UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Mr Apples on May 26, 2021, 08:14:06 PM
-
Hi, again. I have yet some more questions I want to put to you all (alas, I’ve still not had the time to delve further into the case). Bear with me.
Judith ungrounded Jodi on that fateful day of 30.06.03 and so Jodi texted LM almost immediately, at 1634. He responded at 1636 and they subsequently texted each other again a few times, between 1636 & 1638 (Jodi used her mother Judith’s phone to send these texts as hers was broken at that time). Unfortunately, the contents of these text messages were never retrieved, which is a great pity as they could’ve provided vital information to the future murder investigation. The general consensus is that, upon Jodi’s grounding being lifted, she texted Luke to tell him about this right away and they agreed to meet up shortly thereafter. It was put to the public that Luke and Jodi would be ‘mucking about up there’ (Jodi allegedly used these exact words to Judith just before she set off to meet LM), implying at Easthouses — supposedly their most common rendezvous point. Others have suggested, in accordance with LM himself, that Jodi was coming along to meet him at N’battle. Others say there was no fixed meeting arrangement in place for that night. And that Jodi was forbidden from using RDP by Judith (but, according to Janine, as per her testimony in court, Jodi still walked it on her own sometimes, anyway). That she seemed unconcerned, content and happy that day when she set off to meet boyfriend LM — the guy whom she thought she was in love with. It’s all antithetical to what transpired some 20 mins later, is it not? Both of them content and awaiting each others’ company with all alacrity just some 20 mins earlier. Very strange. But, who deleted those text messages between 1634-1638? Did Luke erase his at Dalkeith police station at 0030 hrs while in custody? Because they contained incriminating evidence of an arranged meeting in Easthouses, whereby Luke darted off to meet Jodi not long after the text exchanges ended? Or deleted casually out of boredom and to free up phone memory? Or, did the police delete them inadvertently or deliberately? Why were the text messages on Judith’s phone deleted? Because Jodi simply didn’t want her messages on her mum’s phone? More importantly, why weren’t the messages on both phones retrieved by police? Was it too late to recover them by the time they thought about it? Regardless, those text exchanges could’ve contained confirmation of an agreed meeting arrangement. Strange indeed.
Oh, as regards Luke’s call to the speaking clock from his mobile at 1654 . . . did he call it out of idle curiosity, either in the house or on his way to meet Jodi? I can’t think of a reason and definitely not a sinister one as his phone screen would give him the time. Why phone it? It doesn’t make sense for him to phone it, either if he was in the house or outside walking towards Easthouses to meet Jodi. He had other ways of knowing the time (house clocks, home electrical appliances, etc; and if he was outside, the screen on his mobile phone would’ve told him the time). It was said that Luke had phoned the speaking clock in the past, but, for some reason, there was nothing done by either the defence or prosecution to prove he had phone it in the past, and it was never raised in court. Why? Anyway, maybe it was a form of OCD? Tying in with retaining bottles of urine? Or perhaps as he hadn’t seen Jodi after school in a while because of her previous grounding he was making sure his phone clock was accurate so he wasn’t late for her? Who knows, but would like to read what your opinions are on it.
Anyone help?
-
Phone record of Jodi murder accused - 8th January 2093 - The Herald
Excerpts,
‘THE Jodi Jones murder trial was told yesterday that the record of Luke Mitchell's phone had been wiped out hours after the schoolgirl died.
A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted, along with Judith Jones's attempt to contact her daughter to tell her she was "grounded" for staying out late.
‘Derek Morris, 56, from Lothian and Borders Police technical support unit, said he had carried out tests on Mr Mitchell's mobile phone the day after Jodi's death.
Mr Morris said the phone's record of last numbers dialled showed only one call instead of the usual 10. It was to Mr Mitchell's mother at 39 minutes past midnight. "That was the only one listed. He must have deleted the call register and started again, " said Mr Morris.
Records from the mobile phone company listed a call from Mr Mitchell's mobile to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight. Mr Morris said he thought the records had been deleted between the two calls.
Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.
Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".
In questioning, Mr Findlay and Mr Morris agreed that text messages on Jodi's mother's mobile had also been deleted and there was nothing unusual about people doing that.
Alan Turnbull QC, for the prosecution, told the jury that before the Crown case closes, probably some time next week, he would be asking experts about a computer found in the bedroom of Shane Mitchell, Mr Mitchell's brother.
The court has heard that someone made a 22-minute internet connection from the Mitchell home in Newbattle, Dalkeith, just before 5pm on June 30, 2003.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
-
Phone record of Jodi murder accused - 8th January 2093 - The Herald
Excerpts,
‘THE Jodi Jones murder trial was told yesterday that the record of Luke Mitchell's phone had been wiped out hours after the schoolgirl died.
A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted, along with Judith Jones's attempt to contact her daughter to tell her she was "grounded" for staying out late.
‘Derek Morris, 56, from Lothian and Borders Police technical support unit, said he had carried out tests on Mr Mitchell's mobile phone the day after Jodi's death.
Mr Morris said the phone's record of last numbers dialled showed only one call instead of the usual 10. It was to Mr Mitchell's mother at 39 minutes past midnight. "That was the only one listed. He must have deleted the call register and started again, " said Mr Morris.
Records from the mobile phone company listed a call from Mr Mitchell's mobile to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight. Mr Morris said he thought the records had been deleted between the two calls.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
Luke’s texts to KT would have moved the case further forward. They would certainly have revealed the true nature of their relationship. Were the ever accessed by the police?
-
Luke’s texts to KT would have moved the case further forward.
How so ?
-
They would certainly have revealed the true nature of their relationship. Were the ever accessed by the police?
It was revealed Luke Mitchell and KT had spoken on the telephone on the Saturday night - after [Name removed] left in a taxi - for around 3 hours
-
It was revealed Luke Mitchell and KT had spoken on the telephone on the Saturday night - after [Name removed] left ia taxi - for around 3 hours
If we don’t know what was discussed it takes us no further forward. Texts may have. As I’ve said texts from Luke could have proved what kind of relationship they had. Did the police access them or was it like the cell site analysis and CCTV of Andrina Bryson at the supermarket on the afternoon of the 30th, simply ignored?
-
If we don’t know what was discussed it takes us no further forward. Texts may have. As I’ve said texts from Luke could have proved what kind of relationship they had. Did the police access them or was it like the cell site analysis and CCTV of Andrina Bryson at the supermarket on the afternoon of the 30th, simply ignored?
A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted
-
Your post is rather opaque. Could you please clarify your point?
-
Your post is rather opaque. Could you please clarify your point?
You asked if the police ‘simply ignored’ KT’s phone evidence
Clearly they didn’t
-
You asked if the police ‘simply ignored’ KT’s phone evidence
Clearly they didn’t
That’s not what I asked. I asked did the police access Luke’s texts to KT?
-
That’s not what I asked. I asked did the police access Luke’s texts to KT?
I know what you asked and I replied
I suspect Luke Mitchell didn’t want the jury to hear all the details of his communications with KT
-
I know what you asked and I replied
I suspect Luke Mitchell didn’t want the jury to hear all the details of his communications with KT
The police had KT’s phone. They could have accessed Luke’s texts through that. Did they?
-
The police had KT’s phone. They could have accessed Luke’s texts through that. Did they?
If the police had KT’s phone then if very probable they would have attempted to access her texts - presuming she hadn’t deleted them after learning Luke was a murderer
-
Hi, again. I have yet some more questions I want to put to you all (alas, I’ve still not had the time to delve further into the case). Bear with me.
