Luke Mitchell Theories

[Parky41]

When challenged, I give citations or modify my claims, as appropriate.  The people who assert that the judge required a strong majority have not provided a citation or modified/retracted their claims.

That is simply not true though Chris. I suggest you re-read the recent posts again. Until such a time where the direction made on the morning of the verdict is in place word for word, then and only then will I adapt to anything should the need arise. Not that I would not nor will not. Just as I have had to do with other information.

And as I have pointed out to you before, as I have with Faith and others to boot - Don't hit me with the hypocrisy of challenging anything when you do not do that with others from whom you have adopted information without challenge. Walk on by Chris.

I made it abundantly clear when I first started posting on this case that very fact, my stance on it. And as has been highlighted again by VS, it is all very well producing some cites without full context to give imaginary weight to something anyway. The very essence of my stance in this case, that the very people putting out a false narrative worked with using such. Here is a cite from something somewhere, it means b....r all because it is fully out of context. But build that false narrative they did, get people to take it on board they did, and not one of those damn hypocrites demanded any more - Did they now?

So I will offer you the same deal Chris - Click the link, follow through on my request, then come back to me in a couple of years time and I will show you source, how's that?

I am of course no fortune teller, not plucking things out of the air for the sake of it as has been shown by the release of transcripts. I have actually become quite annoyed with myself, my own hypocrisy for taken certain information on as fact when it was not. I will do the same again without hesitation should the direction be fully off key. I Chris, have absolutely no problem in admitting wrong. But you can bet your bottom dollar there will be no, and never will there be, anything from myself ever put in place to intentionally mislead anyone.

[faithlilly]

That is simply not true though Chris. I suggest you re-read the recent posts again. Until such a time where the direction made on the morning of the verdict is in place word for word, then and only then will I adapt to anything should the need arise. Not that I would not nor will not. Just as I have had to do with other information.

And as I have pointed out to you before, as I have with Faith and others to boot - Don't hit me with the hypocrisy of challenging anything when you do not do that with others from whom you have adopted information without challenge. Walk on by Chris.

I made it abundantly clear when I first started posting on this case that very fact, my stance on it. And as has been highlighted again by VS, it is all very well producing some cites without full context to give imaginary weight to something anyway. The very essence of my stance in this case, that the very people putting out a false narrative worked with using such. Here is a cite from something somewhere, it means b....r all because it is fully out of context. But build that false narrative they did, get people to take it on board they did, and not one of those damn hypocrites demanded any more - Did they now?

So I will offer you the same deal Chris - Click the link, follow through on my request, then come back to me in a couple of years time and I will show you source, how's that?

I am of course no fortune teller, not plucking things out of the air for the sake of it as has been shown by the release of transcripts. I have actually become quite annoyed with myself, my own hypocrisy for taken certain information on as fact when it was not. I will do the same again without hesitation should the direction be fully off key. I Chris, have absolutely no problem in admitting wrong. But you can bet your bottom dollar there will be no, and never will there be, anything from myself ever put in place to intentionally mislead anyone.

If not to mislead then you are certainly shoddy at any kind of substantive research. A quick google informs you that a simple majority would be enough to bring in a guilty verdict in Scots law. There isn’t, and never has been, any requirement for a ‘strong’ majority. The speed of the verdict on the second day of the jury’s deliberations suggests that although eight jurors hadn’t agreed guilt on the first of deliberations by early the next day they had and a ‘simple majority’ would have achieved this.

Why are so so reluctant to reveal your source if it is credible? Why this deflection?

[Parky41]

If not to mislead then you are certainly shoddy at any kind of substantive research. A quick google informs you that a simple majority would be enough to bring in a guilty verdict in Scots law. There isn’t, and never has been, any requirement for a ‘strong’ majority. The speed of the verdict on the second day of the jury’s deliberations suggests that although eight jurors hadn’t agreed guilt on the first of deliberations by early the next day they had and a ‘simple majority’ would have achieved this.

Why are so so reluctant to reveal your source if it is credible? Why this deflection?

Take the deal Faith, take the deal - Hop to it now, quick enough firing questions at other on YT, stop the hypocrisy and zone in on your ego. be a good girl now. See you in 2026 approx? So yes, stop deflecting from the request.

[faithlilly]

Take the deal Faith, take the deal - Hop to it now, quick enough firing questions at other on YT, stop the hypocrisy and zone in on your ego. be a good girl now. See you in 2026 approx? So yes, stop deflecting from the request.

