Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 108626 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline KenMair

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #690 on: April 01, 2024, 01:39:10 AM »
Yet not one photograph of him wearing it.

Different era, not everyone had camera phones. I've owned dozens of garments and most have never been captured on camera. What was your point?

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #691 on: April 01, 2024, 03:50:53 AM »
I believe it was L&B police themselves who put the bleach down. Even SL alludes to this in the "Crime Scene Management" chapter of her book, IB. And the reason they did so was owed to the fact that the police and forensics were able to ascertain that the murder started at a certain point and finished at a certain point (ie, starting near behind the V and finishing 16.3 meters west behind the V).
Where within this area are the 5 liters of blood that Jodi lost?  You are assuming competency when none has been demonstrated.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 04:14:15 AM by Chris_Halkides »

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #692 on: April 01, 2024, 04:08:20 AM »

7. Craig Dobbie perjured himself in Court by claiming search warrants were issued only for Mitchell's house and his father's house. He lied - a warrant was issued to search a house in Woodburn also and a Parka was removed from that house which was owned by someone who lived there. Dobbie decided not to tell the Court the only Parka he had found didn't belong to Mitchell.
This makes at least the second time that Craig Dobbie spoke falsely in court.  He claimed not to know about identity parades for suspects, a point that Donald Findlay highlighted.  For these reasons among others, he is not a reliable source of information.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 04:13:20 AM by Chris_Halkides »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #693 on: April 01, 2024, 07:09:48 AM »
The "claim" is laughable. Whether it was behind her or not, what happened after that with the dozens of slashings - he just managed to get no blood on him? Her hands were tied, so we have this person who cut her to bits then ties her up but gets no blood on him? I mean seriously @)(++(*??
I think your use of a laughing emoji in this context is somewhat distasteful.   Is that the order of events then? Stabs her repeatedly, then ties her up?  Was she stabbed before or after her clothes were removed?   Did Mitchell’s defence present an alternative forensic expert to counter the claims made that the perpetrator need not necessarily be drenched in blood, if not why not?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #694 on: April 01, 2024, 07:14:11 AM »
Do you expect me to tell you who it was and the motive on here? You can't even name certain people on here or you get banned. What is far fetched? All of the above are FACTS, all of the above is TRUE, it's up to people to work out why there were so many liars involved including Craig Dobbie who lied in Court about the search warrants. You have to think outside the box with this case and one of the biggest ways to do it is look at what's obvious - that a multitude of people involved LIED in COURT including Craig Dobbie. If Mitchell did it, what is it that makes them all have to LIE about not knowing paths, not knowing what they were doing at the murder location, not knowing why they went straight to RD Path to search, changing branches rustling to strangling noises in Court?
If you’re outright calling people liars and accessories in this case then you’ve already breached the site’s libel rule imo, and yes it is massively far fetched, that numerous people including the victim’s family members and law enforcement all conspired to put an innocent boy in jail for 20 years to allow the real perp to go free.  It would certainly be unprecedented imo.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 08:38:46 AM by Venturi Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #695 on: April 01, 2024, 07:18:47 AM »
Do you honestly believe a 14 year old boy would do that? Do you know of any other murder cases where a 14 year old has done that? The person who did this was a complete maniac, probably suffering from delusions and paranoia. The FBI described it as a "lust killing" which could not be carried out by someone of Mitchell's age, you would need to read why that is, it's too long to explain.
It’s utterly absurd to say that a sexually active 14 year old drug user with a fascination with Satan and the occult would not be able to commit such a crime.  Did you not read about the teenagers who murdered Brianna Ghey and how they enacted their warped and depraved fantasies in real life?  I suppose that was a miscarriage of justice too as 14 year olds simply aren’t capable of such blood lust. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #696 on: April 01, 2024, 07:21:22 AM »
Bleaching is done by poachers/illegal hunters to avoid detection and confuse the authorities. The area where the animal is illegally killed is bleached, the blood cannot be found by dogs, so the place of death remains unknown once the dead animal is moved. The same method can be used to hide where a human was killed. No blood where Jodi was found - it doesn't take Columbo to work out if there's no blood the person didn't die there.
Right, thanks for repeating what you already said before but you failed to answer the question which was
“Why would the discovery of blood a short distance from where the body was found have been so incriminating towards the murderer that they felt compelled to return to the scene days later to bleach the area?“
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #697 on: April 01, 2024, 07:32:36 AM »
Those who give the" logical and plausible explanations" merely speculate about supposed sightings of Mitchell and how he managed to carry out this murder in 40 minutes and leave no trace. They never give credible answers to that and they never give credible explanations for the lies told by at least the 8 people mentioned in my other post, including DOBBIE who lied in Court about the search warrants.
In your opinion.  I’ve yet to hear a credible answer from you as to why if the moped boys were involved they could not have been assisting Mitchell instead of your preferred candidate for murderer, nor any other credible reason for why so many disparate people including family members, strangers, police etc would all conpire to put a poor  innocent child behind bars for 20 years in order to ensure that a ferocious and sadistic murderer be allowed to remain at large in their community.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #698 on: April 01, 2024, 04:02:43 PM »
Hi, my name is  ?, I would like to report on a missing 5 ltrs of blood. - Ok sir, please hold the line.

