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

[Parky41]

The above is absolutely not true as I posted last night. There really is no excuse for this kind of ignorance other than obtuseness when the information has been posted already.

In case any one missed it here it is again.

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

So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away -  his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?

So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.

[Nicholas]

So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away -  his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?

So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.

And so in control of himself - what was it he said about allegedly not wanting to upset AW?

[Nicholas]

‘Mitchell was later spotted walking back in the direction of his own home at 10pm, after, the Crown alleged, he hid the murder weapon.

Jodi's mother said she "just knew there was something really wrong" when Jodi had failed to return home by that time.

She called Mitchell's mobile phone four times between 10.49pm and 11.17pm on the day she died. He told her he was "at the bottom of the path" and would go looking for Jodi.[/b]


Did Luke Mitchell hide the murder weapon and/or go back to the crime scene?

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/teenager-killed-jodi-7246942.html

[Brietta]

So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead. LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not. Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. - the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented, this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night. Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away -  his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?

So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.

There was absolutely no need to overegg the pudding by claiming that Mitchell's dog had training as a sniffer dog particularly as no trainer or training programme has ever been produced in confirmation.

Pet dogs walking with their owners frequently find human remains:  I am a dog walker and I have anecdotal of this happening over the years to other local dog walkers on at least five separate occasions; in fact I narrowly missed joining their ranks a couple of years ago only as a result of deciding a last minute change of route.

There were no murder victims but the finders remained traumatised many years after the event despite the deceased being unknown to them.  Making Mitchell's reaction (or lack of) to finding Jodi's deliberately slashed and disfigured remains all the more extraordinary as far as I am concerned.

All Mitchell had to do was report that the dog was acting in strange and unusual manner and go on to find Jodi.  I don't think anyone would have blinked at that.  I think it was the fairy tale about training and tracking which initially raised suspicion.
And it was all so unnecessary.  Much as I think it was unnecessary for Jodi to be found by him that night - I wonder what the thinking behind that might have been.

[Nicholas]

And so in control of himself - what was it he said about allegedly not wanting to upset AW?

‘Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'How did he look?' and she says: 'He was fine.'

'Did he seem different from normal in any way?' the advocate depute asks, Janine replies: 'No.'

She says when he came back: 'He seemed shocked. He said he didn't know what it was.' [/b]

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465

[Rusty]

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!

You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?

Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.

[faithlilly]

You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?

Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.

I think it’s a stretch to say that bitches are not natural trackers but it is true that males seem to be better at finding trails. Other factors such as the age of the dog and their personality also seem to have an effect on how good a tracker an individual dog might be.

[Nicholas]

It’s very possible if Luke Mitchell went back to the crime scene later on with Mia - he had a large window of opportunity to do so - the saliva could have linked back to his dog

[mrswah]

You see, the problem I have with this. Is we get no names, who was training the dog. It is quite straight forward, dog trainers will need to be registered. Who was the specialists the defence employed to check Mia's capabilities, again it is straight forward. We get no names of these people, and they wonder why people are suspicious? If we had some names, check it out, then I think that would go a long way to confirm that Mia was indeed being trained in some way. But that is the problem here, there is a reason we get no names. Fancy words like ex army, ex police, specialists. Dont they have names? Of course they dont, too easy to check out. But throw in a fancy word like specialist, or expert and bobs your uncle, where do I sign up?

Now, Mai was a bitch. One thing I have picked up on, Sandra claims that she was a natural tracker. Now, I not only know from a personal point of view, but this is easily researched. Female dogs are not natural trackers, there is no exception to this rule, nature says so. It seems like Sandra has confused the gender of dogs, to which is the natural tracker in nature. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out why.

I agree with you re no name of the person doing the training, and although I have a dog, I have no idea what a "natural tracker "is. All my dog wants to track is paper, particularly Times 2, before I have done the crossword!!

But, it does seem that the police accepted that Mia had received some training.  Would the Mitchells have lied to the police?  Would they not have been  found out?

[Rusty]

It’s very possible if Luke Mitchell went back to the crime scene later on with Mia - he had a large window of opportunity to do so - the saliva could have linked back to his dog

Agree with this 

[Nicholas]

Agree with this 

It’s very possible he’d got rid of the knife beforehand and this trip back was an attempt to stage the CS and/or carry out further PM injuries 
JaJ

He said he didn't know what it was

Yet via jail on a prison phone - 17 years or so later Luke Mitchell tells the public he did know 

⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12093.msg652610#msg652610

[Rusty]

I agree with you re no name of the person doing the training, and although I have a dog, I have no idea what a "natural tracker "is. All my dog wants to track is paper, particularly Times 2, before I have done the crossword!!

