Luke's Address

[Bubo bubo]

The V-break in the wall is interesting. The serial killer has scouted the Roan's Dyke Path on a previous occasion and decided upon this location to dump the body. So Luke is coming from the Newbattle end and Jodi sets off from her house to the Easthouses side. The serial killer is hanging around waiting for Jodi, whom he has been stalking for several days, strikes up a conversation with her and entices her down the path to the V-break. He then has to persuade her to climb over the wall or attacks her on the path and throws her body over the wall before committing the mutilations.

Meanwhile Luke does nothing. Jodi hasn't appeared for the date. Luke makes no contact with her family. He whiles away the hours.

I'm sorry, but the scenario just won't wash.

Why not JJ is waiting at East houses when approached by the killer. He says he is lost. They strike up a conversation. His story is plausible. She says she is waiting for her boyfriend. He knows the path and the V. He needs to Walk the path to Newbattle. Whatever is said over say a two minute chat he appears kind and gentle. She says she is not to walk the path alone. She tells him to walk the path. He says he will accompany her and she can show him the V where he can cut through and walk across the field to get back to his destination. She feels no threat from him and they set off together. As they approach the V he strikes her on the back of the head maybe with a brick from the wall. He carries/manipulates her over the V and hides her body after tying her up and killing her.

He hears the moped and conceals himself and the body. When the moped leaves he repositions the body and completes his activities. He leaves the scene discretely by a means other than the path.
Such an event is possible. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the area but something along these lines cannot be ruled out.

It is even possible that he leaves the body out of view and that is why 'masturbate man' never saw the body, He could have returned later to perform more vile acts or maybe he was moving JJ when the cyclist went past.

[Parky41]

Why not JJ is waiting at East houses when approached by the killer. He says he is lost. They strike up a conversation. His story is plausible. She says she is waiting for her boyfriend. He knows the path and the V. He needs to Walk the path to Newbattle. Whatever is said over say a two minute chat he appears kind and gentle. She says she is not to walk the path alone. She tells him to walk the path. He says he will accompany her and she can show him the V where he can cut through and walk across the field to get back to his destination. She feels no threat from him and they set off together. As they approach the V he strikes her on the back of the head maybe with a brick from the wall. He carries/manipulates her over the V and hides her body after tying her up and killing her.

He hears the moped and conceals himself and the body. When the moped leaves he repositions the body and completes his activities. He leaves the scene discretely by a means other than the path.
Such an event is possible. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the area but something along these lines cannot be ruled out.

It is even possible that he leaves the body out of view and that is why 'masturbate man' never saw the body, He could have returned later to perform more vile acts or maybe he was moving JJ when the cyclist went past.

Bugger "Occam's Razor" that clear set of circumstances running in line. Let's go all out here into Peter Pan land. Marvellous stuff. Now why on earth can your imagination not reach into the realms of LM being the actual killer?

How's about. Girl texted boyfriend and said, hey my punishment has been lifted, you want to meet earlier. 'sure, where and when' Get you at out usual place, where the initials are carved into the tree, I'll fire you a text when I'm leaving the house, 'cool, see you soon'.

All ready for the off and her mother holds her back a few minutes, boy is waiting just inside the woodland on her, where is she? Calls the speaking clock to check the time, walks out of the woodland into the lane and there she is. Boy is not happy, he does not like to be kept waiting. Palms out turned beckoning her to him, get a shifty on here will ya! She goes to him and they walk down through the woodland, arguing having a smoke? Get off the beaten track and he violently attacks her. That red mist over takes. Deed done and he becomes icily calm. That opportunity he had been fantasizing about is now reality --------------

Sadly for him and fortunately for the safety of others, several wheels are firmly set in motion. Wing it as best he can, gets rid of incriminating forensic evidence and puts alibi in place.

But you are correct. Much better to apply all and everything around there being no forensic evidence, invent multiple scenarios. A killer not caught. Just not the boy who may have been that very killer, not caught through lack of evidence. If he had not been clocked by others, If there had been a united front and strength to the alibi.

