Luke Mitchell Theories

[Mr Apples]

Not everything that comes from SL is 100% accurate is it? Usually people in here slag her off along with anyone who dares to suggest there may have been a Miscarriage of Justice and call her derogatory names. I think you also have criticised her although not with derogatory names to be fair to you, unlike some people in here. This part about who knew who is never going to be proven one way or the other.

I was having another look at the witness evidence of sightings:
AB doesn't see the youth's face and doesn't notice the huge orange logo on the back of the girl's jacket.
Fle and Wal - their evidence was absolutely nonsensical, claiming they saw LM in the Press on a date no pictures of him had been in the Press, and also one saying she only saw the youth from her car's rear view mirror.
Carol H said she saw a youth at the gate that looked similar to LM but admitted she was driving fast and hadn't been sticking to speed limits on her way home from Edinburgh.

M'O'S and her husband see a youth in a green jacket standing in a lane next to her husband's father's house. They said it was definitely not LM. He was older and much taller than LM. They slowed the car down and looked straight at him. They were the only witnesses who got more than a glimpse of this person, if all witnesses saw the same person. So there are no clear sightings of this person in a green jacket except the M'O'S one and she and her husband said for certain it was not LM. Logic and probability says that this person in the green jacket was almost certainly the same person other people saw. Human recall is known to be extremely poor which is why all of these accounts are different. The descriptions are literally all over the place. So much so that it points to them seeing at least 2-3 different people, but we know the chances of there being 2 people seen wearing a similar green jacket or shirt within an hour are remote, so it surely was the same person despite all the different descriptions.

The biggest thing against LM is the lack of alibi. All this stuff dragged out about whether he was in or not and Shane not knowing if he was in or not. It wasn't a huge house. Someone would know if another person was in or not. So on that basis, I don't think LM was in that house at 5.15pm. Despite that I still don't think it was him that carried out the murder.

AB, when presented with that book of photographs by the police, said 'she was as sure as she could be' that it was him. In court, when asked if she could id him, she said, "I don't know". She didn't outright say no. The reason for her saying she didn't know was because of how much LM had changed physically since 30.06.03 & her court appearance 18 months later, and his clothing & appearance; he was still developing and going through puberty. Likewise, LF & RW both said "Oh my god! It's him!" when they saw his picture in a newspaper. They also id'd him in court. CH said the youth she saw on the road was "very very similar to LM" and she too id'd him in court. One major point you've omitted from your post above is that 3 youths on pushbikes who knew LM personally saw him on the road at just before 1800 and they too id'd him in court, so that only reinforces the the view that this youth on the NB rd  between 1740 - 1820 was indeed the same person -- LM. The only anomaly in regards to eyewitness testimony was the testimony of that couple, MOS & DH, though I think a transcript of their testimony will clarify their doubt that this youth was LM (I think that they said it wasn't him because of how much he'd changed from their sighting and their court appearance, just like it confused AB). Given that all these eyewitnesses only saw LM for a couple of seconds from a car, I think they did well.to recall what they did.

I can tell that you think it could've been MK, even though he was ruled out as per DNA. My only problem with MK theories is that no one seems to know his whereabouts that day, with the exception of him being seen at an off-licence buying alcohol at just before closing time (ie, 2200). So, I'll ask it again: where was MK between 1300 - 2200 on 30.06.03?

[faithlilly]

Agree Mr Apples - It will be interesting to see full testimony to take away the fallacy and bias in place. Even with what we do know around the boys, pushed repeatedly from the defences attempts to cast doubt. 7hrs and we know very little, the full context of their testimony as with AB.

There has never been any dispute as to why the boys were upon the paths, close to the locus. Never has there been any evidence of them being over that wall, least of all the locus itself. We do have their approx time. We do know they were investigated (massively so) and eliminated.

