Luke Mitchell Theories

[Chris_Halkides]

No need to project your fantasies. I have no interest being pals with rapists & child killers.

Mr. Malkinson did not resemble the description that the victim initially gave, nor did he have scratches, as he should have had, based on the her account, which is corroborated by a photo and the existence of DNA under her fingernail.  Mr. Malkinson's DNA was not present, but someone else's was (and in more than one location, from what I remember).  It's worth asking whether the advance in DNA profiling that cleared his name could be applied to the case at hand.

[Chris_Halkides]

Luminol gives false positives, which is why it is frequently followed up using tetramethylbenzidine and then a confirmatory test for blood.  Richard Saferstein (p. 354 in the book Criminalistics, 9th ed.) wrote, "By spraying luminol reagent onto a suspect site, investigators can quickly screen large areas for bloodstains...The luminol test is extremely sensitive--it is capable of detecting bloodstains diluted up to 300,000 times.  For this reasons spraying large areas such as carpets, walls, flooring, or the interior of a vehicle may reveal blood traces or patterns that would have gone unnoticed under normal lighting conditions (see Figure 12-5).  It is important to note that luminol does not interfere with any subsequent DNA testing."
 
"Our findings indicated that luminol did not adversely effect the PCR testing..."  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10432617/#:~:text=5)%20The%20effect%20of%20spraying,TMB%20presumptive%20tests%20for%20blood.

"It can be used to detect smears and wipe patterns from clean-up actions and patterns on clothing, and is particularly useful for searching large areas [1]." 
https://www.bluestar-forensic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/An-evaluation-of-luminol-formulations-and-their-effecton-DNA-profiling.pdf

[Venturi Swirl]

Hi, VS. It is common knowledge that L&B P took apart the plumbing and drainage systems in the Mitchell family home and searched them meticulously and extensively for incriminating circumstantial DNA evidence during the initial investigation (this has been mentioned in IB, documentaries and other forums that discuss this case. Likewise, all cars, other properties and caravans used frequently by he Mitchell family would've all been examined extremely carefully too. Why wouldn't they've been?? You do raise an interesting point about what amount of blood from Jodi the police would've deemed incriminating or innocently transferred if found in the Mitchell family home, since LM had been over the wall and next to the locus & Jodi's bloodied cadaver between 2330 and midnight on 30.06.03; likewise, you have to wonder what innocent transfer was found on SK & AW (JANJ was the only one out of the search party who never went over the wall, but that's not to say that she herself couldn't have become contaminated from contact with the other 3 from the group). There is still so much info from this case that is undisclosed, but I suppose if there was anything of significance it would have made its way into the public domain. It was interesting that LM refused to go back over the wall when the police asked him, saying that he was too traumatised (too traumatised yet never showed any emotion upon finding the body, no emotion when on phone to operators during the 999 calls, no emotion in the immediate aftermath of finding the body, whilst the others were screaming in absolute horror, and casually texting away on his phone as the chaos unfolded -- noted by the ambulance crew). Interestingly, both LM & CM later said that they were convinced that the reason police wanted LM back over that wall was to 'get his dna there' or so that 'Jodi's DNA/blood would be on him'. Could this be a Freudian slip or projection? I think so.

Regarding how much blood the killer would have on their person after murdering Jodi in the manner she was murdered ... who knows. It's been established that the killer wouldn't necessarily be conspicuously dripping with blood, especially if they were standing behind Jodi as her throat was being slit. And if blood traces did make it on to the killer, a long olive green army parka with hood would certainly take the brunt of it and, more importantly, would camouflage it very well -- to the extent that one could only see it if one was up close and personal (and hence why those 8 witnesses on the NB rd between 1740 - 1820 never mentioned that the youth they all saw was blood-soaked). Crucially, the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM did indeed own such a parka before the murder even though he denied it. Why did LM deny ever having this parka prior the murder? Very strange and alarming. It's also worth noting that LM had a history of violence against girls from a young age, and we know about his unhealthy interest in knives and the macabre. And not forgetting he owned gloves and balaclava (which he wore when he pranked an ex-gf with a knife to her throat, scaring the poor girl so much that she actually ended their relationship as a direct result of this violent prank. It wouldn't surprise me if LM was wearing this balaclava along with gloves when he attacked and murdered Jodi in that woodland strip (which would, imo, point towards a degree of premeditation), but that long parka no doubt took most of -- if not all -- the incriminating DNA traces (i.e., blood splatter) from Jodi and that's why LM got rid of it (he was aware of DNA basics as per his giving the police scientifically accurate answers during some of his interviews and interrogations. No doubt his mother and brother gave him advice too, along the way, acting as an accessory whenever. LM probably did go home between 1820-1930 and change clothing after rinsing himself briefly at a small river in the woodland near his house. He wasn't seen by anyone between 1820 and 1930. He met the boys at his in the abbey at 1930 and one of the boys testified in court that he looked a lot cleaner that night and less unkempt as he normally was (funny that, eh?), so either he got changed in the house or someone brought clean clothes to him somewhere (unlikely though, imo). Is it a coincidence that a fire was burning in the Mitchell back garden between 1900-1930 and again at just after 2200 -- times when he was at home??! (Btw, there were fibre traces found in the log burner when it and its ashes were taken away for examination on 04.07.03, but they could not be linked to the murder -- most likely because of a thorough disposal job by the Mitchell; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.)

