LM & Jodi’s texts between 1634-1638 & LM’s call to the Speaking Clock at 1654.

[Mr Apples]

Mr Apples,

You keep talking about how robust the evidence against LM is.  On 13 September in another thread I gave a short summary of the problems in the Fleming/Walsh sighting, but I don't have time today to do the same regarding Ms. Bryson.  However, one point may be worth examining.  Ms. Bryson declined to identify LM at the trial.  In these threads, it was suggested that Luke looked different because he was 17-18 months older during the trial.  Yet Ms. Bryson's initial description was of someone in his early 20s, putting him somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 years older than LM was at the time.  Think of how much greater is the difference in looks between, say 14 and 22 versus 14 and 16.  So how can one ignore the difference between LM's age and the person that she saw?  I cannot.

The Bryson sighting is only a single element of the case and, imo, she did well in her recall given she did not know either of them and was minding her own business on a Monday afternoon with her two children in the back of the car. The strength of the Prosecution's case in this instance was very much how damning it was collectively and not individually; we could go around in circles arguing about the individual elements of the case as it's really easy and convenient to zoom into a solitary plank of the circumstantial evidence and pick out potential flaws in it. I am not prepared to go over it all again.

LM was convicted by a majority verdict -- let's not forget that. A lot of evidence that was heard in that 42-day trial is not in the public domain and likely never will be. However, thanks to social media, some of that evidence that wasn't in the public domain has gradually filtered through (presumably from folk who were at the trial and have divulged the info to members of the public in private) and the common denominator is that it is always incriminating evidence against LM. Examples? The most recent, from Nicholas, being that a manager from Flip in Edinburgh contacted the police to tell them about LM buying that green army parka on 08.07.03 (tellingly, it seems to be constant that the Mitchells never offered any info of their own volition, but, rather, they were found out/caught out). For me personally, even if they (Luke & Corinne) did tell the police they did buy the parka on 08.07.03 on their own, I would still be highly suspicious. Why buy the exact same jacket as the one that many people who knew him said he'd worn before the murder and was now missing? Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.

Those 3 main planks of circumstantial evidence: the missing parka, the false alibi and LM's guilty knowledge (ie, the record time of him finding Jodi's body in the woodland strip behind the wall). All severely damning evidence, particularly when taken together (and even more so when we add in the other facets of circumstantial evidence). I'd be incredulous if LM never did it.

[faithlilly]

Examples? The most recent, from Nicholas, being that a manager from Flip in Edinburgh contacted the police to tell them about LM buying that green army parka on 08.07.03 (tellingly, it seems to be constant that the Mitchells never offered any info of their own volition, but, rather, they were found out/caught out). For me personally, even if they (Luke & Corinne) did tell the police they did buy the parka on 08.07.03 on their own, I would still be highly suspicious. Why buy the exact same jacket as the one that many people who knew him said he'd worn before the murder and was now missing? Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.

Where is the evidence for any of this?

You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.

It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.

[Rusty]

Where is the evidence for any of this?

You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.

It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.

You are not in a position to see any evidence.

[faithlilly]

You are not in a position to see any evidence.

There is no important evidence presented in court that is not in the public domain. The clue…the nearly 20 years the alleged evidence has taken to come to light.

[Mr Apples]

Where is the evidence for any of this?

You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.

It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.

The evidence, as I explained previously, was from the witness from Whitburn's sister. She made the comments on one of SF's YT videos about the photograph & cctv footage. I subsequently contacted her on messenger and she confirmed it. She said the police interviewed her sister and took the photo from the house and that the police/authorities still have it to this day. She was adamant that the photo was shown in court, like the cctv footage was, as her younger sister was called as a witness and had told her so. I doubt she was lying. She seemed genuine and sounded bright/intelligent enough. I believe her. One of the main problems with this case was the difficulties and challenges that faced the reporting & coverage of it; because some witnesses were under 18/under 16, and were still children legally, the courts couldn't allow certain parts of the case to be in the public domain. This would, perhaps, explain why that photo was never published (or perhaps it wasn't in the public domain simply because it wasn't possible for journalists to report on every single aspect of the case). The same applies to the cctv footage.

I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.

I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.

