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

[Parky41]

That’s strange, me too. Take this one for example.

“Mr Turnbull asked the jury to consider the evidence about the night Jodi's body was found. The accused, he said, was able to find the body in the dark.
'Mutilated body'
"That night, Luke Mitchell is able to find the mutilated body of Jodi Jones in a wood behind a wall.
"I ask you to accept from the evidence that Luke Mitchell knew where to find the body," he told the jury.
The advocate depute said the cornerstone of the Crown's case was the evidence given by the Jones family about the search for Jodi on the night she died.
They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.
Family's account
The accused told the police he had walked past the "v" but had returned to it after his dog reacted.
Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4184101.stm

Looks like Luke was telling the truth all along.

From the BBC’s Frontline Scotland at approx 21.40.

A verbatim quote from JaJ’s initial statement.

“Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”

And a summary of part of SK’s

 ‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’

https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0

Exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for pulling it up from those statements.  - pull up what was said just before this too. Coming to this V. And of the dogs head being level with the V. And of Luke in this woodland.


But mostly Faithlilly  - pull up LM's statements. And of Kelly. Just below. Under? Just by   - bust mostly this Just anything? And of what you already attempted to do and of what SL attempts to do - when she attempts to bring LM right back to this V break. She attempts to tie LM in with the search party, and she attempts to have LM's dog just a foot or inches passed this V break. Any scraping of left, even by a mere inches. - to explain every piece of nonsense as to why LM turned left. 

Then pull up those clarifications in statements. Pull up what this search party said - when they were taken to RDP to go over their statements - when they walked this path?

Let us have a picture of LM's clarification of this, where this search trio where? The diagram where x marked the spot, exactly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woodland.

Then you can explain to anyone, how any of that tied with LM? We know the dog was at the V. We know it was pulling. We know it was standing up at the V and we know LM then entered this woodland.We know LM told of his dog reacting at the wall. Of it jumping at the wall and of the dog "air sniffing" and of his words "leading them to Jodi". And it was some 40ft down from this V break - there was no "Just" - Let us not forget here, LM's dog was on a lead. Whilst the dogs bloody head and half it's body may have appeared "just" inches next this V - LM is at this V.

I'll highlight that massive difference yet again. LM in his first statement said, that "not even 20yrds passed" which was around 40-60ft by his meaning. Then when he clarified this by diagram it was exactly the 40ft - tying in with what he had first claimed. and exactly "parallel to Jodi". That he then and only him doubled back to the V break in the wall, where he gained access to the woodland. He doubled back from some distance passed this V - and it could only have been some distance passed this V - for him to have entered this woodland and walk immediately to his left and the claim of where he said he walked to, in the woodland. - For at this V. A foot to the left or the right - LM would simply have entered this woodland - He would have shone his torch about there. He would have saw nothing and he would have went back onto the path. For he would have had absolutely no reason to continue down to his left. His dog could have been reacting, "air sniffing" - class words, to absolutely anything in this woodland. Around this V break. That "Just" of anything. Was the dog just below the V as in the undergrowth - for it certainly was not where LM said it was. Not even 10ft passed, but he did not even say this did he? - it was "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. 


First account again - That the search party gave an account of AW getting the lead off LM. That they saw him in the woodland and they saw him turn left. That they then and only then continued to walk down this path except  AW. That they had barely walked around 10ft when LM shouted he had found something. That they returned to this V after being shouted back. - and LM was again at this V.

Of how clearly it was shown - that LM could have walked no more than 10ft on the inside of this wall in line with the search trio - and from here he gave a description of the tree, of the red bobble, the socks and clothing.

Therefore NO - LM did know where Jodi lay - every single part of those search parties statements, except LM's gave claim, always to being at this V break in the wall. It was only LM that ever made claim to his dog being anywhere near and then to say exactly "parallel" to Jodi.

