Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. / Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Last post by Chris_Halkides on Today at 02:00:31 AM »
https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/luminol-and-a-malarial-drug-team-up-to-find-hidden-blood/
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/thepostmortemlive/photos/a.108460627517859/545495647147686/?type=3
Luminol can be applied over large spaces.
2
Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. / Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Last post by William Wallace on Today at 12:32:39 AM »
Quote from: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2024, 07:16:17 AM
Now you’re just flinging mud in another direction, it does look rather desperate .  You say these people were never properly eliminated - upon what do you base this claim?  Did the police share the minute details of their (10 month long?) investigation with you?
Here’s the thing.  you’ve agreed that if Suspect A is guilty then  it means suspect B wasn’t involved and all your red flags about the latter must have some other explanation.  Likewise if suspect B did it, them all your red flags about suspect A must have another explanation.  Therefore it is perfectly feasible that if you are prepared to accept the innocence of either of them despite all the red flags you keep waving about them that both of them could be innocent and Mitchell actually did the crime.
 BTW how long before you get angry again and refuse to reply to anymore of my posts (again)?

MK was not interviewed by Police for years after the Trial. They did not investigate him at the time despite him going to a Police station not long after the murder. He was never made a suspect or even classed as a person of interest. The same applies to "he who cannot be named". You are correct that if A was involved, B wasn't. What would the other explanation be for all these red flags? There isn't any alternative credible explanation.

The person who did this would have been covered in blood, even more so as the body was moved and that is 100% certain as almost no blood was found at the murder location. It's not possible that in 45m anyone could erase all traces of blood. In short, no, it wasn't LM who did it.

3
Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. / Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Last post by William Wallace on Today at 12:12:45 AM »
Quote from: Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2024, 07:25:04 AM
How do you know for a fact he didn’t go home afterwards?  Are you saying its impossible that he removed his bloody outer garment and shoes outside before entering the house?  Absence of forensic evidence found proves only that no forensic evidence found, not that there was none or that there hadn’t been some which was disposed of by the perpetrator and anyone assisting him. Who tested him for dampness at 6pm? Hair rinsed through with water will look dank and greasy when dry.  It’s quite possible to rinse your hands under a tap or in a stream and for your nails to still be dirty, likewise for you hands to have become grubby again hours after.

There was absolutely zero trace of anything incriminating in the house. Do you know what luminol is? Luminol testing is used in forensic blood detection. The older the stain or trace of blood, the longer and more pronounced the luminescence. Luminol is highly sensitive to blood, convenient to use, and non-destructive to other forms of blood testing. Luminol can find blood traces that have been washed down sinks, plugholes anywhere in fact. The Police turned Mitchell's house over 3 times and would have used luminol extensively - they found zero trace of blood anywhere. Any suggestion he may have gone home to clean up is trashed by the failure to find any trace of anything incriminating.

I'm afraid the idea that anyone can carry out a murder like this then get rid of every trace by washing under a tap (didn't happen as luminol found nothing) is impossible. Likewise, washing in a stream will not get rid of bloodstains on clothing even if it's not visible. You talk about clothes changing, this also fails. Where did the original clothes go if he did the murder? The Police would have found them in the woods or in any rivers. The River Esk is shallow and slow moving in June. Anything thrown in there would have been found. These sort of theories are not really worth going into, because they're not credible.

You might want to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u73H-5-RP5Y

4
A look at the news stories currently making the headlines. / Re: Embezzler & Thief Seema Misra
« Last post by Nicholas on April 15, 2024, 10:32:59 PM »
Will Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Ask Jon Longman About Illegal Immigrant Allegation?
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/BGWbqfd60Xg?si=ATDNOYCCiahPF6xV
5
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. / Re: New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.
« Last post by Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2024, 06:23:00 PM »
Quote from: Lace on April 15, 2024, 05:29:58 PM
So he needed a pee he goes into a children's playground and drops his trousers.  Who does that?  Why go into a children's play area  to urinate?  Why drop your trousers in front of children?  Fulscher won't win this one.  Though it raised a snigger with the pervert.
Yes, I’m sure the convicted child abuser had absolutely no intention of exposing himself to children in a children’s play area that had children in it.  Pull the other one Fulshcher, it’s got bells on it.
6
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. / Re: New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.
« Last post by Lace on April 15, 2024, 05:29:58 PM »
So he needed a pee he goes into a children's playground and drops his trousers.  Who does that?  Why go into a children's play area  to urinate?  Why drop your trousers in front of children?  Fulscher won't win this one.  Though it raised a snigger with the pervert.
 
