out there on both sides. Also I seem to be slotted into the innocent camp, which I am not. Imo so far I’ve just not seen anything that convinced me of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of evidence against him, added to the news reports at the time I can totally see why he was found guilty. I personally just think it’s worth a look at dna after all these years. But IMO it could very well have been Luke, probably was but probably is not enough for me.  Hope to god it was him!

Apologies Bullseye - I did not mean myself personally but what I had actually posted. It was a very strong post in reference to LM and of him murdering Jodi. To do with animals - it was not what I believed, just showing how I could post if I was the guilter I was being labelled as at the time- Done and dusted and I meant no offence.

[Bullseye]

Apologies Bullseye - I did not mean myself personally but what I had actually posted. It was a very strong post in reference to LM and of him murdering Jodi. To do with animals - it was not what I believed, just showing how I could post if I was the guilter I was being labelled as at the time- Done and dusted and I meant no offence.

Thanks Parky, I remember a post that said something about Luke hurting animals and I did jump on this as that’s something I had not heard over the years I’ve been looking at the case, and it’s something, if true, would have been thrown around all the time and tbh would push me to the guilty camp if true. Stuff like that I will post as soon as I see it as I think it’s important to try to keep to facts but granted in this case that’s the hard part, working out what is fact or fiction.

[Mr Apples]

We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.

No, we all don’t know — for none of us are omniscient. Besides, I don’t think it would have been feasible for Luke to have went home, clean up further, change clothing and be back on the newbattle rd for the sightings of the 3 cyclists, the Scottish Executive employee and the couple MO’S & DH (if that’s what you were inferring, of course). All of these people saw LM between 1755 & 1805 on N’battle rd, and then 1 of the 3 cyclists said he saw LM again, 20/30 mins later, standing at the exact same spot as he was when he had seen him the first time with his 2 other cyclist pals travelling north to the Jewel and Esk college at just before 1800, putting that final sighting of LM on the N’battle rd at 1815 at the earliest and 1830 at the latest.  It’s more likely that LM went home via a secluded route south of the Eskbank river shortly after that final sighting on the N’battle rd by the cyclist going home between 1815-1830. This, of course, ties in with the wood-burner being used that night, between 1830-2200 that same night, and the comments made by one of LM’s friends who met up with him that evening after 1900 with David High. LM’s other friend, David Tulloch, indicated that Luke was ‘less unkempt than usual’ (I forgot to save or bookmark the online article featuring the interview with David Tulloch . . . anyone else have it?).

So, there you have it: a plausible theory that LM did, in fact, murder Jodi Jones. He left the house just after Jodi text him at 1630 to say she was ungrounded (hence why Shane never saw him when he got in from work and ultimately couldn’t provide an alibi for Luke). Met up at usual rendezvous point at the lane at the Easthouses end of RDP about 1650. An argument ensued (possibly about Kimberley Thomson, but could’ve been about a myriad of other things). The argument continued and intensified during walking along RDP towards the N’battle end. After a possible cannabis-induced psychotic episode wherein he carried out the heinous deeds in the woodland between 1710 - 1725, he subsequently walked down to the Newbattle road, skulking around there between 1740-1830, hatching a plan to defeat the ends of justice and not believing his luck that he had very little blood on him. Began to feel uncomfortable on the N’battle rd with all the busy traffic passing by at peak time (was seen looking ‘suspicious’ by eyewitnesses F & W & MO’S & DH). Hid the slightly blood-stained parka in the woodlands at the south Eskbank river woodland area, but went back on the road again wearing only the bomber jacket which was underneath the parka (think LM hoped that the presence of 2 jackets would confuse eyewitnesses on the road and deflect any guilt from him, thinking ahead in case of any questions in future from police regarding a girl’s — his girlfriend’s — disappearance). Yeah, Luke was not seen by anyone between 1830 until he met up with David High and David Tulloch, among others, at 1930 in the abbey, so it was possible he had washed thoroughly at home and changed clothing during this timeframe of an hour. Also noteworthy of this timeframe of an hour was the lack of concern or indifference to his girlfriend Jodi (I know he wasn’t an adult in a long-term relationship, but they were not young children, were above age of criminal responsibility, and had been dating for at least 3 months and were keen on one another and had been spending most of their recreation time together since dating; they were close, keen on one another and were having intercourse). I think the fact that he didn’t go to Easthouses or Jodi’s house between 1830 and 1930 is troubling, especially as AO had told him earlier at 1740 she’d left to meet HIM — no one else. And also because he had phoned his friends & hurried them up to meet him, at 1900. Why so keen to see his friends all of a sudden? For the last 3 months he and Jodi were inseparable, had been with each other most nights since dating (they kept religiously to their meeting arrangements, it being said that Jodi had only missed a meet-up with Luke only once in all their time of dating). Telling David High ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Of David Tulloch commenting that Luke was less unkempt than normal. Alarm bells ringing? You bet! Luke had walked the path (Roan’s Dyke) to Jodi’s frequently in the past, so why all the dilly-dallying that night between 1745 - 1930?