Tut, tut Parky….misogyny the last refuge of the desperate man.

If it was me I’d be angry that I’d been misled in the way you appear to have been. I’d be publicly berating my source in the strongest terms possible….and yet you aren’t .

[Parky41]

Tut, tut Parky….misogyny the last refuge of the desperate man.

If it was me I’d be angry that I’d been misled in the way you appear to have been. I’d be publicly berating my source in the strongest terms possible….and yet you aren’t .

A tad harsh, are you suggesting that SL and SF's should be placed in stocks and get 30 lashes each?

But yes Faith, that is exactly what I am saying to you - Off you trot and 'berate' the hell out of them all.

[faithlilly]

A tad harsh, are you suggesting that SL and SF's should be placed in stocks and get 30 lashes each?

But yes Faith, that is exactly what I am saying to you - Off you trot and 'berate' the hell out of them all.

Both Dr Lean and Forbes have already been called to account for the discrepancies that have been revealed between the transcripts and what they have previously claimed.

Shall I tell you why I think you aren’t revealing your source? The source is you. You tried a spot of gaslighting and were found out. Best to accept your failure and move on I think. I am.

[Chris_Halkides]

Parky41,

If you are only offering to retract after seeing the transcripts, then you are still trying to reverse the burden of proof.

[Mr Apples]

I understand you're thinking, but a Judge can't tell a jury anything about what majority they would like. The jury will return a verdict of guilty if at least 8 say guilty. We will never know what the majority was unless someone who was on that jury discloses it somewhere which is probably not going to happen after 2 decades.

You're probably right, WW. I did read about the strong majority verdict on here initially (if memory serves, from Parky41) and then subsequently read about it again on Youtube video comments several times. I'm merely an armchair detective, but I do my own research meticulously and objectively; I never ever adopt someone else's opinion without it meeting my high standards or passing my quality control test. Anyway, as I said, no less than a strong majority verdict being acceptable for a guilty verdict in this case made sense to me because, imo, whover did this is never ever getting out of prison -- even if they were a child. So, with that being said, and given the implications for all involved, they had to get it right. They could not allow the system to fail. Because this case was extremely rare and particularly heinous, it had crossed my mind that Judge Lord Nimmo Smith may have sought guidance/permission from the powers that control him (i.e, from the government and parliament). Perhaps, with the approval of the government/parliament, the constitutional goalposts were moved in this case to accomodate, outwith a unanimous one, a strong majority verdict as the bare minimum; what I'm essentially saying is that, because LM would probably never ever be released should he be convicted -- and the fact he was a child at the time of murder -- in the spirit of fairness and humanitarianism they would not accept a simple majority like Scots Law normally would. It had to be a strong majority to  give the lad a fairer chance. But, of course, the other side of this argument is that, given the uniqueness and seriousness of this case, the Judge would certainly welcome a simple majority, especially if he himself thought LM was guilty. So, yeah, the Judge likely just let the jury decide without any biased directions.

Incidentally, the only thing I've ever read in regards to exact figures in the verdict result was on the blue JB forum a few years ago. Someone said it was 9/6. There were people on that forum who attended the trial, though in which capacity I do not know. Make of that what you will.

[KenMair]

Good points Mr Apples. I've heard from numerous sources over the years that there was a strong majority required and that it was more than 9-6 against LM. Of course this will be offset by his dwindling supporters that require cites etc while believing in the ever changing Stocky Man fairy tale put forth by SL & SF.

If there were doubts surely further evidence would have been lodged at appeals and SCCRC?

[William Wallace]

You're probably right, WW. I did read about the strong majority verdict on here initially (if memory serves, from Parky41) and then subsequently read about it again on Youtube video comments several times. I'm merely an armchair detective, but I do my own research meticulously and objectively; I never ever adopt someone else's opinion without it meeting my high standards or passing my quality control test. Anyway, as I said, no less than a strong majority verdict being acceptable for a guilty verdict in this case made sense to me because, imo, whover did this is never ever getting out of prison -- even if they were a child. So, with that being said, and given the implications for all involved, they had to get it right. They could not allow the system to fail. Because this case was extremely rare and particularly heinous, it had crossed my mind that Judge Lord Nimmo Smith may have sought guidance/permission from the powers that control him (i.e, from the government and parliament). Perhaps, with the approval of the government/parliament, the constitutional goalposts were moved in this case to accomodate, outwith a unanimous one, a strong majority verdict as the bare minimum; what I'm essentially saying is that, because LM would probably never ever be released should he be convicted -- and the fact he was a child at the time of murder -- in the spirit of fairness and humanitarianism they would not accept a simple majority like Scots Law normally would. It had to be a strong majority to  give the lad a fairer chance. But, of course, the other side of this argument is that, given the uniqueness and seriousness of this case, the Judge would certainly welcome a simple majority, especially if he himself thought LM was guilty. So, yeah, the Judge likely just let the jury decide without any biased directions.

