Luke Mitchell Theories

[faithlilly]

Faith has already stated she will have Mitchell round for tea if he's ever released. Like many LM supporters, it doesn't matter who the murderer was as long as it wasn't LM. Anyone will do as long as it's not LM and hundreds of people have kept quiet about this conspiracy for 20 years too.

Hundreds? That’s a tad hyperbolic.

Without any of the questions surrounding other protagonists in this case I’d still maintain that the case against Luke was not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This case stinks. We’ve been told this by expert after expert, people much more knowledgeable than you or I, and yet you still refuse to see the wood for the trees.

[KenMair]

Hundreds? That’s a tad hyperbolic.

Without any of the questions surrounding other protagonists in this case I’d still maintain that the case against Luke was not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This case stinks. We’ve been told this by expert after expert, people much more knowledgeable than you or I, and yet you still refuse to see the wood for the trees.

There were approx.100 court witnesses, add in all the Police & CPS, social workers, media people, friends and relatives of both families would certainly be in the hundreds - all conspiring and keeping silent about it.

There are only 2 court verdicts: Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), or not guilty/not proven. LM was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt at court, appeals and SCCRC despite "expert opinion", most who did not possess the full facts of the case.


https://www.mygov.scot/criminal-court-case/verdicts

[Venturi Swirl]

Hundreds? That’s a tad hyperbolic.

Without any of the questions surrounding other protagonists in this case I’d still maintain that the case against Luke was not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This case stinks. We’ve been told this by expert after expert, people much more knowledgeable than you or I, and yet you still refuse to see the wood for the trees.

If not hundreds then how many?  Dozens?

[faithlilly]

There were approx.100 court witnesses, add in all the Police & CPS, social workers, media people, friends and relatives of both families would certainly be in the hundreds - all conspiring and keeping silent about it.

There are only 2 court verdicts: Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), or not guilty/not proven. LM was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt at court, appeals and SCCRC despite "expert opinion", most who did not possess the full facts of the case.


https://www.mygov.scot/criminal-court-case/verdicts

Don’t be silly. How many of those witnesses made a substantial difference to the verdict? Unfortunately the damage to Luke had been done long before he ever stepped foot in a court room. The collusion of the media and the police saw to that.


Before every miscarriage of justice was deemed to be such there was always doubt about the verdict expressed by ‘experts’ in the criminal justice field. The Mitchell case is simply one in a long line of cases where the truth has been sacrificed to achieve a conviction. Further I know it’s churlish of me to point out but if the prosecution had truly proved their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then it would have been a unanimous decision. Those who think that truth is the only thing that drives a jury have obviously never been in a jury room during deliberations.

[Mr Apples]

Did you also hear what length’s Professor Busuttil said the killer would have had to go to to achieve that lack of contamination?

You said in a previous post that you didn’t think that the murder was premeditated. How then did Luke, if he was the killer, manage to protect himself so thoroughly?

In fairness, Faith, I think there was an element of premeditation to it. The fact LM had talked to pals (prior to the murder) about knowing the best way to kill someone, and telling his female pal that he could 'just imagine getting stoned and killling someone just for a laugh", to me, is indicative of an unsound mind (although, I understand, too, that it could've been teenage rebellion). Also, some of LM's mates broke into Greyfriar's graveyard circa 2003/04 and were found in breach of violating a sepulchre (chopping its head off with a knife). There are tales of LM himself talking about eviscerating cows and horses (likewise with his brother, Shane). As I've said numerous times before, all was not well with LM & Jodi in school on 30.06.03, and they were later seen in a confrontation with each other at 1654  by AB at the top of that path. It's hard to tell; either opinion is that, as they walked down that path and into the woodland strip, near the V,  LM either snapped, to the point his temper escalated and he did murder Jodi in the most brutal manner. Either that, or he lured her down there for his own nefarious & premeditated purposes and murdered her because she had argued with him earlier as a result of her finding out about KT (who he was due to meet with that week -- a young woman who testified in court that she thought was his.only girlfriend).

Yeah, he destroyed some of his clothing and replaced them with the exact same. Identical, in fact. This was no coincidence, btw, for his original clothing has/had incriminating DNA on it.

