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: Parky41 on October 03, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 50/100 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.
Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place.
But those witnesses, rather no witnesses to this youth at the entrance of that estate or up to Barondale cottages from 5.30 until 5.55pm. Yet two witnesses seeing him at 5.40 near to the entrance of that path, and of course those other two witnesses seeing him at that path entrance to the woods. Wearing his very distinct blouson jacket. Where we know it takes approx 5mins to walk from that woodland entrance to the estate entrance, where he was seen by those boys on the cycles, touching 6pm. Where it could not be clearer. That the initial time for leaving home was to distance himself from those sightings, at places he did not want to be seen. But the timing of those calls, and his claims only highlighted those lies more - as there were people who had arrived home into the estate, coming from the Eskbank side of Newbattle Road. None of them nor his brother, or anyone else saw him at the places he claimed to be.
And most definitely not enough time to be cleaned up properly but he needed to be seen, and then we have that 15-20mins max. Where he placed himself exactly where he claimed to be always. The entrance of that estate up to Barondale cottages. Then nothing until he was in the boys company in those Abbey grounds. Where it shows clearly how easily noticed, on a stretch of road with little pedestrians. Several times in 20mins. Once by people from that estate who knew him.
So never that there were two youths the same, or of only catching sight of one of them - Not just by one person but four. Near to the entrance of RDP but no where else on that stretch of approx 550 yards. From 5.30 until 5.55pm - Then touching 6pm, up to 20mins saw readily, then nothing at all.
And we know that contrary to these claims of Jodi not being allowed out that evening, the evidence was that only LM knew she was getting out earlier than could have been anticipated, from any arrangement made from school that day. She had been on punishment which was lifted entirely upon her arrival home from school. She only contacted LM and she left home just short of 5pm to meet with him. That if it were him and not his brother in the house at 4.25pm, there was absolutely nothing that placed him home from this point. That he did not have to wait on those exchange of texts, simply been out and about, on his way even to her house. To wait until those chores, he thought she had to do, were over with.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
8((()*/
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
I’m impressed if you’re impressed Mr Apples but as you like asking questions could you please ask Parky why he said in times past that Luke wasn’t seen between 18.15 and 19.00 when he met DH yet on this very forum stated Luke was not seen between 18.15 and 19.30 when he met DH because I’ve yet to receive an answer. Could it be because 75 minutes seems more incriminating than 45? Oh while you’re at it ask him why the youth seen by AB is now beckoning to the female youth when recently he said that AB’s attention had been attracted to the couple because they were arguing.
The devil is in the detail you see and, unfortunately for Parky, I check the detail because, unlike yourself, I want a fair appraisal of the evidence not just someone to give me information to further bolster n opinion already formed.
And FAO Parky. The more your disinformation campaign is revealed the longer your posts become. Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
I wonder if when Luke made the first call to Jodi's landline he heard someone close by and didn't want to be heard so still with Jodi's body? I read the reason the officer during the reconstruction wore her hair down deliberately because Jodi's hair had been tied so anyonee else going forward claiming to have seen Jodi may mention that. AB said the female's hair was tied. I believe AB saw Jodi and LM.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.
-
Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.
Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.
A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.
We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.
So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:
Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
-
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.
-
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.
It is possibly is a surprise. But it is very possible, though. I think you are being kind on your 2/5 minutes. It is only 250 yards, from this woodland to front door. IMO he could have done this in less than a minute with a brisk walk. Being exposed for a minute max, without being seen, is very possible. It was tea-time, people more likely in the back side of their houses in the kitchen. 7/8 house to pass, A lot of those houses also have brushes/trees covering any decent view to the main street. The opposite side of the street, had an 8-foot fence covering any decent view from the first floor of their houses.
-
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.
What absolute nonsense. The youth F and W saw was standing nonchalantly, leaning on a gate, looking like he had all the time in the world. He looked neither rattled nor out of breath…just a little bored. He didn’t try to hide his face and wouldn’t that parka hood he was allegedly wearing have been handy at that point to obscure his features? Two seconds more and he would have been totally obscured by the trees beyond the gate yet not one step further did he take, rejecting self preservation for a bit of a rest. Is that really believable? Would you act in that way, at that time?
What is notable is that ‘deer in the headlight’ was not seen by one other member of the public darting across that road which lead to the refuge of the woodland. That busy road, that peak time traffic…how difficult must it have been to dart between those cars, how conspicuous must anyone trying to cross that road at that time have been? Yet not one member of the public came forward who actually saw a boy like Luke darting between those cars…not one.