Now that you have, yet again tried to bring LM back to this V break - to be "just" by it. Which explains every bit of truth from this search trio - and not LM. Explain why he entered this woodland with no trepidation, no unfamiliarity, of why he had already introduced the woodland into the search. That without a shadow of a doubt the search party where being honest. When they made claim to being  at this V, only before LM entered the woodland, of everything they gave testimony to. Of the dogs head being level. Of the lead being handed over and of him turning left. And of those clarifications - around what the dog was doing - at the V. Was it the dog leading LM to the V or LM?  - and do we even need to go into every possibility of what LM may have been doing on the way up this path - At this V break, for him to be leading his dog to anything - at this V.

So grasp away - scrape away as much as you must. - to show that this dog doing anything, at this V break - is the same in the slightest to LM's claim of his dog at the wall - some 40ft - exactly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? They were miles apart (well 39.11inches) in what you are now stating is the same. That you are ignoring LM's testimony, that you are bringing him right back to this V break - to tie in with the truthful account of the search trio. They were always in complete contrast. The gaping holes are what the police found suspicious. That clarity yet again - That LM, had to have been some distance passed this V, to have entered this woodland with even the slightest bit of ease. To go exactly left, right away. Rather than look around him and so forth - he was lying , from the first - and the complete contrast in accounts are what raised flags. The police had it in for no-one. They knew LM was lying. That LM had already introduced the woodland, that he had scaled the wall at the Gino spot - and he had shone his torch "around" the woodland.

The only thing, as I have always stated - being the same in those statements - is a dog at a wall. You can not change what LM said to fit in with the search party.That it was upon reaching this V, that LM entered this woodland. His dog could have been doing summersaults at this wall, going absolutely crazy, barking and so forth - It was at the V. -They were never, where LM claimed they had been.

[Angelo222]

Had the dog scented something she would have done so on the way to meet up with the Jones family yet no mention of that by Luke Mitchell.  It wasn't in Mitchell's interest to find the body on his own ergo the initial scenting was conveniently ignored. No wonder the police caught on so quickly.

[Brietta]

Had the dog scented something she would have done so on the way to meet up with the Jones family yet no mention of that by Luke Mitchell.  It wasn't in Mitchell's interest to find the body on his own ergo the initial scenting was conveniently ignored. No wonder the police caught on so quickly.

The wall was obviously of great significance to the prosecution.  They went to the bother of having a replica of the area with the break in it constructed in the court room.  The court was convened at the actual location for the jurors to see for themselves as well as where Jodi's remains had been left lying.

It is interesting that Mitchell's defence had nothing to say about all of that but to raise the objection that one of the jurors might have had a personal grievance with the person taking the measurement;  not a thing about the testimony given or anything else about the dog.

Someone help me out here please ~ exactly which side of the wall was the dog located prior to Jodi's mutilated body being found.  Was the dog at the crime scene ~ or did it never cross over the V.

[faithlilly]

Exactly what I have been saying. Thank you for pulling it up from those statements.  - pull up what was said just before this too. Coming to this V. And of the dogs head being level with the V. And of Luke in this woodland.


But mostly Faithlilly  - pull up LM's statements. And of Kelly. Just below. Under? Just by   - bust mostly this Just anything? And of what you already attempted to do and of what SL attempts to do - when she attempts to bring LM right back to this V break. She attempts to tie LM in with the search party, and she attempts to have LM's dog just a foot or inches passed this V break. Any scraping of left, even by a mere inches. - to explain every piece of nonsense as to why LM turned left. 

Then pull up those clarifications in statements. Pull up what this search party said - when they were taken to RDP to go over their statements - when they walked this path?

Let us have a picture of LM's clarification of this, where this search trio where? The diagram where x marked the spot, exactly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woodland.