[KenMair]

Don’t be silly. How many of those witnesses made a substantial difference to the verdict? Unfortunately the damage to Luke had been done long before he ever stepped foot in a court room. The collusion of the media and the police saw to that.


Before every miscarriage of justice was deemed to be such there was always doubt about the verdict expressed by ‘experts’ in the criminal justice field. The Mitchell case is simply one in a long line of cases where the truth has been sacrificed to achieve a conviction. Further I know it’s churlish of me to point out but if the prosecution had truly proved their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then it would have been a unanimous decision. Those who think that truth is the only thing that drives a jury have obviously never been in a jury room during deliberations.

He was still found guilty beyond reasonable doubt regardless of what you think. Very few cases return unanimous verdicts - it's human nature. The fact is LM's (closed) case is fading even further due to the released transcripts showing his lack of alibi. There is no concerted campaign among any experts or Mitchell's family or friends - all that remains is a few dozen protesters who are daft enough to believe SL and want a day out on the royal mile. Even herself has nothing to update apart from the usual 'we're nearly there'.

St.Luke is up for parole next week is it not?

[Mr Apples]

You said in a previous post that you didn’t think that the murder was premeditated. How then did Luke, if he was the killer, manage to protect himself so thoroughly?

He was DNA aware. Premeditated or not, he knew that the long parka would take the brunt of any incriminating DNA (and hence why he got rid of it). Then there's the possibility of him wearing gloves, balaclava, etc. And, of course, being surrounded by woodlands, streams, accomplices; many options open to him to escape undetected, wether premeditated or or not.

I suppose my main quandary is, if he went home at 1820 and changed into clean clothing before meeting with the boys in the abbey at 1930, where did he get changed?

[William Wallace]

Chris hasn't taken me up on his alternate hypothesis, how's about you give it a go?

Firstly, how can the police botch a crime scene you have as not being the crime scene?
How far away is your imaginary crime scene that had the forensic teams find no trace of it? Not in that stretch of woodland, not leading into another area where they retrieved a condom in a cave.
How did they manage to transport from your crime scene to the one you claim they emulated as another crime scene?
You have the girl dead elsewhere, the blood is already gone according to you. Run us through where the blood came from, how it got there, how they managed to use it to emulate  this set up pretend crime scene?
Work us through why there was nothing found leading to your claimed made up crime scene, nor of anything leading away from it bar towards Newbattle?
Explain why they would choose that specific, difficult to access area, to make up a crime scene there, why?
The area was cordoned off for some time, you have some claimed killer sneaking in to put magic substance down, what was it, how did they manage to sneak in, and more to the point why, when the forensic team had already did most of their job?

It is good for one purpose to have your ego play this role. Fully exposing the BS that comes forth from Mr Fibs.

The fact that you rudely slag off anyone who disagrees with you and make derogatory comments like "BS" and "Mr.Fibs" doesn't exactly enhance your credibilty or intellect.  The Police botched the crime scene where the body was found. If the murder was elsewhere, the area at the V is still a crime scene (obviously). Let's stick to facts, FACTS. There was very little blood where the body was found. Blood cannot disappear. Blood has been traced in soil when it is as old as 8 years. Blood is not already gone "according to you". Blood is already gone according to the forensics who analysed the place where the body was found. You might not like it, but that means 100% the murder did not take place where the body was found.

The murder probably took place fairly close to the V but not necessarily 10 or 15 yards away. The woods behind the V stretch back more than 200 yards towards Easthouses and further towards Newbattle. The murder could have happened anywhere behind that wall in that long stretch of trees. Forensic teams found no trace of the real murder location because ammonia was used to stop sniffer dogs finding blood.

The crime scene was not actually protected for long. A certain individual related to the moped boys took 8 spaniel dogs through that area within a few days of the murder. There were plenty opportunities for someone to go in there and put ammonia down.

No blood means the body was moved. The body was also dragged because Jodi's socks had been put back on inside out because they were filthy. They were put back on with the dirty side on the inside.