Judith ungrounded Jodi on that fateful day of 30.06.03 and so Jodi texted LM almost immediately, at 1634. He responded at 1636 and they subsequently texted each other again a few times, between 1636 & 1638 (Jodi used her mother Judith’s phone to send these texts as hers was broken at that time). Unfortunately, the contents of these text messages were never retrieved, which is a great pity as they could’ve provided vital information to the future murder investigation. The general consensus is that, upon Jodi’s grounding being lifted, she texted Luke to tell him about this right away and they agreed to meet up shortly thereafter. It was put to the public that Luke and Jodi would be ‘mucking about up there’ (Jodi allegedly used these exact words to Judith just before she set off to meet LM), implying at Easthouses — supposedly their most common rendezvous point. Others have suggested, in accordance with LM himself, that Jodi was coming along to meet him at N’battle. Others say there was no fixed meeting arrangement in place for that night. And that Jodi was forbidden from using RDP by Judith (but, according to Janine, as per her testimony in court, Jodi still walked it on her own sometimes, anyway). That she seemed unconcerned, content and happy that day when she set off to meet boyfriend LM — the guy whom she thought she was in love with. It’s all antithetical to what transpired some 20 mins later, is it not? Both of them content and awaiting each others’ company with all alacrity just some 20 mins earlier. Very strange. But, who deleted those text messages between 1634-1638? Did Luke erase his at Dalkeith police station at 0030 hrs while in custody? Because they contained incriminating evidence of an arranged meeting in Easthouses, whereby Luke darted off to meet Jodi not long after the text exchanges ended? Or deleted casually out of boredom and to free up phone memory? Or, did the police delete them inadvertently or deliberately? Why were the text messages on Judith’s phone deleted? Because Jodi simply didn’t want her messages on her mum’s phone? More importantly, why weren’t the messages on both phones retrieved by police? Was it too late to recover them by the time they thought about it? Regardless, those text exchanges could’ve contained confirmation of an agreed meeting arrangement. Strange indeed.
Oh, as regards Luke’s call to the speaking clock from his mobile at 1654 . . . did he call it out of idle curiosity, either in the house or on his way to meet Jodi? I can’t think of a reason and definitely not a sinister one as his phone screen would give him the time. Why phone it? It doesn’t make sense for him to phone it, either if he was in the house or outside walking towards Easthouses to meet Jodi. He had other ways of knowing the time (house clocks, home electrical appliances, etc; and if he was outside, the screen on his mobile phone would’ve told him the time). It was said that Luke had phoned the speaking clock in the past, but, for some reason, there was nothing done by either the defence or prosecution to prove he had phone it in the past, and it was never raised in court. Why? Anyway, maybe it was a form of OCD? Tying in with retaining bottles of urine? Or perhaps as he hadn’t seen Jodi after school in a while because of her previous grounding he was making sure his phone clock was accurate so he wasn’t late for her? Who knows, but would like to read what your opinions are on it.
Anyone help?
Yes, the record of previous use of the speaking clock was used at trial. Rather a hole in the ground moment for Findlay yet again, as with the recording of the calls to the emergency services. Used to show that the call on that day, was not an isolated one. However, the times of the calls on record showed that LM was more than likely to have been out of the house when the calls were made. Lunchtime at school and so forth. So they only clarified that LM used this service when out and about. As for the time on the phone itself. Could be various reasons. One obvious one, more so in the infancy of phones at the time - is simply not having the correct time set. Of dead batteries, replacing sim - anything.
And it stands to reason does it not why Jodi deleted those texts - It was not her phone. Not her mothers business to see her private correspondence with her boyfriend. And LM was still at RDP when that data was deleted was he not? . He was not whisked away anywhere - which of course is pretty much what would have had to happen. 11.38pm last call to the emergency services. Calls with police for directions after this. Time they all took to get there. To assess and so forth. LM was asked by the police to show him where Jodi was. He then joined the others again. - And LM was still in possession of his phone when on his way to the station. And they stopped to speak with his mother. It was LM who deleted the contents not the police - which most certainly could not have been done by accident. At whatever point his phone was taken, as with his clothes - put into evidence bags not man handled by the police - it is nonsense. As is any suggestion that the police would have done this, at this point in time. Outwith the mere fact LM still had his phone. But these ludicrous claims that they saw the data, thought, Oh he is innocent, we must scrub it? - it is nonsense, completely obtuse reasoning which is that predictive trait with everything.
Claimed to note "with the boyfriend". Asked him to go over the wall to "get his dna there" scrubbed the data from his phone. Then gave him it back to call his mother? Thought there was a tiff going on - when LM was speaking with the police as Kelly was shouting in the background - this was the tiff, disagreement referred to - not LM and Jodi. It is only getting worse - that the police thought that LM and Jodi were having a tiff? He is on the bloody phone telling them how to get there, to the body they have found - what a mess.
Nothing strange about it - other than the reason the data was deleted by LM, for it held incriminating evidence.
-
Yes, the record of previous use of the speaking clock was used at trial. Rather a hole in the ground moment for Findlay yet again, as with the recording of the calls to the emergency services. Used to show that the call on that day, was not an isolated one. However, the times of the calls on record showed that LM was more than likely to have been out of the house when the calls were made. Lunchtime at school and so forth. So they only clarified that LM used this service when out and about. As for the time on the phone itself. Could be various reasons. One obvious one, more so in the infancy of phones at the time - is simply not having the correct time set. Of dead batteries, replacing sim - anything.
And it stands to reason does it not why Jodi deleted those texts - It was not her phone. Not her mothers business to see her private correspondence with her boyfriend. And LM was still at RDP when that data was deleted was he not? . He was not whisked away anywhere - which of course is pretty much what would have had to happen. 11.38pm last call to the emergency services. Calls with police for directions after this. Time they all took to get there. To assess and so forth. LM was asked by the police to show him where Jodi was. He then joined the others again. - And LM was still in possession of his phone when on his way to the station. And they stopped to speak with his mother. It was LM who deleted the contents not the police - which most certainly could not have been done by accident. At whatever point his phone was taken, as with his clothes - put into evidence bags not man handled by the police - it is nonsense. As is any suggestion that the police would have done this, at this point in time. Outwith the mere fact LM still had his phone. But these ludicrous claims that they saw the data, thought, Oh he is innocent, we must scrub it? - it is nonsense, completely obtuse reasoning which is that predictive trait with everything.
Claimed to note "with the boyfriend". Asked him to go over the wall to "get his dna there" scrubbed the data from his phone. Then gave him it back to call his mother? Thought there was a tiff going on - when LM was speaking with the police as Kelly was shouting in the background - this was the tiff, disagreement referred to - not LM and Jodi. It is only getting worse - that the police thought that LM and Jodi were having a tiff? He is on the bloody phone telling them how to get there, to the body they have found - what a mess.
Nothing strange about it - other than the reason the data was deleted by LM, for it held incriminating evidence.
Didn’t Luke bum a cigarette from SK and the pair of them sit and smoke together?
-
Nothing strange about it - other than the reason the data was deleted by LM, for it held incriminating evidence.
Like, for example, a text indicating an arranged meet between Luke and Jodi in Easthouses at that crucial timeframe between 1638 - 1720? Texts to his friends (eg, David High) urging them to meet him? Or even texts to his mother between 1730 and 1800 asking for her help as something terrible had happened (though I think Luke was too smart to send a message of this nature, even if he was in a state of panic or confusion)? Regardless, wouldn’t the police have been able to retrieve all of Luke’s text messages between 2003 and 2004, from the operator/carrier he was using at the time? As for the phone logs, I can’t see any significance attached to the outgoing/incoming phone register being deleted by Luke between 0031-0039 on 01.07.03 (Mr Morris’s testimony), especially as the police were with him then. Am I missing something? I once stumbled upon a forum that mentioned that Luke had tried to create an alibi by using his phone, but the poster couldn’t remember what it was. Interesting. Any takers?
Btw, Parky41, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case . . . were you involved in it in some capacity? Or just been following it closely since it happened, as an armchair detective?
-
Actually, why didn’t the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info — info that would’ve severely bolstered the prosecution’s case.
Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Luke’s phone; it would’ve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky ‘03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phone’s innards, into the electronic hardware? Police would’ve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, don’t you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, I’m surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it could’ve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecution’s case. Strange.
-
Actually, why didn’t the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info — info that would’ve severely bolstered the prosecution’s case.
Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Luke’s phone; it would’ve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky ‘03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phone’s innards, into the electronic hardware? Police would’ve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, don’t you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, I’m surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it could’ve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecution’s case. Strange.
I’ve made the very same points myself Mr Apples.
-
Actually, why didn’t the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info — info that would’ve severely bolstered the prosecution’s case.
Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Luke’s phone; it would’ve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky ‘03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phone’s innards, into the electronic hardware? Police would’ve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, don’t you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, I’m surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it could’ve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecution’s case. Strange.
I believe the police did everything in their power to retrieve all information. I believe the reason they couldn't was because everything was deliberately destroyed
-
I believe the police did everything in their power to retrieve all information. I believe the reason they couldn't was because everything was deliberately destroyed
What makes you believe the police did all they could?
How do you mean everything was deliberately destroyed, can you elaborate? What was destroyed, by whom? How did this stop police getting the messages?
I think the messages might have been deleted from both Luke’s phone and Jodi’s mums phone (Jodi put her sim in her mums phone to send Luke the messages that afternoon I believe so understand why she would delete this) from what I understand Luke does not remember deleting the messages, also read some stuff was deleted while Luke was in custody so could not be Luke, but why could the police not get the message from the phone service provider is what I don’t understand? I’m sure these messages would shed so much light on the case. Meet you at 5.30 at end of street after tea, or meet you at top of path soon as possible. Or maybe so much more, we will never know
-
I remember reading an article years ago that said some messages were recovered.
Found this that shows some messages were retrieved from the Sim but nothing to say why others had not been, like the ones between Jodi and Luke. I guess the techniques back then were all new, they got what they could.
But if there was a way to somehow not just delete but to remove messages from the sim also back then, that would be interesting. I can’t remember, anyone else?
From article
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.
Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".
In questioning, Mr Findlay and Mr Morris agreed that text messages on Jodi's mother's mobile had also been deleted and there was nothing unusual about people doing that.
-
What makes you believe the police did all they could?
How do you mean everything was deliberately destroyed, can you elaborate? What was destroyed, by whom? How did this stop police getting the messages?
I think the messages might have been deleted from both Luke’s phone and Jodi’s mums phone (Jodi put her sim in her mums phone to send Luke the messages that afternoon I believe so understand why she would delete this) from what I understand Luke does not remember deleting the messages, also read some stuff was deleted while Luke was in custody so could not be Luke, but why could the police not get the message from the phone service provider is what I don’t understand? I’m sure these messages would shed so much light on the case. Meet you at 5.30 at end of street after tea, or meet you at top of path soon as possible. Or maybe so much more, we will never know
Because they were investigating the murder of a child.
-
Because they were investigating the murder of a child.
And that’s your answer? They were investigating the murder of a young child so they should have done all they could but going by what has been said about the handling of the crime scene it’s clear they didn’t do everything they could, so makes you wonder what else they could have done. I don’t know anything about what info the police could or could not have got at the time, it appears they received some message from lukes sim but not others. I wonder if the mobile phone company were contacted and if they were able to provide information back in 2003? But you said about stuff bring deliberately destroyed, can you clarify what you mean, by whom? Are you saying Luke somehow destroyed the messages between him and Jodi? They still should have got info from Jodi’s sim, that couldn’t have been deliberately destroyed or are you saying that was too?
-
And that’s your answer? They were investigating the murder of a young child so they should have done all they could but going by what has been said about the handling of the crime scene it’s clear they didn’t do everything they could, so makes you wonder what else they could have done. I don’t know anything about what info the police could or could not have got at the time, it appears they received some message from lukes sim but not others. I wonder if the mobile phone company were contacted and if they were able to provide information back in 2003? But you said about stuff bring deliberately destroyed, can you clarify what you mean, by whom? Are you saying Luke somehow destroyed the messages between him and Jodi? They still should have got info from Jodi’s sim, that couldn’t have been deliberately destroyed or are you saying that was too?
Yes, that's my answer. I don't have anything lengthy to write. I believe the police would have investigated as thoroughly as they could have given that a child had been murdered and mutilated. I have no idea why a tent wasn't erected immediately at the crime scene but iIF mistakes were made there, I still don't have reason to believe everything else they did was a mistake too. If the messages on Luke's phone were deleted then they could have been destroyed and most of them were. They were deliberately destroyed. No mystery there I don't think.
-
Just quickly chiming back in to this thread because I think I may have overlooked something previously. In an old Herald article (provided at the bottom), it was mentioned that the police had contacted Luke’s mobile phone operator (no exact date was mentioned when they contacted the operator) and as a result of this were able to ascertain that he had made a call to his mother at 0031 on 01.07.03 from his mobile phone. He had also made a call to his mother at 0039 that same morning, which the police said was the only call that was registered in Luke’s call logs when they first checked his phone on the morning of 01.07.03 at DPS. So, putting these two pieces of information together, the police concluded that LM had deleted his calls log between those two times, because the last 10 calls were missing when they checked his phone on 01.07.03. So what? Given that they (Derek Morris) had contacted LM’s mobile phone operator (presumably on 01.07.03 as well), why didn’t they reveal which numbers were deleted? Why did they only mention the one call that had been deleted? The phone operator surely had this info? Or was it a case of there were no other calls that the police thought were incriminating enough? Or perhaps Luke had made a string of phone calls late that night/early that morning but they never connected and that’s why the operator couldn’t retrieve the info? Luke got lucky? I don’t get it. Besides, LM was in police custody when those 2 calls were made early that morning? What masterplan could he devise from there? Unless, the police’s view was that LM was panicking because he was guilty and owed to this guilt he decided to delete everything ‘just to be safe’? Who knows. Also, while the police were liaising with the phone company, why didn’t they ask them to retrieve all of LM’s text messages for 30.06.03 & 01.07.03? Surely those would’ve contained more incriminating evidence, wether they knew it at the time or not? Anyone got any ideas? I’m confused slightly by the police’s tactics here.
Also, can someone remind me .... how did the police ascertain that Jodi had texted Luke on 30.06.03 between 1634-1638? Who gave that evidence? Was it Luke himself? Backed up by Judith? My memory’s a bit fuzzy on this.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
-
What SL typed on a message board circa 2012:
”Luke phoning the speaking clock - the mobile records show a large number of calls to the speaking clock. I have never claimed he made these calls from any particular place, as I simply don't know. However, the ones prior to 8.30am on schooldays would, presumably, have to be made from home, as he didn't leave for school until 8.30am. The ones between 4.15pm and 5pm are less certain, but, as his habit was to return from school and cook the dinner for his mum coming in, it seems likely that these were made from the house as well. There are a number of witnesses who attested to the fact that Luke cooked the dinner most nights, not just Corinne and Shane.”
-
I'll ask this yet again: how was is ascertained that Jodi texted Luke at 1634 and 1638 on 30.06.03 from Judith's phone (Jodi's phone was broken at the time)? These are very specific times. Did the police contact Judith's mobile phone operator for proof? Or contact Luke's? Generally, phone companies in the UK store records of incoming calls, texts and other messages (but not the content of them) for a 12-month period only. They don't provide details of incoming calls or messages older than 12 months, and won't provide details of incoming calls unless they have a court order. However, it differs in some instances and all depends on the phone operator. Or did they guesstimate the times of 1634 and 1638 from information provided by Luke & Judith?
Would be very interested in your thoughts on this.
-
It was shown at the trial that LM deleted the data from his phone and no one else. Evidence heard from the people who carried out all checks on retrieving data and so forth. It is a myth, a blatant lie that the police or anyone else deleted LM's data. - Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.