Sorry for the delay there sir, now can you tell me what this is in relation to? - A murder.
Why do you believe there was 5 litres of blood missing sir, were you involved in the murder? - No.

OK, let's cover some basic questions here.

Did the murder take place indoors? - No.
Did it take place upon solid non porous ground - No.
How large was the area of the attack, the determined crime scene? - Not sure, around 200ft sq ft perhaps?
Can you give me a full run down on soil type, vegetation and so forth - No.
Where was the crime scene determined - A woodland.
Is the woodland inhabited by any wildlife - Of course. 
Was the victim likely to have suffered blood loss prior to the area where the body had been left - Yes, massively so.
How do you mean sir? - There was evidence of blood loss over that large area, blood spray upon a wall, then the body had been moved away from the wall.
Was there any rainfall sir - Yes and several heavy bouts of it.
Was the ground boggy, any burns near by - Yes.

How do you think the blood got there if it was not the scene of crime, that no murder had taken place there?
Can I ask sir - Have you seen any reports from forensic officers? - No.
Have you seen any reports at all - No.
What makes you believe there is a missing 5ltrs of blood? - Someone seen photographs.
Ah, ok sir - So no reports, what do they say from these photographs? - That there was not enough blood pooled from where the victims body had been left.

But they said the body had been moved sir? - Yes, but but?

Ok, sir, so we have soil and vegetation, we have heavy rain fall, we have blood loss over a substantial area.

Injuries consistent with substantial blood loss prior to the blood upon the wall - Yes.

You have seen no reports and have no way of determining how much blood was lost prior to the arterial spray upon that wall. No idea because of soil type, vegetation, heavy rain fall, boggy ground with burns close by?

Did the photographers camera have some inbuilt device that was able to determine blood below soil? - No, of course not silly.
Where it may have been washed away to with heavy rainfall? - No, now stop being silly. 

Tell me sir, what do you imagine took place here? - Not really sure, but surely, surely, the victim was murdered elsewhere and body moved to that area.

Why sir? - Where did the blood come from if the victim was already dead? - No idea, but surely someone planted it!
Why sir? - I have no idea.
I mean, sir, who were these clever killers that could mimic a scene of crime, to the extent of spraying a wall with blood, where did they get the blood from sir, how did they manage this, for I assume it was the victims blood? - Well, no, not necessarily, because everything was botched up in the case.
Ah I see sir, in what way? - Well it could have been anybodies blood really.