[Bubo bubo]

Bugger "Occam's Razor" that clear set of circumstances running in line. Let's go all out here into Peter Pan land. Marvellous stuff. Now why on earth can your imagination not reach into the realms of LM being the actual killer?

How's about. Girl texted boyfriend and said, hey my punishment has been lifted, you want to meet earlier. 'sure, where and when' Get you at out usual place, where the initials are carved into the tree, I'll fire you a text when I'm leaving the house, 'cool, see you soon'.

All ready for the off and her mother holds her back a few minutes, boy is waiting just inside the woodland on her, where is she? Calls the speaking clock to check the time, walks out of the woodland into the lane and there she is. Boy is not happy, he does not like to be kept waiting. Palms out turned beckoning her to him, get a shifty on here will ya! She goes to him and they walk down through the woodland, arguing having a smoke? Get off the beaten track and he violently attacks her. That red mist over takes. Deed done and he becomes icily calm. That opportunity he had been fantasizing about is now reality --------------

Sadly for him and fortunately for the safety of others, several wheels are firmly set in motion. Wing it as best he can, gets rid of incriminating forensic evidence and puts alibi in place.

But you are correct. Much better to apply all and everything around there being no forensic evidence, invent multiple scenarios. A killer not caught. Just not the boy who may have been that very killer, not caught through lack of evidence. If he had not been clocked by others, If there had been a united front and strength to the alibi.

I understand your position entirely. Given that LM has protested innocence from the get go I believe it is reasonable to look for alternative narratives which might explain what happened. We have a case where all the evidence is circumstantial and it is cases like this which can lead to a MOJ. Given the media interest surrounding the case and the obvious anguish of JJ's family and the public at large he was virtually convicted before he set foot in a courtroom.

Whilst I accept that children can murder (given the recent case of the trans killed in the park by two teenagers) and including the earlier Bulger case, I cannot see a 14 year old commit a murder with the characteristics displayed in this case as a solo effort.

To me the killer would need to be deranged and capable of committing the act with malice aforethought complete with a well constructed alibi. Luke has displayed no earlier behaviours which point to anything other than a wayward teenager. He has no record of nasty threatening incidents or verbalisation of a manic nature beyond that which would mark him out as a dangerous individual. True he may have shown interest in some darker aspects of life but there is no earlier evidence to suggest this was anything but normal teenage banter.

Even the pathologist does not believe he did it.
Also there is other unidentified male DNA

I could have been more accepting of him as the guilty partner if she had been stabbed a few times but the MO in this case is well beyond the normal angry boy.

I am not sure why the police thought a 14 year old could plan and execute such a murder and did not examine whether an unknown third party may have been involved.

IS IT WORTH A CHECK

Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?

Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).

1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.

2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.

3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.

4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.

5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.

6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.

7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.

Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.

Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.

The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.

Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.

[Steve_uk]

I understand your position entirely. Given that LM has protested innocence from the get go I believe it is reasonable to look for alternative narratives which might explain what happened. We have a case where all the evidence is circumstantial and it is cases like this which can lead to a MOJ. Given the media interest surrounding the case and the obvious anguish of JJ's family and the public at large he was virtually convicted before he set foot in a courtroom.

Whilst I accept that children can murder (given the recent case of the trans killed in the park by two teenagers) and including the earlier Bulger case, I cannot see a 14 year old commit a murder with the characteristics displayed in this case as a solo effort.

To me the killer would need to be deranged and capable of committing the act with malice aforethought complete with a well constructed alibi. Luke has displayed no earlier behaviours which point to anything other than a wayward teenager. He has no record of nasty threatening incidents or verbalisation of a manic nature beyond that which would mark him out as a dangerous individual. True he may have shown interest in some darker aspects of life but there is no earlier evidence to suggest this was anything but normal teenage banter.