Also shown by the same means that data had been retrieved to show those texts (not contents) exchanged between LM and [Name removed]. Where does the changing sim come from? It was shown from [Name removed]'s mothers number and not her own?
Mr Apples - All attempts were made to retrieve data (as above). - The absolutely foolish notion, this constant application of some giant conspiracy to just get LM at any cost for no bloody reason. What a bloody hoot! Can people actually hear themselves at times?
Still those phone records remain hidden - The promise over years to put those calls to the speaking clock out there, still not happened. Why? It was certainly entered by DF that LM had indeed used this service at others times, quickly touched into base by the Crown - They went through the times of those calls which were consistent with times LM would have been out and about. They in no way showed they were all made from his home.
Forensics - You are told that everything was botched up, just not all those tests directly carried out with LM, his home and so forth, these you are told were executed to perfection. And not one sits up and thinks, wait a minute here? You are telling us they fitted LM up, they bent, manipulated, twisted every single thing to do so, just not anything directly pertaining to him? Have a word, give your head a good bloody shake for goodness sake!
The latest around those very forensics. You are told there was some "hidden folder" found, pertaining to "untested samples" In this ever expanding giant conspiracy nonsense. SL in her latest live, does she mention they are looking to test those claimed "hidden, untested samples?" No, what she says is, that they are trying to work out which samples they will ask for re-testing, which would be viable for doing so. And still the penny does not drop? These would surely be those claimed "hidden" and "untested" ones - There is only one conspiracy going on here, the one which is constantly set to pull the wool over! ------
What does it all matter? - The new narrative is that the police with the Jones family earlier in the evening of June the 30th, all sat together and conspired to "lure" LM to the path, to frame him together. So whilst you are soaking up and adding to the conspiracy, why even bother discussing any rational behind anything else?
Rather odd you mention those big push buttons on his phone Mr Apples yet do not mention make and model of any phone he had? Go to some lengths to show why he would have no DNA upon him but there you have it, nothing on that phone - Could not possibly have been him then? I can think of several reasons for there being no DNA, can you? What were the test results for it? Do you even know this?
-
It was shown at the trial that LM deleted the data from his phone and no one else. Evidence heard from the people who carried out all checks on retrieving data and so forth. It is a myth, a blatant lie that the police or anyone else deleted LM's data. - Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.
8((()*/
-
Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.
His hair and fingernails were examined. The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers. There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken. Maybe you can be a bit more specific about what you claim is true and what you claim is a lie.
-
His hair and fingernails were examined. The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers. There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken. Maybe you can be a bit more specific about what you claim is true and what you claim is a lie.
Indeed - A hair sample was taken, fingers nails and his appearance noted. He was not forensically examined all over. Whatever took place did not do so within an hour of him leading people directly to the victims body. Another lie, of being tested for drugs and having nothing in his system. LM had been taken drugs over the course of the evening. The lie put out to claim that it could not have been him that shared drugs with the victim before her death - They really do pile on top of each other (the lies), and again, how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?
-
They really do pile on top of each other (the lies), and again, how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?
Indeed….and your sources for your claims are?
Don’t worry I’ll wait.
-
...how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?
Can you provide some citations? That would be a good start.
-
Can you provide some citations? That would be a good start.
Unfortunately Parky knows, on the whole, that he’s preaching to the converted and they’ll simply gobble up anything he serves up.
Of course ambiguous sources make for a frustrating discourse but I’m afraid that’s all that Parky has to offer.
-
Unfortunately Lean knows, on the whole, that she’s preaching to the converted and they’ll simply gobble up anything she serves up.
Of course ambiguous sources make for a frustrating discourse but I’m afraid that’s all that Lean has to offer.
Parky offers an interesting argument compared to Lean's lies.
-
Parky offers an interesting argument compared to Lean's lies.
Parky’s argument may be interesting but it’s totally unsourced.
-
It appears L&BP did contact the carriers of LM's and Judith's phones and managed to ascertain that text exchanges did take place between 1634 & 1638, though the contents were never retrieved. Concerning the retrieval of the contents of text messages -- it seems to be a grey area in the realm of telecomnunications . Some sources suggest they aren't retrievable at all, while others say they can be recovered with a court order, and others say that they can be recovered with a court order -- as long as 12 months hasn't elapsed between the times the texts were exchanged and the date on which a court order is made. I would be surprised if L&BP didn't try and recover the contents via a court order. So, what was the upshot of their application? They were too late with the application? The contents had disappeared forever and weren't able to be traced or recovered? Or they were recovered, but nothing incriminating was found (meaning LM got lucky or he, perhaps, deliberately omitted a time of their meeting because he had made up his mind that he was going to kill Jodi, consciously & cunningly protecting his own back from the inevitable murder investigation)?
As for no incriminating DNA being found on LM's phone, well, he either got lucky that no incriminating DNA transferred on to his phone (eg, his phone was well shielded and protected in one of the pockets of his army parka) or he had access to many phones and swapped the sim cards.
-
It appears L&BP did contact the carriers of LM's and Judith's phones and managed to ascertain that text exchanges did take place between 1634 & 1638, though the contents were never retrieved. Concerning the retrieval of the contents of text messages -- it seems to be a grey area in the realm of telecomnunications . Some sources suggest they aren't retrievable at all, while others say they can be recovered with a court order, and others say that they can be recovered with a court order -- as long as 12 months hasn't elapsed between the times the texts were exchanged and the date on which a court order is made. I would be surprised if L&BP didn't try and recover the contents via a court order. So, what was the upshot of their application? They were too late with the application? The contents had disappeared forever and weren't able to be traced or recovered? Or they were recovered, but nothing incriminating was found (meaning LM got lucky or he, perhaps, deliberately omitted a time of their meeting because he had made up his mind that he was going to kill Jodi, consciously & cunningly protecting his own back from the inevitable murder investigation)?
As for no incriminating DNA being found on LM's phone, well, he either got lucky that no incriminating DNA transferred on to his phone (eg, his phone was well shielded and protected in one of the pockets of his army parka) or he had access to many phones and swapped the sim cards.
Or perhaps he’s simply innocent?
-
Or perhaps he’s simply innocent?
Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, à la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
-
Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, à la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
And doing daft things like requesting books on Satanism as his right to practice his religion hasn’t exactly helped his public image either.
-
Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, à la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
I am neither related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from this case so another theory bites the dust.
Did Campbell, Steele’s alleged partner in crime, also go to drastic measures to show his innocence? Was his conviction also quashed?
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, à la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
The "deluge" of eyewitness evidence in this case is incoherent and riddled with problems. I spent several pages in a different thread contrasting good ways to collect eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case. David Wilson described the testimony with similarly unflattering terms. I have seen no evidence that Professor Wilson is benefitting financially from this case, and nor am I.
In the second half of the 2021 documentary Luke Mitchell said, "I can't be more clear. I absolutely did not kill Jodi. I want to clear my name." Sounds pretty clear, and his willingness to take a lie detector test and to maintain his innocence are also clear indications. I also object to your characterization of him as "lippy." He was fifteen and subjected to question that was undisputedly outrageous.
Those points having been noted, I am not a big fan of arguments about someone's demeanor as a sign of much of anything. Mark Lundy (a possible wrongful conviction) fainted at the funeral of his wife and daughter, and people said he was faking it and was guilty. Luke Mitchell did not show enough emotion at the time for some people, who concluded he was guilty. There is a Goldilocks standard I guess: show some grief but not too much.
The final episode of Through the Wall has extensive commentary from Luke Mitchell. He sounds intelligent and articulate. I suggest that one listen with an open mind.