[William Wallace]

Look, just to get you to stop mentioning Satanism in ever single post to me I don’t believe Mitchell’s alleged Satanism is a key driver in this murder.  I do believe teenagers can commit foul murders without being fully paid up Satanists and keep saying so again and again, so you may feel you have scored a marvellous victory over me re the Satanism thing, that’s absolutely fine by me well done.  Mitchell had zero interest in the macarbre, the occult, Satan, you name it.  He only enjoyed wholesome activities like horse riding, and collecting knives and err urine.  Happy now?   
If you have police officers lying in court to secure the conviction of a child, together with a handful of people some of whom have only the most tenuous connection to the victim (AB’s partner’s brother - I mean come on, what sort of a hold would the Jones family have over her fgs) then you have a wide ranging conspiracy, there’s no getting away from it.
By the way, there have been enough libellous allegations on this part of the forum to keep an army of lawyers busy for a lifetime, so I don’t really understand the coyness.  You’ve already indicated numerous people who you claim lied, covered up etc, how come that is allowed?

The connection between AB's partner's brother and the Jones' was a significant one. I'm not going to go into detail because that's probably not allowed in here, but AB did not qualify as an independent witness. I don't know why you are so angry all the time and talking about "victories". If you would read what I say more carefully you might start to work things out. Granted it's difficult when people have to talk in riddles because of nonsensical rules in here about naming certain people. I think you'll find the only person I said lied is Dobbie, because that is fact. He stated in Court warrants were only obtained for searches in Mitchell's house and his father's which was false. Hence, he did lie.

I explained anomalies in the evidence of certain people, such as those who were at the murder scene at the exact time of the murder but "couldn't remember what they were doing". Does that sound like the truth or a lie?

[William Wallace]

So are you saying that no one returned to the scene after the murder but came equipped with bleach in anticipation of committing murder?  That it was all planned in advance?  It gets less and less plausible if so. You didn’t say where this bleached area was.  Presumably it was the police who identified a bleached area?  Did they turn to one another and say “this area has been bleached, that’s not remotely suspicious “ and not conduct any further forensic search?  The clean up operation must have been extremely thorough considering the amount of blood, and would have taken a while.  Was the body moved first? Where was this bleached area precisely?

Nobody returned to the scene after the murder that night or in the next few days. The bleaching was done after the Police left. It took 10 days for the specialised dogs to be brought up from England. The bleaching was done before those dogs arrived. Blood would just soak into the ground. It was raining all night after the murder. Dogs would still have found it if the area had not been bleached. Blood has been found in soil before after 8 years. What the Police said was that they were unable to find any traces of blood anywhere and that bleach was found in certain areas, which prevents dogs picking up the scent.

[William Wallace]

So you do agree a 14 year old would be perfectly capable of committing this crime, that’s progress at least. Mitchell is not and never has been into Satanism.  Despite covering his exercise book in satanic symbols, inking 666 on the sheath of his knife, claiming Satanism was his religion, it's very clear Mitchell had zero interest in the occult, Satan, or any musicians or computer games that promoted or included the occult and Satanism in their work.  Hope that settles it.

Most of the scribblings on his school books were quotes from the Max Payne computer game.

[William Wallace]

You have a fertile imagination, WW, I'll give you that. However, I think your theories are very illogical -- bordering on the absurd -- as I've said & argued previously.

Btw, regarding your contention that whoever the killer was likely had to be heavily and conspicuously blood-stained, why didn't the 8 separate eyewitnesess (ie, LF, RW, DH, GE, AH, CH, MO & DH) who saw that shifty-looking youth standing himself on NB rd between 1740 - 1820 say in their statements that the youth was covered in blood? Not one of those 8 witnesses mentioned anything about the person standing on that road having blood on them. And who do you think this youth was that those 8 witnesses saw? Finally, do you know that Professor Busuttil himself, when he was first summoned to the locus, during the early hours of 01.07.03, said that it was entirely possible that the killer avoided becoming heavily blood-stained if they cut/slashed the victim's throat from behind?

That Professor did say that at the time, but he didn't know the body had been moved which trashes the possibilty of the killer having no blood on them. No blood at the place she was found is not possible if she was killed there. Blood has been found in soil after as long as 8 years. I think I know who that youth was but I obviously can't name someone in here and I obviously could also be wrong.

The only witness sighting which was definitely Mitchell was by the 3 boys on bicycles who saw him, but that was at about 6pm round about when he was met by friends near the Abbey so it's known he was out at that time.

