the stocky man seen follwing jodi.

[nugnug]

Parky, i read a paragraph of your last post. Im sure it was the female witness who witnessed the high five, messy

the high 5 comes from brsyons statement about her alleged.  sighting

[marty]

the high 5 comes from brsyons statement about her alleged.

I dont tbink so nugs, someone came forward nine weeks after. Well if im reading sandras last post correctly. Nothing to do with bryson, i didnt think she wtnessed stocky man as her sightings were too early.

[nugnug]

I dont tbink so nugs, someone came forward nine weeks after. Well if im reading sandras last post correctly. Nothing to do with bryson, i didnt think she wtnessed stocky man as her sightings were too early.

sthe stocky man could not of high fived her he wasnt facing her hewas behind her..

the highfive story comes from brysons sighting.

[Parky41]

S.Lean:

These ridiculous maniplulations and misrepresentations are designed to confuse people and mire the discussion in petty arguments.

Couldn't agree more when you continually have the following manipulations and misrepresentations being pushed out to confuse;
These of course stem from the originator of the main source of information - that in itself is so badly manipulated and misrepresented.
And we see the following type of misrepresentation - it is left to cause confusion, unless it is by Lithium who is swiftly put into place?

S.Lean:

You mention that Andrina Bryson's brother-in-law was in Yvonne Walker's house "a few months after the murder, knowing that that is a different event from the one being discussed - it was six weeks

Nugnug:

sthe stocky man could not of high fived her he wasnt facing her hewas behind her..

Marty:

the highfive story comes from brysons sighting.

Nugnug:

the high 5 comes from brsyons statement about her alleged.  sighting

ive heard nothing about him being the same man as the guy who carried the coffin

people have speclated bout simlaritys but I do not belive anyone has positively identfeid them as the  same person..

Marty:

Yeah, random guy a witness claims was carrying her coffin at her funeral

.

Clearly showing how information grows arms and legs - when the original source stems from one liners,
misrepresentation of facts and wild theories?

[sandra L]

Couldn't agree more when you continually have the following manipulations and misrepresentations being pushed out to confuse;
These of course stem from the originator of the main source of information - that in itself is so badly manipulated and misrepresented.
And we see the following type of misrepresentation - it is left to cause confusion, unless it is by Lithium who is swiftly put into place?

Clearly showing how information grows arms and legs - when the original source stems from one liners,
misrepresentation of facts and wild theories?

Really Parky? I try to correct every single misunderstanding I see and have always been very public about doing so. There are many posts which are long, convoluted and contradictory (yours being some of them) - I simply do not have the time to read every single word to see if I missed anything. But usually, when things are brought to my attention that I have missed, I also do my best to correct them. So, for example, one of your posts:

JE: "who do you think killed Jodi Jones?"
CM: "The person who confessed,  the person who was positively Identified"

This comes after the theory of:
JF cutting his hair to look like one of the duo on the bike - I kid you not.
That JF was never on this bike.
That this bike, along with a knife, bloody clothing was put in the back of van,
put in a crusher and gone forever.
This theory - is a joint one from both CM and Sandra.
But they are not pointing the finger at anyone - oops!

First of all, did you check that this was, in fact a "joint theory?" It isn't - Corinne was mistaken, it was merely a possibility that was discussed when it was discovered that the descriptions of the boys on the moped from the tool hire staff did not match the descriptions they boys, themselves gave. To my knowledge, I have never discussed the bike "along with a knife, bloody clothing" being put in a van, although the possibility of the bike being disposed of in a crusher at a local scrap yard was brought to us by a local person many years ago. Discussing possibilities may, technically, be referred to as theorising, but had that been the case, then I would have done everything I could to see if the theory was proven/disproven - I didn't because it was a simple discussion amongst many over the years.

But who was he cutting his hair to look like?
Surely not the person who was carrying the coffin, positively Identified and confessed?

Where did I ever suggest Stocky Man was identified "carrying the coffin"? I didn't because seeing it posted here was the first time I'd heard such a possibility was being floated.

How therefore did this person who was positively Identified, transport himself from Easthouses Road to Basically tool hire?
And really, the biggest question of all should be - why all the theories, surely the confessor told all?
Gordo is certainly in on this theory - I was asked a question about a scrapyard, of how easy it would be to dispose of incriminating evidence.

Why do you assume the "confessor told all"? You know nothing of the events surrounding the confession and I'm not about to make public information that could potentially assist Luke's case in the future so, sorry, if that's not to your liking, so be it. But please don't then leap to conclusions about what other people "assume" from that when you, yourself, are quite capable of making completely unfounded assumptions.