Even the pathologist does not believe he did it.
Also there is other unidentified male DNA

I could have been more accepting of him as the guilty partner if she had been stabbed a few times but the MO in this case is well beyond the normal angry boy.

I am not sure why the police thought a 14 year old could plan and execute such a murder and did not examine whether an unknown third party may have been involved.

IS IT WORTH A CHECK

Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?

Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).

1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.

2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.

3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.

4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.

5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.

6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.

7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.

Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.

Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.

The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.

Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.

Untrue. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534

[Bubo bubo]

Untrue. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534

This is not evidence given at trial under oath. When were these accusations made post or pre trial?
It seems these were part of a newspaper report post trial in 2005 shortly after his conviction. How much were they paid for their stories?

[Parky41]

This is not evidence given at trial under oath. When were these accusations made post or pre trial?
It seems these were part of a newspaper report post trial in 2005 months after his conviction. How much were they paid for their stories?

How much have the Mitchells been paid for theirs? We know the granny wanted X amount if including a pic of her grandson. The Sky interview, a good few bucks there then, and every damn story since then - I'll let you go try and count all those pounds up for them. But no, of course they would not have been paid, just others who have spoken to the media then? Or SF's and the selling of a story? The documentaries, the books, ching ching ching!

[Bubo bubo]

How much have the Mitchells been paid for theirs? We know the granny wanted X amount if including a pic of her grandson. The Sky interview, a good few bucks there then, and every damn story since then - I'll let you go try and count all those pounds up for them. But no, of course they would not have been paid, just others who have spoken to the media then? Or SF's and the selling of a story? The documentaries, the books, ching ching ching!

Oh dear you are wound up matey. Instead of accepting my post you throw your toys out of the pram. I was making the point that their stories were not given under oath. I do not see Luke's mum rolling in dosh. She is a  broke and diminished woman. I do not believe it is right to sell stories by either side. Most of the monies from the defence side are used to fund research and tests and pay legal fees.

[Parky41]

Oh dear you are wound up matey. Instead of accepting my post you throw your toys out of the pram. I was making the point that their stories were not given under oath. I do not see Luke's mum rolling in dosh. She is a  broke and diminished woman. I do not believe it is right to sell stories by either side. Most of the monies from the defence side are used to fund research and tests and pay legal fees.

Oh dear, has one offended you. Quick to dish insults and mock people, instantly up in arms when criticised in what you post yourself. - One got your point, that was easy to see. Is what they said true, had they given evidence of any attacks etc. Good point, the added bit of money however is why you were being criticised and rightly so. Zero proof they were lying, and zero proof of being  paid for lying, selling tall tales.

On the other hand, sit tight now - There is an abundance of proof coming forward of multiple lies being told, from people who have been paid for peddling lies

[Bubo bubo]

Oh dear, has one offended you. Quick to dish insults and mock people, instantly up in arms when criticised in what you post yourself. - One got your point, that was easy to see. Is what they said true, had they given evidence of any attacks etc. Good point, the added bit of money however is why you were being criticised and rightly so. Zero proof they were lying, and zero proof of being  paid for lying, selling tall tales.

On the other hand, sit tight now - There is an abundance of proof coming forward of multiple lies being told, from people who have been paid for peddling lies

You have a habit of using the word lies. I was only posing a question. When you are called into question as to your accuracy of events you are quick to attack others of lying. In this post the word lies appears 8 times.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11550.msg532764.html#msg532764

You appear to be saying you must not accuse people of lying but you are free to make such claims.

I await the forthcoming proof of multiple lies.

[Parky41]

You have a habit of using the word lies. I was only posing a question. When you are called into question as to your accuracy of events you are quick to attack others of lying. In this post the word lies appears 8 times.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11550.msg532764.html#msg532764

You appear to be saying you must not accuse people of lying but you are free to make such claims.

I await the forthcoming proof of multiple lies.