Evidence as it stands, which matters not if others disagree with it. The killer was behind the wall with the victim. By the time the boys were around the V break there was only silence from beyond, the girl already dead. So what can the killer hear in this silence? The boys voices, the bike when they got it going, it riding off into the distance and back again a couple of times. He would be alert to any possibility of them entering that woodland, We know the victims body had been moved away from the wall, hidden behind that "large oak tree" We know the many obstacles in the way blocking view.  And we can apply coincidence to him hanging up on that first attempt at calling the Jones household, coinciding with a bike and boys he thought gone, deciding to take a hurl back down that path? Faith before attempted to scoff at this, placing that question, would there be no motorbikes upon NR itself? But its not just that, if they were coming back again he would not be taking the risk of being on a call should the bike stop and the boys voices also heard in a call, or indeed as above, that worry they may enter the woodland?

DF made no attempt to place the boys with someone else, he attempted to cast doubt around a girl using the path alone, bumping into people she knew? that type of thing. Perfectly executed by the Crown. Nothing matched. A girl breaking her ban, the time being later, LK seeing no girl, there was no opportunity for those boys to be bumping into anyone. Not when there was no girl was upon the path whilst LK was upon it, or the lane, or on ER itself.

Why call anywhere near the murder site? Why not wait 2 minutes until he was back on the Newbattle Road? Why take the risk? It makes absolutely no sense especially if he was as calculating as you are suggesting. Standing next to the girl you’ve just murdered in order to make a phone call when you’d expect him to want to put as much distance between him and the body. Not only that but as if that’s not enough risk he stands nonchalantly at a gate waiting to be recognised by all the passing traffic.

He’s hardly a criminal mastermind, is he?

[Parky41]

Mastermind Criminal:

I always find it amusing when the ego's apply this term. Projecting it on to others, when it is they who are applying that LM had to have been such. They come out with nonsense fallacy, such as cleaning scenes to remove all trace of himself whilst leaving trace/DNA of others.

It's always good to put in place, at all times, that reminder - He was caught, he was anything but this mastermind criminal that 'they' apply he had to have been.

LM's mastermind criminal act consisted of being able to dispose of incriminating clothing and weapon - That is it. Outstanding, isn't it? There is no 'the logical thing to do would have been?' That is the ego's applying mastermind to something, to someone, who was not. There is no 'why do that when he could have done this? and on it goes.

That really is the only answer to every obtuse question. - LM was caught because he was 'not' the mastermind criminal 'they' claim he had to have been! 

[Parky41]

AB, when presented with that book of photographs by the police, said 'she was as sure as she could be' that it was him. In court, when asked if she could id him, she said, "I don't know". She didn't outright say no. The reason for her saying she didn't know was because of how much LM had changed physically since 30.06.03 & her court appearance 18 months later, and his clothing & appearance; he was still developing and going through puberty. Likewise, LF & RW both said "Oh my god! It's him!" when they saw his picture in a newspaper. They also id'd him in court. CH said the youth she saw on the road was "very very similar to LM" and she too id'd him in court. One major point you've omitted from your post above is that 3 youths on pushbikes who knew LM personally saw him on the road at just before 1800 and they too id'd him in court, so that only reinforces the the view that this youth on the NB rd  between 1740 - 1820 was indeed the same person -- LM. The only anomaly in regards to eyewitness testimony was the testimony of that couple, MOS & DH, though I think a transcript of their testimony will clarify their doubt that this youth was LM (I think that they said it wasn't him because of how much he'd changed from their sighting and their court appearance, just like it confused AB). Given that all these eyewitnesses only saw LM for a couple of seconds from a car, I think they did well.to recall what they did.

I can tell that you think it could've been MK, even though he was ruled out as per DNA. My only problem with MK theories is that no one seems to know his whereabouts that day, with the exception of him being seen at an off-licence buying alcohol at just before closing time (ie, 2200). So, I'll ask it again: where was MK between 1300 - 2200 on 30.06.03?

There is no 'she did not see his face' that WW applies. This has morphed from not being able to describe, do a photo fit type thing, I believe? And even with that we do not know accuracy of that claim?