Then you can explain to anyone, how any of that tied with LM? We know the dog was at the V. We know it was pulling. We know it was standing up at the V and we know LM then entered this woodland.We know LM told of his dog reacting at the wall. Of it jumping at the wall and of the dog "air sniffing" and of his words "leading them to Jodi". And it was some 40ft down from this V break - there was no "Just" - Let us not forget here, LM's dog was on a lead. Whilst the dogs bloody head and half it's body may have appeared "just" inches next this V - LM is at this V.

I'll highlight that massive difference yet again. LM in his first statement said, that "not even 20yrds passed" which was around 40-60ft by his meaning. Then when he clarified this by diagram it was exactly the 40ft - tying in with what he had first claimed. and exactly "parallel to Jodi". That he then and only him doubled back to the V break in the wall, where he gained access to the woodland. He doubled back from some distance passed this V - and it could only have been some distance passed this V - for him to have entered this woodland and walk immediately to his left and the claim of where he said he walked to, in the woodland. - For at this V. A foot to the left or the right - LM would simply have entered this woodland - He would have shone his torch about there. He would have saw nothing and he would have went back onto the path. For he would have had absolutely no reason to continue down to his left. His dog could have been reacting, "air sniffing" - class words, to absolutely anything in this woodland. Around this V break. That "Just" of anything. Was the dog just below the V as in the undergrowth - for it certainly was not where LM said it was. Not even 10ft passed, but he did not even say this did he? - it was "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. 


First account again - That the search party gave an account of AW getting the lead off LM. That they saw him in the woodland and they saw him turn left. That they then and only then continued to walk down this path except  AW. That they had barely walked around 10ft when LM shouted he had found something. That they returned to this V after being shouted back. - and LM was again at this V.

Of how clearly it was shown - that LM could have walked no more than 10ft on the inside of this wall in line with the search trio - and from here he gave a description of the tree, of the red bobble, the socks and clothing.

Therefore NO - LM did know where Jodi lay - every single part of those search parties statements, except LM's gave claim, always to being at this V break in the wall. It was only LM that ever made claim to his dog being anywhere near and then to say exactly "parallel" to Jodi.

Now that you have, yet again tried to bring LM back to this V break - to be "just" by it. Which explains every bit of truth from this search trio - and not LM. Explain why he entered this woodland with no trepidation, no unfamiliarity, of why he had already introduced the woodland into the search. That without a shadow of a doubt the search party where being honest. When they made claim to being  at this V, only before LM entered the woodland, of everything they gave testimony to. Of the dogs head being level. Of the lead being handed over and of him turning left. And of those clarifications - around what the dog was doing - at the V. Was it the dog leading LM to the V or LM?  - and do we even need to go into every possibility of what LM may have been doing on the way up this path - At this V break, for him to be leading his dog to anything - at this V.

So grasp away - scrape away as much as you must. - to show that this dog doing anything, at this V break - is the same in the slightest to LM's claim of his dog at the wall - some 40ft - exactly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? They were miles apart (well 39.11inches) in what you are now stating is the same. That you are ignoring LM's testimony, that you are bringing him right back to this V break - to tie in with the truthful account of the search trio. They were always in complete contrast. The gaping holes are what the police found suspicious. That clarity yet again - That LM, had to have been some distance passed this V, to have entered this woodland with even the slightest bit of ease. To go exactly left, right away. Rather than look around him and so forth - he was lying , from the first - and the complete contrast in accounts are what raised flags. The police had it in for no-one. They knew LM was lying. That LM had already introduced the woodland, that he had scaled the wall at the Gino spot - and he had shone his torch "around" the woodland.

The only thing, as I have always stated - being the same in those statements - is a dog at a wall. You can not change what LM said to fit in with the search party.That it was upon reaching this V, that LM entered this woodland. His dog could have been doing summersaults at this wall, going absolutely crazy, barking and so forth - It was at the V. -They were never, where LM claimed they had been.

Those first statements, denied on oath by the protagonists, of Luke not ‘just going over the wall’, but of being lead there by his dog. Of SK’s observation of Luke’s dog ‘ pulling Luke to the wall’, suggesting that he was some way away from it. Of those lies under oath being the cornerstone of the Crown’s case. What a tawdry deception against a child.

