Author Topic: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones  (Read 4323 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2385 on: November 28, 2019, 08:07:PM »
Quote
Luke was going to Judith's to help search, to go through friends phone numbers.
What friends? they were on a school trip. He would have been asked.


Quote
He would have been asked? So he says he’ll go up the path looking for Jodi on the way and Judith says no, wait, go through your phone and give me all the names and numbers of other friends she might be with before you leave? I don’t think so!
[/color]

Yes, he would have been asked - by the police?
This is evidence from his statement is it not? - That he claims to have told Judith, he would help search,
that he would go through friends phone numbers?
You have stated already that a lot of their year was on a school trip.
What friends therefore, did Luke have to go through, that were not on this school trip?
Simply Ms Lean - who were these friends?

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2386 on: November 29, 2019, 02:46:PM »
Quote
I always believed the justice system existed to find out the truth. I know, now, I was wrong, but I still believe the truth matters

"but I still believe the truth matters"

Why therefore is this campaign wrought with misleading information and lies.
Perhaps some study of the words truth and Just - may help, prior to entering into anther review.
Ms Lean excuses CM's as simple mistakes - What does CM say in return of Ms Leans?

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2387 on: December 02, 2019, 10:43:PM »
Examples please parky

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2388 on: December 03, 2019, 02:22:PM »
"but I still believe the truth matters"

Why therefore is this campaign wrought with misleading information and lies.
Perhaps some study of the words truth and Just - may help, prior to entering into anther review.
Ms Lean excuses CM's as simple mistakes - What does CM say in return of Ms Leans?

No-one, yet, has been able to come up with a single, credible reason why I would lie or mislead. I had no connection to either family before Jodi was murdered, I live in the local community as did my children for many years - why would I risk getting a murderer of the hook by lying and misleading, knowing that he would be coming back into the community where I and my children lived our lives?


Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2389 on: December 03, 2019, 04:54:PM »
knowing that he would be coming back into the community where I and my children lived our lives?

 ;D ;D ;D Lets say, he got let off on some form of technicality. He would not have been back living in the same community. They would have sent him upto Wick.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 04:54:PM by Davie2 »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2390 on: December 03, 2019, 05:46:PM »
Not going to address the question then, Davie?

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2391 on: December 03, 2019, 07:35:PM »
Not going to address the question then, Davie?

I have addressed it on many occasions, i don't avoid questions unlike yourself.

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2392 on: December 03, 2019, 08:17:PM »
where I and my children lived our lives?

And will you stop using your kids to gain some kind of sympathy vote. It is rather sad.

Anyway, lets see some proof, that Luke used the speaking Clock on a regular basis, as you have claimed.


Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2393 on: December 03, 2019, 11:54:PM »
Quote
No-one, yet, has been able to come up with a single, credible reason why I would lie or mislead. I had no connection to either family before Jodi was murdered, I live in the local community as did my children for many years - why would I risk getting a murderer of the hook by lying and misleading, knowing that he would be coming back into the community where I and my children lived our lives?


You have answered your own question in part.
The lies, the misleading and misrepresentation of facts - pose no risk in getting a murderer off the hook
They stand for nothing, they are not evidence - They do not and never will, gain Luke Mitchell freedom.
So the relevant question is not why would I - but why do you?

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2394 on: December 04, 2019, 10:39:AM »
No examples then.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2395 on: December 04, 2019, 03:39:PM »
Marty;

You have made it abundantly clear that my posts are "totties", still to fathom what this means.
I'll take a guess here and assume it is not complimentary.
Amongst numerous posts I have put forward - there lies some of these examples.
Now perhaps would be a good time to read them, if you can be bothered of course.
I will however take the time to give you a handful of examples, from the list of 47 I have, to date.
 

Here, is a post that someone made, in response to Ms Leans podcast.
Tell me if you believe this to be a lie, misleading or blatant misrepresentation of the facts, that Ms Lean put out?
That warranted the following response;

Quote
I am shocked that the police took a polaroid photo of Luke Mitchell and showed only that photo to a witness.
This is not allowed and police should have shown a selection of photographs.
What they did was suggestive and leading.
.
We know of course that AB was shown 12 pictures not just one - it was a photo identification process.
Now for this, it is irrelevant how a person may feel about these 12 pictures.
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, she was shown 12 pictures.
Used to imply that AB was shown one picture only - it worked with the above poster.
 

Both CM and Ms Lean state that the search trio "had to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

The relevant point, is not - what these two feel this search trio should have done, the relevant point is the blatant misrepresentation of facts.
That fact is, the truth is - they did not have to walk passed here, they would have had to walk backwards to do so.
Used, to imply this search trio, should have popped in to this lady's house whilst walking passed it. 


