The first the public knew of Andrina Bryson’s sighting was when she gave evidence in court. There was no public appeal for the couple to come forward as there was with Stocky Man and the blonde mother pushing a pram and who would remember so many months after the event what exactly they were doing at that time on that day?
The reason why the police all but ignored AB’s sighting for weeks after the murder? The logical reason is the timings in her first statements were too late for the TOD the police had fixed on....a time when Luke had no one but his family as his alibi. If the sighting was Jodi and Luke , and AB’s original timings were correct, as they most certainly were, Luke would have to have been in two places at once, at the Easthouses entrance to RDP and being seen on the Newbattle Road by his friends. He had a cast iron alibi.
Weeks into the case there was nothing to implicate Luke in the murder. There was no sightings of Luke near RDP at the time of the murder and the police had hung their entire case on there being DNA evidence against Luke but when none was found a different direction had to be taken.
I do feel sorry for AB. She gave her evidence in good faith but that she was manipulated into testifying to timings other than those she originally gave is not surprising. She knew that Luke couldn’t have been the youth she saw, the timings were all wrong, and by refusing to identify Luke in the dock she did all she possibly could to rectify the situation.
Nonsense - Almost on par with CM's "the police didn't bank on Luke being Luke though" And considering we have such ridiculous claims of minute areas of truth given, such as this witness seeing any bike parked up against this V break - We are continually swayed to this mystery man and to these times of AB - asked to ignore every single part of LM's original defence - to go in favour of Ms Leans nonsense.
This swayed with the police nonsense - One breath saying they are pushing this parka jacket into her face trying to force her to say it was one of those. But she stuck to her guns and said, it was that colour I can't be sure of jacket. But of all of them, that is the closest. I do remember his face though and his sticky out hair which looked clumped around his neck. Then saying she gave this time but the police managed to to talk her round, tampered with her bank statement and all else - forced her into driving a route and so forth - This witness was honest to the max. Of the girl. Again this desperate need to zone in those colours in the first statement. - by completely manipulating them, to make it sound like she had on, just a blue top and jeans. She was clear when she clarified those colours - Of the top being very dark navy/black and of the bottoms being slightly lighter and loose around the bottom. This desperate need to pick every hole available - of her driving, of her approaching this bend in the road, of saying it was impossible to pick what the male looked like out - yet in the same breath, want every single part of that clothing, colours of hair, the red bobble and all else - down to a fine art - Ridiculous. AB had a voice, and she used it - She was manipulated into nothing. - That bank statement, that time of leaving the store, that route determined, that house just a couple of hundred yards from the sighting, that she drove to, did not hang around, drove out again and drove home - to Newtongrange - facing onto this couple and that boy she saw. - Looking at the female, holding his palms out, beckoning the girl. And she remembered that face - and she was "as sure as she could be that the youth was Luke Mitchell that she saw that day"
And you want to know every second of every minute of everything she did - when she arrived home to her house? Because she had said in her first statement - I thought I had been home X amount of time when my husband phoned me. She did not pick him out in court - he was totally different looking. And of F&W whom admitted to seeing his coupon in the papers. Honest again. Which does not retract from ID him previously at all. They saw him that day, they further saw him in the papers and his mug stayed in their minds.
And of those appeals. For any sighting of Jodi that day and I will revert back to the above - of those minute areas of truth used, to add every assumption under the son. And of Ms Leans blatant misrepresentation of the facts in "No Smoke" Of stating clearly "the mystery man who FOLLOWED Jodi in to the path" and of DD being on this path. To still be saying to this present day - it was a simple typo - nonsense. This is what one is capable of is it not? - and if one can do this then it clearly shows what else can be done - doesn't it?
And of these weeks between statements and so forth - Now I wonder if DF retained them all to use? For we know that he did not keep RK, SK's father in those files. He knew about it, he knew from those precognitions that they were with this man having dinner. So how many other statements - did DF not keep in those defence papers? As with those phone logs. - That are being used to jump between? - So the reality is, you do not know - there could have been another two statements in-between. The amount of stuff that Ms Lean has never had in her possession - has the information around it - but has used it, has she not - to make claim to having everything? For it can not be any clearer, that:
There are massive amounts of statements and information gathered in this investigation - That the Crown chooses from this all that they need to build that case. That the defence does the same. The case is LM V HMA. That they do precognitions. That they gather more evidence. And the SCCRC who like both the Crown and the defence - are legally able to access everything - and they did point out many areas to Ms Lean - of how her assumptions were wrong, that these items were there all along. Of the process of elimination - in those investigation papers - that Ms Lean does not have? - And the clear assumptions made around this also - It is hardly surprising these constant claims of zoning in on LM - for the case was LM V HMA - the information used, was to do with the case against him.
And of your mention yet again about this dog at the V - completely wiping out LM's statements. To bring him right to this V - it was LM who was lying and that is why you have to ignore all he said.
There was no mystery man following any one - That wording from paper and the likes - There was a male seen, walking along Easthouses Road, there was a female seen walking along Easthouses Road.
Be a good chap and pull up the girl with the buggies statement when she eventually came forward will you. Pull up this positive sighting of Jodi which was her coming off the school bus and heading home. Pull up this ID of the male and what day and time it was actually determined to be. In fact, you can't pull up a lot of things, can you? - as Ms Lean does no have a lot of them - but there are precise reasons why some of this was NOT included DF's defence of his client LM - it was not shoved under the proverbial carpet and forgotten about - it was irrelevant to use by DF. Thus why Ms Lean does not have all of the information around it. She does not have every statement, she does not have every phone log and she has only a fraction of what actually went into this investigation - and of that fraction she uses around 5%
Of what Nicholas put up earlier - of this repetitive - "this is from the families own statements and can be backed up" - Which shows us, that minute use of truth, but the narrative can not be backed up - the narrative would be trampled into the ground - if that other 95% was shown - wouldn't it? This cherry picking that she accuses everyone else of doing? - At least theirs made sense.
Ms Lean may very well be able to back up what she says, as in the actual few words verbatim. - But it goes a long long way - to backing up what she might claim, As with the bike at this V, as with the appeal for Jodi, the mystery man, the girl with the buggy, the duo on the bike and so forth - And we can see how ridiculous her narrative is with every attempt she makes to disperse doubt - Of one officer writing "with the boyfriend", with scrubbing the data, with getting him over the V for his DNA, with the aunts miraculously arriving at this path - changing one's tune a little here from the many years of all else discussed and come out with:
'
'We don't know how the aunts arrived there, someone must have contacted them from the path? We know it was not Judith as it is not in her phone logs?' - what a telling statement that is? - Still not saying that AW had phoned her daughter, perhaps that part of AW's statement was also not used, not just the phone log? - you know, all this irrelevant stuff that DF sought not use in his defence of LM. - what a mess.
And he did not have his family as an alibi - did he? It was a lot of nonsense. Less than 15mins to cook a dinner, to plate up, to eat and race out that door - oh and the in-depth conversation with his mother, of telling his mother he was off, and of the t-shirt being Jodi's favourite - and of CM soaking up the sunshine? - on this miserable day.
