Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 108395 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #645 on: March 30, 2024, 01:22:09 AM »
Thanks William for your considered responses, however I remain unconvinced.  I will address each section in a separate post to explain why and with further questions.  Some of the answers may already be well known however I ask them from a position of genuinely not knowing the answers.

First off:I think it isan assumption that anyone would come forward to the police straight away even in high profile cases.  Look at the McCann case.  Half a dozen or so people all from the same family saw a man carrying a child through the small town that Madeleine went missing in on the night of the disappearance, a child that they described as very young and female.  In a holiday village in which the biggest news story of the decade broke.  It took them 4 weeks to come forward to give their statements to the police.  Why on earth did it take them so long?  There is no reason that makes any sense but nor is there any suggestion that they were involved.  They just didn’t. 
So, it took these moped boys 5 days to come forward.  What precise day did they dispose of this moped?  Was it the day after the murder?  Did they tell that to the police, if not when did the police become aware that the moped had been disposed of?  Why, if they were involved in the murder did they come forward at all?  And if they were involved why does that necessarily mean Mitchell was not involved, if you don’t believe either of these boys committed the murder?  You’ve painted a scenario of them aiding and abetting a murderer, why could that not have been Mitchell?  What would their motive have been for getting involved in the first place?  Perhaps if they had witnessed the murder taking place and done nothing to stop it from happening but why could it not have been Mitchell they saw committing the crime?  Perhaps they were too ashamed to admit they did not try to stop him, they may even have helped him.  Why is this scenario not possible if the scenario of them helping a.n. other murderer to get away is.  As for the haircut, this remains hearsay from what I can gather and I can’t pass comment on what to me appears to be a rumour, unless you have a cite.

It's true not everyone might come forward after 5 days, but it's also true that they got rid of a moped seen at the murder scene before they contacted the Police. The hair change is fact. He did shave his hair off.

Mitchell was never seen walking on that path by anyone, including the 2 on the moped. This murder was a bloodbath. It's not possible for the killer to have had not one DNA trace of blood on him. It's not possible.



Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #646 on: March 30, 2024, 07:11:28 AM »
I thought alleged local knowledge was more your bag than mine?

Do I really have to point this out yet again? Virtually every miscarriage of justice that there has ever been has failed to prove doubt at the first appeal. That doesn’t mean that doubt wasn’t proved at a later date.

Occam’s razor would probably point to the male whose sperm had been found on the murdered girl’s tshirt as logically being the murderer.
Did that sperm belong to either of the moped boys you’re determined to incriminate?  Because I am losing count of the number of people you think are involved in this crime, it’s beyond far-fetched.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #647 on: March 30, 2024, 07:15:19 AM »
Those 2 were not the people who put down the bleach. Only someone with knowledge of hunting and illegal hunting where they don't want the trace of dead animals found would know about the effects of bleach. Remember, the bleach was not found for over 10 days because that's how long it took to get the dogs up from England. So somebody returned to the area in those 10 days and bleached certain parts of the ground. There are certain individuals who live locally who know a great deal about illegal hunting, what a coincidence eh?
And now you’re pointing the finger at…?  The owner of the sperm on the t-shirt…?  I may be wrong but wasn’t that Jodi’s brother?  Why would the moped boys be covering up for him but definitely not for Mitchell?  No one who is certain they were involved has answered my question yet.  Nor have they explained why two allegedly guilty boys on a moped would choose to come forward to the police of their own volition and why they didn’t then point the finger at the most obvious suspect - Luke Mitchell.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2024, 08:05:27 AM by Venturi Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #648 on: March 30, 2024, 07:29:17 AM »
It's true not everyone might come forward after 5 days, but it's also true that they got rid of a moped seen at the murder scene before they contacted the Police. The hair change is fact. He did shave his hair off.

