Luke Mitchell Theories

[William Wallace]

I think your use of a laughing emoji in this context is somewhat distasteful.   Is that the order of events then? Stabs her repeatedly, then ties her up?  Was she stabbed before or after her clothes were removed?   Did Mitchell’s defence present an alternative forensic expert to counter the claims made that the perpetrator need not necessarily be drenched in blood, if not why not?

It was due to my frustration at how ludicrous some of these claims are, but I agree, I've removed it. It's impossible to know what happened first. I don't know if it was ever disclosed whether stabbings were done whilst the victim was clothed or not. Bear in mind a multitude of evidence was not provided to the defence. I can't answer the last part, only someone with access to the defence case papers may be able to. Whoever did this certainly had blood on them, not just because of the nature of the attack, they had blood on them because the body was moved, no blood at the crime scene proves this 100%. The body was also dragged at some point. The victim's socks were covered in mud, but had been put back ON inside out so that they were clean on the outside.

[William Wallace]

Where within this area are the 5 liters of blood that Jodi lost?  You are assuming competency when none has been demonstrated.

Exactly. There is only one reason why the area was bleached, to be precise it was ammonia, to hide where the murder took place.

[William Wallace]

It’s utterly absurd to say that a sexually active 14 year old drug user with a fascination with Satan and the occult would not be able to commit such a crime.  Did you not read about the teenagers who murdered Brianna Ghey and how they enacted their warped and depraved fantasies in real life?  I suppose that was a miscarriage of justice too as 14 year olds simply aren’t capable of such blood lust.

Sorry but you have just swallowed utter nonsense put out by the media which was drip fed to them by the Police. There was zero proof Mitchell was fascinated by Satan or the Occult. Nothing of this sort was found in his house or any of his devices. There was zero proof he had any knowledge of The Black Dahlia Murder either. The best that Police could come up with was some scribblings on school books and most of those were taken from the Max Payne computer game.

Tell me where the PROOF is Mitchell was "fascinated" by Satan and the Occult? You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

[faithlilly]

Sorry but you have just swallowed utter nonsense put out by the media which was drip fed to them by the Police. There was zero proof Mitchell was fascinated by Satan or the Occult. Nothing of this sort was found in his house or any of his devices. There was zero proof he had any knowledge of The Black Dahlia Murder either. The best that Police could come up with was some scribblings on school books and most of those were taken from the Max Payne computer game.

Tell me where the PROOF is Mitchell was "fascinated" by Satan and the Occult? You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

The Brianna Ghey murder had a clear motive. Apart from both the victim and perpetrators were teenagers there is no similarity between the two cases.

[William Wallace]

If you’re outright calling people liars and accessories in this case then you’ve already breached the site’s libel rule imo, and yes it is massively far fetched, that numerous people including the victim’s family members and law enforcement all conspired to put an innocent boy in jail for 20 years to allow the real perp to go free.  It would certainly be unprecedented.

Yes nobody's ever been a victim of a miscarriage justice before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

There's been over 70 in the UK since 1972.

[Parky41]

And as I already explained, pointless debating and engaging with someone who continuously regurgitates nonsense and lies. Pretty much why I seldom respond directly to Faith anymore. Tiresome, predictive drivel.

Let's not leave out 'all' of the claim. It is that a parka jacket, in police possession was "hidden" from LM's original defence. So let's start with that. KC, a witness they say for the Crown had a jacket taken from his house. He has given statements, most likely had a precognition carried out, there is no "hidden" anything. So, it already starts with a lie.

It is then claimed that it is the thee jacket, the one that is missing, that it was not missing after all, that the police had it all along.( Just like the knife claims)  Really, so as above, those statements, where there would be many questions in relation to that specific jacket. Also, IB speaks of such a jacket, one believed to be the same/similar to a jacket LM owned sent for testing! So now we have this jacket, she says it has been tested. Now why would that be? To eliminate it as having possibly being worn by LM, his DNA upon it, nope. But you know, it is what takes place in investigations, they get wind of something and then investigate and eliminate. So there will be no inroads, bar people making silly claims. More importantly a defence popping up with some jacket attempting to claim it as being worn by LM? - Already covered, crossing those T's and dotting those I's?