 “Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall. Luke then climbed over the wall and started searching about”

That was the truth, wasn’t it.. not this :

 “ They testified that Luke Mitchell walked straight to the v-shaped gap in the wall bordering the Roan's Dyke path, behind which Jodi's body was discovered.”

Never that.

Of Mr Turnbull telling the jury that if the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.

But it wasn’t right, was it? It wasn’t consistent, was it?

 ‘Steven Kelly describes Luke’s dog pulling Luke to the wall and jumping up just below a v shaped break in the wall.’

That’s what Luke had also said, wasn’t it? That the dog had pulled him to the wall and started jumping just below the v. That’s consistent...that matched the first statements of those who lied under oath.

That cornerstone built on sand.

And that other cornerstone, the Andrina Bryson sighting. What of it ?

Certainly a very truthful witness, as most were at the beginning, and certainly sure of her actions in those first statements.

Of her children arriving home from school and immediately bundling them into the car for a trip to the supermarket at 4.05. Of the arrival of that supermarket at 4.15 and checkout at 4.45. Of her arrival in Easthouses at around 5.10 and, as she admitted later that she didn’t know Easthouses well, the search for the house for sale. Of having a quick look at the house and making her way back home. Of seeing the young couple at the entrance to the Roan’s Dyke path at 5.45 and finally her arrival home at around 5.50...gauging this by a phone call from her husband.

Of her categorical repudiation that the youth she saw had been wearing a parka. ‘Most like it ‘ was as far as she’d admit and even then that she’d pointed out the differences to the police at the time.

And of the bungled identification which broke all the rules.

Of course there was the bank statement bearing a different time than than that of Andrina’s supermarket receipt, held aloft by the prosecution like the correct answers to some confusing puzzle, but that raised more questions than it ever answered. Working backwards from Andrina’s phone call from her husband, logged at 6.17, to her departure from her house at 4.05 there was a huge hole of 45 minutes unaccounted for if the sighting of the couple was as early as the prosecution was desperate to suggest. Unfortunately an explanation for it’s absence was never sought, or given, and the chance was forfeited to provide an answer for the huge hole at the heart of the prosecution’s narrative.

Of course Andrina did try to redeem if not herself then certainly those who had put her in this terrible position.

 “Did she see the youth she’d seen that day in court” she was asked.

She didn’t.

Of course some will argue that by the time Andrina saw Luke in court he had filled out, his hair was different but this was also true if Luke was the youth seen by Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh yet they identified him in court when, arguably, they had seen less of his face.

Another cornerstone imperceptibly shifts.

[Parky41]

It does not matter in the slightest how much you pull up this dog being at the V - you are only proving the point that LM went straight over at the V. The path is not directly an inch from the wall. There is undergrowth and the such like. You can ignore LM's testimony as much as you like - He claimed and maintained that the search party were some 40ft passed this V break "parallel" - those are not the words of the child you make him out to be. So stop talking nonsense. It does not matter how much you miss out the other 99% of the statements from all of the search party - to zone in on this dog at the V break, at the wall here. - And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember. In fact by enforcing - the distance from the actual path to the wall - you are only showing a further distance for this dogs remarkable sniffer abilities. That it pulled to this V, what some 2-3 ft from the actual path - who would have thought eh? That it was heading to this V by whatever prompt from it's master. It was not pulling LM down the path, it was not pulling LM in the direction where Jodi lay - It was going to this V with LM. You can not change LM's testimony to suit yourself!