[Parky41]

AB, when presented with that book of photographs by the police, said 'she was as sure as she could be' that it was him. In court, when asked if she could id him, she said, "I don't know". She didn't outright say no. The reason for her saying she didn't know was because of how much LM had changed physically since 30.06.03 & her court appearance 18 months later, and his clothing & appearance; he was still developing and going through puberty. Likewise, LF & RW both said "Oh my god! It's him!" when they saw his picture in a newspaper. They also id'd him in court. CH said the youth she saw on the road was "very very similar to LM" and she too id'd him in court. One major point you've omitted from your post above is that 3 youths on pushbikes who knew LM personally saw him on the road at just before 1800 and they too id'd him in court, so that only reinforces the the view that this youth on the NB rd  between 1740 - 1820 was indeed the same person -- LM. The only anomaly in regards to eyewitness testimony was the testimony of that couple, MOS & DH, though I think a transcript of their testimony will clarify their doubt that this youth was LM (I think that they said it wasn't him because of how much he'd changed from their sighting and their court appearance, just like it confused AB). Given that all these eyewitnesses only saw LM for a couple of seconds from a car, I think they did well.to recall what they did.

I can tell that you think it could've been MK, even though he was ruled out as per DNA. My only problem with MK theories is that no one seems to know his whereabouts that day, with the exception of him being seen at an off-licence buying alcohol at just before closing time (ie, 2200). So, I'll ask it again: where was MK between 1300 - 2200 on 30.06.03?

Also the book of pictures re jackets, where she did not choose the fishing style? It will be good to see her full testimony. Being saved until last, which is fair enough, people have paid good money to obtain them.

[William Wallace]

AB, when presented with that book of photographs by the police, said 'she was as sure as she could be' that it was him. In court, when asked if she could id him, she said, "I don't know". She didn't outright say no. The reason for her saying she didn't know was because of how much LM had changed physically since 30.06.03 & her court appearance 18 months later, and his clothing & appearance; he was still developing and going through puberty. Likewise, LF & RW both said "Oh my god! It's him!" when they saw his picture in a newspaper. They also id'd him in court. CH said the youth she saw on the road was "very very similar to LM" and she too id'd him in court. One major point you've omitted from your post above is that 3 youths on pushbikes who knew LM personally saw him on the road at just before 1800 and they too id'd him in court, so that only reinforces the the view that this youth on the NB rd  between 1740 - 1820 was indeed the same person -- LM. The only anomaly in regards to eyewitness testimony was the testimony of that couple, MOS & DH, though I think a transcript of their testimony will clarify their doubt that this youth was LM (I think that they said it wasn't him because of how much he'd changed from their sighting and their court appearance, just like it confused AB). Given that all these eyewitnesses only saw LM for a couple of seconds from a car, I think they did well.to recall what they did.

I can tell that you think it could've been MK, even though he was ruled out as per DNA. My only problem with MK theories is that no one seems to know his whereabouts that day, with the exception of him being seen at an off-licence buying alcohol at just before closing time (ie, 2200). So, I'll ask it again: where was MK between 1300 - 2200 on 30.06.03?

Yes he was definitely ID'd by the boys on the push bikes because one of them knew him. Regarding the M'O'S sighting I don't think there was anything said about LM changing. She and her husband just said it was definitely not Mitchell. They were certain about it. The person they saw was significantly older and much taller than LM who was about 5-4. M'O'S still says to this day it was 100% not LM.

MK - how can he have been ruled out by DNA when the Police didn't investigate anything about him at the time? His whereabouts on the day of the murder are unknown, apart from a brief sighting on an off sales CCTV. I think this was at 730pm although it may have been later. So his whereabouts were unknown before then all day and after then all night.