I asked the same question about disposing of "incriminating evidence" in a scrapyard, face to face, with someone who worked in a scrappies. The first question he asked me was, "How would I know if it was "incriminating evidence"? He went on to say, if it was just an old piece of junk, scrapped, it would go through the crusher like everything else - they don't inspect everything going through the crusher in fine detail.

Shane is a mechanic, one would imagine has dealings with scrap merchants. There was a bike at the railings of this path,
some confusion over Luke being on one - did this wonderful theory stem from some truth?

I don't believe Shane is a mechanic, although he liked to work on cars. The bike at the railings was a pushbike, introduced by Dickie/Ferris (I don't remember, off hand, which one) in an attempt to implicate Luke - he said it was a yellow bike, like one Luke had. (Luke didn't).

I've already clarified where the "theory" (that wasn't) came from, so you won't need to speculate any further.

[Parky41]

Really Parky? I try to correct every single misunderstanding I see and have always been very public about doing so. There are many posts which are long, convoluted and contradictory (yours being some of them) - I simply do not have the time to read every single word to see if I missed anything. But usually, when things are brought to my attention that I have missed, I also do my best to correct them. So, for example, one of your posts:

Thank you for choosing my posts to do so rather than correcting Nugnug and Marty directly. You could of course, simply have said to them, after these posts:

sthe stocky man could not of high fived her he wasnt facing her hewas behind her..

the highfive story comes from brysons sighting.

the high 5 comes from brsyons statement about her alleged.  sighting

ive heard nothing about him being the same man as the guy who carried the coffin

people have speclated bout simlaritys but I do not belive anyone has positively identfeid them as the  same person..

Marty
Yeah, random guy a witness claims was carrying her coffin at her funeral.

"These ridiculous maniplulations and misrepresentations" 

Nugnug and Marty?

"are designed to confuse people and mire the discussion in petty arguments."

Where did I ever suggest Stocky Man was identified "carrying the coffin"? I didn't because seeing it posted here was the first time I'd heard such a possibility was being floated

[/b]

There you have it Marty and nugnug - these arms and legs around carrying a coffin are unfounded, where on earth could you have gotten this silly notion from?
It most certainly is not from Ms Lean - after all, all she states is that this ID was "some 9 weeks later from a group of males who all looked similar"
Quads? sextuplets? men in black? So there is no Identification from carrying a coffin. Anyone's coffin. Plain and simple. And stop being silly Nugnug and Marty with
these deliberate "manipulations and misrepresentations" which are designed to confuse people away from discussion. The high five was from the week of the
reconstruction, when this witness ALSO got their identification of Stocky man, completely wrong. When they picked him out from a group of males ("who looked similar")
He was simply out of the country.
What we do know from these identifications is that they were known prior to this trial, the timings, the possible sightings of Jodi - even from. the one who claimed to "know her by sight". Was available to the defence.
It is good to get clarification that around 5pm that evening, there may have been other witnesses who saw this girl walking in the direction of this path - where she met Luke, around 5pm. For that is what Findlay could only have  used from these.
I simply do not buy that any defence, would not be allowed to use evidence, that could have showing clearly that Jodi was somewhere else, other than seen by AB, when she was sighted with Luke.

[sandra L]

There's a big difference, Parky, between genuine misunderstandings/mistakes and deliberate manipulations and misrepresentations.

Please don't presume to know to whom I referred and most certainly don't redirect my comments towards people they were never intended to address in the first place.

Your approach is as transparent as it is disingenuous, Parky.

[Parky41]

There's a big difference, Parky, between genuine misunderstandings/mistakes and deliberate manipulations and misrepresentations.

Of course there is, I totally agree.

[marty]

Hi parky, I was sent the information about stockyman carrying the coffin on feb17th 2017 through private message. It stated that a third person had come forward regarding stockyman. This person had been at jodis funeral and seen him carrying the coffin. I was told not to mention it at the time. I forgot about that part and blurted it out. By the way, this person was not sandra!  I asked for clarification on it and was told that they had never hard that so it appears i was wrong and i appologise for that

[Parky41]

Hi parky, I was sent the information about stockyman carrying the coffin on feb17th 2017 through private message. It stated that a third person had come forward regarding stockyman. This person had been at jodis funeral and seen him carrying the coffin. I was told not to mention it at the time. I forgot about that part and blurted it out. By the way, this person was not sandra!  I asked for clarification on it and was told that they had never hard that so it appears i was wrong and i appologise for that

Thank you Marty - the wonders of google, clarified for me that the men who carried this girls coffin, appear to have been from the funeral directors, being four of them.