Mitchell was never seen walking on that path by anyone, including the 2 on the moped. This murder was a bloodbath. It's not possible for the killer to have had not one DNA trace of blood on him. It's not possible.
So when they came forward to the police and the police asked to see their moped did they refuse to tell them whete they had disposed of it?  Neither fact precludes Mitchell from being the killer.  Obviously whoever the killer was did manage to leave the scene covered in dna evidence that would have linked him to the crime.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #649 on: March 30, 2024, 07:36:40 AM »
Those 2 were not the people who put down the bleach. Only someone with knowledge of hunting and illegal hunting where they don't want the trace of dead animals found would know about the effects of bleach. Remember, the bleach was not found for over 10 days because that's how long it took to get the dogs up from England. So somebody returned to the area in those 10 days and bleached certain parts of the ground. There are certain individuals who live locally who know a great deal about illegal hunting, what a coincidence eh?
Why would the discovery of blood a short distance from where the body was found have been so incriminating towards the murderer that they felt compelled to return to the scene days later to bleach the area?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #650 on: March 30, 2024, 09:06:18 AM »
It's just not fair that the police focused on a main suspect due to overwhelming evidence against him even after questioning and eliminating other possible candidates.

Even 20 years later, the fact that various others weren't treated as suspects still angers LM supporters - they were interviewed and eliminated and again and again the police could look no further than the killer LM.

Are we forgetting that the ‘overwhelming evidence’ against Luke was rejected by the PF on first viewing? That they refused to let Lothian and Borders police charge Luke in the first instance with the scant evidence that they had at the time. That Dobbie et al went to America to the world experts in criminal profiling to have a profile of the type of killer who would commit the type of crime committed against Jodi created…and it wasn’t Luke Mitchell.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2024, 09:13:42 AM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #651 on: March 30, 2024, 11:06:35 AM »
To Mitchell's supporters: Just how many people are involved in this cover up, who are they and more to the point: why?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #652 on: March 31, 2024, 12:56:22 AM »
Those 2 were not the people who put down the bleach. Only someone with knowledge of hunting and illegal hunting where they don't want the trace of dead animals found would know about the effects of bleach. Remember, the bleach was not found for over 10 days because that's how long it took to get the dogs up from England. So somebody returned to the area in those 10 days and bleached certain parts of the ground. There are certain individuals who live locally who know a great deal about illegal hunting, what a coincidence eh?

I believe it was L&B police themselves who put the bleach down. Even SL alludes to this in the "Crime Scene Management" chapter of her book, IB. And the reason they did so was owed to the fact that the police and forensics were able to ascertain that the murder started at a certain point and finished at a certain point (ie, starting near behind the V and finishing 16.3 meters west behind the V). So, for logistical reasons and to save time, the police bleached the areas east. Obviously, L&B police & forensics had searched all areas extensively with their own sniffer dogs prior to the 'specialist' sniffer dogs coming up from England -- including north, east and south of the locus -- and so knew exactly the areas where the murder occurred. I do wonder what their search parameters were and how far they searched in every direction from the locus. More specifically, I do wonder if there were more blood trails further west of where Jodi's body lay. Further still, did they find any traces of blood in the woodlands behind the gate where LM was seen by F & W at 1740 looking suspicious and 'up to no good'? Anyone know?

Btw, WW, you seem to be under the impression that if LM was the murderer he must've used the RDP at some point. May I suggest he didn't? I think he either walked or cycled over to meet her between 1615 - 1650. Then, once he'd murdered her between 1710 - 1735, he made his way to the NB rd via the woodland strip and that field north of the woodland strip. I'm not from Dalkeith, and nor have I ever been, so I don't know all the possible routes from one place to another. I don't think LM, after he'd murdered her, would risk going back over that wall as there was always the risk of that parka brushing against the wall and leaving incriminating trace evidence, and even though Newbattle & Easthouses are rural settlements and rdp is fairly secluded, it is still exposed, and at that time he knew there was every chance of passing by a cyclist/dog walker/walker/jogger. Much better for him to rush away via the cover of that woodland strip and on to the NB rd and back home. He had no choice but to go home, and hence no choice but to cross that fairly busy rural road at peak time. He HAD to cross it. He would be aware that there was a 50/50 chance he'd be seen but obviously hoping no one would see him. Luckily for the public at large, he was seen, by F&W, acting suspiciously at that gate at approx 1740. Acting suspiciously because, imo, he'd just murdered his girlfriend, had some blood stains on his parka (only visible when up close and next to him; no motorists would be able to see them, especially as that German parka camoflauged them) and couldn't risk hanging around that road in case someone who knew him stopped to talk to him and spotted the blood stains (he was spotted by people who knew him wearing a german army shirt at just before 1800, so was  probably wearing it underneath his parka and planked the parka in that woodland behind the gate between 1740 and just before 1800).