Now we can apply what is repeatedly being exposed just now, such as, taken a fragment of truth and building it into a lie. Let's see what we can do with the above here. A jacket was obtained from a lad, how? So they apply a warrant being in place for a house search. May be true, may not. But even so, just because a warrant may be issued does not mean that it needed to be enforced, does it now? Therefore no house searched under a warrant. - But surely you know all of this anyway, the enablers with their statement access, would know every fine detail of said jacket, if any warrant was issued/enforced.?  Was it more along the lines of, why were only houses connected to LM searched, how many warrants were enforced? Why were no other properties searched unconnected to LM, that type of thing? We don't know, we really need to see it all

Now for the ID. Again, we can speak out of context here, apply some logical context around it. CD is being asked why he had not held an ID parade over using a photo ID. Because he did not have to, there was no legal requirement to do so with someone not under arrest. That in his mind it was unheard of to 'have' to do such a thing? He had not broken any laws. But again, we do not know the full context, the before and after, those two sides.

And as for the rest, bash on, honestly - You are doing an outstanding job putting in place just how mad each and every theory is. Where there is nothing logical in any of it, at all.
   

[William Wallace]

All you do is repeat yourself through blinkers and never explain any of the questions I raised. You're not making a very good job of explaining them. Omission isn't an explanation. Omission proves you can't answer with credible explanations.

[Mr Apples]

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?

SL herself heavily implies that it was bleached by L&B P, though she doesn't come right out and categorically say it (she's a bit naughty that way and her second book is laden with examples of deliberate ambiguity -- a tactic employed to confuse the less discerning and uninitiated; for example, it's not until after pages of waffle & jibba jabba that she eventually says that Andrina Bryson spotted a youth at the Easthouses entrance to RDP with long messy sandy hair sticking up in a clump in the back who was wearing army clothing and big boots at 1654 on 30.06.03 -- the same army clothing that others under oath testified to in court and others who were interviewd by police but who weren't called to court said he owned before the murder). Menschen!

[Chris_Halkides]

The blood found on the wall near where Jodi's body lay was consistent with arterial spray, proving almost unequivocally that her throat was slit right there at that wall, and hence proving that almost certainly the murder took place there. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za9URBNFmSA
The phrase "consistent with" means little unless one specifies what other hypotheses are ruled out.  The claim that this was arterial spray comes from the testimony of Derek Scrimger, and it would be helpful to know his professional qualifications.

In a documentary (see link above) Professor Anthony Busuttil responded to a question, “This girl [Jodi Jones] would have had in her about 5 to 5.5 liters (litres) of blood, most of which has left the body before she died.”  He goes on to talk about the possibility of transfer of blood and the extreme measures that one would have to take to avoid it.

One study showed that luminol was able to detect 0.5 liters of blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously. The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."  Evidently, blood does not wash away easily.

[Mr Apples]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za9URBNFmSA
The phrase "consistent with" means little unless one specifies what other hypotheses are ruled out.  The claim that this was arterial spray comes from the testimony Derek Scrimger, and it would be helpful to know his professional qualifications.

In a documentary (see link above) Professor Anthony Busuttil responded to a question, “This girl [Jodi Jones] would have had in her about 5 to 5.5 liters (litres) of blood, most of which has left the body before she died.”  He goes on to talk about the possibility of transfer of blood.

One study showed that luminol was able to detect 0.5 liters of blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously. The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."  Evidently, blood does not wash away easily.

Chris, both you & Nicholas (and Parky & Faith, to an extent) are the two people on these boards who know their stuff, so I respect your opinion and appreciate the fact that all your posts are thorough and academic (if a little misguided at times). Everyone else, it seems, is an armchair detective at best and a troll at worst.

Anyway .....

Derek Scrimger has.BSC (Hons) in Biological Sciences, an MBA from the Open University and is a member of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences.. I don't know if other expert witnesses were called to give evidence relating to the arterial spray per se.

Anthony Bussuttil is a pathologist, forensic scientist and university professor (a 'Regius Professor' -- the highest status of professorship in the UK). Don't know what his qualifications are. I presume he has a PHD in a certain field
and several master's degrees in other fields. Clearly a fiercely intelligent individual, regardless. I don't know if other expert witnesses were called to give pathology evidence.
 
Anyway, like I said, surely Jodi's t-shirt absorbed the majority of the blood? As regards blood transfer -- I suspect LM's  missing, magical German Army parka had incriminating traces of Jodi's blood on it and that's why he & his family denied he ever had it before the murder and why it mysteriously disappeared to be replaced with a brand new identical one a week after the murder. As for luminol, well, wouldn't all that be dependent on the geology of the terrain, and so on? Different landscapes yielding different results?

[Venturi Swirl]

Sorry but you have just swallowed utter nonsense put out by the media which was drip fed to them by the Police. There was zero proof Mitchell was fascinated by Satan or the Occult. Nothing of this sort was found in his house or any of his devices. There was zero proof he had any knowledge of The Black Dahlia Murder either. The best that Police could come up with was some scribblings on school books and most of those were taken from the Max Payne computer game.

