Misleading statements from the police or prosecution

[Chris_Halkides]

I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press.  From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.

(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”

There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.

(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”

This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”

(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”

This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.

(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”

One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.

(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”

If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically. 

[Nicholas]

I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press.  From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.

(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”

There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.

(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”

This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”

(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”

This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.

(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”

One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.

(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”

If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.

You state,

‘I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’

which ones are which in your above post - can you be more specific

And is there a reason you’ve not given a source for any of what you’ve posted

[Nicholas]

I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press.  From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.

(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”

There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.

(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”

This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”

(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”

This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.

(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”

One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.

(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”

If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.

How can you be sure what you’ve quoted above is what was actually said ?

[Nicholas]

(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”

This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.

This makes no sense

The prosecution case was Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket prior to the murder

‘One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.

As did his former high school teacher, who had reason to remember it because he joked that Luke resembled a "hooded monk" walking around school with it on. This teacher retired that summer so could only have seen Luke wearing it before the murder.

[faithlilly]

I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution, especially via the press.  From the story “The clues that snared a murderer” in The Scotsman 21 January 2005. The quotes are from detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie.

(1) “…the sighting by the witness Andrina Bryson - who claimed she had seen Luke with a girl standing at the top of the Roan’s Dyke path on the day she was killed…”

There are at least two problems with this, one being that she did not exactly claim this and the other is that she changed the time of the sighting.

(2) “’The family were consistent in their evidence.’”

This is simply untrue; there were changes in testimony over time, for example. For example, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”

(3) “’We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket.’”

This statement is willfully misleading. The question is not whether or not he had a parka, it is when he had one.

(4) “’When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer.’”

One, no one has provided any evidence that Luke was included as a donor (see my comments in another thread. Two, it could not be determined, according to what has been said, whether or not the other profiles belonged to males. Three, the donor of condom profile was not identified until after this story was written.

(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”

If this statement were true, it would be a lamentable state of affairs. Yet of the five points I have listed above, the story only addressed this one, and it did so in an incomplete way. To take just one example, I can find no evidence that anyone addressed the time of death forensically.

I have been lead to believe that a consultant was brought in by the police to determine that if Luke was guilty when the murder could have occurred.

Rather like putting the cart before the horses.

Of course we also have Leonard Kelly who, allegedly, heard a strangling sound as he rode his bike past the v in the wall at around 5.15. On closer examination, as with much in this case, his first statement was rather different and there was talk of him being pressured to make the change.

[Brietta]

This makes no sense

The prosecution case was Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket prior to the murder

‘One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.

What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around.  Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.

When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.

Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.

[Nicholas]

What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around.  Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.

When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.

Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.

 

[Nicholas]

Also - didn’t he initially tell police he saw ‘legs’ which looked like they were from a tailors dummy as opposed to what he’s now claiming to have first seen

‘He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’

[Nicholas]

What I find interesting from following a link to the quotation in your post https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ is that Mitchell was able to describe the murdered Jodi's clothing which had been stripped from her body and was lying scattered around.  Even down to the red scrunchie she was wearing in her hair although as she was lying on her back and the bauble at the base of her neck could not have been seen..
Snip
A search of the path indicated that Jodi had gone through the break in the wall with someone she knew as there was no indication of a struggle and Mitchell knew the area well.

When questioned he mentioned seeing a distinctive hair fastening which had not been readily visible and was able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark. Also his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school as he claimed.

Mitchell claimed not to have met up with Jodie ~ yet he knew exactly what she had been wearing when she was murdered ~ only her killer could have known that.

Luke Mitchell police statement

"I could see blood on her neck... she was naked”

"I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi”

[Nicholas]

Also - didn’t he initially tell police he saw ‘legs’ which looked like they were from a tailors dummy as opposed to what he’s now claiming to have first seen

‘He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’

‘he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’

Yet in the channel 5 show Luke Mitchell makes no mention of taking ‘a step forward’

[Nicholas]

‘he took a step forward and registered that it was a body’

Yet in the channel 5 show Luke Mitchell makes no mention of taking ‘a step forward’

Did he read from a script for the channel 5 show does anyone know?

Have his recorded prison phone calls been analysed?

[Nicholas]

I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths

and lies (or Freudian slips)

Luke Mitchell

 "I could see blood on her neck... she was naked"



“She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister”

[Chris_Halkides]

You state,

‘I wish to examine falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’

which ones are which in your above post - can you be more specific

And is there a reason you’ve not given a source for any of what you’ve posted

I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date.  The author is listed as "The Newsroom." https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415. I listed five statements that Mr. Dobbie made.  I would classify #3 and probably #1 as half-truths, and #5 as either false or a stunning indictment of the crime scene management that Mr. Dobbie has seen (YMMV).  I would put #2 and #4 into the category of being false.  Some of these topics could become the subjects of individual threads if they don't have threads already.  My primary point in beginning this thread is to show that some of the information that the public has been given is either wrong or misleading.  My secondary point is that much of the press has been unskeptical in its reporting.

[Nicholas]

I gave the citation to an article in the Scotsman in my opening post, with the title and date.  The author is listed as "The Newsroom." https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415.

So you did - my mistake

[Brietta]

(5) “Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the ‘finest I have ever seen.’”
 

But today detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie launched a vigorous defence of their detective work.

Mr Dobbie described the crime scene as one of the "finest I have ever seen".

He said that every care was taken to recover every single piece of evidence that was there.

And he defended claims made in court that the scene was not well managed.

Mr Dobbie admitted that the case against Luke Mitchell was purely circumstantial, but insisted Lothian and Borders Police Force had done a great job.

"We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible.
"I am open to suggestions as to where we could have made improvements in the investigation, but I can’t think of anything obvious."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415


It is quite often a bit of a task to cherry pick the areas of a mixture of quotes and a journalist's paraphrasing to arrive at an unbiased conclusion.

For example Dobbie said "finest I have ever seen".  But I really would have preferred to have seen the rest of that sentence which would have allowed me to make up my own mind about what was actually said.

The salient point you are making regarding 'falsehoods or half-truths coming from the police or prosecution’ has been addressed elsewhere in the full article which paints a different picture from the one you have chosen to portray is without a doubt - "We have been scrutinised by one of the finest defence lawyers in the country, but not one point has been inadmissible."
So the police actually did manage to make a case which stood up in court to close scrutiny.  Which is very probably the reason that not one of Mitchell and his supporters attempts to overturn it have themselves stood up to scrutiny.