[Parky41]

First of all, did you check that this was, in fact a "joint theory?" It isn't - Corinne was mistaken, it was merely a possibility that was discussed when it was discovered that the descriptions of the boys on the moped from the tool hire staff did not match the descriptions they boys, themselves gave. To my knowledge, I have never discussed the bike "along with a knife, bloody clothing" being put in a van, although the possibility of the bike being disposed of in a crusher at a local scrap yard was brought to us by a local person many years ago. Discussing possibilities may, technically, be referred to as theorising, but had that been the case, then I would have done everything I could to see if the theory was proven/disproven - I didn't because it was a simple discussion amongst many over the years.

Apologies Ms Lean, I had no reason to doubt that CM was telling anything other than the truth, when including yourself, the person who is fighting with her
for Luke's freedom.
So this gross mistake, that is being pushed out about these boys does not stem from both of you?
I'm seeing a little here, of the Journalist handing the red hair fastener story to Luke, also, the police handing the
Oak tree account to him.
It was not yourself, it was CM that thought up the story of the scrapyard, with the help of a local person. Who discussed the "possibility of a bike being disposed of in a crusher
at a local scrap yard" Where would this be local to?
After this rather wild set of theories on CM's podcast and Gordo's question (whom I believe is not local, to that area, staying some 20miles away) I looked into some scrap merchants. Much the same type of easy to access information, as was with the actual people who carried this girls coffin.
In the Midlothian area - it would appear the nearest one with this type of equipment, is no closer than Edinburgh itself. Therefore, not exactly local.
Why therefore, do we assume, CM in 2019 would be pushing out, this grossly wrong theory.

"To my knowledge" you had never stated, ever, that there was a mystery man on this path, or that SK was on this path - you had of course, in your book.
You have of course stated many times, that SK only had an alibi from his girlfriend, CM is still stating this as fact, again in 2019, in her podcast. When you, yourself now,
state that the SCCRC had brought the alibi of his father 'suddenly' to light, some 4-5yrs ago now. One would, correctly assume, CM is very much aware of this?


Therefore:

From CM's podcast we can dismiss this joint theory, this was only every a possibility introduced by a local to ?
From CM's podcast we can dismiss this claim that SK only had his girlfriend for an alibi.-he had his father also.
From CM's podcast we can dismiss this claim that Luke would not wear a jacket  - he did on a sunny? day. As with the new Parka, on sunny days.
From CM's podcast we can dismiss this claim of the search trio walking from the top of Mayfield.
From CM's podcast we can dismiss this stocky man and confessor being one and the same.
From CM's podcast we can dismiss this search trio HAVING to walk DIRECTLY passed YW's on their way to this path.
From your own podcast we can dismiss this search trio having to walk passed YW's
Perhaps the only thing we can not dismiss from CM's podcast is that Luke is her son.
Can the rest, be classed as manipulative, misrepresentation? or simple mistakes?

[sandra L]

Parky, I don't have time to go through your post line by line right now, but once again, you use a strange form of reasoning to create your "conclusions" - this is why I miss things that need to be corrected.

Just as a few examples, I did not say Corinne was dishonest. I did not say Corinne and a local "thought up the story of the scrapyard".

A theory can't be "grossly wrong" - it's a theory, remember?

The "alibi" of SK's father and the circumstances surrounding it remain questionable.

I'll come back to the rest, but it will be later this evening

[David1819]

The "alibi" of SK's father and the circumstances surrounding it remain questionable.

What about the inconsistencies in Luke's "alibi"?

Shane Mitchell believed he was all alone in the house and on-top of that admitted that his mother got him to lie in his statements. Shane's later honest account is corRoborated by computer records, his mothers track record of dis-honestly and all the circumstancial evidence against luke.


Does SKs alibi fall apart likes Luke's "alibi" does? They cannot both have killed her thus the person with the most inconsistent alibi is likely the perpetrator.

[sandra L]

I'd like to be sure that Parky accidentally copied and pasted a post from this thread and replied to it on another thread, while David timeously steps in and changes the subject on this thread.

Otherwise, I might be drawn to a conclusion or assumption (perhaps mistaken, perhaps not) that mischief making and game playing, rather than a genuine attempt at debate, are the order of the day.

[nugnug]

I'd like to be sure that Parky accidentally copied and pasted a post from this thread and replied to it on another thread, while David timeously steps in and changes the subject on this thread.

Otherwise, I might be drawn to a conclusion or assumption (perhaps mistaken, perhaps not) that mischief making and game playing, rather than a genuine attempt at debate, are the order of the day.

of course it is but its not going to work.