I can't say I know much about "Mitchell supporters" speaking against Jodi's mother or her family. I don't take much notice of the "campaign team" (as I don't in the Bamber case either). I don't really like campaigns or demos. Probably, I'm too old: the last time I went on a demo, was in the 1970's ("Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out) !!
However, I do like Sandra Lean's book, and I can't believe it's full of lies. She might have made some mistakes, and got some things wrong, but, if she was lying all the way through, she would have been called out by now. I know I get criticised for "promoting" her book (I call it "recommending"), but I happen to believe there is a lot in it that is worth considering.
i don't have a lot of faith in juries either. Jurors are ordinary people, just like us lot on this forum. They have their agendas and prejudices.
Perhaps, i'm just a lost cause!
The book - written on the false premise that one holds everything ?- they do not.? Written as supposedly being the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones - again a false premise. Can not be a true story when the first premise is wrong. The book uses around 5% verbatim to back up a whole lot of assumption and narrative does it not? The truth from the book is anything that is directly used from the case files Ms Lean holds. The exact extracts are the only clear truths - anything added to this is Ms Lean assumptions, her question and narrative. Is the book full of lies? - Not where the anything that is directly taken and quoted from the files she does have - no. Are there lies by omittance - yes, for the context and truth lies in everything? Ms Lean is in possession of only what DF used for the build of his case in defence of LM - Of what he kept in those files. - The book is about Ms Leans version of corruption, her deciphering of those case files - and she assumes a hell of a lot - around things such as missing phone logs, missing witness statements, of knowing nothing that actually went into the investigation in it's entirety - all of these things that both the prosecution and defence had access to a the time. The book does not tell you everything that Ms Lean has discussed and answered on forums - where you get a real insight into the manipulation -when one has been able to directly question all she writes. - to which a lot of the time she ignores the direct questions and diverts from the lies. As with the the search trio, and her claiming they walked directly passed YW's. When pulled up on this - completely ignores the lie she told, and goes straight to her assumptions - that it does not matter what the search trio did - they should have went into YW's house to check. -Therefore, the lie is alright to use, if it is used to back up what Ms Lean feels anyone should have done.
The phone logs - the classic one. There is no log of AW's call to her daughter, Jodi's aunt in DF's case files. Ms Lean has used this to push out a whole lot of assumption. To have it as a driving point question of why they were there. That due to no log being there, then the aunts must have already been in the Easthouses area. If they were already there, then it was not to do with the search trio and LM together. They must have been there for another reason entirely. And the obtuse reasoning that then comes forward from others. Such as these aunts having connections in high places. Friends with someone in the police and so forth. Then there is talk of missing logs from JuJ directly to her mother and again these are put out, as AW being out searching before she even knew that Jodi had been reported missing? - now Ms Lean is not daft. A very intelligent woman. She knows the exact reason why these are not there. That some things were completely irrelevant for Findalys team to use. But due to the absence of these, it then gives the person a free reign to push out any narrative around it. Another classic being that of Mr Kelly. Of Ms Leans lifelong claims that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend. As she claims also that his fathers statement was not in the defence papers. Now she knew for a fact as with the phone logs - all were mentioned in the witness statements and precognitions, but this only added to the power of writing and assumption did it not? - for it gives the person a free reign to state - the person says one thing but there is nothing else in the case papers she holds to back it up. i.e the phone log or statement from the Mr Kelly and so forth. - Therefore, ultimately, whatever Ms Lean does write upon, if she were to be pulled up on this - she can state, clearly and truthfully, they are not here, I did not know for sure if they existed or not?! - And even after, as with the YW scenario - Ms Lean was told clearly by the SCCRC that these all existed - They were not missing, They are there in all that went into the investigation that both the Crown and Defence had access to, whilst building their cases. Of all they took from the investigation files. - She then stated that it does not matter about Sk's alibi as he did not have one for around 10 days? - which is what I highlighted before. Mr Kelly was always alibied. He was not striving to give one, to have some concocted story in place. But interestingly it was around day 10 when the statement was taken from his father? -So she knew this, she saw it in the defence files, but due to the actual physical absence of it - it gives the writer a free reign? - to use anything other than Occam's Razor. - Masses amount of assumptions, obtuse reasoning other than the straightforward truth.
Below are two different time lines from Ms Lean - used depending on what point is pushed at the time. Firstly from where Jodi and Luke were witnessed by AB in the lane, It takes around 15 seconds to reach the junction of the actual paths. Lady Path and RDP. Where she states clearly it would take around 12 mins to reach the V break. Used to lesson time that LM would have to murder Jodi. The other is from the search at night. The correct timing done. The search trio slightly down from here, walking as LM was approaching by torchlight. However, irrelevant to the point I'm making. The shifting of feet, depending on which point is being made
From all of that, the police were left with a window of 4.45m - 5.32pm, from which they had to subtract enough time for Jodi to get to the V point (almost 12 mins) and still leave enough time for the attack etc before Luke's first phone call to the landline.
In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes.