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/his-name-was-stuart-lubbock/bonus-episode-in-luke-s-own-words/
-
The "deluge" of eyewitness evidence in this case is incoherent and riddled with problems. I spent several pages in a different thread contrasting good ways to collect eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case. David Wilson described the testimony with similarly unflattering terms. I have seen no evidence that Professor Wilson is benefitting financially from this case, and nor am I.
In the second half of the 2021 documentary Luke Mitchell said, "I can't be more clear. I absolutely did not kill Jodi. I want to clear my name." Sounds pretty clear, and his willingness to take a lie detector test and to maintain his innocence are also clear indications. I also object to your characterization of him as "lippy." He was fifteen and subjected to question that was undisputedly outrageous.
Those points having been noted, I am not a big fan of arguments about someone's demeanor as a sign of much of anything. Mark Lundy (a possible wrongful conviction) fainted at the funeral of his wife and daughter, and people said he was faking it and was guilty. Luke Mitchell did not show enough emotion at the time for some people, who concluded he was guilty. There is a Goldilocks standard I guess: show some grief but not too much.
The final episode of Through the Wall has extensive commentary from Luke Mitchell. He sounds intelligent and articulate. I suggest that one listen with an open mind.
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/his-name-was-stuart-lubbock/bonus-episode-in-luke-s-own-words/
Thanks for the link. Clearly intelligent and articulate, but so are many psychopaths, narcissists and extremely violent & dangerous offenders. He can use those qualities to deceive, mislead and lie very convincingly. A relative of mine got to know him well whilst working in Shotts Prison for several years. She said he was likeable, well-mannered, had a nervous stutter and was very short in height. Interestingly, my relative referred to him as 'my pal' (meaning HER pal) and doubted he was guilty. I know my relative doesn't know the case well, and it was obvious that she was seduced by his eloquence and charm -- to the extent that it made her suggest he may be innocent.
The CJS is imperfect worldwide and utilises tools & methods that are not an exact science, but, like I've said numerous times in the past on here, the circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming, robust, strong and compelling in this case that it doesn't matter how imperfect the system was and still is.
-
During that interview, LM said absolutely nothing about why he was innocent of the crime, or offered any explanation of why it could not have been him who murdered Jodi (the best he could offer is that he was 'shut down' during the original investigation and done as he was told and acquiesced). He merely harped on about the shortcomings and flaws in the prison and CJS which he feels he's facing currently and which could hinder his release.
-
Mr Apples,
You keep talking about how robust the evidence against LM is. On 13 September in another thread I gave a short summary of the problems in the Fleming/Walsh sighting, but I don't have time today to do the same regarding Ms. Bryson. However, one point may be worth examining. Ms. Bryson declined to identify LM at the trial. In these threads, it was suggested that Luke looked different because he was 17-18 months older during the trial. Yet Ms. Bryson's initial description was of someone in his early 20s, putting him somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 years older than LM was at the time. Think of how much greater is the difference in looks between, say 14 and 22 versus 14 and 16. So how can one ignore the difference between LM's age and the person that she saw? I cannot.
-
Mr Apples,
You keep talking about how robust the evidence against LM is. On 13 September in another thread I gave a short summary of the problems in the Fleming/Walsh sighting, but I don't have time today to do the same regarding Ms. Bryson. However, one point may be worth examining. Ms. Bryson declined to identify LM at the trial. In these threads, it was suggested that Luke looked different because he was 17-18 months older during the trial. Yet Ms. Bryson's initial description was of someone in his early 20s, putting him somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 years older than LM was at the time. Think of how much greater is the difference in looks between, say 14 and 22 versus 14 and 16. So how can one ignore the difference between LM's age and the person that she saw? I cannot.
The Bryson sighting is only a single element of the case and, imo, she did well in her recall given she did not know either of them and was minding her own business on a Monday afternoon with her two children in the back of the car. The strength of the Prosecution's case in this instance was very much how damning it was collectively and not individually; we could go around in circles arguing about the individual elements of the case as it's really easy and convenient to zoom into a solitary plank of the circumstantial evidence and pick out potential flaws in it. I am not prepared to go over it all again.
LM was convicted by a majority verdict -- let's not forget that. A lot of evidence that was heard in that 42-day trial is not in the public domain and likely never will be. However, thanks to social media, some of that evidence that wasn't in the public domain has gradually filtered through (presumably from folk who were at the trial and have divulged the info to members of the public in private) and the common denominator is that it is always incriminating evidence against LM. Examples? The most recent, from Nicholas, being that a manager from Flip in Edinburgh contacted the police to tell them about LM buying that green army parka on 08.07.03 (tellingly, it seems to be constant that the Mitchells never offered any info of their own volition, but, rather, they were found out/caught out). For me personally, even if they (Luke & Corinne) did tell the police they did buy the parka on 08.07.03 on their own, I would still be highly suspicious. Why buy the exact same jacket as the one that many people who knew him said he'd worn before the murder and was now missing? Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.
Those 3 main planks of circumstantial evidence: the missing parka, the false alibi and LM's guilty knowledge (ie, the record time of him finding Jodi's body in the woodland strip behind the wall). All severely damning evidence, particularly when taken together (and even more so when we add in the other facets of circumstantial evidence). I'd be incredulous if LM never did it.
-
Examples? The most recent, from Nicholas, being that a manager from Flip in Edinburgh contacted the police to tell them about LM buying that green army parka on 08.07.03 (tellingly, it seems to be constant that the Mitchells never offered any info of their own volition, but, rather, they were found out/caught out). For me personally, even if they (Luke & Corinne) did tell the police they did buy the parka on 08.07.03 on their own, I would still be highly suspicious. Why buy the exact same jacket as the one that many people who knew him said he'd worn before the murder and was now missing? Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.
Where is the evidence for any of this?
You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.
It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.
-
Where is the evidence for any of this?
You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.
It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.
You are not in a position to see any evidence.
-
You are not in a position to see any evidence.
There is no important evidence presented in court that is not in the public domain. The clue…the nearly 20 years the alleged evidence has taken to come to light.
-
Where is the evidence for any of this?
You may not agree with me MA but this is why people like Nicholas et al post claims like the above ( lest we forget the 10.20 alleged text from Judith). It’s exactly so people like you with an already established bias against Luke repeat those lies as if they are facts until eventually they are accepted as such.
It’s this kind of rumour mongering that got Luke convicted in the first place.
The evidence, as I explained previously, was from the witness from Whitburn's sister. She made the comments on one of SF's YT videos about the photograph & cctv footage. I subsequently contacted her on messenger and she confirmed it. She said the police interviewed her sister and took the photo from the house and that the police/authorities still have it to this day. She was adamant that the photo was shown in court, like the cctv footage was, as her younger sister was called as a witness and had told her so. I doubt she was lying. She seemed genuine and sounded bright/intelligent enough. I believe her. One of the main problems with this case was the difficulties and challenges that faced the reporting & coverage of it; because some witnesses were under 18/under 16, and were still children legally, the courts couldn't allow certain parts of the case to be in the public domain. This would, perhaps, explain why that photo was never published (or perhaps it wasn't in the public domain simply because it wasn't possible for journalists to report on every single aspect of the case). The same applies to the cctv footage.
I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.
I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.
-
The evidence, as I explained previously, was from the witness from Whitburn's sister. She made the comments on one of SF's YT videos about the photograph & cctv footage. I subsequently contacted her on messenger and she confirmed it. She said the police interviewed her sister and took the photo from the house and that the police/authorities still have it to this day. She was adamant that the photo was shown in court, like the cctv footage was, as her younger sister was called as a witness and had told her so. I doubt she was lying. She seemed genuine and sounded bright/intelligent enough. I believe her. One of the main problems with this case was the difficulties and challenges that faced the reporting & coverage of it; because some witnesses were under 18/under 16, and were still children legally, the courts couldn't allow certain parts of the case to be in the public domain. This would, perhaps, explain why that photo was never published (or perhaps it wasn't in the public domain simply because it wasn't possible for journalists to report on every single aspect of the case). The same applies to the cctv footage.
