Luke Mitchell Theories

[Chris_Halkides]

Nail scraping, hair sample, appearance 'noted' Done within the confinement of a police station. One doesn't extensively forensically examine a rape victim in a police station.

One typically takes fingernail scraping from either a victim or an alleged perpetrator.  There was no reason to think that LM was a victim; therefore, only one reason remains.

[Venturi Swirl]

You are running away from the problem that I noted, namely that the notion that LM disposed of a murder weapon and bloody clothing is pure conjecture without one scintilla of evidence to back it up.  To ask someone to disprove that this happened is to reverse the burden of proof.  Fine, let's talk about the witnesses.  The accounts of LK and others changed over time.  Occam's razor suggests that the police, being the common factor, were responsible for those changes.  I call this witness cajoling (more recently I heard it called witness coaxing).  There were also instances in which good procedure regarding witness testimony were simply ignored.  Not for no reason did Professor Wilson  write, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..."

I’m not running away from anything, if anyone is running away it is you from the fact that Mitchell had ample time to dispose of incriminating evidence.  There is evidence that clothing he was said to be wearing that night and a knife known to belong to Mitchell were missing.  That is evidence whether you like it or not and which was presented in court.  Were witnesses not cross-questioned by defence about their statements ?  In front of a jury who still found Mitchell guilty nonetheless?  Was Mitchell’s defence team just incredibly weak at presenting all this evidenceyou guys keep churning up that apparently proves his innocence?

[William Wallace]

Why did you go to the trouble to list all the reasons why you felt he should be considered a suspect then, ending your post “it doesn’t look too good” if you think it’s unlikely to be him?  Oddly, you don’t think it was the Moped Boys either yet you insist on keeping them in the frame too.  That’s what I don’t get about the Mitchell Is Innocent brigade - they throw mud at everyone else hoping some of it will stick when quite obviously they can’t all have been involved.

I said it was unlikely to have been MK, but that doesn't mean it definitely wasn't. It's not about trying to make mud stick, it's about people who should have been made suspects so that they could be properly eliminated. Nobody knows where MK was the whole day of the murder apart from being seen briefly on a shop's CCTV at 730pm. Nobody knows where " he who cannot be named" was either the whole day of the murder from mid afternoon onwards. Supposedly in the house, but seen outside and identified by a witness at 445pm. Then not seen again by anyone, not even the Police who came to the house after the murder at 1.30am. Their report said only JuJ and AO were in the house - 2 adults. "He who cannot be named" was in his bed according to JuJ. Why would an older brother of a 14 year old who had gone missing whom people were out searching for, be in his bed while this was going on? "Hey....Jodi's been missing for 7 hours" , "oh ok I'm away to bed". Any normal person would be outdoors searching for her or at the very least still be up waiting on news, but he was in his BED? All of this is just a load of old cobblers, the same as people of 18 who appear to have developed amnesia whilst out riding a moped and people who hear branches rustling which later morphs into strangling noises. It's all just a load of rubbish.

[William Wallace]

It is disingenuous to state as fact that Mitchell got absolutely no trace of blood on him, he wasn’t subject to close forensic scrutiny directly after the murder and had plenty of time to get rid of evidence.

Mitchell's clothes were forensically examined as was his house 3 times and they found zero. Where did he get rid of this evidence in 45 minutes if he didn't go in his house? Did he change clothes in the woods and clean up in the burn? He was dry when seen at 6.00pm.  When he was examined after the murder his nails were dirty and his hair was greasy and had not been recently washed. So in effect your theory fails. There was no evidence at all of any recent washing or cleaning or even wet clothing.

[William Wallace]

Do you have a citation for this claim?

No he won't of course.

[Venturi Swirl]

I said it was unlikely to have been MK, but that doesn't mean it definitely wasn't. It's not about trying to make mud stick, it's about people who should have been made suspects so that they could be properly eliminated. Nobody knows where MK was the whole day of the murder apart from being seen briefly on a shop's CCTV at 730pm. Nobody knows where " he who cannot be named" was either the whole day of the murder from mid afternoon onwards. Supposedly in the house, but seen outside and identified by a witness at 445pm. Then not seen again by anyone, not even the Police who came to the house after the murder at 1.30am. Their report said only JuJ and AO were in the house - 2 adults. "He who cannot be named" was in his bed according to JuJ. Why would an older brother of a 14 year old who had gone missing whom people were out searching for, be in his bed while this was going on? "Hey....Jodi's been missing for 7 hours" , "oh ok I'm away to bed". Any normal person would be outdoors searching for her or at the very least still be up waiting on news, but he was in his BED? All of this is just a load of old cobblers, the same as people of 18 who appear to have developed amnesia whilst out riding a moped and people who hear branches rustling which later morphs into strangling noises. It's all just a load of rubbish.