Take a deep breath now, easy does it, simple baby steps for you coming up. - I stated right from the start the reason why I took to studying this case intricately, which was based upon multiple lies I knew were being touted out. Setting myself an area of study, which was around reason as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, remained there and could not be eliminated. If I could see blatant lies then what else were they lying about? A group of us setting different tasks. Mines suspicion, lies, the use of language for manipulation.

So, you put a post up in my response to Faith, she had accused me of lying and came back with some awful response because she could not show that I had been lying, empty words, same old.

All those points I made around others lying were true, it has taken for the release of transcripts for many others to see those lies that have been peddled, selling tall tales.

Now I suggest you read over what you cited there then you go read the transcripts, do your own graft. As for accuracy, does that come under not providing endless cites to back something up? You mean, just like people taken the word of someone because they have had access that others have not, like Faith has said many times. I trust Dr Lean, because unlike you she has access, I don't need proof of anything from her? - Oops!

Lean and the four met at the junction of the paths - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear from the first statements - False.
Lean and AW "cradled" the body - False.
Lean and 'they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds - False.
Lean and the search trio got there too quickly - False.
Lean and within 4 weeks they said the dog did nothing at all - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear of any possible connections with AB - False.

The list really is endless and nothing of Mr Fibs yet, from a book 'fact checked' by Ms Lean - Oops.

Yes, those with sense realise the why, the lies, the false narrative, to take focus away from Mitchell, place it elsewhere, attempt to show they may have been acting out of self interest - Lies. Not even a snifter of any truth that anyone was acting out of self interest. But we know that people who lie repeatedly are doing just that, starting with Mitchell who did nothing but lie, proven beyond all doubt. You can howl to the moon about innocence, you can never dispute the many lies that fell from his lips around most anything.

See, lots and lots of the mention of lies - It has always been the basis of most of my posts, reason for studying.

[Bubo bubo]

Take a deep breath now, easy does it, simple baby steps for you coming up. - I stated right from the start the reason why I took to studying this case intricately, which was based upon multiple lies I knew were being touted out. Setting myself an area of study, which was around reason as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, remained there and could not be eliminated. If I could see blatant lies then what else were they lying about? A group of us setting different tasks. Mines suspicion, lies, the use of language for manipulation.

So, you put a post up in my response to Faith, she had accused me of lying and came back with some awful response because she could not show that I had been lying, empty words, same old.

All those points I made around others lying were true, it has taken for the release of transcripts for many others to see those lies that have been peddled, selling tall tales.

Now I suggest you read over what you cited there then you go read the transcripts, do your own graft. As for accuracy, does that come under not providing endless cites to back something up? You mean, just like people taken the word of someone because they have had access that others have not, like Faith has said many times. I trust Dr Lean, because unlike you she has access, I don't need proof of anything from her? - Oops!

Lean and the four met at the junction of the paths - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear from the first statements - False.
Lean and AW "cradled" the body - False.
Lean and 'they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds - False.
Lean and the search trio got there too quickly - False.
Lean and within 4 weeks they said the dog did nothing at all - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear of any possible connections with AB - False.

The list really is endless and nothing of Mr Fibs yet, from a book 'fact checked' by Ms Lean - Oops.

Yes, those with sense realise the why, the lies, the false narrative, to take focus away from Mitchell, place it elsewhere, attempt to show they may have been acting out of self interest - Lies. Not even a snifter of any truth that anyone was acting out of self interest. But we know that people who lie repeatedly are doing just that, starting with Mitchell who did nothing but lie, proven beyond all doubt. You can howl to the moon about innocence, you can never dispute the many lies that fell from his lips around most anything.

See, lots and lots of the mention of lies - It has always been the basis of most of my posts, reason for studying.

Thanks for your open and frank response. I do not wish to get into a debate about who is telling the truth and who is telling lies. It is likely that both sides of the argument have changed their stories. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some of the examples are driven by genuine false recollections where people begin to doubt what actually happened or was said at various different times, especially  when corrected by the remembrances of others. It can also happen because individuals question their own memories over the passage of time.