The problems come with all the other witness sightings. Bryson didn't see his face passing in a car at 20-30mph. Fleming and Walsh's evidence was nonsensical. One said she only saw him in her car's rear view mirror and the other said she saw LM in the papers on a date which was well before any pictures of him had ever appeared in the Press. Carol Heatlie driving past said she saw someone who looked similar to Mitchell, but she would be driving at 30mph on that part of the road, but probably faster as she admitted driving fast back from Edinburgh that night and not sticking to speed limits. She would have had a mere glimpse of that youth.

The final sighting by M.O'S and her husband was by far the longest and nearest, because she saw this youth standing in a lane right next to her father in law's house. Her car slowed down to get a good look at this person. She said he was much taller than LM who was about 5-4 and older maybe early 20s. She and her husband were 100% certain in Court that this person was not LM. So the 2 people who had by far the best view said it was definitely not LM and the others who all got mere glimpses whilst driving, all said the youth looked only similar to LM.

Whoever this person was, no witnesses reported seeing blood as you say. That is definitely strange none was visible. Only M.O'S and her husband were near enough and slow enough to have got a reasonable look, but from maybe 10 yards away would you see it? Probably not if it was not on their face or on light clothing. This person M.O'S saw was wearing a dark green jacket. All witnesses mentioned a green jacket although the cyclists said LM was wearing a green shirt not a jacket. The odds of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket between 5 and 6pm are remote, so I think it can be pretty much assumed certain that all sightings were of the same person.

[Mr Apples]

The connection between AB's partner's brother and the Jones' was a significant one. I'm not going to go into detail because that's probably not allowed in here, but AB did not qualify as an independent witness. I don't know why you are so angry all the time and talking about "victories". If you would read what I say more carefully you might start to work things out. Granted it's difficult when people have to talk in riddles because of nonsensical rules in here about naming certain people. I think you'll find the only person I said lied is Dobbie, because that is fact. He stated in Court warrants were only obtained for searches in Mitchell's house and his father's which was false. Hence, he did lie.

I explained anomalies in the evidence of certain people, such as those who were at the murder scene at the exact time of the murder but "couldn't remember what they were doing". Does that sound like the truth or a lie?

It was a mere coincidence that AB's brother-in-law (MBB) knew the Joneses & Walkers. AB didn't know them at all before 30.06.03 and her husband's relationship with them was tenuous at best; it was only her brother-in-law that knew them reasonably well. AB went to the police on the afternoon of 01.07.03 innocently and with the best of intentions. Her brother-in-law, who knew the Jones & Walker families fairly well, found out via his own brother because AB told him about it on the morning of 01.07.03 once the first newsflashes came through, and naturally he told MBB as he knew that MBB knew the two families quite well. AB was simply trying to assist the police and was simply being honest. Also, conspiracy theorists put a lot of  stock in the fact that MBB was in a photograph some 6 weeks after the murder and the fact that AB cut Judith's hair a couple of times after the murder; I reiterate, it was pure coincidence and nothing sinister. Read IB and do some research and it will become glaringly obvious that none of the Brysons were involved in the murder of Jodi.

The moped boyd, too. A mere coincidence they were in the vicinity; they were looked into thoroughly & eliminated forensically and by their alibis. JOF cut his hair because it was getting long and he didn't like it (ie, thick, bushy red hair). So, he cut some of it himself initially and then went to a barber's in the subsequent days to get it tidied up. He didn't go to police as quickly as he could have because he was initially paranoid & worried that he might be blamed for it along with GD, especially as they were both near the locus when the murder happened; both were known to police and had a history of violence, so were worried the police might try and blame them. Also, AW advised them not to go to police straight away  (in case, I suspect, the police tried to implicate them).

My apologies. AB did not cut Judith's hair in 2003 after the murder, as I said in my post above. She never ever cut Judith's hair. Not once. Not ever. It was MBB's girlfriend who cut her (Judith's) hair (see pages 118-119 of IB). What is accurate in my post above, is that AB's husband's relationship with the Jones & Walker families was tenuous at best. He, like his wife AB, didn't know them at all and only had heard of them/came into contact with them through MBB -- AB's brother-in-law. MBB's relationship to the Jones & Walker families was through Jodi's cousin, JW (presumably JOF) as per the AB chapter in SL's 'Innocents Betrayed'.