I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.
I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.
How did you manage to contact someone on messenger who you only knew from her YouTube name? Was it the Facebook messenger service or one I don’t know linked to YouTube? I’m sure you’ll have taken a screenshot of such an important message. Could you post it please?
What did the sister say about the CCTV footage? When was it shown?
Imagine a seemingly intelligent individual had posted a message on YouTube that as a 13 year old they had seen Luke leave his house at 17.40 on the 30th and they had been called to give evidence in court. They admitted the same to you when questioned. Would you believe them?
-
How did you manage to contact someone on messenger who you only knew from her YouTube name? Was it the Facebook messenger service or one I don’t know linked to YouTube? I’m sure you’ll have taken a screenshot of such an important message. Could you post it please?
What did the sister say about the CCTV footage? When was it shown?
Imagine a seemingly intelligent individual had posted a message on YouTube that as a 13 year old they had seen Luke leave his house at 17.40 on the 30th and they had been called to give evidence in court. They admitted the same to you when questioned. Would you believe them?
She used her real name on YT and FB (and she didn't, at the time, have any friends hidden). Good signs, if you ask me.
FB messenger, yes
I'll see if I still have it and send it to you.
She never said anything about the cctv other than it was defo shown in court when her wee sister was called as a witness to court. Interestingly, she mentioned that her sister was up at court on the same day as Kimberley Thomson. Now, what's interesting here is that there were 2 Kimberley Thomsons LM was romantically involved with (I haven't had time to investigate this other KT). One from Kenmore and the other, a model, from Whitburn (I think). I don't know which KT she was referring to (I'll see if I can contact her again).
I would certainly look at that type of evidence -- as I would with any and all evidence -- objectively and with an open mind. No one said LM left his house at 1740 apart from CM. The alibi was exposed as false, as per SM's testimony.
-
Then there are the stories of that picture (from Jodi's friend and witness in Whitburn) shown in court of Jodi with LM & friends at a music gig in May/June '03 where LM was wearing that green parka he said he never owned before the murder. Further still, again, as per the the word of Jodi's friend/witness from Whitburn, there was CCTV footage from St David's high school shown in court of LM wearing that parka jacket before the murder.
Those 3 main planks of circumstantial evidence: the missing parka, the false alibi and LM's guilty knowledge (ie, the record time of him finding Jodi's body in the woodland strip behind the wall). All severely damning evidence, particularly when taken together (and even more so when we add in the other facets of circumstantial evidence). I'd be incredulous if LM never did it.
One, that the other members of the search party changed their testimony on this point has been documented enough times in these threads that I see no need to do so again. That fact holes their credibility below the waterline. Apart from that, Mia's tracking abilities were said to be exceptional. Occam's razor suggests that Mia alerted LM. Two, SM did not say that LM was not there, only that he was not sure he was there; CM placed him at the house. There is nothing to contradict CM's alibi other than AB's testimony; therefore, a great deal stands or falls with its quality. Three, let me start by pointing out that the very first chapter of Borchard's book Convicting the Innocent is the case of a man who was identified by seventeen witnesses. All seventeen were wildly mistaken; the actual criminal bore little resemblance to the convicted man, Herbert T. Andrews. Five witnesses helped to convict Kirk Bloodsworth of capital murder, and all five were wrong. If someone could produce a sales receipt for the phantom parka, or a photograph of LM wearing it prior to 30 June, that would be strong evidence. The fact-free claim that the parka was disposed of in the log burner would be risible if the stakes were not so high. I can think of no other case in which a single photograph has been responsible for so much mischief.
Your analysis rests on the assumption that the pieces of evidence in a criminal case are necessarily independent. Regrettably, this is frequently not true.
-
I don't have any bias. I have nothing against anyone associated or involved with this case. I knew absolutely nothing about this case until the C5 doco. Not a thing (except that a young lad was convicted for it). My research has been gleaned from IB, documentaries, online forums and historical online newspaper articles. I'm merely an armchair detective with a half-decent educational & working background.
I disagree that 'rumour-mongering' got Luke convicted. A great deal was put into this complex case. It's obvious to me who did it, but I'll continue to ask questions if I have doubt about any aspect of it.
I am sorry, but I cannot leave one of your points unchallenged. In an earlier comment you wrote, "The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case." In other words, either they are blinded by loyalty or perhaps they are part of the innocence fraud movement. Let us see if this holds water. David Wilson could have offered any opinion on the case or none, but he was remarkably blunt. Are you claiming he benefitted financially in some way? Or one might offer the hypothesis that psychopathic, narcissistic LM bamboozled him, but consider this from Wikipedia's entry on Professor Wilson: "While at HMP Woodhill, Wilson helped design and managed the two units for the 12 most disruptive prisoners in the country. This experience brought him into contact with some of the most notorious offenders of the last 30 years, including Charles Bronson and Dennis Nilsen.[2][5]". I don't think that such an argument passes muster. How about you?
-
She used her real name on YT and FB (and she didn't, at the time, have any friends hidden). Good signs, if you ask me.
FB messenger, yes
I'll see if I still have it and send it to you.
She never said anything about the cctv other than it was defo shown in court when her wee sister was called as a witness to court. Interestingly, she mentioned that her sister was up at court on the same day as Kimberley Thomson. Now, what's interesting here is that there were 2 Kimberley Thomsons LM was romantically involved with (I haven't had time to investigate this other KT). One from Kenmore and the other, a model, from Whitburn (I think). I don't know which KT she was referring to (I'll see if I can contact her again).
I would certainly look at that type of evidence -- as I would with any and all evidence -- objectively and with an open mind. No one said LM left his house at 1740 apart from CM. The alibi was exposed as false, as per SM's testimony.
What was her name? Was it unusual enough to be able to find it easily on a Facebook search or did you simply contact everyone with the same name? Which video did she comment on? And the two Kimberley Thomson’s…you surely don’t believe that, do you? Who other than Nicholas has even claimed there was two KTs?
If someone had told you that they also saw Luke leaving the house that would be corroborating evidence surely?
-
What was her name? Was it unusual enough to be able to find it easily on a Facebook search or did you simply contact everyone with the same name? Which video did she comment on? And the two Kimberley Thomson’s…you surely don’t believe that, do you? Who other than Nicholas has even claimed there was two KTs?
If someone had told you that they also saw Luke leaving the house that would be corroborating evidence surely?
I can't remember her name. I think it was quite a rare surname and hence why it was easily traceable on FB. There are people out there who don't have multiple names/aliases and multiple accounts.
Think the video was premeditated patter's with SF as his guest (pp's first video with him).
It's entirely possible there were two KT's. I've still to research this.
Yes, it would be corroborating evidence. However, no other person did say they'd seen LM leaving his house at 1740. What's your point?
-
I can't remember her name. I think it was quite a rare surname and hence why it was easily traceable on FB. There are people out there who don't have multiple names/aliases and multiple accounts.
Think the video was premeditated patter's with SF as his guest (pp's first video with him).
It's entirely possible there were two KT's. I've still to research this.
Yes, it would be corroborating evidence. However, no other person did say they'd seen LM leaving his house at 1740. What's your point?
Of course it was a rare surname that you can’t remember. That goes without saying. Nothing’s ever straightforwardly provable, is it? Not to worry. Just have a wee look at your messages on messenger. The video where you saw the comment is only 11 months old so you won’t have to look too far back.
If you believe that it’s entirely possible that Luke had been involved at barely 15 with two girls of the same name could I interest you in a delightful London bridge?
-
Of course it was a rare surname that you can’t remember. That goes without saying. Nothing’s ever straightforwardly provable, is it? Not to worry. Just have a wee look at your messages on messenger. The video where you saw the comment is only 11 months old so you won’t have to look too far back.