And no Brietta:
 -
The dog was never in the woods. The dog was on a path, on a lead. Cut off completely from the woodland by a high dry stane dyke. The only accessible point was were the wall had been broken into the shape of the V. Where the base was around 4-41/2 ft from the ground on the path side. As Angelo points out, the ridiculous claims that if this dog had any amazing capabilities it would have scented whilst LM was traversing this path. LM waited until he was in company. Jodi was left 40ft down from this V towards the west end of the path (Newbattle) - LM went through the V whilst coming from the East end of the path (Easthouses). You could not see into the woods from the path due to the height of the wall. No fencing, nothing. Just this high thick wall. So, no dog roaming free in a woodland, picking up scents. And most definitely no dog some 40ft passed this V "parallel" to where Jodi lay, as LM claimed - where he said the search party were on the path side. Thus why the Jury were taken to the locus. They were taken in winter time when growth was at it's lowest. And long after greenery etc had been cut back. Shown pictures to compare however. And they were taken in daytime not the dark.

That LM claimed he had never seen this V before that night - ridiculous claim. That he had never been in the woodland before - lots of evidence to the contrary. That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks. (Peter Manual, taking control and given too much detail) That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out. That there was complete familiarity of the woodland. No trepidation - nothing.

[Mr Apples]

Interesting to read the contrasting opinions. May I suggest that it was entirely possible that the dog was air sniffing to the left when at the V-break at the wall (and hence why Luke went in that direction once he himself climbed over the V)? Just the same as it was possible that LM, innocently, discovered Jodi’s body when travelling back down the path, towards N’battle? Perhaps Luke did only instruct Mia to go into ‘tracker mode’ on the way back west, purely because he was thinking more clearly and confidently when he met up with the trio? (It’s possible he was a little frightened and apprehensive walking the path himself to Easthouses as darkness fell — not thinking clearly and rushing — and only had confidence, and, in turn, clarity of thought, when the other 3 showed up; a ‘strength in numbers’ mentality.) I also think that Luke would have been aware that, wether he had killed Jodi or not, it would have been very unwise to seek out Jodi and find her when by himself, as it would’ve incriminated him substantially. But, in the instance of him not having killed Jodi, I don’t think he would have been interested or motivated in finding her body as he walked over to meet the search party at Easthouses, but most likely would have been once he joined the other 3 (as I said, strength in numbers). And he sure as hell wouldn’t have been stupid enough to find it himself if he had done it. As for the carving in the tree, well, is it possible JOF or GD did it? Highly unlikely, but, you never know.

As I said, I am beginning to think Luke Mitchell did murder Jodi — and, as such, think he had guilty knowledge of where her body lay — but I cannot say his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime.

[Rusty]

Interesting to read the contrasting opinions. May I suggest that it was entirely possible that the dog was air sniffing to the left when at the V-break at the wall

Have you considered what the weather was like that evening? Which direction was the wind blowing?

Also something I never seem to get answered. Maybe you know, since you seem to think the dog was trained to track & that of Luke trained to handle, who trained them? And where is their certificates?

[Mr Apples]

Have you considered what the weather was like that evening? Which direction was the wind blowing?

Also something I never seem to get answered. Maybe you know, since you seem to think the dog was trained to track & that of Luke trained to handle, who trained them? And where is their certificates?

I don’t think there would have been much of a wind at 2315 hrs at the height of summer, even in east central Scotland. Besides, a dog’s sense of smell is considerably more powerful than that of humans, to the extent that even a moderate wind wouldn’t throw an alsatian/German shepherd off its scent. I think it would have to have been severe winds in order for that to have happened, and, like I said, don’t think they would have been present in Dalkeith at that particular time of the search (at 2300-2340 on 30.06.03).

As regards a tracker dog certificate for Mia, my understanding is that Luke was training the dog with the help of an ex-policeman who was a friend of the family. Don’t think the training was fully completed or even assessed.

Btw, on another forum, it was mentioned that upon Luke finding the body, he screamed and then said, “I think I’ve found  something!” Was it the case that he did, in fact, scream? I know AW screamed and then JANJ did, SK retched (and was swearing down the phone, becoming impatient with the emergency services phone operators) and of LM, according to emergency services phone operators, ‘being in a bit of a state’. They were ‘all in hysterics’, according to JANJ.