Of course there is a more coherent narrative and one that possibly fits what is known better. The jogger who put herself much further up the Newbattle road, towards the Abbey, than F and W claimed holds the key. They saw the youth and then a little further up the jogger…which would have put the youth at exactly the place Luke claimed at exactly the time he claimed. Of course there was also the witness who offered to provide a statement that RW had told people before her first statement that the youth that she had seen had been ‘at the entrance to the Abbey’ which ties in with not only other witness statements but also the position of the jogger.
A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.
We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.
So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:
Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
-
I refer you to a very telling quote from one of the ladies’ statements: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal and unambiguous that it was him once she saw his photograph in the newspaper. She effectively positively identified him; she was almost incredulous when she saw that picture. Very incriminating (and then the uneasiness and alarm that washes over you when you read and consider the rest of the circumstantial evidence that was led). Try as you might to deflect and nit-pick, FL, but crux of the matter here is that boy was acting odd, whichever way you slice it; simultaneously trying to act nonchalantly and also trying to mask his panic and guilt; a difficult task which evidently caught him out (not making eye contact, looking angry — it all made him look peculiar and the ladies’ attention was drawn to it like a magnet). As regards ‘dodging cars’ and looking ‘conspicuous’, well, as busy a road as it might’ve been, I don’t think it was that busy; a steady stream of traffic, sure, but not the ‘whacky races’ that you are trying to portray. Providence did not work in LM’s favour on the N’battle rd that day (and, let’s face it, the chances of him not being spotted on N’battle rd were slim at that time of day, though not impossible or highly unlikely). As I said, he must have been cussing F&W under his breath. The Scottish executive employee — who spotted him with the bomber jacket on at just after 1800 on N’battle rd — also noted his strange behaviour. The not making eye contact and looking suspicious as she slowed down to get a look at this. So he’d obviously changed the jacket by the time of her sighting, but still he was on tenterhooks. The guilt was still evident no matter how hard this drug-fuelled boy tried to disguise it; murder is hard work, after all.
So, yeah, from AB’s sighting, the beginning of their dispute witnessed by her at five to five, then it, presumably, escalating, until it reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall and heard by Leonard Kelly. The subsequent phone calls to the Joneses’ landline at 1738 (the setting of the alibi, just after he’d killed and mutilated her) and then, very likely, he proceeded down that stretch of woodland west until he emerged on to the N’battle rd, crossed the road to that wooden gate where, unlucky for him, he was spotted by F&W at 1745. Admittedly, there were flaws in this investigation, but, not to the extent where you can arrive at any other conclusion than guilty, imo. Logic tells you that Luke is guilty, imo.
-
Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there he time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
Thanks
-
It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.
Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place.
I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!
-
I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
-
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity, at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.
-
I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity, at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.
Now I'm thinking of the people who defend him. The people who have manipulated, lied, accused others, veiled or not, encouraged others to bully by their silence and all of the people whose lifes have been destroyed along the path of the campaign trail for supposed justice. What about their justice? So I think this is not about justice. It can't be because none of it is just. This is about something else IMO. Shame on them.
-
I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was it checked out and able to be innocently explained?
-
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
Parky, sometimes I really don't understand. Good days/bad
days. Some days I don't get it and some days I do. Today, I get it. Thanks for your replies and everyone who has replied to me and everyone else too. 8((()*/
-
I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was it checked out and able to be innocently explained?
Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.
For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.
If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:
That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.
Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.
Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.
Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.
Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.
MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.
"Neither description matches Luke or the descriptions given by Andrina Bryson, who described an older male with thick, messy, sandy brown hair, sticking up in a clump at the back" As late as August the 6th, Ms Fleming and Mrs Welsh were agreed that this youth had dark hair - it was a bright, sunny evening around 6pm on June the 30th, so the descriptions of dark hair can not be explained away by bad light"
A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.
Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:
LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it. Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.
Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.
The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.
So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.
-
“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”
Like 380 pages
-
“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”
Indeed.
Just look at the preceding post.
-
There you go, Parky - you've just been accused of being dishonest based on the length of your posts!
I would imagine directly accusing another forum member of being dishonest is probably a breach of the rules on most forums.
How many words has Dr Lean written on this case, btw? Using this kind of logic, Dr Lean must be extremely dishonest.