Btw, any takers yet on MK's whereabouts for the full day of 30.06.03?

Thanks for putting me straight MrA.  If it was “common knowledge” that luminol was used extensively in the house and garden and drains and pipes examined (though I have tried in vain to find a reliable cite which confirms this) then I have to concede that my scepticism may have been misplaced.  However it does seem again that when it comes to “common knowledge “ people pick snd choose what to believe depending on how it suits their narrative.  It’s regarded as “common knowledge’ for example that Mitchell had an interest in satanism and owned a green parka which the police were unable to locate after the murder.  Mitchell supporters seem unable to believe it.  And yes, a few drops of Jodi’s blood found in the house would not have proven anything imo as Mitchell’s defence could have legitimately claimed innocent transfer.   
BTW I will continue to ask questions and challenge commonly held beliefs in this case all the while it pleases me to do so,  despite the laughing emojis. 

[Parky41]

Thanks for putting me straight MrA.  If it was “common knowledge” that luminol was used extensively in the house and garden and drains and pipes examined (though I have tried in vain to find a reliable cite which confirms this) then I have to concede that my scepticism may have been misplaced.  However it does seem again that when it comes to “common knowledge “ people pick snd choose what to believe depending on how it suits their narrative.  It’s regarded as “common knowledge’ for example that Mitchell had an interest in satanism and owned a green parka which the police were unable to locate after the murder.  Mitchell supporters seem unable to believe it.  And yes, a few drops of Jodi’s blood found in the house would not have proven anything imo as Mitchell’s defence could have legitimately claimed innocent transfer.   
BTW I will continue to ask questions and challenge commonly held beliefs in this case all the while it pleases me to do so,  despite the laughing emojis.

You are correct VS - It is a mess because there is nothing in effect to be sourced directly bar the slow release of some transcripts from the trial.

 What an absolute mess it is. All set to confuse of course.

Chris as with Faith, say it was probably LM that F&W saw just not at the wooden gate. They claim they got the place of the sighting wrong! That it was actually several hundred yards further down that road. They want to swap low wooden gate on kerbside to off road and beside 10ft high white wooden painted entry doors. But wait a minute. LM is claiming to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate at this time! So in reality it is, from shade, against a low wooden gate, to out in the open, out of the shade, beside a bus stop, from standing to sitting and on this charade goes.

Some 15mins later he is seen again by MO - It wasn't MK and WW does not have intel around that sighting at all. The same person who claimed that MO knew LM, let's see how that works. So this sighting takes place a little distance from where LM claimed to be. So they seen this lad they could not identify, but did not see the lad just along from him that they could have identified? Both dressed in similar clothing, those claimed doppelgangers anyway. So MO didn't think, wow, he looks like a lad I know, but I know it isn't him because I have just seen him a second ago? - What a mess.

But, IF we do not move that wooden gate to a wall, from standing to sitting, and F&W do have the place of that sighting exactly as it was, what do we have? We have a positive Identification being made of LM. They really can't have it all ways, can they now? They are both saying I believe it was LM, they got his identity correct! But we have to move the sighting to where LM claimed to be at that point?

"Occam's 'bloody' Razor" - The same male with his khaki green clobber was seen around 4:55pm in Easthouses meeting a girl. He is identified as being LM. He is seen again some 45mins later at the wooden gate and (as above) he is LM, as has been admitted by both Chris and Faith, they got his identity correct! The same male is seen again further down that road, he is seen by MO but she could not place an identity upon him, there is NO other male in khaki green clothing just along from there, he is the only male with khaki green clothing on that road/standing in off it. He is seen again by CH who could identify him, seen again by AH who could identify him!

Back to LM who claimed to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of estate making calls to the Jones house, 5:32 (instantly hung up) and 5:38pm. He is NOT seen here at all. He is seen around 5:40pm by F&W several hundred yards up that road, at the wooden gate. He knew he had been seen by boys who knew him, around 6pm. He told the police he had walked a little way up to the road, to where those sightings took place, to see if Jodi were in sight! - But wait, LM was NOT seen looking up any road ever, he was not seen walking back to the entrance of his estate, after his claimed looking to see if the girl were in sight. He was seen standing in off road, trying not to be seen, identified, in those places!

So, in this sad sorry saga - LM was not seen at all doing what he claimed to be doing at any point in time!

The house searches, whatever actions were carried out, whatever substances were applied - NO one has seen those reports first hand nor heard anything about those searches yet via the trial transcripts. But yes, we do know that there was nothing 'incriminating' found, nothing that could be used to show that LM had traipsed blood home nor of course had his long hot shower, the latter, that he never needed to have done in the first place anyway! It is all hyped up fallacy for effect! Attempting at all times to paint the impossible. Stating he 'had' to have did something, to then apply nothing was found = not the killer. What a lot of nonsense. It is as with everything else, that 'whatever' was found from anywhere, could not be directly linked to the murder, not and never that there was nothing at all! Not to say it wasn't linked, only that it could not be proven so.