Now you’re just flinging mud in another direction, it does look rather desperate .  You say these people were never properly eliminated - upon what do you base this claim?  Did the police share the minute details of their (10 month long?) investigation with you?
Here’s the thing.  you’ve agreed that if Suspect A is guilty then  it means suspect B wasn’t involved and all your red flags about the latter must have some other explanation.  Likewise if suspect B did it, them all your red flags about suspect A must have another explanation.  Therefore it is perfectly feasible that if you are prepared to accept the innocence of either of them despite all the red flags you keep waving about them that both of them could be innocent and Mitchell actually did the crime.
 BTW how long before you get angry again and refuse to reply to anymore of my posts (again)?

[Venturi Swirl]

Mitchell's clothes were forensically examined as was his house 3 times and they found zero. Where did he get rid of this evidence in 45 minutes if he didn't go in his house? Did he change clothes in the woods and clean up in the burn? He was dry when seen at 6.00pm.  When he was examined after the murder his nails were dirty and his hair was greasy and had not been recently washed. So in effect your theory fails. There was no evidence at all of any recent washing or cleaning or even wet clothing.

How do you know for a fact he didn’t go home afterwards?  Are you saying its impossible that he removed his bloody outer garment and shoes outside before entering the house?  Absence of forensic evidence found proves only that no forensic evidence found, not that there was none or that there hadn’t been some which was disposed of by the perpetrator and anyone assisting him. Who tested him for dampness at 6pm? Hair rinsed through with water will look dank and greasy when dry.  It’s quite possible to rinse your hands under a tap or in a stream and for your nails to still be dirty, likewise for you hands to have become grubby again hours after.

[William Wallace]

How do you know for a fact he didn’t go home afterwards?  Are you saying its impossible that he removed his bloody outer garment and shoes outside before entering the house?  Absence of forensic evidence found proves only that no forensic evidence found, not that there was none or that there hadn’t been some which was disposed of by the perpetrator and anyone assisting him. Who tested him for dampness at 6pm? Hair rinsed through with water will look dank and greasy when dry.  It’s quite possible to rinse your hands under a tap or in a stream and for your nails to still be dirty, likewise for you hands to have become grubby again hours after.

There was absolutely zero trace of anything incriminating in the house. Do you know what luminol is? Luminol testing is used in forensic blood detection. The older the stain or trace of blood, the longer and more pronounced the luminescence. Luminol is highly sensitive to blood, convenient to use, and non-destructive to other forms of blood testing. Luminol can find blood traces that have been washed down sinks, plugholes anywhere in fact. The Police turned Mitchell's house over 3 times and would have used luminol extensively - they found zero trace of blood anywhere. Any suggestion he may have gone home to clean up is trashed by the failure to find any trace of anything incriminating.

I'm afraid the idea that anyone can carry out a murder like this then get rid of every trace by washing under a tap (didn't happen as luminol found nothing) is impossible. Likewise, washing in a stream will not get rid of bloodstains on clothing even if it's not visible. You talk about clothes changing, this also fails. Where did the original clothes go if he did the murder? The Police would have found them in the woods or in any rivers. The River Esk is shallow and slow moving in June. Anything thrown in there would have been found. These sort of theories are not really worth going into, because they're not credible.

You might want to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u73H-5-RP5Y

[William Wallace]

Now you’re just flinging mud in another direction, it does look rather desperate .  You say these people were never properly eliminated - upon what do you base this claim?  Did the police share the minute details of their (10 month long?) investigation with you?
Here’s the thing.  you’ve agreed that if Suspect A is guilty then  it means suspect B wasn’t involved and all your red flags about the latter must have some other explanation.  Likewise if suspect B did it, them all your red flags about suspect A must have another explanation.  Therefore it is perfectly feasible that if you are prepared to accept the innocence of either of them despite all the red flags you keep waving about them that both of them could be innocent and Mitchell actually did the crime.
 BTW how long before you get angry again and refuse to reply to anymore of my posts (again)?

MK was not interviewed by Police for years after the Trial. They did not investigate him at the time despite him going to a Police station not long after the murder. He was never made a suspect or even classed as a person of interest. The same applies to "he who cannot be named". You are correct that if A was involved, B wasn't. What would the other explanation be for all these red flags? There isn't any alternative credible explanation.

The person who did this would have been covered in blood, even more so as the body was moved and that is 100% certain as almost no blood was found at the murder location. It's not possible that in 45m anyone could erase all traces of blood. In short, no, it wasn't LM who did it.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/luminol-and-a-malarial-drug-team-up-to-find-hidden-blood/
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/thepostmortemlive/photos/a.108460627517859/545495647147686/?type=3
Luminol can be applied over large spaces.