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #653 on: March 31, 2024, 02:14:02 AM »
And now you’re pointing the finger at…?  The owner of the sperm on the t-shirt…?  I may be wrong but wasn’t that Jodi’s brother?  Why would the moped boys be covering up for him but definitely not for Mitchell?  No one who is certain they were involved has answered my question yet.  Nor have they explained why two allegedly guilty boys on a moped would choose to come forward to the police of their own volition and why they didn’t then point the finger at the most obvious suspect - Luke Mitchell.

I think you're getting a bit confused and I don't blame you. Some sperm samples found on the T-shirt belonged to SK the boyfriend of JaJ. Jodi had apparently borrowed this T-shirt from her sister. SK's sperm on the T-shirt is VERY strange as JaJ and Jodi did not live in the same house. The Prosecution claimed this had happened by washing machine transference. In otherwards a garment with sperm on it had been washed along with this T-shirt. It sounds ridiculous but fairly recent research in Canada proved very small amounts of sperm could transfer this way. However it has recently come to light that sperm was found in multiple other places on the victim's NAKED body. These were not forensically tested at the time. Mitchell's legal team want these samples tested, but so far the Crown have not agreed to that.

The moped boys did not come forward of their own volition. Police appeals were put out the next day and they did not come forward for 5 days. They did eventually but only because the net was closing in. No they didn't tell the Police where they had disposed of it. The Police have NEVER seen that moped.

No it's not far fetched at all. What is far fetched is that Mitchell managed to walk the full length of RD Path and be seen by NOBODY including the 2 on the moped who were driving towards Mitchell's end of the path at the exact same time he was supposedly on it walking towards them. What is also far fetched is that he committed a savage extreme murder like this but was seen less than 45m later looking normal. No trace of blood or anything incriminating was found on his clothes, his body or in his house which was turned over by Police 3 times. He appears to have defeated the laws of forensic science at age 14 in 40 minutes. Don't you think that's more far fetched?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2024, 02:28:24 AM by William Wallace »

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #654 on: March 31, 2024, 02:41:36 AM »
And yet after all the subterfuge used to create an alibi he lets it slip that his mother had a fire that night. Shoddy!

It's a fair enough point, but, he was always going to slip up somewhere. When so many lies are being spun, even the most cunning, devious and intelligent will eventually be found out. For example, his "oh wait a minute, I think I phoned her house and spoke to her step-dad, but I can't really remember ..."; or, "Shane wasn't there, was he?" And, of course, the expansive amounts of time he went missing for on 30.06.03 not being accounted for (and, during these expansive amounts of time he was missing for, not trying to find out where Jodi was, to boot!). And, the clincher: the record time in which he found the body and the lies exposed by his actions during said finding of body and lies told by him as to how he found the body.

LM may have been highly intelligent, highly confident and highly independent and self-sufficient, but, at the end of the day, he wasn't some child genius or criminal mastermind. After all, he got caught.