-
Easy words, rather empty however as per. The wonderful thing about psychology is that infinity behind reasoning of actions. Nothing bog standard. That approach used, the use of language for manipulation and deception however is not so easy to hide behind where lies are concerned.
Good to know however Faith has been studying myself to further her knowledge on the case, a compliment indeed?! You will hopefully have found some of the answers you seek, one being of course the reason behind the length of my posts. Mentioned on more than one occasion by myself over time. Very much to do with psychology. Happy researching now.
This 380 pages of using that psychological approach of self interest of others from the police up/down, whichever way one wishes to be led at any point. CB and that advice. When every legal avenue, loophole included has been exhausted then swaying public opinion is the way to go. Show the public that other people involved in the case may have been deceptive through self interest of their own. We have this book of large text where the majority of it is that, about these others. When of course there should be page upon page first and foremost of Mitchells innocence, most of which should be coming from himself. There is of course nothing to lean on here, for there is nothing to use. And it is in these areas, those untruths tumble over themselves repeatedly.
Pages upon pages of waffle around these others, phones, aunts, lasagne, what others were doing in the days before that murder (clearly not investigated then??). Then we go into those areas of actually discussing some of the finer points that are evidence, and it is a mess of contradictions.
F&W? - In short, cut that multitude of waffle and we have. The authors statement that these two witnesses were blatantly and heavily manipulated and influenced by the police. We can skip the areas of attempting to apply intellect when talking of "police speak". Influenced so much that the author claims with her own attempts at being analytical, that the person they described was nothing like Luke Mitchell. Her words. So this heavy influence saw two people describing someone that was nothing like Mitchell. It gets better, for she introduces the jogger (as Faith does). Claims, that if they saw both almost together then that sighting was further down and not at the gate. OK, so she then states, that it is exactly everything like Mitchell and at a place he always claimed to be! That is was in fact him they saw. Then as Faith does again, claims they had a witness whom was willing to put a statement into the SCCRC (why did they not then?). That F&W actually may have saw this person at the Abbey entrance, again where LM claimed he was?
So we have this rewriting again of the evidence that tangled web of contradictory deception - LM did not claim to be at the Abbey entrance at all until much later, just prior to going in to meet with those boys. F&W always stated of this gate, of the youth at a standstill. LM was as he claimed (eventually), sitting on a wall, not standing still against anything. And this jogger, whilst the author leaves out most of her route has them coming out of that estate, directly past where LM claimed he was sitting and did not see him, saw no one. Neither of course did his brother. - so in the authors own words, what she actually says "makes no sense" - aimed at this OTT attempt of casting doubt, being so caught up in it, that they do not even realise themselves, their own blatant contradictions. Which when being economical with the truth is often the case, they simply lose track of that clear deception?
So there you have a much shorter version of the pages of large text of F&W in that book. That is exactly what is being stated, condensed down. Where I took out a small excerpt in my previous post to highlight how easily and wilfully IMO, someone can have no problem in misleading the reader. Of that area being under the shade of trees, and of course the weather. Where other than the time of year, there is nothing to back up these claims of blazing sunshine! That even with the sunshine, people not wearing heavier outer garments, there is still that shade of those trees! And we can simply switch this to that nonsense of seeing him where he stated to be, out of the shade of those trees at the entrance of his estate - it is a mess.
As we have with the search trio, when you get the most avid supported of innocence, telling the reader/member "40yards, 20ft, parallel, no one cares" - Telling people to pay no heed in the slightest to the evidence, Mitchell himself gave. Of course we know why, for it is by his very own evidence suspicion fell upon him, remained there. He just lied and kept on lying. And in that very same fashion of his original defence not putting him on the stand, we have those defending him wanting his evidence left aside, not to be noticed. And as the author aptly describes, simply "air brushed over" That "half a Mars bar situ" repeatedly?
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
A little word play nothing more. Alluding to an attack on another person where the author simplifies it. Stating that all he did was launch half a Mars bar at the person. That in general all and everything of Mitchell is played down in the exact same fashion, brushed over and simplified. Where it becomes ludicrous pushing out that he was picked upon, that there was nothing at all to warrant why suspicion fell upon him. Where we have this repetition by those who take on board the contents of the book, and make statements such as 'wafer thin case, tunnel vision' and so forth. Leaving aside that clear evidence from Mitchell himself, air brushing him over. That staunch refusal to admit to anything at all.
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.
Just a thought.