Do you think you have a problem sir? - Oh my g*d, you're one of them aren't you?
Who sir? - One of the hundreds of people linked to this case who conspired to fit someone up.
Why sir? - Why what?
Why on earth would anyone have done the above, mimicked a crime scene, hiding a body somewhere, what possible reason would your killer/s have for doing so?
Tell me sir where is the crime scene, I presume one can all but drive right to it, have the ability to plank a body and set it all up? - Well no, not easily accessible at all, one of the coroners couldn't gain access.

Is it the only area of woodland for miles around, the closest to wherever you believe the murder took place? - No the whole area is surrounded by woodland.
Ah I see sir, so why in an area not easily accessible then - Dunno.
How did they get the body there - Dunno
How many people would it have taken - Dunno.

Why do you think the extensive forensic team got it wrong, failed to see a plank? - Well, you see, they were all in on it,
In on what sir? - In on the conspiracy to fit a child up for murder.
Ah, I see sir. Why? How does that work? - Because they work to a police narrative, in bias of the police.
Who does sir? - The forensic teams.
But why sir? When did this murder take place - 30th of June.
When did the first forensics arrive on the scene? - Morning of July 1st.

Ok, sir, can I ask, who is that is claiming it was not the scene of crime? - People saying the lad was fitted up.
Do you think they are pulling your leg sir? - Don't be daft, why on earth would they do that?
Well that's what I am trying to figure out here sir, I mean, you have hundreds of people in on a conspiracy to fit the lad up, why could a much smaller number not being doing exactly that? As in, conspiring to fool people into some far fetched alternate narrative?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #699 on: April 01, 2024, 04:43:41 PM »
Different era, not everyone had camera phones. I've owned dozens of garments and most have never been captured on camera. What was your point?

So you agree the concert photo doesn’t exist?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #700 on: April 01, 2024, 05:40:25 PM »
So you agree the concert photo doesn’t exist?
twisty twisty twisty
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #701 on: April 01, 2024, 08:23:43 PM »

Where within this area are the 5 liters of blood that Jodi lost?  You are assuming competency when none has been demonstrated.

The blood found on the wall near where Jodi's body lay was consistent with arterial spray, proving almost unequivocally that her throat was slit right there at that wall, and hence proving that almost certainly the murder took place there. That is common sense/Occam's razor, and so on. Why would someone abduct Jodi walking along Easthouses road, incapacitate her, bring her body to that inaccesible woodland strip and murder her there? Or, if they had murdered her elsewhere, bring her body to that woodland strip, slit her throat and mutilate her? These two scenarios, I would suggest, are absurd and illogical -- and far too risky.

5 litres of blood is but a mere assumpton. We don't know exactly how much blood Jodi lost or what remained in her body. I'm far from a medical expert, but I would say Jodi likely lost 2-3 litres of blood, the rest being retained in the body's blood vessels. Jodi's t-shirt was "extensively blood-stained" (quote from the 'Jodi and Forensics' chapter in IB) and it was suggested that she was stripped of all clothing at some point after the murder and then mutilations were carried out. I agree with this. I think LM carried out the murder between 1710 - 1735, LM strangled and subdued her for 10 mins, then he slit her throat near the wall (hence the initial arterial spray found), let her bleed out for 10 mins, stripped her naked at 1730, did the mutilations and left the locus at 1735 running or walking very fast, and headed west back home along the woodland strip. So, imo, the blood on that t-shirt, between 1710 -1730, soaked up litres of blood. Sandra, in the Jodi and Forensics chapter in her book, indicated that a 'remarkable' lack of smeared blood or spread blood adjacent the wounds was found (ie, on Jodi's chest) apart from the breast mutilation, and that 'apparantely' no pooled blood was found in the soil under where Jodi's body lay and no evidence it had seeped deeper into the ground where her body lay, either. The same apparantely applied to the soil where the arterial spray was found. Sandra, however, conceded that the rain could have washed the blood away, which of course is the likely explanation for the lack of blood, in addition to the Jodi's t-shirt soaking it up.