Incidentally, the only thing I've ever read in regards to exact figures in the verdict result was on the blue JB forum a few years ago. Someone said it was 9/6. There were people on that forum who attended the trial, though in which capacity I do not know. Make of that what you will.

We're never going to know what the jury vote was. Having served on a jury myself at the High Court a few months ago the system concerns me. In the end with hindsight the verdicts were probably correct, but there were about 6 people in that room of 15 that said very little and didn't add anything to the debate. Those people never changed their minds from the first minute. Strangely those 6 people were all saying NOT guilty. Maybe coincidental just but their rigid views concerned me. Legal people seem to think the jury system works, I was not convinced. However as I said, based on what's required by law - beyond reasonable doubt, the verdicts probably ended up being correct. With Mitchell's case I don't see how that could possibly have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having seen the inside of a jury room and who could be in it, I think it's safe to say a different jury might have reached a different verdict with Mitchell's case, but that probably applies to a lot of cases which are not clear cut..

[Mr Apples]

We're never going to know what the jury vote was. Having served on a jury myself at the High Court a few months ago the system concerns me. In the end with hindsight the verdicts were probably correct, but there were about 6 people in that room of 15 that said very little and didn't add anything to the debate. Those people never changed their minds from the first minute. Strangely those 6 people were all saying NOT guilty. Maybe coincidental just but their rigid views concerned me. Legal people seem to think the jury system works, I was not convinced. However as I said, based on what's required by law - beyond reasonable doubt, the verdicts probably ended up being correct. With Mitchell's case I don't see how that could possibly have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having seen the inside of a jury room and who could be in it, I think it's safe to say a different jury might have reached a different verdict with Mitchell's case, but that probably applies to a lot of cases which are not clear cut..

Completely agree and, quite frankly, it's frightening. Some cases, like this one, are too complex for your average juror. I knew nothing about this case before the C5 doco (coming from southwestern Scotland I'd obviously heard about it, but wasn't familiar with its intricacies), but after about 2 weeks of research I thought LM was guilty (though, not beyond reasonable doubt at that stage). It took about 9 months of research in total for me to be sure LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Btw, I'm not saying all the jurors in this case were inadequate. Was just pointing out that some juries comprise of people who are out of their depth with the case they're summoned to.

[faithlilly]

Good points Mr Apples. I've heard from numerous sources over the years that there was a strong majority required and that it was more than 9-6 against LM. Of course this will be offset by his dwindling supporters that require cites etc while believing in the ever changing Stocky Man fairy tale put forth by SL & SF.

If there were doubts surely further evidence would have been lodged at appeals and SCCRC?

Then your sources are simply wrong. Only a simple majority is required and if you think it’s in the remit of the judge to change the rules arbitrarily then you simply don’t understand the law. For me 9-6 sounds realistic so not a resounding verdict in any way.

[Mr Apples]

It is a claim made by SL Mr Apples, one that Chris takes on board readily without any proof being shown to him to back it up. Not that one hand was  untested, she states the wrong type of testing was carried out? Seriously, so they tested one hand correctly but the other hand wrongly? But then Chris has fully bought into the forensic team working in bias for a police narrative. Again from IB. Clearly they were, thus why we had SK's DNA fully extracted and reported upon?

I think one of the biggest tell tale signs for me around manipulation of forensic reports is the following. That there are never any ? marks placed against any testing carried out directly to do with LM? This was all executed to perfection, just many convenient ? marks placed against other areas.

