Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[rulesapply]

Anyhooo back to the question originally asked.

You said that Leonard Kelly wasn’t the only evidence the prosecution must have had for TOD and I asked what other information was there?

Jodi wasn’t seen for over six and a half hours and could have been killed anytime in between. Even if temperatures were taken at the scene it could not have afforded the investigators such a precise time. So, IYO what other information could they have used for TOD?

And here’s the link to the Frontline Scotland video regarding the change of stories. You’ll find the relevant part around 21 minutes.

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

As I said if the BBC had implied that I had been dishonest I’d certainly have taken action,

I don't believe there is ever a precise TOD unless there's a reliable witness. A doctor,  for example.  I believe there is always just a window.

[rulesapply]

I don't see that anyone on this forum is targeting Jodi's family (You Tube is a different matter, and I find some of the comments on there quite appalling).

If one questions Luke's conviction, one is obviously going to consider who else might have done it. It is wrong (and libellous) to  accuse somebody without proof, but it isn't wrong to wonder----IMO.

We don't live in a perfect world, I'm afraid, and victims' families are not always whiter than white-------no, I am not accusing any family in particular, just stating a general fact. We read some dreadful things in the news.

This has nothing to do with YouTube,  mrswah. This is about here. We read some dreadful things here. Please don't become snobbish about YouTube.  At least, on YouTube,  where there are no moderators it's easy to pick out the decent people who don't need moderation.

[faithlilly]

I don't believe there is ever a precise TOD unless there's a reliable witness. A doctor,  for example.  I believe there is always just a window.

I concur but 5.15, according to the police, is Jodi’s TOD so were did they come by such a precise time? Certainly not from LK as he admitted in court to changing his statement to a strangling sound to get the police off of his back.

[rulesapply]

I concur but 5.15, according to the police, is Jodi’s TOD so were did they come by such a precise time? Certainly not from LK as he admitted in court to changing his statement to a strangling sound to get the police off of his back.

 

This is what I believe. I believe Jodi left to meet Luke and met him around 5.05pm. I believe he walked her to her death scene.  I believe he murdered Jodi.  I believe he was wearing his parka at that time. I don't believe he was at home when his mum and brother initially said he was. I believe he murdered poor Jodi and then I believe he had help. I believe that help came from his brother and mother. I believe that someone swapped jackets with Luke. I believe someone gave him the green bomber jacket  and took the parka. I believe this was arranged by phone, hence the deletion of almost everything. I believe that's why RW and Fleming witnessed LM in a parka and why the positive identification by the school boys identified Mitchell in a bomber jacket.  I believe someone swapped him jackets in the interim. I also believe this is why SM, wants a quiet life. Where was LM from the back of six till half seven? He had far more time than you can account for. I believe LM murdered his girlfriend and I believe he mutilated her body post mortem. I believe he did it alone. IMO

[faithlilly]

 

This is what I believe. I believe Jodi left to meet Luke and met him around 5.05pm. I believe he walked her to her death scene.  I believe he murdered Jodi.  I believe he was wearing his parka at that time. I don't believe he was at home when his mum and brother initially said he was. I believe he murdered poor Jodi and then I believe he had help. I believe that help came from his brother and mother. I believe that someone swapped jackets with Luke. I believe someone gave him the green bomber jacket  and took the parka. I believe this was arranged by phone, hence the deletion of almost everything. I believe that's why RW and Fleming witnessed LM in a parka and why the positive identification by the school boys identified Mitchell in a bomber jacket.  I believe someone swapped him jackets in the interim. I also believe this is why SM, wants a quiet life. Where was LM from the back of six till half seven? He had far more time than you can account for. I believe LM murdered his girlfriend and I believe he mutilated her body post mortem. I believe he did it alone. IMO

But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?

So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?

[rulesapply]

But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?

So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?

What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?

[rulesapply]

What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?

Who mentioned AB, faithlilly?

[rulesapply]

What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?

I've already given you my honest take. What else do you want? I've told you over and over that I believe Luke Mitchell murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.

[faithlilly]

What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?

I have no need to have a ‘take’  as AB expressly stated that the jacket the youth was wearing that she saw was not a parka.

[faithlilly]

Who mentioned AB, faithlilly?

So you don’t think that AB is integral to the whole case?

[rulesapply]

But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?

So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?

Please tell me the I'd of jacket AB described.

[rulesapply]

Please tell me the I'd of jacket AB described.

Nah. Hip length jacket? Not  bomber jacket then? Let's rewind if you will please. Back to the bit where Luke had help. The swapping of jackets IMO.

[faithlilly]

I've already given you my honest take. What else do you want? I've told you over and over that I believe Luke Mitchell murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.

You have indeed but your hypothesis is built, it would appear, on nothing but wishful speculation. However if that’s good enough to convince you then so be it. For me, if a young boy’s freedom is at stake, then wishful speculation simply won’t do.

[rulesapply]

I have no need to have a ‘take’  as AB expressly stated that the jacket the youth was wearing that she saw was not a parka.

Did Andrina Bryson ever state, "It was not a parka?"

[rulesapply]

You have indeed but your hypothesis is built, it would appear, on nothing but wishful speculation. However if that’s good enough to convince you then so be it. For me, if a young boy’s freedom is at stake, then wishful speculation simply won’t do.

Whatever, faithlilly,  please be good enough to answer the next question.  Cheers!