So, there you have it, Chris. About 2 or 3 litres of blood lost (the other 2 or 3 remained in the body/blood vessels), and Jodi's t-shirt soaked up the bulk of that and the rain did the rest to make it disappear.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #702 on: April 01, 2024, 08:32:25 PM »
I’m no expert either but I’m pretty sure that there would be no arterial spray from a cut throat on an already deceased body.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #703 on: April 01, 2024, 08:32:37 PM »
The blood found on the wall near where Jodi's body lay was consistent with arterial spray, proving almost unequivocally that her throat was slit right there at that wall, and hence proving that almost certainly the murder took place there. That is common sense/Occam's razor, and so on. Why would someone abduct Jodi walking along Easthouses road, incapacitate her, bring her body to that inaccesible woodland strip and murder her there? Or, if they had murdered her elsewhere, bring her body to that woodland strip, slit her throat and mutilate her? These two scenarios, I would suggest, are absurd and illogical -- and far too risky.

5 litres of blood is but a mere assumpton. We don't know exactly how much blood Jodi lost or what remained in her body. I'm far from a medical expert, but I would say Jodi likely lost 2-3 litres of blood, the rest being retained in the body's blood vessels. Jodi's t-shirt was "extensively blood-stained" (quote from the 'Jodi and Forensics' chapter in IB) and it was suggested that she was stripped of all clothing at some point after the murder and then mutilations were carried out. I agree with this. I think LM carried out the murder between 1710 - 1735, LM strangled and subdued her for 10 mins, then he slit her throat near the wall (hence the initial arterial spray found), let her bleed out for 10 mins, stripped her naked at 1730, did the mutilations and left the locus at 1735 running or walking very fast, and headed west back home along the woodland strip. So, imo, the blood on that t-shirt, between 1710 -1730, soaked up litres of blood. Sandra, in the Jodi and Forensics chapter in her book, indicated that a 'remarkable' lack of smeared blood or spread blood adjacent the wounds was found (ie, on Jodi's chest) apart from the breast mutilation, and that 'apparantely' no pooled blood was found in the soil under where Jodi's body lay and no evidence it had seeped deeper into the ground where her body lay, either. The same apparantely applied to the soil where the arterial spray was found. Sandra, however, conceded that the rain could have washed the blood away, which of course is the likely explanation for the lack of blood, in addition to the Jodi's t-shirt soaking it up.

So, there you have it, Chris. About 2 or 3 litres of blood lost (the other 2 or 3 remained in the body/blood vessels), and Jodi's t-shirt soaked up the bulk of that and the rain did the rest to make it disappear.

Not to mention, the locus is extremely inaccessible. I haven't been to the actual crime scene, but I don't think you can get close to it with a car --  another reason the murder smacks of someone local doing it and someone who knew the terrain intimately.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 08:42:16 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #704 on: April 01, 2024, 11:38:13 PM »
He certainly was spoken to, there was NO, he could not be spoken to, nothing at all under any mental health act/problems. Which in itself speaks volumes! The lie used to be no statements were taken, to then claiming to be reciting from them! The latest is there were many statements, but the chief enabler claims they were different looking from others ! - Ah, that damn conspiracy she feeds to the inept!

Reality, and again how to spot the BS. LW was excused on mental health grounds, she did not have to testify at court. The brother had many statements taken, none were used of his, why? Three people present in the house when the victim left, only two were needed. Her mother and naturally so for several reasons, AO's because they were using his timings, the CCTV and so forth. No need for the brothers presence, no need for evidence from his. For, if it were anything to do with mental health grounds, anything they needed would have been used, just like LW! - It really is that simple.

WW enough with the regurgitation of utter nonsense, from and again - Proven liars!

Proven liars?? Lol - it's fact that multiple people lied in this case including those who didn't remember what they were doing at the V. I've already posted 8 who lied already including Dobbie who stated in Court search warrants were only granted for Mitchell's house and his father's - another liar. Do you want me to re-post the list? I won't be, because you can never explain any of these lies, I know that already.