"The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth is, the fact is - this search trio came from a bottom end of Mayfield.
Used to imply this search trio had much further to walk.
 

"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.

Quote
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

Ms Lean explained this away - claiming that all she had to go on, were, media reports and court transcripts.
And the word of both Luke and Corinne Mitchell.
Was that a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as;
In this very same book, we have;

Quote
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."


Therefore Marty - around my various pieces of written work, It interests me, as to what motivates a person - repeatedly;
To lie, to mislead and blatantly misinform people.
Amidst these studies - I have gained further insight into this case, and realise, fundamentally, why suspicion upon Luke, fell.
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case.
That there is little, in the way of actual evidence - to prove that Luke is innocent.
Therefore the above - may be used for multiple purpose, but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.
Unfortunately - is this claimed search for the truth, for Justice - the truth itself is not being put forward. Is this Just, to do so?.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2396 on: December 05, 2019, 08:37:AM »
Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?

Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?

I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.

Quote
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.

Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?

Quote
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error.

Quote
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.

So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2397 on: December 05, 2019, 11:28:AM »
Sandra L
Quote
Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?

Ms Lean, yet again, shimmies away from the point - the point being, that this campaign is wrought with lies and misleading information.
Ignores what I have said completely - highlights John Scott, who is not being misleading, as he is discussing the 12 pictures.
And it is ok for Ms Lean to lie and mislead - as the information is available to the public?
So it is OK to lie - people can see the truth elsewhere, if they can be bothered.
Therefore the lies matter not - no harm done?
Messy.

Sandra L
Quote
Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?

And again - completely ignores the point.
Of the blatant lies being told by both Ms Lean and CM.
And gives her opinion instead, of what she FEELS should have happened.
Thus believing her lies are justified?
The lie being "That the search trio HAD to walk passed YW's whilst heading DIRECTLY to the path"

Sandra L
Quote
I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.

And again - excuses the lies, justifies them on behalf of CM.
The lie is "That the search trio had to walk from the top of Mayfield"
The relevant point - is the lies.
That the people campaigning for innocence.
Are lying.
Messy. 

Parky41:
Quote
"SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ."
The truth, the fact is, SK was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.


Quote
Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?

Rubbish: Let us digest and dissect that a little.
First of all, POA, does not excuse Ms Lean from being - overtly defensive of Luke, to the point of lying repeatedly.
Putting herself in the shoes, of being his defence does not equate to - "that claim was not made known to the defence"
Let us step back to 2004-5.
SK, his statements.
JaJ, her statements.
Mr K - his statement.
The defence - Findlay and Co.
Access to these statements.
Precognitions.
The SCCRC.
So whilst Ms Lean claims - not to have actually read this fathers statement.
It does not equate to the defence not being aware of this alibi.
Is Ms Lean, yet again, simply excusing herself here - from those very lies.
Caught in her own web of deceit.
More so - even IF Ms Lean did not read this statement until 2014 it is 2019.
CM also - still lying for 5yrs at least?
Messy.



Sandra L - No Smoke:
Quote
Quote
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

Sandra L:
Quote
That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error.
[/color]

And yet again, excusing herself as this being a simple error, typo.
The typo may be - SK rather than LK.--a typo of several letters not one of course. Very odd typo.
David Dickie was not on this path at the crucial time - the crucial time, being between 5 and 5.30pm.
The mystery man was not seen following Jodi onto this path.
And completely ignores the reason (lie perhaps) she gave before for this.
Of this being prior to having the case papers, of becoming POA.
In this very same chapter of the book - she refers to reading the case papers.
The statements.
Messy.

Parky41:
Quote
I have come to a conclusion, in part - as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out - in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning
.

Sandra L:
Quote
So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.


And again - only Ms Lean and Ms Mitchel will know the reasons behind these lies, behind those blatant misrepresentations of the facts.
For that is what they are - no interpretation needed.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2398 on: Yesterday at 07:19 AM »
So after sifting through 16years of someones work trying to catch them out, this utter pish is all you can come up with in your writings😂😂😂. Idont know what or who your supposed to be but how long have you wasted on that muck.
You cant win the arguement mate so turning you venom to hate. Just for the record nearly everyposter on here has admitted to not reading your posts at some point wonder why? I have just wasted my time on points that have been answered time and time again. But not from professor parky of course.

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2399 on: Yesterday at 03:54 PM »
So after sifting through 16years of someones work trying to catch them out, this utter pish is all you can come up with in your writings😂😂😂. Idont know what or who your supposed to be but how long have you wasted on that muck.
You cant win the arguement mate so turning you venom to hate. Just for the record nearly everyposter on here has admitted to not reading your posts at some point wonder why? I have just wasted my time on points that have been answered time and time again. But not from professor parky of course.

Always so angry princess, 7 in the morning too, furiously typing on the Bamber forum. What a saddo.