The trouble with the case is that much of the case against LM is based on sightings, timings, and press reports of who said what and when and because so so much of the case discussion dialogue revolves around these aspects it becomes impossible to see the real truth irrespective of whether people are lying or merely incorrectly recalling events.

Because of this the truth has become obscured to such an extent that the issues involved have been lost in a mire of seemingly contradictory facts.

I have deliberately not studied these elements for the reasons I outline.

There has been little focus on an alternative narrative such as the one I am making.

If we move away from a mishmash of alternative overlapping scenarios we can see that there are other possibilities as to what might actually have happened.

Why are there 4 unidentified male DNA traces in the case for example? How might this be explained.

Why does the pathologist doubt the wounds could have been made by the weapon said to be used?

You have based your conclusions on elements that are seriously open to doubt as I have described. Perhaps you should address other elements of the case which remain to be answered.

[snow66!]

Thanks for your open and frank response. I do not wish to get into a debate about who is telling the truth and who is telling lies. It is likely that both sides of the argument have changed their stories. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some of the examples are driven by genuine false recollections where people begin to doubt what actually happened or was said at various different times, especially  when corrected by the remembrances of others. It can also happen because individuals question their own memories over the passage of time.

The trouble with the case is that much of the case against LM is based on sightings, timings, and press reports of who said what and when and because so so much of the case discussion dialogue revolves around these aspects it becomes impossible to see the real truth irrespective of whether people are lying or merely incorrectly recalling events.

Because of this the truth has become obscured to such an extent that the issues involved have been lost in a mire of seemingly contradictory facts.

I have deliberately not studied these elements for the reasons I outline.

There has been little focus on an alternative narrative such as the one I am making.

If we move away from a mishmash of alternative overlapping scenarios we can see that there are other possibilities as to what might actually have happened.

Why are there 4 unidentified male DNA traces in the case for example? How might this be explained.

Why does the pathologist doubt the wounds could have been made by the weapon said to be used?

You have based your conclusions on elements that are seriously open to doubt as I have described. Perhaps you should address other elements of the case which remain to be answered.

Agree Bubo,it has nothing to do with anyone telling lies,its simply the lack of evidence against Luke Mitchell that gives supporters doubt of his guilt.
Plain and simple.

[snow66!]

Dont you see Parky,the things you point out that have 'may' have been lied about mean very little anyway.

The four meeting at junction of paths.  Dont understand the relevance.
Jury did not hear about first statements. Well obviously they did, Findlays main arguments regarded the changing of statements. Did Dr Lean actually say the jury didn't hear the first statements, or merely that witnesses CHANGED theit statements?
Alice Walker cradled Jodi.   Well again,so what? Means nothing one way or another due to the fact that onlt Lukes clothing was tested.
Search party agreed with Luke then changed their minds. Well it definately looks like it reading their different statements,and again a major part of Findlays questioning.Why did Findlay grill the witnesses so much over this issue if there was no change in their statements as the case progressed?
Search team got there too quickly.  Again,maybe maybe not,but has nothing to do with Lukes guilt,so who cares?

Dog did nothing.  Well again the witnesses spoke of the dog with its paws up against the wall.And again,I think the finding of Jodi by Luke story has been blown out of all proportion.A desperate story by the prosecution because of the lack of evidence against LM. I mean,just think about it for a minute,what we had was a group of people who were on that path for one reason,to find Jodi,and that is what they did.
Luke had been looking over other breaks in the wall on the way down the path,so even if he did go straight over the wall at the V break,what about it? Wasn't that the logical thing to do? Surely only an idiot would have ignored a point in the wall where you could gain access even if the dog reacted or not.
Now if Luke had scrambled and struggled to get over the high wall at a part where there was no damage and found Jodi,then THAT would have been suspicious,yes.
But to climb over where there was a break,so what? Good lord,wouldn't it have been more suspicious if he didn't go over the wall at a break?

Andrina Bryson.  Well again,Janine Jones was quizzed by Findlay about knowing Andrinas brother in law Bill Bryson.Did Dr Lean try to say this did not happen?