If you believe that it’s entirely possible that Luke had been involved at barely 15 with two girls of the same name could I interest you in a delightful London bridge?
Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.
LM had numerous girlfriends when he was a teenager (all in public domain) and was displaying signs of sexual aggression from as young as 12 (as well as violence to other boys when he was 11). It's absolutely possible that he had been romantically involved with 2 girls with the same name -- especially if he dated them at different times/years. Why is that so hard to believe?
-
Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.
And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.
-
And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.
Are you not hiding behind an alias?
Among many other problems AB was shown a biased photo lineup. This information is known from Mr. Findlay's appeal, and no one has shown evidence that he was wrong. The Dean Gillispie and Thomas Sophonow cases are empirical evidence that biased photo lineups can and do generate wrongful convictions.
-
Why would I divulge her name publicly on these forums, anyway? You could be any headcase.
LM had numerous girlfriends when he was a teenager (all in public domain) and was displaying signs of sexual aggression from as young as 12 (as well as violence to other boys when he was 11). It's absolutely possible that he had been romantically involved with 2 girls with the same name -- especially if he dated them at different times/years. Why is that so hard to believe?
Would it be churlish of me to point out that it was you who stalked this individual across Facebook not me? Besides you said that she posted under her real name on YouTube, that’s how you found her wasn’t it, so she certainly doesn’t seem bothered about it being in the public domain.
To be honest I’m not particularly bothered what her name is but what she said on messenger to you. Those messages will be easy to retrieve after all it was less than a year ago. Blank out her name if you must but you have already said that you’ll post the messages when you find them. They should be simple to find on messenger.
Who are these numerous girlfriends? Can you name them? It’s interesting that neither Jodi in her diary or Kimberley Thomson on the stand talk about any signs of aggression from Luke towards them. In fact quite the opposite. The only individuals that describe him as such are those bought and paid for by the media. As to two Thomson’s you are simply being ridiculous.
-
And that is why, said poster is in no position to be provided with any evidence. A cowardly one at that, hides behind an alias, is demanding people's names, pathetic. But in all honestly, i would not worry about this particular recluse, still be here in 5 years time, going round in circles about Bryson.
One of the issues with FL and Chris's argument is the lack of applied universal law (Kant etc). While demanding the names of prosecution witnesses and girlfriends etc, but unable to provide the name of the Stocky Man alleged witness for one. SM's alibi claim is another example that defies logic, however the jury did not believe "he might have been there". There has not been a single word from SM about his brother since the trial and his main spokesperson is a woman who ran a shop that CM visited. It really seems an argument based on "winning" than anything else.
Quite extra-ordinary, but yes no doubt still arguing about the AB sighting in 5 years.
-
One of the issues with FL and Chris's argument is the lack of applied universal law (Kant etc). While demanding the names of prosecution witnesses and girlfriends etc, but unable to provide the name of the Stocky Man alleged witness for one. SM's alibi claim is another example that defies logic, however the jury did not believe "he might have been there". There has not been a single word from SM about his brother since the trial and his main spokesperson is a woman who ran a shop that CM visited. It really seems an argument based on "winning" than anything else.
Quite extra-ordinary, but yes no doubt still arguing about the AB sighting in 5 years.
I think Kant is a little above Rusty’s pay grade.
Let’s start by pointing out that MA’s alleged contact was not a prosecution witness but the sister of an alleged prosecution witness. She allegedly posted her full name on a YouTube video so her name is already in the public domain. The name of the witness who identified Stocky Man has never posted their name on YouTube or indeed anywhere else on the internet and that is how they protect their privacy.
I hope that helped.
-
I think Kant is a little above Rusty’s pay grade.
Let’s start by pointing out that MA’s alleged contact was not a prosecution witness but the sister of an alleged prosecution witness. She allegedly posted her full name on a YouTube video so her name is already in the public domain. The name of the witness who identified Stocky Man has never posted their name on YouTube or indeed anywhere else on the internet and that is how they protect their privacy.
I hope that helped.
Fair point, but surely if the Stocky Man witness was correct they would be all over Lean & Forbes videos fighting for justice as the killer walks amongst us? If it was me, I would want my views to be heard, just like SM doesn't want his to be heard and get on with his life despite his brother serving what looks like a full life term while he stays quiet.
Strange that SL never speaks about SM or allows anyone to mention him?
-
Fair point, but surely if the Stocky Man witness was correct they would be all over Lean & Forbes videos fighting for justice as the killer walks amongst us? If it was me, I would want my views to be heard, just like SM doesn't want his to be heard and get on with his life despite his brother serving what looks like a full life term while he stays quiet.
Strange that SL never speaks about SM or allows anyone to mention him?
Why? Have you seen how individuals have been treated for almost 20 years when even suggesting that one of the Jones family may have been involved in Jodi’s murder? No wonder the witness wishes to have their anonymity protected.
Have you ever thought that perhaps Dr Lean is merely protecting Shane’s privacy? Talking about Shane one minute you say that he doesn’t want his views to be heard the next he’s telling virtual strangers down the bing what he truly thinks. Which is it?
-
Why? Have you seen how individuals have been treated for almost 20 years when even suggesting that one of the Jones family may have been involved in Jodi’s murder? No wonder the witness wishes to have their anonymity protected.
Have you ever thought that perhaps Dr Lean is merely protecting Shane’s privacy? Talking about Shane one minute you say that he doesn’t want his views to be heard the next he’s telling virtual strangers down the bing what he truly thinks. Which is it?
1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.
2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?
You reference Lean as though she's Chomsky. Her book is based on LM's desire to shift the blame. It's not peer checked, referenced or source indexed. It's a rambling sham, no more, and prime reading for the bingo crowd and a few others.
-
Brevity is the order of the day for good ol' Mr Apples as he's not long finished a backshift.
Erm, let me see. Oh yes, a verbatim quote from SM (neither embellished, nor paraphrased) on the stand during the trial: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." It could not be any clearer.
The end.
-
1) Nope - which individuals have been badly treated? I do know people who have been physically harmed and intimidated by SF at SL's request though. Surely this Stocky Man witness would feel safe with convicted armed robber SF and numerous ex-cons around? Hardly shrinking violets.
2) Dr Lean? nope, she's a hypnotherapist at best whose main source is a convicted killer.
SM doesn't speak to virtual strangers. His views about his brother are well known in his peer group but keep clutching at straws. If you thought your brother was innocent of murder, would you. A) Speak up. B) Live a quiet life?
The Stocky Man witness gave a statement to the police identifying Jodi’s brother. That appears to be the end of their involvement in the case. Why would you think that they even knew Dr Lean and Scott Forbes?
TBH I’m not sure what Dr Lean being a hypnotherapist has to do with protecting Shane’s privacy. I do find your reasoning rather juvenile at times.
Not the old ‘I have inside knowledge’ shtick again. It was unprovable nonsense when you first posted it and it’s unprovable nonsense now.
-
Brevity is the order of the day for good ol' Mr Apples as he's not long finished a backshift.
Erm, let me see. Oh yes, a verbatim quote from SM (neither embellished, nor paraphrased) on the stand during the trial: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." It could not be any clearer.
The end.
You know what would have been clearer?
“I didn’t see my brother that day”
Unambiguous.
But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.
-
You know what would have been clearer?
“I didn’t see my brother that day”
Unambiguous.
But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.
Yes he did. Once you've finished taking down your Russell Brand posters pop along to the bing and he will tell you exactly what happened. It will save you years of anguish/ and or trolling.
-
Yes he did. Once you've finished taking down your Russell Brand posters pop along to the bing and he will tell you exactly what happened. It will save you years of anguish/ and or trolling.
No he didn’t and MA has just posted what he said under oath. Are you saying that he’s a liar?