[faithlilly]

The evidence, as I explained previously, was from the witness from Whitburn's sister. She made the comments on one of SF's YT videos about the photograph & cctv footage. I subsequently contacted her on messenger and she confirmed it. She said the police interviewed her sister and took the photo from the house and that the police/authorities still have it to this day. She was adamant that the photo was shown in court, like the cctv footage was, as her younger sister was called as a witness and had told her so. I doubt she was lying. She seemed genuine and sounded bright/intelligent enough. I believe her. One of the main problems with this case was the difficulties and challenges that faced the reporting & coverage of it; because some witnesses were under 18/under 16, and were still children legally, the courts couldn't allow certain parts of the case to be in the public domain. This would, perhaps, explain why that photo was never published (or perhaps it wasn't in the public domain simply because it wasn't possible for journalists to report on every single aspect of the case). The same applies to the cctv footage.

I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.

I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.

How did you manage to contact someone on messenger who you only knew from her YouTube name? Was it the Facebook messenger service or one I don’t know linked to YouTube? I’m sure you’ll have taken a screenshot of such an important message. Could you post it please?

What did the sister say about the CCTV footage? When was it shown?

Imagine a seemingly intelligent individual had posted a message on YouTube that as a 13 year old they had seen Luke leave his house at 17.40 on the 30th and they had been called to give evidence in court. They admitted the same to you when questioned. Would you believe them?

[Mr Apples]

How did you manage to contact someone on messenger who you only knew from her YouTube name? Was it the Facebook messenger service or one I don’t know linked to YouTube? I’m sure you’ll have taken a screenshot of such an important message. Could you post it please?

What did the sister say about the CCTV footage? When was it shown?

Imagine a seemingly intelligent individual had posted a message on YouTube that as a 13 year old they had seen Luke leave his house at 17.40 on the 30th and they had been called to give evidence in court. They admitted the same to you when questioned. Would you believe them?

She used her real name on YT and FB (and she didn't, at the time, have any friends hidden). Good signs, if you ask me.

FB messenger, yes

I'll see if I still have it and send it to you.

She never said anything about the cctv other than it was defo shown in court when her wee sister was called as a witness to court. Interestingly, she mentioned that her sister was up at court on the same day as Kimberley Thomson. Now, what's interesting here is that there were 2 Kimberley Thomsons LM was romantically involved with (I haven't had time to investigate this other KT). One from Kenmore and the other, a model, from Whitburn (I think). I don't know which KT she was referring to (I'll see if I can contact her again).

I would certainly look at that type of evidence -- as I would with any and all evidence -- objectively and with an open mind. No one said LM left his house at 1740 apart from CM. The alibi was exposed as false, as per SM's testimony.

[Chris_Halkides]

Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.

Those 3 main planks of circumstantial evidence: the missing parka, the false alibi and LM's guilty knowledge (ie, the record time of him finding Jodi's body in the woodland strip behind the wall). All severely damning evidence, particularly when taken together (and even more so when we add in the other facets of circumstantial evidence). I'd be incredulous if LM never did it.

One, that the other members of the search party changed their testimony on this point has been documented enough times in these threads that I see no need to do so again.  That fact holes their credibility below the waterline.  Apart from that, Mia's tracking abilities were said to be exceptional.  Occam's razor suggests that Mia alerted LM.  Two, SM did not say that LM was not there, only that he was not sure he was there; CM placed him at the house.  There is nothing to contradict CM's alibi other than AB's testimony; therefore, a great deal stands or falls with its quality.  Three, let me start by pointing out that the very first chapter of Borchard's book Convicting the Innocent is the case of a man who was identified by seventeen witnesses.  All seventeen were wildly mistaken; the actual criminal bore little resemblance to the convicted man, Herbert T. Andrews.  Five witnesses helped to convict Kirk Bloodsworth of capital murder, and all five were wrong.    If someone could produce a sales receipt for the phantom parka, or a photograph of LM wearing it prior to 30 June, that would be strong evidence.  The fact-free claim that the parka was disposed of in the log burner would be risible if the stakes were not so high.  I can think of no other case in which a single photograph has been responsible for so much mischief.

Your analysis rests on the assumption that the pieces of evidence in a criminal case are necessarily independent.  Regrettably, this is frequently not true.

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.

I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.