MK:
Known drug and alcohol issues
Known to carry knives
Known to have been violent
Turned up at Scott Forbes' flat the morning after the murder with scratches all over his face which he gave no sensible explanation for.
Wrote 2 essays called "No Remorse" about killing a girl in the woods. (Police denied these existed)
Knew the area very well as was living in Newbattle College
Whereabouts unknown on the whole day of the murder apart from 5 minutes on a shop's CCTV.
Looked very similar to Mitchell but was significantly taller.

He also matches the description by M.O'S as being tall and much taller than Mitchell. I believe he was about 6-2. MK was never made a suspect which is beyond baffling.

Doesn't sound too good does it?

[William Wallace]

There is no 'she did not see his face' that WW applies. This has morphed from not being able to describe, do a photo fit type thing, I believe? And even with that we do not know accuracy of that claim?

AB would not have seen his face whilst driving past if he was a few yards into the path and she was on the other side of the road driving away from Easthouses. You would see virtually nothing of anyone's face at 30mph when they were across a road and down a path.

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes he was definitely ID'd by the boys on the push bikes because one of them knew him. Regarding the M'O'S sighting I don't think there was anything said about LM changing. She and her husband just said it was definitely not Mitchell. They were certain about it. The person they saw was significantly older and much taller than LM who was about 5-4. M'O'S still says to this day it was 100% not LM.

MK - how can he have been ruled out by DNA when the Police didn't investigate anything about him at the time? His whereabouts on the day of the murder are unknown, apart from a brief sighting on an off sales CCTV. I think this was at 730pm although it may have been later. So his whereabouts were unknown before then all day and after then all night.

MK:
Known drug and alcohol issues
Known to carry knives
Known to have been violent
Turned up at Scott Forbes' flat the morning after the murder with scratches all over his face which he gave no sensible explanation for.
Wrote 2 essays called "No Remorse" about killing a girl in the woods. (Police denied these existed)
Knew the area very well as was living in Newbattle College
Whereabouts unknown on the whole day of the murder apart from 5 minutes on a shop's CCTV.
Looked very similar to Mitchell but was significantly taller.

He also matches the description by M.O'S as being tall and much taller than Mitchell. I believe he was about 6-2. MK was never made a suspect which is beyond baffling.

Doesn't sound too good does it?

What was MK’s hold over the Jones family that they would go along with a cover up to protect him at the expense of Mitchell’s liberty? Rhetorical question - you’re not wasting any more time on me so I don’t expect a reply.

[KenMair]

MK:
Known drug and alcohol issues
Known to carry knives
Known to have been violent
Turned up at Scott Forbes' flat the morning after the murder with scratches all over his face which he gave no sensible explanation for.
Wrote 2 essays called "No Remorse" about killing a girl in the woods. (Police denied these existed)
Knew the area very well as was living in Newbattle College
Whereabouts unknown on the whole day of the murder apart from 5 minutes on a shop's CCTV.
Looked very similar to Mitchell but was significantly taller.

He also matches the description by M.O'S as being tall and much taller than Mitchell. I believe he was about 6-2. MK was never made a suspect which is beyond baffling.

Doesn't sound too good does it?

If your source for these "facts" is SF then it's a poor argument. MK was at least 5 years older and looked nothing like LM.  How do you know what MK looked like at the time? Even by his own account posted on here he only had a tiny scratch on his face and was bullied by SF.

[William Wallace]

If you're source for these "facts" is SF then it's a poor argument. MK was at least 5 years older and looked nothing like LM.  How do you know what MK looked like at the time? Even by his own account posted on here he only had a tiny scratch on his face and was bullied by SF.

Have you seen photos of MK around 2003-2006?  Did you ever meet MK? Well why make assumptions that I don't know what MK looked like?  He did look similar to Mitchell but taller and older.  You are also assuming that post in here years ago by MK was written by MK. This is an anonymous forum. That post could have been written by Batman. The anonymous poster said he only had a small scratch and you assume that's true? You make a lot of assumptions.

[William Wallace]

What was MK’s hold over the Jones family that they would go along with a cover up to protect him at the expense of Mitchell’s liberty? Rhetorical question - you’re not wasting any more time on me so I don’t expect a reply.