And as for LM phoning AO at 1732 & 1740, and phoning his mum at 1900, these calls, imo, served a dual purpose: to give a facade of being the concerned boyfriend and, more significantly, to reassure Luke that no one had yet found Jodi’s body and a murder investigation was not yet underway; it bought him time think further about what he was going to do next, what his next move would be.

I am not saying this is definitely what happened — and I still have little doubts regarding Luke’s guilt —  but this is currently my stance on the case after 2 months of research. This opinion/theory could, of course, change.

What do you think?

[Parky41]

No, we all don’t know — for none of us are omniscient. Besides, I don’t think it would have been feasible for Luke to have went home, clean up further, change clothing and be back on the newbattle rd for the sightings of the 3 cyclists, the Scottish Executive employee and the couple MO’S & DH (if that’s what you were inferring, of course). All of these people saw LM between 1740 & 1800 on N’battle rd, and then 1 of the 3 cyclists said he saw LM again, 20/30 mins later, standing at the exact same spot as he was when he had seen him the first time with his 2 other cyclist pals travelling north to the Jewel and Esk college at just before 1800, putting that final sighting of LM on the N’battle rd at 1815 at the earliest and 1830 at the latest.  It’s more likely that LM went home via a secluded route south of the Eskbank river shortly after that final sighting on the N’battle rd by the cyclist going home between 1815-1830. This, of course, ties in with the wood-burner being used that night, between 1830-2200 that same night, and the comments made by one of LM’s friends who met up with him that evening after 1900 with David High. LM’s other friend, David Tulloch, indicated that Luke was ‘less unkempt than usual’ (I forgot to save or bookmark the online article featuring the interview with David Tulloch . . . anyone else have it?).

Nope - They saw LM just short of 6pm and some 10-15 mins later. Now if you wish to disregard completely the official timings of everything - sought after these witnesses came forward - then there is no point in discussing anything - is there? The first sighting was by F&W not the ones you mention. So by your reckoning no other discussion is necessary - as if you claim he was seen with this bomber jacket on at 17.40pm - then it was not him that killed Jodi. Plain and simple. - But if one goes with the actual timing of these sightings, of F&W then that missing period of time until he was seen with the bomber jacket on just short of 6pm. And one would  have to wonder quite rightly why it even went to court. if any of the people you mention saw LM at 17.40pm with his bomber jacket on? Not forgetting here of course that LM at his point was not anywhere up near this gate or Barondale cottages at 17.40pm. As he claimed he made both calls to the Jones household at 17.32 and 17.38 from the Abbey entrance? That he himself stated it was some time after these calls, that he then wandered up to the bend in the road. .

So I was not inferring these people, I was inferring the time difference between the F&W sighting and when he was first witnessed with the bomber on. Thus why I have mentioned multiple times of it took LM 7-mins to get from his house onto RDP. From the sighting by F&W to his house, via this woodland at haste, would be a considerably less amount of time, and to be back out to be sighted by these other witnesses. That from this woodland, after exiting it through the cul-de-sac into his garden takes less than a minute at haste. It was timed at approx two minutes, idly walking to get from his house onto Newbattle Road. And that the last thing LM wanted was to be seen until he had changed that clothing. I do not believe for one moment he had some hidden in the woodland. That he did have on average around 15mins to get home and changed and back out onto Newbattle road. - thus the 7mins itself from his house to the path. Easily halved at haste from the gate sighting by F&W. - And ultimately it was shown and believed to be the case - before this Jury. There was definitely no sighting of LM in a bomber jacket at 17.40pm. And from this he had to dispose of the parka, until after he disappeared again around 6.15pm - this is the time for setting things properly in motion. For the story and disposal properly of the evidence. And he had scrubbed up a bit by the time he met with the boys. As you say "less unkempt than usual".