I am sorry, but I cannot leave one of your points unchallenged.  In an earlier comment you wrote, "The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case."  In other words, either they are blinded by loyalty or perhaps they are part of the innocence fraud movement.  Let us see if this holds water.  David Wilson could have offered any opinion on the case or none, but he was remarkably blunt.  Are you claiming he benefitted financially in some way?  Or one might offer the hypothesis that psychopathic, narcissistic LM bamboozled him, but consider this from Wikipedia's entry on Professor Wilson:  "While at HMP Woodhill, Wilson helped design and managed the two units for the 12 most disruptive prisoners in the country. This experience brought him into contact with some of the most notorious offenders of the last 30 years, including Charles Bronson and Dennis Nilsen.[2][5]".  I don't think that such an argument passes muster.  How about you?

[faithlilly]

She used her real name on YT and FB (and she didn't, at the time, have any friends hidden). Good signs, if you ask me.

FB messenger, yes

I'll see if I still have it and send it to you.

She never said anything about the cctv other than it was defo shown in court when her wee sister was called as a witness to court. Interestingly, she mentioned that her sister was up at court on the same day as Kimberley Thomson. Now, what's interesting here is that there were 2 Kimberley Thomsons LM was romantically involved with (I haven't had time to investigate this other KT). One from Kenmore and the other, a model, from Whitburn (I think). I don't know which KT she was referring to (I'll see if I can contact her again).

I would certainly look at that type of evidence -- as I would with any and all evidence -- objectively and with an open mind. No one said LM left his house at 1740 apart from CM. The alibi was exposed as false, as per SM's testimony.

What was her name? Was it unusual enough to be able to find it easily on a Facebook search or did you simply contact everyone with the same name? Which video did she comment on? And the two Kimberley Thomson’s…you surely don’t believe that, do you? Who other than Nicholas has even claimed there was two KTs?

If someone had told you that they also saw Luke leaving the house that would be corroborating evidence surely?

[Mr Apples]

What was her name? Was it unusual enough to be able to find it easily on a Facebook search or did you simply contact everyone with the same name? Which video did she comment on? And the two Kimberley Thomson’s…you surely don’t believe that, do you? Who other than Nicholas has even claimed there was two KTs?

If someone had told you that they also saw Luke leaving the house that would be corroborating evidence surely?

I can't remember her name. I think it was quite a rare surname and hence why it was easily traceable on FB. There are people out there who don't have multiple names/aliases and multiple accounts.

Think the video was premeditated patter's with SF as his guest (pp's first video with him).

It's entirely possible there were two KT's. I've still to research this.

Yes, it would be corroborating evidence. However, no other person did say they'd seen LM leaving his house at 1740. What's your point?

[faithlilly]

I can't remember her name. I think it was quite a rare surname and hence why it was easily traceable on FB. There are people out there who don't have multiple names/aliases and multiple accounts.

Think the video was premeditated patter's with SF as his guest (pp's first video with him).

It's entirely possible there were two KT's. I've still to research this.

Yes, it would be corroborating evidence. However, no other person did say they'd seen LM leaving his house at 1740. What's your point?

Of course it was a rare surname that you can’t remember. That goes without saying. Nothing’s ever straightforwardly provable, is it? Not to worry. Just have a wee look at your messages on messenger. The video where you saw the comment is only 11 months old so you won’t have to look too far back.

If you believe that it’s entirely possible that Luke had been involved at barely 15 with two girls of the same name could I interest you in a delightful London bridge?

[Mr Apples]

Of course it was a rare surname that you can’t remember. That goes without saying. Nothing’s ever straightforwardly provable, is it? Not to worry. Just have a wee look at your messages on messenger. The video where you saw the comment is only 11 months old so you won’t have to look too far back.

If you believe that it’s entirely possible that Luke had been involved at barely 15 with two girls of the same name could I interest you in a delightful London bridge?

Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.

LM had numerous girlfriends when he was a teenager (all in public domain) and was displaying signs of sexual aggression from as young as 12 (as well as violence to other boys when he was 11). It's absolutely possible that he had been romantically involved with 2 girls with the same name -- especially if he dated them at different times/years. Why is that so hard to believe?

[Rusty]

Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.

And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.

[Chris_Halkides]

And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.

Are you not hiding behind an alias?

Among many other problems AB was shown a biased photo lineup.  This information is known from Mr. Findlay's appeal, and no one has shown evidence that he was wrong.  The Dean Gillispie and Thomas Sophonow cases are empirical evidence that biased photo lineups can and do generate wrongful convictions.