[Venturi Swirl]

There was absolutely zero trace of anything incriminating in the house. Do you know what luminol is? Luminol testing is used in forensic blood detection. The older the stain or trace of blood, the longer and more pronounced the luminescence. Luminol is highly sensitive to blood, convenient to use, and non-destructive to other forms of blood testing. Luminol can find blood traces that have been washed down sinks, plugholes anywhere in fact. The Police turned Mitchell's house over 3 times and would have used luminol extensively - they found zero trace of blood anywhere. Any suggestion he may have gone home to clean up is trashed by the failure to find any trace of anything incriminating.

I'm afraid the idea that anyone can carry out a murder like this then get rid of every trace by washing under a tap (didn't happen as luminol found nothing) is impossible. Likewise, washing in a stream will not get rid of bloodstains on clothing even if it's not visible. You talk about clothes changing, this also fails. Where did the original clothes go if he did the murder? The Police would have found them in the woods or in any rivers. The River Esk is shallow and slow moving in June. Anything thrown in there would have been found. These sort of theories are not really worth going into, because they're not credible.

You might want to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u73H-5-RP5Y

These are all assumptions.  “Would have”.   When Nicola Bulley went in the river there were experts stating categorically that she would have been this and she would have been that, yet she was neither.  Just because police don’t find something doesn’t mean it never existed.  On what dates were Mitchell’s house extensively searched?  Was luminol used on all three dates (or even at all)?  I thought the general view from Mitchell supporters was that the policework on this case was shoddy to say the least?  Does that only hold true when it suits?

[Venturi Swirl]

MK was not interviewed by Police for years after the Trial. They did not investigate him at the time despite him going to a Police station not long after the murder. He was never made a suspect or even classed as a person of interest. The same applies to "he who cannot be named". You are correct that if A was involved, B wasn't. What would the other explanation be for all these red flags? There isn't any alternative credible explanation.

The person who did this would have been covered in blood, even more so as the body was moved and that is 100% certain as almost no blood was found at the murder location. It's not possible that in 45m anyone could erase all traces of blood. In short, no, it wasn't LM who did it.

Why did MK go to the police station voluntarily?  Strange behaviour if he’s guilty and desperate to hide his involvement.  Why was he interviewed by police years after the trial? 
I don’t think you quite get the point I was making re suspect A and suspect B.  If you concede that either could be innocent then so too could both could be innocent.  There are any number of explanations for any number of red flags but I’m not that interested in speculating about them.  It does however seem that with allthese 100% certainties you keep trotting out that Mitchell’s defence team did a very poor job of convincing the judge, the jury and the appeal courts.  Perhaps they should have you on their team for the next one so that you can prove with 100% certainty that Mitchell had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Venturi Swirl]

https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/luminol-and-a-malarial-drug-team-up-to-find-hidden-blood/
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/thepostmortemlive/photos/a.108460627517859/545495647147686/?type=3
Luminol can be applied over large spaces.

Was it applied over large spaces in this case?

[William Wallace]

Why did MK go to the police station voluntarily?  Strange behaviour if he’s guilty and desperate to hide his involvement.  Why was he interviewed by police years after the trial? 
I don’t think you quite get the point I was making re suspect A and suspect B.  If you concede that either could be innocent then so too could both could be innocent.  There are any number of explanations for any number of red flags but I’m not that interested in speculating about them.  It does however seem that with allthese 100% certainties you keep trotting out that Mitchell’s defence team did a very poor job of convincing the judge, the jury and the appeal courts.  Perhaps they should have you on their team for the next one so that you can prove with 100% certainty that Mitchell had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Lol yes I'll try and get on their team.

I would like to know what the "alternative explanations" could be for example .....for people not remembering what they were doing at the V at the same time as a murder? I've never said A did it or B did it. Yes it's possible neither did it, but neither were properly investigated at the time and there are a lot of red flags about BOTH of them.

The Police told MK not long after the murder, after he went to the Police station that someone would get in touch with him. They never did until about 2 years after the Trial, supposedly because they didn't know where he was. They said that at a time when he was living in Newbattle College!  Clearly they weren't interested because they'd already decided to pursue LM.

Regarding the original defence team, bear in mind a lot of information was not provided to them by the Prosecution, it was witheld. A prime example - MK was known to have written 2 essays about killing a girl in the woods. The Police maintained no such essays titled "Killing a Girl in the Woods" ever existed. However these essays have recently been found and the title of them was "No Remorse". The Police knew of these all along, but because they were called "Killing a Girl in the Woods" they were able to say they didn't exist.

[William Wallace]

https://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/luminol-and-a-malarial-drug-team-up-to-find-hidden-blood/
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/thepostmortemlive/photos/a.108460627517859/545495647147686/?type=3
Luminol can be applied over large spaces.

Very interesting that. It proves how ridiculous claims that LM "cleaned up" in the house are and miraculously defeated the laws of forensic science.