But, it does seem that the police accepted that Mia had received some training.  Would the Mitchells have lied to the police?  Would they not have been  found out?

You're having a laugh, right? On the wind up? It was proved in court the Mitchell's lied, that is all they did was lie.

Who's says the police accepted Mia had some training? Unless you can source a statement from the police themselves saying so, then I think we can put this down as another lie.

I agree, what exactly is a natural tracking dog? Or is it just some wording to add that bit of spice? But male dogs olfactory abilities are far superior to females. That does not mean females cannot sniff things out, but they are most certainly not the natural of the two. I find it highly unlikely, Mia was able to track by using the words "seek jodi" we are in a woodland, with all sorts of smells, nature smells, human, other animal smells, bacteria, you name it. It was damp, dark and the wind blowing from the south/south-east. With all that hurdles in the way, I find it hard to believe the dog found the body with-in what 10 minutes? Of the seek jodi command? The only thing the dog did, was follow it and its handlers fresh footsteps back down the path, they just walked up. Which then begs the question, did Luke react to the wall on the way up, before meeting the search party, leaving a stench of himself? But lets be honest here, the dog never lead them all to the body, Luke did, he wanted to see the reactions.

[faithlilly]

So - nothing to do with funding then? We know this of the appeal to do with testing dogs. The dogs were taking there to pick up on LM's claims. Of being able to scent, seek and find. Not a dead body. - So many variables here, so Findlays team member Gillian Law was correct not to bring something dead.

The gentleman who suggested the exercise and supplied the dogs explains in the article why the exercise was carried out and why a dead carcass was needed.

 LM was making claim that his dog scented Jodi. What scent exactly was left from a body that had been dead for over 6 hours? - So we switch to Carnivore dogs which Luke Mitchells was not.

Do you mean cadaver dogs?

Or perhaps of any clothing that was not blood soaked? - Then of course absolutely no testing of dogs in woodland. Each dog would have to be tested by merit, of being on this path, of approaching this V, of being on a lead and in similar conditions, wet/overcast - It fell flat at the first hurdle. -

The exercise didn’t happen. How are we to know how it would have been carried out or, indeed, the weather conditions at the time?
 the dog people, may have been expecting a carcass but that is not what was being scented,

Yes it was.

this was not the test. And what of DD's dogs? The 8 spaniels? that had been in the woodland that night.

Indeed, in the woodland strip and through the v after Jodi’s alleged TOD. Strange Mr [Name removed] didn’t see anything. Strange also that Mr [Name removed]’s dogs didn’t not smell anything. Who hasn’t heard of the dog of a dog walker finding a body. What attracts them? Blood? Cadaver odour? Both would have been well established by 10pm that night.
 

Of not picking up on anything, followed the lead of their master to heel. These were tested, with a carcass, they were in the woods and they did not pick up on it. - Guess what? Ms Lean after many reasons given, of it not being the same thing as what happened that evening with LM? - then ended it with, perhaps Jodi had been murdered later? - completely ignoring the factor that this did not matter - his dogs did not pick up the scent of the carcass and they were in the woodland some 40ft and more away -  his dogs were running free. They were hunting dogs used for beating - Ms Lean, it is not the same thing as a dead human body?

So all these variables and excuses - No certificates, lots of claims and absolutely nothing to show - that this pet dog had the capabilities of scenting a dead body, from 40ft away whilst approaching, on a path, not in the woodland - above and beyond every other type of scent - that this dog was used to, i'e other dogs and so forth - nonsense - LM was lying anyway, from that very first premise. He was not near or parallel to anything. He lied about everything to do with that woodland and V re denial - and hopped into that woodland, no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, nothing - he knew exactly where he was going.

Someone was lying, and under oath,  but it wasn’t Luke.

[Angelo222]

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

Just more excuses and basically hogwash imo.  The entire thing falls down because the supposedly trained dog would have scented the dead body on the way up the path. Mitchell never responded to that alert for very obvious reasons.

[mrswah]

Just more excuses and basically hogwash imo.  The entire thing falls down because the supposedly trained dog would have scented the dead body on the way up the path. Mitchell never responded to that alert for very obvious reasons.

I know nothing about tracker dogs, but I did read that they have to be put into "tracker mode" before they will track. Not sure what that is, though!