[Brietta]

It does not matter in the slightest how much you pull up this dog being at the V - you are only proving the point that LM went straight over at the V. The path is not directly an inch from the wall. There is undergrowth and the such like. You can ignore LM's testimony as much as you like - He claimed and maintained that the search party were some 40ft passed this V break "parallel" - those are not the words of the child you make him out to be. So stop talking nonsense. It does not matter how much you miss out the other 99% of the statements from all of the search party - to zone in on this dog at the V break, at the wall here. - And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember. In fact by enforcing - the distance from the actual path to the wall - you are only showing a further distance for this dogs remarkable sniffer abilities. That it pulled to this V, what some 2-3 ft from the actual path - who would have thought eh? That it was heading to this V by whatever prompt from it's master. It was not pulling LM down the path, it was not pulling LM in the direction where Jodi lay - It was going to this V with LM. You can not change LM's testimony to suit yourself!

And no Brietta:
 -
The dog was never in the woods. The dog was on a path, on a lead. Cut off completely from the woodland by a high dry stane dyke. The only accessible point was were the wall had been broken into the shape of the V. Where the base was around 4-41/2 ft from the ground on the path side. As Angelo points out, the ridiculous claims that if this dog had any amazing capabilities it would have scented whilst LM was traversing this path. LM waited until he was in company. Jodi was left 40ft down from this V towards the west end of the path (Newbattle) - LM went through the V whilst coming from the East end of the path (Easthouses). You could not see into the woods from the path due to the height of the wall. No fencing, nothing. Just this high thick wall. So, no dog roaming free in a woodland, picking up scents. And most definitely no dog some 40ft passed this V "parallel" to where Jodi lay, as LM claimed - where he said the search party were on the path side. Thus why the Jury were taken to the locus. They were taken in winter time when growth was at it's lowest. And long after greenery etc had been cut back. Shown pictures to compare however. And they were taken in daytime not the dark.

That LM claimed he had never seen this V before that night - ridiculous claim. That he had never been in the woodland before - lots of evidence to the contrary. That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks. (Peter Manual, taking control and given too much detail) That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out. That there was complete familiarity of the woodland. No trepidation - nothing.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question Parky.

Jodi was left 40ft down from this V
Feet to steps converter puts that at appx 16 steps

• Step:
  The distance covered by a single step assuming a stride length of 0.762 meters or 2.5 feet. Although stride length will vary by person and activity this may be useful in estimating distance traveled from the reading on a pedometer. Feet to Steps | Kyle's Converter (kylesconverter.com)

That he had entered this woodland, darker still in the shelter of the trees. It was overcast/cloudy. That he was mere seconds before calling out.
Mitchell jumped the wall into the darkness with only a torch for company.  He was sixteen footsteps away from where Jodi lay.

Even with a torch in his hand he must have needed time to establish his bearings and to have a look around him to see where he was going before deciding where to put his feet in this overgrown area.
That he had managed to not only name the type of tree, the red hair fastener, the clothing, shoes and socks.
That he was mere seconds before calling out.

With unerring precision he was able to walk directly to where Jodi lay, was able to identify the type of tree obscuring sight of Jodi’s body, what jodi had been wearing down to the red bauble in her hair which could not be seen.
All in a flash

Mitchell went over.
Ms Jones said: "We heard Luke shouting there was something there or he had found something."
She said she and Mr Kelly ran back and saw Mr Mitchell standing on the other side.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4082427.stm