There is NO evidence that MK was ever on NR at those places, zero. We don't get to swap the title of a claimed singular 'essay' to two essays with different titles on the say so of SF's? Has no one learnt their lesson yet around this male? Or indeed Ms Lean for that matter? Are people incapable of taken the time to analyse information correctly? He was investigated, there was zero evidence of him being on that road, there was zero evidence of any 'essay' of killing a girl in the woods. There were statements from tutors who stated categorically they had 'never' seen such an essay from that student! That the two held were part one and two of something, the first claimed to be so good a follow up was requested?

[faithlilly]

No need to project your fantasies. I have no interest being pals with rapists & child killers.

You really are more to be pitied than laughed at.

[faithlilly]

You are correct VS - It is a mess because there is nothing in effect to be sourced directly bar the slow release of some transcripts from the trial.

 What an absolute mess it is. All set to confuse of course.

Chris as with Faith, say it was probably LM that F&W saw just not at the wooden gate. They claim they got the place of the sighting wrong! That it was actually several hundred yards further down that road. They want to swap low wooden gate on kerbside to off road and beside 10ft high white wooden painted entry doors. But wait a minute. LM is claiming to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate at this time! So in reality it is, from shade, against a low wooden gate, to out in the open, out of the shade, beside a bus stop, from standing to sitting and on this charade goes.

Some 15mins later he is seen again by MO - It wasn't MK and WW does not have intel around that sighting at all. The same person who claimed that MO knew LM, let's see how that works. So this sighting takes place a little distance from where LM claimed to be. So they seen this lad they could not identify, but did not see the lad just along from him that they could have identified? Both dressed in similar clothing, those claimed doppelgangers anyway. So MO didn't think, wow, he looks like a lad I know, but I know it isn't him because I have just seen him a second ago? - What a mess.

But, IF we do not move that wooden gate to a wall, from standing to sitting, and F&W do have the place of that sighting exactly as it was, what do we have? We have a positive Identification being made of LM. They really can't have it all ways, can they now? They are both saying I believe it was LM, they got his identity correct! But we have to move the sighting to where LM claimed to be at that point?

"Occam's 'bloody' Razor" - The same male with his khaki green clobber was seen around 4:55pm in Easthouses meeting a girl. He is identified as being LM. He is seen again some 45mins later at the wooden gate and (as above) he is LM, as has been admitted by both Chris and Faith, they got his identity correct! The same male is seen again further down that road, he is seen by MO but she could not place an identity upon him, there is NO other male in khaki green clothing just along from there, he is the only male with khaki green clothing on that road/standing in off it. He is seen again by CH who could identify him, seen again by AH who could identify him!

Back to LM who claimed to be sitting on the wall at the entrance of estate making calls to the Jones house, 5:32 (instantly hung up) and 5:38pm. He is NOT seen here at all. He is seen around 5:40pm by F&W several hundred yards up that road, at the wooden gate. He knew he had been seen by boys who knew him, around 6pm. He told the police he had walked a little way up to the road, to where those sightings took place, to see if Jodi were in sight! - But wait, LM was NOT seen looking up any road ever, he was not seen walking back to the entrance of his estate, after his claimed looking to see if the girl were in sight. He was seen standing in off road, trying not to be seen, identified, in those places!

So, in this sad sorry saga - LM was not seen at all doing what he claimed to be doing at any point in time!

The house searches, whatever actions were carried out, whatever substances were applied - NO one has seen those reports first hand nor heard anything about those searches yet via the trial transcripts. But yes, we do know that there was nothing 'incriminating' found, nothing that could be used to show that LM had traipsed blood home nor of course had his long hot shower, the latter, that he never needed to have done in the first place anyway! It is all hyped up fallacy for effect! Attempting at all times to paint the impossible. Stating he 'had' to have did something, to then apply nothing was found = not the killer. What a lot of nonsense. It is as with everything else, that 'whatever' was found from anywhere, could not be directly linked to the murder, not and never that there was nothing at all! Not to say it wasn't linked, only that it could not be proven so.

There is NO evidence that MK was ever on NR at those places, zero. We don't get to swap the title of a claimed singular 'essay' to two essays with different titles on the say so of SF's? Has no one learnt their lesson yet around this male? Or indeed Ms Lean for that matter? Are people incapable of taken the time to analyse information correctly? He was investigated, there was zero evidence of him being on that road, there was zero evidence of any 'essay' of killing a girl in the woods. There were statements from tutors who stated categorically they had 'never' seen such an essay from that student! That the two held were part one and two of something, the first claimed to be so good a follow up was requested?

Just one question….why was Luke standing trying not to be seen? I thought he was trying to establish an alibi by having people see him on the Newbattle Road?

As your alter-ego puts it…,where’s the sense?


Ah and let’s not forget the jogger’s movements give a more accurate estimate of where Fleming and Walsh saw Luke.