Chris is not being honest either. To say he has only seen the agreement here or by JH. It is spoken about in IB also. Which is also a clear example of manipulation. That 'the Mitchells learnt of an agreement to not use DNA evidence' To then waffle on about it making no sense, that surely if they had 'all' that DNA evidence they would have used it? It was DNA that was evident in its existence and not evidence of murder. It is applied that way to evade the reasons for the agreement. I have said it before and do so again. Either LM is lying to SL or SL in intentionally manipulating around the truth. The agreement was made in his presence, direct source, he is under no illusion as to the terms, the exact reasons for that agreement being made.

Hi, Parky. I'll come back to the DNA at a later date. In the meantime, have your views on LM wearing the shiny green bomber jacket between 1755-1820 changed any? Are you still of the opinion that he went home after the F & W sighting (at approx 1740) and was back on NB rd again for just before 1800 wearing a different jacket? I ask this because there is the anomaly of AH's sighting vs MO & DH's sighting. From memory, they all saw him at roughly the same time in the same area (at just before 1800, standing at the path to a driveway on NB rd). AH, along with his pals GE & DH, id'd LM in court as the boy who they saw on the road that day, was certain it wasn't a bomber jacket and that it was an army shirt -- sold in Flip -- that went down to his thighs, but MO & DH said it was a green bomber jacket and it definitely wasn't LM they saw. What's your opinion on these discrepancies?

[William Wallace]

Hi, Parky. I'll come back to the DNA at a later date. In the meantime, have your views on LM wearing the shiny green bomber jacket between 1755-1820 changed any? Are you still of the opinion that he went home after the F & W sighting (at approx 1740) and was back on NB rd again for just before 1800 wearing a different jacket? I ask this because there is the anomaly of AH's sighting vs MO & DH's sighting. From memory, they all saw him at roughly the same time in the same area (at just before 1800, standing at the path to a driveway on NB rd). AH, along with his pals GE & DH, id'd LM in court as the boy who they saw on the road that day, was certain it wasn't a bomber jacket and that it was an army shirt -- sold in Flip -- that went down to his thighs, but MO & DH said it was a green bomber jacket and it definitely wasn't LM they saw. What's your opinion on these discrepancies?

Unfortunately we know what the response will be. I am not in this "he did it" brigade nor am I 100% sure he didn't. I prefer to look at what's known as fact and what's clearly bullsh*t.

The facts:
1. There is nothing to forensically link LM to the murder anywhere.
2. There is no reliable witness sighting of LM near the murder location.
3. There was no dock identification of LM in Court.
4. The timings of this murder happening and all evidence being completely eradicated in 40 minutes are nonsensical.
5. F and D lied about not remembering what they were doing at or near the V.

The Bullsh*t:
F and W witness statements were a joke. One admitted only seeing a youth in her car's rear view mirror and the other said she'd seen a photo of LM in the Press on a date no photos of him had yet appeared in the Press.

Ju J stated that "he who cannot be named" was in his room on the afternoon of the murder and never left the house until the following day. This is false - he was seen by a witness  following Jodi on the main road at 445pm. There is no PROOF of where he was from around 3pm on the day of the murder until the following day. Police who came to the house at 1.00am reported only Ju J and AO in the house, they didn't have the common sense to check all rooms to see if anyone else was in the house. So "he who cannot be named" was in bed whilst other people went out searching for his missing sister?? Seriously?

AB was not an independent witness. Her partner's brother was a frequent visitor to the Jones' house - AB knew who they were.

AW couldn't explain why she went straight to the path, then walked up it ignoring the woods before the wall starts on the same side as the V.

Janine Jones whose evidence mainly consisted of "I don't know" and "I don't remember" claimed not to have known the RD path existed. So her mother never warned her not to go up there in the 2 or 3 years she lived 300 yards away from it, when at that time she would have been about age 14-16 and never heard her 10-12 year old sister being told not to go up there either? Seriously??

LK cycling by,  reports a noise like branches rustling then when he comes to Court this had morphed into "strangling noises"? Seriously?

As far as I can see from the Court transcripts, the evidence given by all of the above is just a load of old bullsh*t.

[KenMair]

WW: taking your claim that the witness sightings of LM did not happen or were someone else, would that someone else not have been traced and identified, particularly the "teenage couple" who were seen at the entrance to the path.

While claiming all the LM court witnesses were wrong or unreliable, you've offered ?? as an alternative being witnessed by an unknown person at 4.45pm? This "witness" has never been named or used by the defence as the last person to see [Name removed] alive. I believe this was a false trail that the police did not pursue, or surely the defence would have called them as a witness?