I don't think MK knew the Jones family. There are a lot of things about MK that should have made him a suspect at least. The thing that points away from him is why others involved would come up with such nonsensical stories in Court such as "we don't remember what we were doing at the V at 5.15pm" if it was MK or some other unknown person. MK knew the area very well, he lived at Newbattle College.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't think MK knew the Jones family. There are a lot of things about MK that should have made him a suspect at least. The thing that points away from him is why others involved would come up with such nonsensical stories in Court such as "we don't remember what we were doing at the V at 5.15pm" if it was MK or some other unknown person. MK knew the area very well, he lived at Newbattle College.

So it can't be him then, unless you're prepared to accept that others came up with "nonsensical stories" for reasons not associated with a cover up to frame LM. 

[KenMair]

Have you seen photos of MK around 2003-2006? No? Did you ever meet MK? No? Well why make assumptions that I don't know what MK looked like?  He did look similar to Mitchell but taller and older.  You are also assuming that post in here years ago by MK was written by MK. This is an anonymous forum. That post could have been written by Batman. The anonymous poster said he only had a small scratch and you assume that's true? You make a lot of assumptions.

Yes I met MK several times that's why I know he was nothing like Mitchell. MK was tall (6 ft+), slim, at least 5 years older and reasonably well spoken when I met him. How can someone look similar but taller and older? Forbes tried to stitch him up then sell a story to the press for cash. He denied the scratches story and said Forbes was evil and nothing I've seen or heard from him since refutes that.

Forbes went on TV to say that MK was the killer then some years later on TV said that the victim's brother was his no.1 suspect. He's a buffoon, nothing more.

[William Wallace]

So it can't be him then, unless you're prepared to accept that others came up with "nonsensical stories" for reasons not associated with a cover up to frame LM.

It's unlikely to have been MK, or any other random unknown psychopath because if it was, we wouldn't have such utter rubbish being spouted such as:  "we don't remember what we were doing at the V", "we don't know where the moped went", certain people being unable to explain why they went straight to RD Path and once on it didn't look in the woods right beside the path before the wall starts near the V, other people claiming they didn't know RD Path despite living 2-300 yards away from it, others claiming to hear a noise like "branches rustling" cycling past the V then changing it in Court to "strangling noises", people changing statements from LM's dog was sniffing the air near the V then a few weeks later changed to LM went straight over the V. Then of course we also have someone claimed to be in the house all day and night who was seen outside at 445pm then never seen again until the following day. Not even seen by Police when they went to the house at 130am because they didn't look in any other rooms to confirm if anyone else was in or not.

[William Wallace]

Yes I met MK several times that's why I know he was nothing like Mitchell. MK was tall (6 ft+), slim, at least 5 years older and reasonably well spoken when I met him. How can someone look similar but taller and older? Forbes tried to stitch him up then sell a story to the press for cash. He denied the scratches story and said Forbes was evil and nothing I've seen or heard from him since refutes that.

Forbes went on TV to say that MK was the killer then some years later on TV said that the victim's brother was his no.1 suspect. He's a buffoon, nothing more.

MK was tall (6 ft+), slim, at least 5 years older. Strangely that's the same description M.O'S gave of the person she saw next to her father in laws house. Someone much taller than LM and older. The similar is more to do with his hair colour/style and clothes. He might not have looked similar when you met him, but did you ever see him around 2003-04? Photos of him from around that time do look a bit like LM, enough so that someone seeing him for seconds from cars like in this case could mistake him for LM.

Regardless I don't think it was MK that did it. If it was, there wouldn't be all these changed witness testimonies and people "not remembering anything about what they were doing at the V"  and rustling branches morphing into strangling noises etc etc.

Are you of the opinion that LM did it? We know there was very little blood where the victim was found so she must have been carried or dragged from somewhere else. How do you think LM could have managed to carry out this murder then move the body and get absolutely no trace of blood on him?