Mr Kelly, who had walked past the gap in the wall, said he ran back after hearing a shout.
By that time, Mr Mitchell was on the other side of the wall beside the woodland, Mr Kelly told the court.
Mr Kelly said he climbed over the wall to join Mr Mitchell, who pointed down the inside of the wall and said: "Down there, 5ft out from the wall."
The witness said he thought he could "see something", believing it at first to be a log.
Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC asked: "Did you come to realise there was a body there?"
Mr Kelly replied: "When I got a bit closer, yes."
The witness paused, before adding that he then "peered round a tree".
Mr Turnbull asked: "What did you see when you did that?"
"A body lying there," a tearful Mr Kelly replied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085983.stm

What was significant about Jodi’s body being discovered by Mitchell and the search party?
Mitchell discovered Jodi’s body, which was hidden behind a wall on the path, after claiming his dog led him to the scent. Family members with him said he appeared to know where the body was. They contradicted his evidence the dog had led them to the wall. He also showed no emotion at the horrifying find.
When he was later questioned he mentioned a distinctive hair clasp which was not readily visible on Jodi’s body and his description of her clothing implied he had seen her much later than just at school as he had claimed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-hard-facts-that-prove-luke-mitchell-murdered-jodi-jones-in-cold-blood/ar-BB1e8qbH

I think it is obvious why the court and the jury were brought to the crime scene - they would be able to see for themselves that when investigators subjected it to close scrutiny - Mitchell's narrative of events just didn't pass muster
I think the logistics determine that he wasn't looking for Jodi because he already knew exactly where to find her.

[Rusty]

I don’t think there would have been much of a wind at 2315 hrs at the height of summer, even in east central Scotland. Besides, a dog’s sense of smell is considerably more powerful than that of humans, to the extent that even a moderate wind wouldn’t throw an alsatian/German shepherd off its scent. I think it would have to have been severe winds in order for that to have happened, and, like I said, don’t think they would have been present in Dalkeith at that particular time of the search (at 2300-2340 on 30.06.03).

As regards a tracker dog certificate for Mia, my understanding is that Luke was training the dog with the help of an ex-policeman who was a friend of the family. Don’t think the training was fully completed or even assessed.

Btw, on another forum, it was mentioned that upon Luke finding the body, he screamed and then said, “I think I’ve found  something!” Was it the case that he did, in fact, scream? I know AW screamed and then JANJ did, SK retched (and was swearing down the phone, becoming impatient with the emergency services phone operators) and of LM, according to emergency services phone operators, ‘being in a bit of a state’. They were ‘all in hysterics’, according to JANJ.

You don't think, or you don't know? It is easy to find out historical weather.

I also find it fascinating, that you just say dog. Was Mia male? Or a bitch?  Do you know the capabilities between a bitch & male dog, in terms of its capabilities to track & train? And why you will find that most services that use dogs to work, are male dogs.

What exactly was Mia scenting?

What i think you mean is, Luke trained the dog to play fetch, just like all dog owners tend to do & the ex-police has just been thrown in, to add that bit of spice to the tale?

So what i have gathered so far in my quest over the years to find out who trained Mia. It was uncle, ex-army dude, some official dog training place in perthshire, now we have ex-police. I vaguely remember someone mentioning the dog came trained righto oh.

Luke most certainly did not scream, he was as calm as they come, in fact he was so calm at finding his very own GF's mutilated body, you would have thought he's done it & was showing the dead girl's family his prize. Oh wait.

[faithlilly]

You don't think, or you don't know? It is easy to find out historical weather.

I also find it fascinating, that you just say dog. Was Mia male? Or a bitch?  Do you know the capabilities between a bitch & male dog, in terms of its capabilities to track & train? And why you will find that most services that use dogs to work, are male dogs.

What exactly was Mia scenting?

What i think you mean is, Luke trained the dog to play fetch, just like all dog owners tend to do & the ex-police has just been thrown in, to add that bit of spice to the tale?

So what i have gathered so far in my quest over the years to find out who trained Mia. It was uncle, ex-army dude, some official dog training place in perthshire, now we have ex-police. I vaguely remember someone mentioning the dog came trained righto oh.