And as I have stated before - it is one thing going into a rage and killing someone then becoming calm. It is something else covering it up. That wheels were already spinning. Jodi had left to meet with LM and everything else that entailed - could never match the story he was to tell, of setting that alibi in place. The disposal of evidence was the easy part.

[faithlilly]

Nope - They saw LM just short of 6pm and some 10-15 mins later.

Let me just stop you there.

“ Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.

He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”

And

“ Dean said that he occasionally cycled to school with Mr Mitchell, and Grant said the accused was still standing at the same spot as he made his return journey home some 20 minutes to half-an-hour later”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410701.cyclists-tell-trial-of-seeing-jodi-accused/


And this

“ Mr Findlay opened his submissions on Thursday by dealing with what he termed the more "peripheral" evidence led in the case.
He told the court Ms Walsh and Ms Fleming both described seeing a young man in the vicinity of a gate on a main road at about 1745 GMT on the day Jodi died.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7232548.stm

[Mr Apples]

Parky41 — I agree that F&W saw him before the others mentioned, though I recall 1745 in SL’s book. How do you know the ‘official’ timinigs? I also agree that F&W were the last witnesses to see him in the parka. Where I disagree is that you think LM hid/went home, washed and got changed and was back on n’battle road for the MO’S & DH sighting at 1755 (they said they saw someone wearing a bomber jacket, but it was categorically not Luke Mitchell). Ten minutes to do all that? Unlikely, imo. The cyclists said they saw LM on N’battle rd just before 6 (positively identified him as they went to school with him and cycled with him to school occasionally. 1 of the cyclists said when he was cycling back home, LM was still at the exact same spot some 20/30 mins later ... so, that is 1815 at the earliest & 1830 at the latest). I think LM went home shortly after that sighting and then disposed of the parka and got washed at home. Btw, did the cyclists say what LM was wearing? Don’t think the article I read mentioned them giving a description of LM’s clothing.

[Parky41]

Let me just stop you there.

“ Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.

He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”

And

“ Dean said that he occasionally cycled to school with Mr Mitchell, and Grant said the accused was still standing at the same spot as he made his return journey home some 20 minutes to half-an-hour later”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410701.cyclists-tell-trial-of-seeing-jodi-accused/

And what exactly have i said that is so different --- around 6pm. And it was timed at around 10-15mins later on the return. Of what I have always said. These sightings in and around 15-20mins from them all. Lots of sightings yet no others for the remainder of that claimed remarkable time out and about?

[Parky41]

Parky41 — I agree that F&W saw him before the others mentioned, though I recall 1745 in SL’s book. How do you know the ‘official’ timinigs? I also agree that F&W were the last witnesses to see him in the parka. Where I disagree is that you think LM hid/went home, washed and got changed and was back on n’battle road for the MO’S & DH sighting at 1755 (they said they saw someone wearing a bomber jacket, but it was categorically not Luke Mitchell). Ten minutes to do all that? Unlikely, imo. The cyclists said they saw LM on N’battle rd just before 6 (positively identified him as they went to school with him and cycled with him to school occasionally. 1 of the cyclists said when he was cycling back home, LM was still at the exact same spot some 20/30 mins later (so, that is 1815 at the earliest & 1830 at the latest. I think LM went home shortly after that sighting and then disposed of the parka and got washed at home. Btw, did the cyclists saw what LM was wearing? Don’t think the article I read mentioned them giving a description of the LM’s clothing.

We will have to agree to disagree - Ample time IMO for the first immediate change. No massive clean up required.  An assumption made perhaps only on the basis of him being soaked in blood. I see no evidence that he had to be at all. He was wearing this parka, long and with a hood. Which was down for the sighting by F&W. There is a huge difference between splatter, and some transfer to being covered. This would have come after his disappearance again from sight. He initially had to be seen, to be seen waiting for Jodi.