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #655 on: March 31, 2024, 02:50:27 AM »
I believe it was L&B police themselves who put the bleach down. Even SL alludes to this in the "Crime Scene Management" chapter of her book, IB. And the reason they did so was owed to the fact that the police and forensics were able to ascertain that the murder started at a certain point and finished at a certain point (ie, starting near behind the V and finishing 16.3 meters west behind the V). So, for logistical reasons and to save time, the police bleached the areas east. Obviously, L&B police & forensics had searched all areas extensively with their own sniffer dogs prior to the 'specialist' sniffer dogs coming up from England -- including north, east and south of the locus -- and so knew exactly the areas where the murder occurred. I do wonder what their search parameters were and how far they searched in every direction from the locus. More specifically, I do wonder if there were more blood trails further west of where Jodi's body lay. Further still, did they find any traces of blood in the woodlands behind the gate where LM was seen by F & W at 1740 looking suspicious and 'up to no good'? Anyone know?

Btw, WW, you seem to be under the impression that if LM was the murderer he must've used the RDP at some point. May I suggest he didn't? I think he either walked or cycled over to meet her between 1615 - 1650. Then, once he'd murdered her between 1710 - 1735, he made his way to the NB rd via the woodland strip and that field north of the woodland strip. I'm not from Dalkeith, and nor have I ever been, so I don't know all the possible routes from one place to another. I don't think LM, after he'd murdered her, would risk going back over that wall as there was always the risk of that parka brushing against the wall and leaving incriminating trace evidence, and even though Newbattle & Easthouses are rural settlements and rdp is fairly secluded, it is still exposed, and at that time he knew there was every chance of passing by a cyclist/dog walker/walker/jogger. Much better for him to rush away via the cover of that woodland strip and on to the NB rd and back home. He had no choice but to go home, and hence no choice but to cross that fairly busy rural road at peak time. He HAD to cross it. He would be aware that there was a 50/50 chance he'd be seen but obviously hoping no one would see him. Luckily for the public at large, he was seen, by F&W, acting suspiciously at that gate at approx 1740. Acting suspiciously because, imo, he'd just murdered his girlfriend, had some blood stains on his parka (only visible when up close and next to him; no motorists would be able to see them, especially as that German parka camoflauged them) and couldn't risk hanging around that road in case someone who knew him stopped to talk to him and spotted the blood stains (he was spotted by people who knew him wearing a german army shirt at just before 1800, so was  probably wearing it underneath his parka and planked the parka in that woodland behind the gate between 1740 and just before 1800).

The Police have never admitted that they bleached anything. The substance used was ammonia. There is no reason why they would do this effectively preventing the specialist dogs coming up from finding the possible location of the murder. That wouldn't make any sense.

If you think Mitchell did it he never went home, there was no trace of anything incriminating found in the house. So where did he get rid of every trace of evidence?

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #656 on: March 31, 2024, 02:59:16 AM »
It's a fair enough point, but, he was always going to slip up somewhere. When so many lies are being spun, even the most cunning, devious and intelligent will eventually be found out. For example, his "oh wait a minute, I think I phoned her house and spoke to her step-dad, but I can't really remember ..."; or, "Shane wasn't there, was he?" And, of course, the expansive amounts of time he went missing for on 30.06.03 not being accounted for (and, during these expansive amounts of time he was missing for, not trying to find out where Jodi was, to boot!). And, the clincher: the record time in which he found the body and the lies exposed by his actions during said finding of body and lies told by him as to how he found the body.

LM may have been highly intelligent, highly confident and highly independent and self-sufficient, but, at the end of the day, he wasn't some child genius or criminal mastermind. After all, he got caught.

Why would someone who knew where the body was lead people to it? Would they not suggest searching somewhere else? That makes no rational sense.

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #657 on: March 31, 2024, 03:25:13 AM »
To Mitchell's supporters: Just how many people are involved in this cover up, who are they and more to the point: why?

Well the exact number is open to debate. We could start with these:

1. JF - "doesn't remember" in Court what he was doing at the V at the time of the murder and gets rid of the moped.

2. GD - doesn't remember" in Court what he was doing at the V at the time of the murder.

3. LK hears branches rustling but then in Court says it was strangling noises.

4. Ja J's main answers in Court were "I don't know/don't remember and she claims not to know the RD Path despite living 300 yards away from it before moving to her Gran's (AW) house.

