Luke Mitchell Theories

[KenMair]

Wrong, luminol will show if blood has passed through pipes. The fact that you are now suggesting Police didn't use luminol to look for blood traces in the house is the last nonsensical comment I can respond to I'm afraid. You will need to do your own research from now on.

WW, the case is closed, there is no need for further research. All legal avenues have been exhausted and the LM campaign reduced to a few stragglers protesting with SL and hoping a petition might change things. By the sound of it his parole has failed.

[Parky41]

No assumptions at all. Luminol is used in every Police murder investigation when there is a need to find blood which may not be visible. It's the first thing they do once they see no evidence of blood. Luminol would be used until every place where blood could be has been covered. That might take 1 visit or 3. It makes no difference. If there was blood in that house it would have been found 100%, even if it had been washed down plugholes and pipes.

You can rest assured there was nothing shoddy about their investigations of LM. They tried everything they knew to find something to link him to the murder and failed. Their failure to cordon off the murder location and allow people to trample all over it for 8 hours is so inept it actually beggars belief. Think about it....if a murder happened on a grass verge outside your house or a serious road accident where someone had died, do you think there would be people trampling all around the scene for 8 hours? Whole roads often get closed when there are serious incidents, but with this case no, people were trampling around the murder location in the rain for 8 hours. As if that wasn't bad enough, they even moved the victim's body and put her on a plastic sheet and left her out in the rain all night. Their behaviour was not just inept and incompetent, it was disgusting.

Are you capable of anything else but spreading lies, fairy stories?  Of course not. What do you think of the 'dog eat dog' going on just now? As Mr & Mrs Fibs turn on each other? The very people who's tall tales you spread are calling the other out for lying?

[Parky41]

I think we would all like to know why MK who lived in Newbattle College very near RD Path, turned up at Scott Forbes' flat in Edinburgh out the blue the day after the murder with scratches on his face. We don't know what he was going to tell the Police, because they didn't interview him. They told him "someone will get in touch". It was years after the Trial they finally spoke to him.

It's an awfully long way to travel just for the sake of it? Were they both heavily into drugs at the time? Could that have been a possible reason for the visit? But alas, no scratches on MKs' face on the CCTV, nothing noticed by the person who has served him booze just BEFORE 10PM that evening. No sign of him being out of his head on drink and drugs at that point. Fit as a fiddle to be running to catch the offy in Dalkeith before it closed that night!

[Chris_Halkides]

Was it applied over large spaces in this case?

I don't know; if they did not do this or use other tests, then I would question their competence.  It is not easy to clean up blood to the point that it is not detectable by luminol or fluorescein (see next comment).  Yes, LM was intelligent enough to see a flaw in an argument he was presented concerning DNA, but that does not make him "forensically aware."  This term was also applied to Andrew Malkinson, in order to explain a lack of forensic evidence.  Yet a simple explanation for the fact that his DNA was not present and someone else's DNA was present in more than one sample is that Mr. Malkinson was innocent.  Putting it another way, trying to explain a lack of evidence by the alleged perpetrator's being forensically aware is dubious at best.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/searchingandexamining.html
I found two interesting quotes as I was reading up on crime scene management.  "Never move or alter the positioning of the body!" "Do not touch areas or articles which have the possibility of being processed for latent fingerprints."  It is possible to find latent fingermarks on a body using a substance called RTX.  Clothing is a good potential source of trace evidence and latent fingermarks.  Now onto detection of possible blood...

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/fluoresceinmethod.html
The fluorescein method of detecting the possibility of blood is similar to luminol.  "Fluorescein can be used to locate traces of latent blood on clothing, even after it has been laundered several times (best preformed at the lab)."  The same article indicates that it can be used to detect blood that has been diluted by rain.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95674029@N07/50486166278
This shows a bathroom treated with luminol. 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/luminol-treatment-bathroom-mccullough-trial-andy-gradkowski/
"But most shocking was the bathroom, where the Luminol reactions were photographed, showing that there was blood all over the floor, under the sink, in and around the toilet and especially in the bathtub."

My general point is that it is not easy to clean blood to the point where luminol or fluorescein will not detect it.

[faithlilly]

It's an awfully long way to travel just for the sake of it? Were they both heavily into drugs at the time? Could that have been a possible reason for the visit? But alas, no scratches on MKs' face on the CCTV, nothing noticed by the person who has served him booze just BEFORE 10PM that evening. No sign of him being out of his head on drink and drugs at that point. Fit as a fiddle to be running to catch the offy in Dalkeith before it closed that night!

This is what you do, isn’t it? Post claims for which there is no evidence and present them as fact.

Unfortunately some fall for it.

[Venturi Swirl]

Wrong, luminol will show if blood has passed through pipes. The fact that you are now suggesting Police didn't use luminol to look for blood traces in the house is the last nonsensical comment I can respond to I'm afraid. You will need to do your own research from now on.

I think it’s you who needs to do some research.  Spraying a suspect’s house with luminol is not the first thing the cops do in an evidence search, particularly not when the murder was obviously committed elsewhere.  And all this flouncing when you don’t agree with what I write is not a good look. 

[Venturi Swirl]

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/searchingandexamining.html
I found two interesting quotes as I was reading up on crime scene management.  "Never move or alter the positioning of the body!" "Do not touch areas or articles which have the possibility of being processed for latent fingerprints."  It is possible to find latent fingermarks on a body using a substance called RTX.  Clothing is a good potential source of trace evidence and latent fingermarks.  Now onto detection of possible blood...

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/fluoresceinmethod.html
The fluorescein method of detecting the possibility of blood is similar to luminol.  "Fluorescein can be used to locate traces of latent blood on clothing, even after it has been laundered several times (best preformed at the lab)."  The same article indicates that it can be used to detect blood that has been diluted by rain.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95674029@N07/50486166278
This shows a bathroom treated with luminol. 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/luminol-treatment-bathroom-mccullough-trial-andy-gradkowski/
"But most shocking was the bathroom, where the Luminol reactions were photographed, showing that there was blood all over the floor, under the sink, in and around the toilet and especially in the bathtub."

My general point is that it is not easy to clean blood to the point where luminol or fluorescein will not detect it.

Er, yes I did suggest it would likely be used at the scene of the crime but that wasn’t Mitchell’s house.  There would never have been significant quantities of blood in there, unless you can explain how?  Minute traces maybe, but as Mitchell and Jodi were known to each other, probably spent time in each other’s houses, had sex together, not to mention the fact that Mitchell was certainly in close proximity with the murder site and her bloodied corpse, what really would have been the evidential worth of a speck of her blood found on his person in any case?  Now a drenched in blood coat, or overshirt is a different matter.  Mitchell owned one prior to the murder (as testified by numerous witnesses) so where was it immediately afterwards? 

[Venturi Swirl]

This is what you do, isn’t it? Post claims for which there is no evidence and present them as fact.

Unfortunately some fall for it.

And this is exactly what your friend WW does.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't know; if they did not do this or use other tests, then I would question their competence.  It is not easy to clean up blood to the point that it is not detectable by luminol or fluorescein (see next comment).  Yes, LM was intelligent enough to see a flaw in an argument he was presented concerning DNA, but that does not make him "forensically aware."  This term was also applied to Andrew Malkinson, in order to explain a lack of forensic evidence.  Yet a simple explanation for the fact that his DNA was not present and someone else's DNA was present in more than one sample is that Mr. Malkinson was innocent.  Putting it another way, trying to explain a lack of evidence by the alleged perpetrator's being forensically aware is dubious at best.

You havie already been questioning thei police’s competence, repeatedly.  I have given reasons why I don’t believe the police would have covered Mitchell’s house in luminol or unscrewed drainpipes but concede his clothes were likely examined with such a substance or similar.  Out of interest was he strip searched on the night of the murder and his clothes and shoes bagged and sent off for forensic analysis?  And not a drop of Jodi’s DNA was found?  Despite being in close contact with her bloodied corpse and crime scene?  That is remarkable.

[Parky41]

I don't know; if they did not do this or use other tests, then I would question their competence.  It is not easy to clean up blood to the point that it is not detectable by luminol or fluorescein (see next comment).  Yes, LM was intelligent enough to see a flaw in an argument he was presented concerning DNA, but that does not make him "forensically aware."  This term was also applied to Andrew Malkinson, in order to explain a lack of forensic evidence.  Yet a simple explanation for the fact that his DNA was not present and someone else's DNA was present in more than one sample is that Mr. Malkinson was innocent.  Putting it another way, trying to explain a lack of evidence by the alleged perpetrator's being forensically aware is dubious at best.

You are of course taken the 'forensically aware' a step too far? Someone having the sense to know that traipsing bloodied footwear, or washing off blood at home could leave forensics traces, is said to be 'forensically aware' LM making a choice not to do this does not equate to him having extensive knowledge, it is basics, of which he had a good grasp. So yes, he was forensically aware. Applying such to himself when stating 'they wanted me over the wall to get my DNA there'

That's the good old thing when working blind around multiple claims, as in seeing absolutely nothing of forensic reports but are quick to slate, on the basis of claims being made by those promoting bias in favour of LM's innocence?

All you do know for now that is fact, it the non erecting of a tent in those first hours along with a coroner unable to enter via the V break. The rest as per is unsubstantiated claims.

LM's defence applied that generic material of LM's found upon the victim, could be innocently explained away, not and never that there was absolutely nothing found. That is the difference with the AM case. It has never been that there was nothing of his at all. That is the clear difference in looking for something in any re-testing of the samples. But as it stands, there was nothing found that could not be innocently explained away. That there was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere, to that of a stranger, a another.

[Parky41]

You havie already been questioning thei police’s competence, repeatedly.  I have given reasons why I don’t believe the police would have covered Mitchell’s house in luminol or unscrewed drainpipes but concede his clothes were likely examined with such a substance or similar.  Out of interest was he strip searched on the night of the murder and his clothes and shoes bagged and sent off for forensic analysis?  And not a drop of Jodi’s DNA was found?  Despite being in close contact with her bloodied corpse and crime scene?  That is remarkable.