7
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. / Re: New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.
« Last post by Eleanor on April 15, 2024, 03:04:00 PM »
Quote from: Myster on April 15, 2024, 12:25:28 PM
Dr. Fulscher on the subtle difference between urination and masturbation... https://archive.ph/zXw3H

Well, well. I never even thought of that.  Peeing and not masturbating.  So Brueckner went around all over the place peeing in front of children.  Is this in itself not a Public Offence?

But you have to admire Fulscher for his brass neck.  Unfortunately, Brueckner is refusing to speak, which means that he won't say what it was that he was doing.  So your guess is as good as mine.
8
Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. / Re: New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.
« Last post by Myster on April 15, 2024, 12:25:28 PM »
Dr. Fulscher on the subtle difference between urination and masturbation... https://archive.ph/zXw3H
9
Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. / Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Last post by Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2024, 07:25:04 AM »
Quote from: William Wallace on April 15, 2024, 12:14:56 AM
Mitchell's clothes were forensically examined as was his house 3 times and they found zero. Where did he get rid of this evidence in 45 minutes if he didn't go in his house? Did he change clothes in the woods and clean up in the burn? He was dry when seen at 6.00pm.  When he was examined after the murder his nails were dirty and his hair was greasy and had not been recently washed. So in effect your theory fails. There was no evidence at all of any recent washing or cleaning or even wet clothing.
How do you know for a fact he didn’t go home afterwards?  Are you saying its impossible that he removed his bloody outer garment and shoes outside before entering the house?  Absence of forensic evidence found proves only that no forensic evidence found, not that there was none or that there hadn’t been some which was disposed of by the perpetrator and anyone assisting him. Who tested him for dampness at 6pm? Hair rinsed through with water will look dank and greasy when dry.  It’s quite possible to rinse your hands under a tap or in a stream and for your nails to still be dirty, likewise for you hands to have become grubby again hours after.
10
Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. / Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Last post by Venturi Swirl on April 15, 2024, 07:16:17 AM »
Quote from: William Wallace on April 15, 2024, 12:06:55 AM
I said it was unlikely to have been MK, but that doesn't mean it definitely wasn't. It's not about trying to make mud stick, it's about people who should have been made suspects so that they could be properly eliminated. Nobody knows where MK was the whole day of the murder apart from being seen briefly on a shop's CCTV at 730pm. Nobody knows where " he who cannot be named" was either the whole day of the murder from mid afternoon onwards. Supposedly in the house, but seen outside and identified by a witness at 445pm. Then not seen again by anyone, not even the Police who came to the house after the murder at 1.30am. Their report said only JuJ and AO were in the house - 2 adults. "He who cannot be named" was in his bed according to JuJ. Why would an older brother of a 14 year old who had gone missing whom people were out searching for, be in his bed while this was going on? "Hey....Jodi's been missing for 7 hours" , "oh ok I'm away to bed". Any normal person would be outdoors searching for her or at the very least still be up waiting on news, but he was in his BED? All of this is just a load of old cobblers, the same as people of 18 who appear to have developed amnesia whilst out riding a moped and people who hear branches rustling which later morphs into strangling noises. It's all just a load of rubbish.
Now you’re just flinging mud in another direction, it does look rather desperate .  You say these people were never properly eliminated - upon what do you base this claim?  Did the police share the minute details of their (10 month long?) investigation with you?
Here’s the thing.  you’ve agreed that if Suspect A is guilty then  it means suspect B wasn’t involved and all your red flags about the latter must have some other explanation.  Likewise if suspect B did it, them all your red flags about suspect A must have another explanation.  Therefore it is perfectly feasible that if you are prepared to accept the innocence of either of them despite all the red flags you keep waving about them that both of them could be innocent and Mitchell actually did the crime.
 BTW how long before you get angry again and refuse to reply to anymore of my posts (again)?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10