The point is Parky,it seems your only reason for thinking LM is guilty is based on what you see as lies being told. And if the lies are about trivial issues like the above,I dont see they make much difference anyway.
Dont you see Parky,the likes of Bubo is simply looking for some hard evidence against LM,arguing about who may or may not be telling lies over trivial issues means nothing,and is no basis for forming an opinion of guilt.

[Parky41]

Don't play silly beggars now. The post was in response as to why one spoke a lot of lies. Interesting that both of you however have absolutely no problem with liars, because you see no wrong in using innocents, lying about them, whilst those lying, on the other hand are claiming to be truth and Justice seekers. Nothing to do with whether the lies have any bearing on proving guilt or innocence legally, and everything to do with lying, plain and simple.

You (one of you), has already made it abundantly clear that you accept fully every lie that Mitchell told, brushing them off with, who cares, wouldn't you lie, get rid of knives etc if a suspect in a murder. Just because he was a compulsive liar does not make him a murderer, that kind of attitude.  For a lot of them (lies) it clearly did, he is serving 20yrs and more in prison. One could hardly tell the truth around a lot of things when he was acting from self interest, to cover up the murder that had taken place.

Which formed the basis of the post, that of self interest. An actual liar, proven liar, attempting to place self interest in others by telling multiple lies themselves. Which shows who it is that has actually been acting out of self interest, peddling lies to gain support for a compulsive liar and convicted murderer.

Dog and wall - And? But as you have again shown, so what if he was lying, who cares, does not show he knew where the body was. 4 people and one of them, only one of them, gives a false account of where the dog was at the wall, omitting the Gino break entirely from his first account. Has them all well past the V break, claiming this is where his dog alerted him, showing him the way to go. - Did not happen, no dog showed him where to go, he knew where to go. The dog only went with him to the V break and not past, this is what DF could never show from any statement because it did not happen. But again, you are correct, so what, who cares if someone lied repeatedly out of self interest - Thank goodness the Jury did.

[Bubo bubo]

Don't play silly beggars now. The post was in response as to why one spoke a lot of lies. Interesting that both of you however have absolutely no problem with liars, because you see no wrong in using innocents, lying about them, whilst those lying, on the other hand are claiming to be truth and Justice seekers. Nothing to do with whether the lies have any bearing on proving guilt or innocence legally, and everything to do with lying, plain and simple.

You (one of you), has already made it abundantly clear that you accept fully every lie that Mitchell told, brushing them off with, who cares, wouldn't you lie, get rid of knives etc if a suspect in a murder. Just because he was a compulsive liar does not make him a murderer, that kind of attitude.  For a lot of them (lies) it clearly did, he is serving 20yrs and more in prison. One could hardly tell the truth around a lot of things when he was acting from self interest, to cover up the murder that had taken place.

Which formed the basis of the post, that of self interest. An actual liar, proven liar, attempting to place self interest in others by telling multiple lies themselves. Which shows who it is that has actually been acting out of self interest, peddling lies to gain support for a compulsive liar and convicted murderer.

Dog and wall - And? But as you have again shown, so what if he was lying, who cares, does not show he knew where the body was. 4 people and one of them, only one of them, gives a false account of where the dog was at the wall, omitting the Gino break entirely from his first account. Has them all well past the V break, claiming this is where his dog alerted him, showing him the way to go. - Did not happen, no dog showed him where to go, he knew where to go. The dog only went with him to the V break and not past, this is what DF could never show from any statement because it did not happen. But again, you are correct, so what, who cares if someone lied repeatedly out of self interest - Thank goodness the Jury did.

Wow now you are accusing Snow with examples that are not contained in his post and putting a different slant on both our positions. I take exception to such blatant misrepresentation. Any more of this and I will report you to the moderators. If you wish to criticise our positions quote the post and highlight the bits with which you take issue. Yor latest post comes across as a 'rant' rather than serious debate.