Tell me where the PROOF is Mitchell was "fascinated" by Satan and the Occult? You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist.

We’ve already been round the houses on this.  Satanism is according to Mitchell himself his religion.  Enough said.  But even if he had had zero interest in Satanism my point stands.  You can be an evil little shit like Brianna Ghey’s murderers even without being a self professed Satan worshipper!

[Venturi Swirl]

The Brianna Ghey murder had a clear motive. Apart from both the victim and perpetrators were teenagers there is no similarity between the two cases.

What was the clear motive other than to kill someone for kicks?  What was the motive in the butchering of Jodi Jones?  I would say the relevance of mentioning the Brianna Ghey case is to demonstrate to WW that a teenager is perfectly capable of plunging a knife into another human being repeatedly and to mutilate their corpse despite his assertion that no 14 year old would be capable of such a heinous crime. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes nobody's ever been a victim of a miscarriage justice before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

There's been over 70 in the UK since 1972.

Once again spectacularly avoiding the point which was to do with the completely unique (read utterly far fetched) nature of what you are proposing.  Of course there have been MOJs (only 70 out of millions of convictions though, is that all???) but you are expecting us to believe that 8+ people inluding strangers, family members and law enforcement all conspired together to protect someone you refuse to name so that he could remain at large to potentially commit an equally frenzied murder in their community again, whilst at the same time destroying the life of a 14 year old boy.  It’s beyond fanciful, really.   

[Venturi Swirl]

Exactly. There is only one reason why the area was bleached, to be precise it was ammonia, to hide where the murder took place.

Once again I ask - why would the precise site of the murder reveal incriminating evidence about who the murderer had been anymore than the site where the body was actually found?  Isn’t moving a bloody corpse from one area to another fantastically risky in itself given the opportunity for dna transference and being seen in this apparently heavily frequented area?  And then to return to the scene of the crime to clean up to potentially leave more incriminating evidence days later?  Why would it have been worth these risks to the killer to do so and moreover why does any of this preclude Mitchell from being the perp?

[faithlilly]

And as I already explained, pointless debating and engaging with someone who continuously regurgitates nonsense and lies. Pretty much why I seldom respond directly to Faith anymore. Tiresome, predictive drivel.

Let's not leave out 'all' of the claim. It is that a parka jacket, in police possession was "hidden" from LM's original defence. So let's start with that. KC, a witness they say for the Crown had a jacket taken from his house. He has given statements, most likely had a precognition carried out, there is no "hidden" anything. So, it already starts with a lie.

It is then claimed that it is the thee jacket, the one that is missing, that it was not missing after all, that the police had it all along.( Just like the knife claims)  Really, so as above, those statements, where there would be many questions in relation to that specific jacket. Also, IB speaks of such a jacket, one believed to be the same/similar to a jacket LM owned sent for testing! So now we have this jacket, she says it has been tested. Now why would that be? To eliminate it as having possibly being worn by LM, his DNA upon it, nope. But you know, it is what takes place in investigations, they get wind of something and then investigate and eliminate. So there will be no inroads, bar people making silly claims. More importantly a defence popping up with some jacket attempting to claim it as being worn by LM? - Already covered, crossing those T's and dotting those I's?

Now we can apply what is repeatedly being exposed just now, such as, taken a fragment of truth and building it into a lie. Let's see what we can do with the above here. A jacket was obtained from a lad, how? So they apply a warrant being in place for a house search. May be true, may not. But even so, just because a warrant may be issued does not mean that it needed to be enforced, does it now? Therefore no house searched under a warrant. - But surely you know all of this anyway, the enablers with their statement access, would know every fine detail of said jacket, if any warrant was issued/enforced.?  Was it more along the lines of, why were only houses connected to LM searched, how many warrants were enforced? Why were no other properties searched unconnected to LM, that type of thing? We don't know, we really need to see it all

Now for the ID. Again, we can speak out of context here, apply some logical context around it. CD is being asked why he had not held an ID parade over using a photo ID. Because he did not have to, there was no legal requirement to do so with someone not under arrest. That in his mind it was unheard of to 'have' to do such a thing? He had not broken any laws. But again, we do not know the full context, the before and after, those two sides.

And as for the rest, bash on, honestly - You are doing an outstanding job putting in place just how mad each and every theory is. Where there is nothing logical in any of it, at all.
 

Of course you don’t respond directly to me. I called you out on a lie. I wouldn’t respond to me either after that.