Luke most certainly did not scream, he was as calm as they come, in fact he was so calm at finding his very own GF's mutilated body, you would have thought he's done it & was showing the dead girl's family his prize. Oh wait.

I sometimes feel that those who think Luke guilty could be shown a video of anyone other than Luke killing poor Jodi and you’d still post that Luke paid them to do it.

[faithlilly]

- And of SK at trial saying "I don't remember" - it only proves that SK made claim he did not remember it.

What did SK not remember ? It certainly wasn’t the dog pulling Luke towards the wall and alerting him to something over it as he remembered that in his signed statement. So was it this?

“Questioned by Donald Findlay QC, defending Mr Mitchell, Mr Kelly was asked how close he had been to the tree he described when he saw the body.

After a long pause, Mr Kelly replied: "I cannot remember how far I was from the tree."

Or was it something else? He certainly seemed to have a painfully bad memory for someone so young.

Talking of Peter Manuel, he broke into my granny’s house in Birkenshaw when my papa was in the navy. As was his want he tipped out tinned peaches on the living room carpet. My granny, mum and her siblings were lucky not to have all been murdered in their beds. His sister worked as a nurse in Bellshill maternity when I was born. Lovely girl so I’m told.

 “And of bringing in no dog expert, why? “

A question from you a while back. Perhaps this explains why no dog evidence was presented.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460

[mrswah]

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html


Some info re the dog.

So, apparently, the police knew the dog was being trained as a tracker .  Mind you, since Sandra Lean said it, some of you aren't going to believe it!

[Brietta]

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s390.html


Some info re the dog.

So, apparently, the police knew the dog was being trained as a tracker .  Mind you, since Sandra Lean said it, some of you aren't going to believe it!

Sorry Mrswah, you've lost me there.

What I got from that link was Sandra Lean confirming the lack of provenance of professional training and the fact that

• the dog's alleged skills were checked out by Mitchell's defence team
• who didn't use the results as rebuttal evidence at Mitchell's trial

Sandra Lean posts ...
"Lukes dog, Mia, was a natural tracker, a point picked up by a friend of the Mitchells, who had trained tracker dogs in the army. The decision to train Mia was purely as a hobby, and to provide a stimulating pastime for her.
Lukes defence team had a specialist team brought in to put the dog through her paces, to prove that she would have done exactly as Luke and the others said she did. For reasons which were never explained, their evidence was never used in court, even though they did, in fact, find that she was properly trained, and would have been expected to react as she did at the wall."

That post speaks volumes for me.
Perhaps the fact you see what happened here as positive information while I see the opposite is an indicator of why there is so much misunderstanding about the guilt of this man.
One of the main planks of his defence did not meet a standard which enabled it to be used in court to confirm his narrative when checked by experts acting on his behalf.
I think that is damning.

[faithlilly]

Sorry Mrswah, you've lost me there.

What I got from that link was Sandra Lean confirming the lack of provenance of professional training and the fact that

• the dog's alleged skills were checked out by Mitchell's defence team
• who didn't use the results as rebuttal evidence at Mitchell's trial

Sandra Lean posts ...
"Lukes dog, Mia, was a natural tracker, a point picked up by a friend of the Mitchells, who had trained tracker dogs in the army. The decision to train Mia was purely as a hobby, and to provide a stimulating pastime for her.
Lukes defence team had a specialist team brought in to put the dog through her paces, to prove that she would have done exactly as Luke and the others said she did. For reasons which were never explained, their evidence was never used in court, even though they did, in fact, find that she was properly trained, and would have been expected to react as she did at the wall."

That post speaks volumes for me.
Perhaps the fact you see what happened here as positive information while I see the opposite is an indicator of why there is so much misunderstanding about the guilt of this man.
One of the main planks of his defence did not meet a standard which enabled it to be used in court to confirm his narrative when checked by experts acting on his behalf.
I think that is damning.

The above is absolutely not true as I posted last night.

In case any one missed it here it is again.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460