[Mr Apples]

That Professor did say that at the time, but he didn't know the body had been moved which trashes the possibilty of the killer having no blood on them. No blood at the place she was found is not possible if she was killed there. Blood has been found in soil after as long as 8 years. I think I know who that youth was but I obviously can't name someone in here and I obviously could also be wrong.

The only witness sighting which was definitely Mitchell was by the 3 boys on bicycles who saw him, but that was at about 6pm round about when he was met by friends near the Abbey so it's known he was out at that time.

The problems come with all the other witness sightings. Bryson didn't see his face passing in a car at 20-30mph. Fleming and Walsh's evidence was nonsensical. One said she only saw him in her car's rear view mirror and the other said she saw LM in the papers on a date which was well before any pictures of him had ever appeared in the Press. Carol Heatlie driving past said she saw someone who looked similar to Mitchell, but she would be driving at 30mph on that part of the road, but probably faster as she admitted driving fast back from Edinburgh that night and not sticking to speed limits. She would have had a mere glimpse of that youth.

The final sighting by M.O'S and her husband was by far the longest and nearest, because she saw this youth standing in a lane right next to her father in law's house. Her car slowed down to get a good look at this person. She said he was much taller than LM who was about 5-4 and older maybe early 20s. She and her husband were 100% certain in Court that this person was not LM. So the 2 people who had by far the best view said it was definitely not LM and the others who all got mere glimpses whilst driving, all said the youth looked only similar to LM.

Whoever this person was, no witnesses reported seeing blood as you say. That is definitely strange none was visible. Only M.O'S and her husband were near enough and slow enough to have got a reasonable look, but from maybe 10 yards away would you see it? Probably not if it was not on their face or on light clothing. This person M.O'S saw was wearing a dark green jacket. All witnesses mentioned a green jacket although the cyclists said LM was wearing a green shirt not a jacket. The odds of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket between 5 and 6pm are remote, so I think it can be pretty much assumed certain that all sightings were of the same person.

He didn't meet the boys in the abbey until 1930, wearing completely different clothing to the clothes he was wearing when those 3 boys -- who definitely knew him -- saw him. The last time LM was seen on the NB rd was at approx 1820, when one of the three boys had to turn back because he had a puncture (I look forward to reading his testimony to find out what he said LM was wearing at 1820). LM was not seen by anyone between 1820 - 1930. Why? What was he doing? He also wasn't seen by anyone between 2100 - 2200. Why? What was he doing? His mother said he got back home early after meeting the boys in the abbey @ 1930, arriving home at approx 2100 and staying in house until approx 2230 when he took Mia out for toilet, yer neighbour GR saw LM going home at 2200 hrs and one neighbour also said he could hear voices coming from the Mitchells' back garden @  just after 2200 and also saw a fire at around the same time. So, where was LM between 1820 - 1930 & 2100 - 2200? These times he was missing for have still never been accounted for. Why?

[Venturi Swirl]

The connection between AB's partner's brother and the Jones' was a significant one. I'm not going to go into detail because that's probably not allowed in here, but AB did not qualify as an independent witness. I don't know why you are so angry all the time and talking about "victories". If you would read what I say more carefully you might start to work things out. Granted it's difficult when people have to talk in riddles because of nonsensical rules in here about naming certain people. I think you'll find the only person I said lied is Dobbie, because that is fact. He stated in Court warrants were only obtained for searches in Mitchell's house and his father's which was false. Hence, he did lie.

I explained anomalies in the evidence of certain people, such as those who were at the murder scene at the exact time of the murder but "couldn't remember what they were doing". Does that sound like the truth or a lie?

When I asked how many people were involed in the cover up I think you listed 8 people “for starters”.   I am not remotely angry btw, just frustrated by your repeated refusal to address many of the questions I’ve asked.  But that’s ok, I realise it csn be uncomfortable to have your beliefs challenged and there is no rule here that says you have to answer, but likewise no rule that says I can’t keep asking.
As for the Moped Boys, I have asked you repeatedly to explain why, if they were somehow involved, that they definitely could not have been involved in covering for Mitchell - I don’t think you have yet offered a reason why not.