5. AW could not explain in Court the reasons for going straight to the path, nor why when walking up it did not look amongst the trees adjacent to the path before the wall leading to where the V is.

6. Ju J claimed "he who cannot be named" was in the house from mid afternoon on the day of the murder and never went out at all until the next day. Not true - he was identified by a witness who knew who he was and saw him following Jodi at 4.45pm - "The Stocky Man".

7. Craig Dobbie perjured himself in Court by claiming search warrants were issued only for Mitchell's house and his father's house. He lied - a warrant was issued to search a house in Woodburn also and a Parka was removed from that house which was owned by someone who lived there. Dobbie decided not to tell the Court the only Parka he had found didn't belong to Mitchell.

8. Andrina Bryson claimed not to know the Jones family. Her partner's brother was a regular visitor to their house. She was not an independent witness.

I think 8 will do for now. Ask yourself this, why are there so many people involved in this case talking utter bull ****???
« Last Edit: March 31, 2024, 03:28:12 AM by William Wallace »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #658 on: March 31, 2024, 08:43:43 AM »
I think you're getting a bit confused and I don't blame you. Some sperm samples found on the T-shirt belonged to SK the boyfriend of JaJ. Jodi had apparently borrowed this T-shirt from her sister. SK's sperm on the T-shirt is VERY strange as JaJ and Jodi did not live in the same house. The Prosecution claimed this had happened by washing machine transference. In otherwards a garment with sperm on it had been washed along with this T-shirt. It sounds ridiculous but fairly recent research in Canada proved very small amounts of sperm could transfer this way. However it has recently come to light that sperm was found in multiple other places on the victim's NAKED body. These were not forensically tested at the time. Mitchell's legal team want these samples tested, but so far the Crown have not agreed to that.

The moped boys did not come forward of their own volition. Police appeals were put out the next day and they did not come forward for 5 days. They did eventually but only because the net was closing in. No they didn't tell the Police where they had disposed of it. The Police have NEVER seen that moped.

No it's not far fetched at all. What is far fetched is that Mitchell managed to walk the full length of RD Path and be seen by NOBODY including the 2 on the moped who were driving towards Mitchell's end of the path at the exact same time he was supposedly on it walking towards them. What is also far fetched is that he committed a savage extreme murder like this but was seen less than 45m later looking normal. No trace of blood or anything incriminating was found on his clothes, his body or in his house which was turned over by Police 3 times. He appears to have defeated the laws of forensic science at age 14 in 40 minutes. Don't you think that's more far fetched?
OK thanks for that.  So everyone is covering up for Jodi Jones’ sister’s boyfriend, including her own mum and grandma?  Because every time they are accused of changing their story or lying that’s what it amounts to if I’m reading you correctly?  Can I ask why you think they would do thst?  Can I ask (yet again) why, if these two lads were involved in aiding and abetting a murderer that there is no way on God’s earth it could have been Mitchell they were covering up for?  Furthermore can I ask (yet agsin) why, if the net was closing in and they wanted to add to the weight of evidence against Mitchell, they didn’t lie once more and say they saw him on or near that path?  As for the lack of forensics found, I thought you were of the opinion that the policework was shoddy?  Maybe it was there to be found but they just didn’t find it, same as this moped which had only been disposed of a few days before the lads came forward.  Why if the police were so desperate to talk to them and they were originally suspects did they not ask the question “where is the moped” and then go and retrieve it?   Or did these lads reply with no comment responses?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2024, 09:25:16 AM by Venturi Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #659 on: March 31, 2024, 08:47:17 AM »
Why would someone who knew where the body was lead people to it? Would they not suggest searching somewhere else? That makes no rational sense.
It would make sense if the guy got off on witnessing people’s horrified reactions to discovering a mutilated corpse belonging to someone they lived.  A sadist in other words.   Or perhaps he wanted the kudos of being the one to find her.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2024, 10:00:57 AM by Venturi Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly