Author Topic: THE ALIBI.  (Read 29324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #240 on: August 13, 2021, 01:16:00 AM »
Do you think Luke had need to get changed at all? I have no idea what you believe, (well, a bit) but I have always believed that it's really straight forward.  One boy, two coats. With help.

And if there was sufficient blood on his parka to necessitate changing it surely there would be blood on his trousers and shoes too. Did he bring another pair of each of those to change in to?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #241 on: August 13, 2021, 04:34:58 AM »
And if there was sufficient blood on his parka to necessitate changing it surely there would be blood on his trousers and shoes too. Did he bring another pair of each of those to change in to?

Doubtful. It's unlikely he left his house wearing two jackets either but I'm glad you mentioned the parka because he had a parka.



Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #242 on: August 13, 2021, 10:14:05 AM »
Doubtful. It's unlikely he left his house wearing two jackets either but I'm glad you mentioned the parka because he had a parka.

If you say so.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #243 on: August 13, 2021, 03:53:49 PM »
If you say so.

I do say so and even CM said in court that she wasn't calling the pals of LM, the pupils at his school and the teachers who swore to LM having a parka prior to Jodi's murder, eight witnesses in all, liars, she wasn't aware of LM having a parka. Not that he didn't have one prior. She said, if LM had a parka, she didn't know about it.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #244 on: August 13, 2021, 06:45:37 PM »
I do say so and even CM said in court that she wasn't calling the pals of LM, the pupils at his school and the teachers who swore to LM having a parka prior to Jodi's murder, eight witnesses in all, liars, she wasn't aware of LM having a parka. Not that he didn't have one prior. She said, if LM had a parka, she didn't know about it.

Who were the 8 witnesses?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #245 on: August 13, 2021, 08:47:11 PM »

Apparently, Shane also forgot that he had stopped off at a friend's house after work, to help him with his car, and so said he had arrived home earlier than he had (said it in a statement, not in court). I wonder how good Shane's memory was in general?

Do you really think Luke killed Jodi, and then went home and told his mother he had done it?

I find it incredible that a teenage boy can murder his girlfriend in such an appalling way, go home and tell his mother, who is so unappalled  that she immediately sets to work burning his clothes, while he goes out on a social jaunt with friends.

I cannot believe it happened this way. I must concede that Luke might have murdered Jodi, but if he did, I can't see him confessing all to his mum, and then going out as if it were a normal evening. Sorry, but my common sense tells me that a teenage boy would not tell his mum, and a mum wouldn't cover it up while allowing her son to go out socializing.

I understand your reasoning, but, Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at  all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.

As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 08:50:22 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #246 on: August 13, 2021, 11:14:17 PM »
Who were the 8 witnesses?

I don't know but I read an article where Alan Turnbull QC,  asked Corinne Mitchell about the parka in court. He said there were 8 witnesses, at least, to Luke's prior parks and Corinne's answer was that she wasn't aware he owned one prior to Jodi's death.  I've posted the cite for that previously on this forum somewhere.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #247 on: August 13, 2021, 11:27:03 PM »
If he got changed between 18.30-19.20 why was he not wearing the fabled parka jacket but the bomber jacket he admitted wearing when seen by those witnesses earlier?

I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but he was looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, not making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).

Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).

So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo. 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2021, 11:41:42 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #248 on: August 13, 2021, 11:36:36 PM »
I think he either had the bomber Jacket on underneath the parka, hid the parka in the woodland between 1740-1800 (i.e. between the f&w sighting & the pushbike boys trio sighting or the mo&dh sighting). I think, before he left to meet Jodi, he looked at the overcast weather and put the parka on top of the bomber just in case it rained (this could also explain why the parka looked, according to AB, bulging at the pocket). If this was the case, he may have started panicking whilst on the N’battle rd, as the parka was probably slightly blood-stained (not heavily blood-stained, not enough blood for passers-by to notice), but he couldn’t take any chances because there were still traces of blood on it. He knew at that point he had to get rid of it (and he knew also that someone might have seen him over on Easthouses with it on — two wrongs don’t make a right; very incriminating for him and he knew it). Ideally, Luke would have been hoping no one had seen him at that time on the N’battle rd, but they did, so he had to act cool and unflustered (casually hanging onto the gate, but looking angry and peeved underneath his hair, and making eye contact with people in the passing cars, instead staring at the ground). So, what he did next was one of two possibilities: he either started panicking and hid the jacket somewhere in the woodland at the Eskbank river, cleaned up slightly there at the river (and, no, it’s not ridiculous to suggest this, as Luke was the outdoor David Crockett type and had already been exposed to camping, hunting, the cadets, survival, etc, at an early age). Or else he went home very quickly, just after 1740 (just after the F & W sighting), gave Corrine the parka to destroy, and then was back on the N’battle rd for 1800 (for the pushbike trio’s two sightings, the couple sighting (mo & DH) and the Scottish executive employee sighting). Luke also knew that people seeing him in the bomber jacket on the N’battle rd would work in his favour, especially as it was not bloodstained and he had worn it to school that day, and, more importantly, it would throw a spanner in the works in terms of eyewitness evidence (I believe Luke was already thinking about this and wanted to be seen at this point with it on — this was the start of the alibi being set in motion).

Regardless of what happened to the parka (and he did own a parka before the 30.06.03 ... a teacher, friends and school friends all testified to this in court), I think he definitely went home between 1830-1930, before he met up with his mates in the abbey. I think he told his mum all of what happened, took a shower and changed all his clothes and footwear (though, I am surprised no neighbours saw him going home at this time, even if he did go home via the Eskbank river route ... perhaps he got lucky, and of course the Mitchell house was well covered at the front with plants, bushes, trees and climbing ivy). Remember, Luke said he was on the N’battle rd for about 2 hours waiting on Jodi, and yet there was not one single solitary sighting of him on this road between 1830-1930. Very peculiar, especially as this was during the height of summer and at a time when the road would have been particularly busy with traffic, walkers and joggers. Also significant was the words of one of his mates who said that Luke was more kempt than normal that evening (anyone have the article containing this mate’s account? I read it a few months back, but haven’t been able to find it again).

So, basically, Luke hid twice on the N’battle rd. Firstly just after 1740 until 1800. And secondly between 1830-1930. He got rid of that parka after the f&w sighting (he knew, though trying to act cool on the gate, he was panicking and looking at the ground, looking pissed off and angry and therefore also looking suspicious; he knew this, was aware of looking suspicious, so had to dispose of this slightly blood-stained jacket, not only because it contained incriminating dna evidence, but also to nullify eyewitness evidence; changing jackets or appearing with another jacket on soon after the f&w sighting would be an effective way to achieve this. Notice how, despite it being the height of summer and a particularly busy road at a time when the volume of traffic would’ve been heavy, there was not one sighting of Luke. It’s very strange, imo.

I believe that's all very possible or someone helped him. Two witnesses said in court that the male wearing a green bomber jacket on Newbattle Road was definitely not LM so who could the male in the green bomber jacket have been at that point in time? Then, LM shows up wearing a green bomber jacket. Positively identified.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #249 on: August 13, 2021, 11:47:05 PM »
I believe that's all very possible or someone helped him. Two witnesses said in court that the male wearing a green bomber jacket on Newbattle Road was definitely not LM so who could the male in the green bomber jacket have been at that point in time? Then, LM shows up wearing a green bomber jacket. Positively identified.

I know there are no photos of LM in a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Are there any photos of LM in a bomber jacket prior to Jodi's murder? I'd be interested to know.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #250 on: August 14, 2021, 12:07:20 AM »
I know there are no photos of LM in a parka prior to Jodi's murder. Are there any photos of LM in a bomber jacket prior to Jodi's murder? I'd be interested to know.

Good question. I don’t know, either. The main thing is that the police were one step ahead of Luke and managed to ascertain, crucially, that he owned a parka prior to 30.06.03.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #251 on: August 14, 2021, 12:12:43 AM »
I don't know but I read an article where Alan Turnbull QC,  asked Corinne Mitchell about the parka in court. He said there were 8 witnesses, at least, to Luke's prior parks and Corinne's answer was that she wasn't aware he owned one prior to Jodi's death.  I've posted the cite for that previously on this forum somewhere.

Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #252 on: August 14, 2021, 12:12:58 AM »
Good question. I don’t know, either. The main thing is that the police were one step ahead of Luke and managed to ascertain, crucially, that he owned a parka prior to 30.06.03.

I agree but unfortunately they didn't know about the parka initially. They didn't take the log burner until 4th July. That's if anything incriminating was even burned in it. Who's to say there was only one fire? What I do find really odd though is that CM bought LM a replacement parka before the police were even looking for one.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #253 on: August 14, 2021, 12:13:27 AM »
Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?

I don't know.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #254 on: August 14, 2021, 12:15:23 AM »
Were the witnesses called to court or their statements read out ?

I don't remember the cite now but whether they were read out or not, CM didn't deny that LM had a parka. She said she wasn't aware he had a parka.