-
Let me enunciate a couple of universal principles then apply them to two issues raised in recent comments. One, the testimony of a witness who is cross-examined is more probative than the statement of a possible witness who is not. Two, when interviewing witnesses, the police should treat witnesses without regard for whether they are the prosecution's witnesses or the defense's witnesses.
Applying principle one to the alleged sighting of stocky man, the importance of this incident is what it indicates about the police, more than what it might indicate about the identity killer. There is evidence that tunnel vision set in within the first hours of this investigation. "The number of identified wrongful convictions and false confessions is mounting, and in almost every wrongful conviction, the problem of tunnel vision is present (Findley, 2012; Findley & Scott, 2006; Martin, 2002). According to Martin (2002), tunnel vision distortion is particularly damaging in the investigative process. Investigator’s misconduct becomes prevalent in note and record-keeping, witness interviews, the interrogation of suspects, and the conduct of searches." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221095022. The examples of tunnel vision in this case are not limited to the apparent failure to investigate these witnesses in a timely and thorough manner.
When SM and CM were charged with perverting the course of justice, the only evidence that they had lied was the sincere but synthesized (using Professor Simon's terminology) statement of AB. Prior to that FLO Lindsay and other investigators kept saying that they could not accept SM's answers and put words into his mouth (p. 305 and p. 318 in Innocents Betrayed). BTW, if someone does not trust these passages, let him or her quote his testimony directly. SM's revised account (that he had stopped to help fix a car) was buttressed by his friend's account. In contrast none of the prosecution's witnesses were charged with perverting the course of justice, despite several who changed their account and at least one who did not come forward until long after he should have. Given this disparity in how the witnesses were treated, no wonder that SM prefers to keep a low profile.
EDT
Jenna Macfarlane reported, "He [Shane Mitchell] was then asked by defence QC Donald Findlay if there was any point in the evening where he could say he knew for a fact that Luke was not in the house.
Shane responded: 'I can't say that.'"
Based on this passage, I conclude that Shane failed to corroborate Luke's alibi, not that he contradicted it. As my previous comments explain in more detail, the way that the police questioned him is at least part of the reason for Shane's lack of recall.
-
You know what would have been clearer?
“I didn’t see my brother that day”
Unambiguous.
But he didn’t know if he hadn't seen his brother so didn’t say that.
Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.
And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........
-
Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.
And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........
“You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth”
Best to say nothing than to ridicule you MA.
-
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-special-reports/dpic-analysis-2019-exoneration-report-implicates-use-or-threat-of-death-penalty-in-19-wrongful-convictions
"Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood of a miscarriages of justice. As University of Denver professors Scott Phillips and Jamie Richardson describe it in their law review article, The Worst of the Worst: Heinous Crimes and Erroneous Evidence: “the ‘worst of the worst crimes,’ produce the ‘worst of the worst evidence.’”
The authors continued: "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences."
I wish we lived in a world free of unprofessional or worse conduct from the police or prosecution, but to believe that we actually do is naive.
-
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-special-reports/dpic-analysis-2019-exoneration-report-implicates-use-or-threat-of-death-penalty-in-19-wrongful-convictions
"Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood of a miscarriages of justice. As University of Denver professors Scott Phillips and Jamie Richardson describe it in their law review article, The Worst of the Worst: Heinous Crimes and Erroneous Evidence: “the ‘worst of the worst crimes,’ produce the ‘worst of the worst evidence.’”
The authors continued: "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences."
I wish we lived in a world free of unprofessional or worse conduct from the police or prosecution, but to believe that we actually do is naive.
A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.
-
A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.
What pieces of evidence convinces you that he did?
-
Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.
And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........
I couldn't have put that together better. Shane Mitchell's evidence sealed his brothers fate regardless of the fairytale stories and theories being espoused in the background by so-called experts. The fake alibi was blown apart and that really said it all.
The two ladies in the car saw Mitchell lurking at the end of the lane as he made his way back from the murder scene, across the main road and through the woods to his home. There was really never any doubt about the identification despite the obfuscation suggested by others.
-
I couldn't have put that together better. Shane Mitchell's evidence sealed his brothers fate regardless of the fairytale stories and theories being espoused in the background by so-called experts. The fake alibi was blown apart and that really said it all.
The two ladies in the car saw Mitchell lurking at the end of the lane as he made his way back from the murder scene, across the main road and through the woods to his home. There was really never any doubt about the identification despite the obfuscation suggested by others.
Yet you knew this early in the case yet you supported Luke. I have asked you what changed your mind several times but have yet to receive an answer.
-
John,
Let me summarize the FW testimony. The police told RW not to speak with LF, one of the few instances where they did the right thing regarding potential eyewitnesses. Against police instruction Ms. W contaminated Ms. W’s memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility has to be judged in light of her actions, and her act contaminated Ms. F's memory. Moreover, Ms. F was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further lowering the probative value of her testimony. On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable. Then there is the lack of agreement between their description of LM vs. the description of people who actually knew him and saw him in Newbattle. Furthermore, this was a sighting of a stranger from a car, hardly an ideal set of circumstances.
Now let us consider the interpretations of their testimony. If FW were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was. If they saw him elsewhere (meaning if the recollection of the jogger were correct), it would put Luke further from the path, shortening an already dubiously short timeline. The alleged sighting would be more exculpatory than inculpatory.
Over the course of several months I provided quotes and citations in the “Laughable eyewitness testimony” thread documenting correct versus incorrect procedures for potential eyewitnesses. These quotations cover more than just the FW testimony. Moreover, the Andrew Malkinson case illustrates the danger of convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony and puts an exclamation point to the ideas encapsulated in written guidelines. It is not surprising that false eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Discussions which sidestep the arguments made and the examples of people wrongfully convicted given are unserious, among other adjectives.
-
Let me first summarize what the police and prosecution did regarding SM. The FLO kept telling SM that she could not accept things that he said. They also arrested him for perverting the course of justice in a theatrical manner. The showed him crime scene photos (at least one other witness was shown photos). With the possible exception of the actions of the FLO, these incidents are agreed upon facts. Examining SM’s testimony without acknowledging all of the facts is myopic.
Now I would like to interpret these incidents. What the FLO did contradicts what the Canadian guidelines said: "The alibi witnesses should not be subjected to cross-examination or suggestions by the police that they are mistaken. The alibi witnesses should be treated with respect and courtesy. They should not be threatened or intimidated or influenced to change their position." In addition, Shane’s revised testimony comports with other witnesses and is corroborated with other information, if I am not mistaken.
Arresting an alibi witness is police intimidation. The lack of discussion about this as a problem that potentially extends to many other cases is a silence that shouts. Beyond the general issue of whether this charge should ever be made against a witness prior to the trial, the only evidence of supporting the charge in April of 2004 was AB’s recollection, which itself had changed over time.
Regarding Mr. Turnbull’s tactics, there was no legitimate reason to show the photos to SM, who was not in the search party. Professor Simon wrote, “The effects of anger were found also in studies that simulated legal decision making. One study found that presenting simulated jurors with gruesome photographs of a stabbed murder victim led to an arousal of negative emotions-including feeling anxious, anguished, disturbed, and shocked-which resulted in a doubling of the conviction rate.214 Similar findings were made in studies that contained presentations of severe brutality and mutilation.215 Importantly, in these studies, the issue in question was the identity of the perpetrator, which means that the heinousness of the act was entirely irrelevant and nondiagnostic to deciding the verdict.216” Therefore, there was an illegitimate reason to show the photographs. Yet Mr A claimed that this caused SM to testify truthfully; he also claimed that there was no intimidation. My mind was boggled when I read these statements.
-
A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.
Fewer people will be wrongfully convicted if guidelines are followed than if they are not followed. The Andrew Malkinson case is a good example.
-
His hair and fingernails were examined. The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers. There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken.
Were photographs ever taken of killer Luke Mitchell’s shins and shown to the jury?