The interesting thing here is that the claim is there was absolutely nothing, such as the soles of his boots he had changed into after the murder? Evidence shows us that LM had barely moved when going over the V break, he claimed to do otherwise but it was shown he had not. Picking nothing up on his boots then tells us surely that the killer did not make their escape that way? For LM was first over that wall, certainly not near enough to the actual crime scene to either see anything or pick anything up from it? He did however take the time to note the type of tree her body had been hidden behind. Most natural thing in the world when faced with claiming to see such horror? Noting the type of tree?

[Parky41]

This is what you do, isn’t it? Post claims for which there is no evidence and present them as fact.

Unfortunately some fall for it.

No dear, that is applying something against claims that have had no basis of proof provided. It is your ego and sidekick who put out MK had massive scratches on his face, that he could have went to buy booze in Newtongrange around 5pm, later to possibly be seen at some wooden gate around 5:40pm wearing a parka! Of him being out of his head on a cocktail of drink and drugs over the course of that evening. 

Therefore I apply reality around those obtuse claims with nothing to back them up. MK was on  CCTV at the close of day in Dalkeith, it is there he had ran to catch the shop to buy his booze. He was on CCTV, he was most certainly served, he didn't help himself to the booze. That both obtaining the footage and speaking to the person who served him a basic course of action. Where there is without any doubt, nothing in those statements or that footage backing up the wild claims in place by the ego's. One hadn't been seen near Newtongrange, there was no evidence of him being anywhere near there. The ego's apply he was seen on Newbattle Road that evening, the road is a mile long, starts in Newtongrange and ends in Eskbank (Dalkeith) Showing, that because he may have been on that mile long road it was far from being anywhere near to Newtongrange that evening. That up until 10pm he was certainly able to 'run' to catch the shop for closing time at 10pm. That if he were to have acquired scratches, drinking his booze in the Abbey woods they came after 10pm. He like everyone in the area, learned of the murder the following day, no one knew what time that young girl had been murdered. Was he worried a little because he had been in the woods? That he did not know which area of woodland the girl had been murdered in? - The latter sensible, realistic worries in reference to anyone who would think they were in the vicinity at any point that evening?

But above all, it is using your damn loaf, analysing information and applying reality to it- You would serve yourself well in practising it.

[faithlilly]

No dear, that is applying something against claims that have had no basis of proof provided. It is your ego and sidekick who put out MK had massive scratches on his face, that he could have went to buy booze in Newtongrange around 5pm, later to possibly be seen at some wooden gate around 5:40pm wearing a parka! Of him being out of his head on a cocktail of drink and drugs over the course of that evening. 

Therefore I apply reality around those obtuse claims with nothing to back them up. MK was on  CCTV at the close of day in Dalkeith, it is there he had ran to catch the shop to buy his booze. He was on CCTV, he was most certainly served, he didn't help himself to the booze. That both obtaining the footage and speaking to the person who served him a basic course of action. Where there is without any doubt, nothing in those statements or that footage backing up the wild claims in place by the ego's. One hadn't been seen near Newtongrange, there was no evidence of him being anywhere near there. The ego's apply he was seen on Newbattle Road that evening, the road is a mile long, starts in Newtongrange and ends in Eskbank (Dalkeith) Showing, that because he may have been on that mile long road it was far from being anywhere near to Newtongrange that evening. That up until 10pm he was certainly able to 'run' to catch the shop for closing time at 10pm. That if he were to have acquired scratches, drinking his booze in the Abbey woods they came after 10pm. He like everyone in the area, learned of the murder the following day, no one knew what time that young girl had been murdered. Was he worried a little because he had been in the woods? That he did not know which area of woodland the girl had been murdered in? - The latter sensible, realistic worries in reference to anyone who would think they were in the vicinity at any point that evening?

But above all, it is using your damn loaf, analysing information and applying reality to it- You would serve yourself well in practising it.

So CCTV obtained from an off licence, a small garage and a corner shop but not a single camera at a national supermarket or anywhere on her road home to clarify the timings of Bryson’s citing? Tut…if I was of a suspicious mind I’d be hard pressed not to suspect that L&B police didn’t want to know the ACTUAL time of the citing.

TBH I don’t think Kane had anything to do with the murder but I’m just pointing out to the uninitiated that just because you claim something, most often rather than you actually having that knowledge you are hedging your bets that the listener doesn’t and is gullible enough to believe you.

My sidekick? Do you still think that I’m Dr Lean? It makes sense I suppose….you never were very good at this research malarkey.

[Rusty]

So CCTV obtained from an off licence, a small garage and a corner shop but not a single camera at a national supermarket or anywhere on her road home to clarify the timings of Bryson’s citing? Tut…if I was of a suspicious mind I’d be hard pressed not to suspect that L&B police didn’t want to know the ACTUAL time of the citing.

TBH I don’t think Kane had anything to do with the murder but I’m just pointing out to the uninitiated that just because you claim something, most often rather than you actually having that knowledge you are hedging your bets that the listener doesn’t and is gullible enough to believe you.

My sidekick? Do you still think that I’m Dr Lean? It makes sense I suppose….you never were very good at this research malarkey.

Open the curtains & windows, let some fresh air in