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
What he did not have to do was be at home from that call at 4.25pm. He was not making dinner for the family and without doubt had already planned to meet with Jodi that evening. They spent every day/evening together, even when this girl had been fully grounded, he was allowed to visit with her at home. Outwith of course those weekends he may have been at his fathers.
Again what was clearly proven was that of time. He had up to 30mins to be in Easthouse's and no one knows exactly where LM was when Jodi texted him. He most certainly did not have to wait until the exchange of that last text. (as the author infers, first text simply could be 'I'm off my punishment, meet you about 5?') Obviously heading to that place of meeting once she had let him know that her punishment was lifted, getting out earlier than whatever time had been previously arranged from school.
Of going home and we look at what was needed. That complete change, of putting story/alibi into place with help. And we look at time - Around 60mins minimum from around 5.40 then from around 6.15pm. That realism that he was mere minutes from his house at any point on that road/woods from those sightings.
Interestingly and telling of course is the author speaking for him, on behalf of him, when she claims the call to his mother coming on 7pm, asking if Jodi had been to the house yet? Nearly 90mins after claiming he left home. (eventually) Claiming to be on this stretch of road between two points of around 50yards. Not at the Abbey entrance before this yet she easily inserts "he may have popped into the Abbey entrance for a smoke and out again to phone his mum, thus may have missed Jodi?" Those grey areas outwith one's comfort zone where the answer opens up other cans of worms - The first of course, those year long claims that LM was not smoking cannabis, thus could not have been the person Jodi had a smoke with. Coming out with excuses, willfully and easily to answer that stark reality that Jodi simply could not have gotten past him.
Reality of course that the call was not about asking his mother if Jodi had been to the door, but of course around whatever aid she she may have gave him in this cover up? That this lad would not have been phoning his mother about Jodi, but would naturally be contacting Jodi's home to see where she was. That a parent would be advising their offspring to make sure all was ok? Not simply shrugging their shoulders along with him. (claimed)
Therefore this going home over the evening, he certainly had time and he needed that change of clothing. He needed that alibi set in place and help with disposal? There are no witnesses to his whereabouts for expansive amounts of time. Not only this 60mins but of course not actually arriving home until 10pm and not just after 9pm as he claimed.
This dark foot wear where one is being led along the lines of black trainers? - black boots, army type boots (cadets). Again the author opens up these claims of MB, AB's brother in law, that he was saying to people that she had seen someone in army type clothing! That green khaki coat, German badge and black boots? And of course CM's mockery of burning big boots in a small burner? - this open burner with removable base, a fire pit that did not have to be contained within that brick surround? It is not at all surprising that nothing was found some 4 days later.
A lad who was forensically aware above all else would not have two coats on, that trace/transfer contamination. But above all, what this lad did not have was the luxury of copious amounts of time on his side. Those missing areas with no sightings are all the time he had, time he desperately needed. He was the only person to be with this girl and that needed covered for. As did that knowledge of no doubt knowing he had been seen.
And from here we can step into that concocted story, that alibi from minutes after 5pm until around 5.45pm. Of having him cooking prior to his mothers arrival and not leaving until after the F&W sighting. (handed this over on a plate, instantly, the exact times needed, only the murderer could have known for) Crumbled when that call he cut off from at 5.32 had actually been enough to be logged. The CCTV footage of his mother not arriving home until at least 5.15pm - and of course the complete shambles around SM.
Whilst many, and no doubt an avenue looked at by the police and prosecution of the possibility of this murder having an element of premeditation around it. That relevant ease (outwith the time), of managing to change and have himself seen in that very short period of time. Changed from one coat to another, dark footwear to distinctive lighter coloured snow boarding boots? This lad, as stated on the whole had every ability to think on his feet. To be calm and collective at all times.
Painting this picture (as his original defence attempted), of someone who clearly appeared unfazed, that a murder would not be acting in this manner - then one assumes all the Jury had to do repeatedly was look directly at him. Completely unfazed at all times. And not oddly at all has there ever been, not once any proof of this lad being heavily medicated. Not it in his interviews, not throughout that trial - nothing.
And I agree with Faith - looking at exactly what was proven, applying those times correctly, letting people see the finer details over the obtuse fallacy of reasoning applied. Not leaving out Mitchells own evidence. - and it is the biggest give away of all, having to leave out Mitchell where it really matters.
-
Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.
Just a thought.
Speculation is synonomous with message forums; it’s inevitable, and interesting. Besides, this was an entirely citcumstantial case, so speculation was, and is, unavoidable. As I’ve indicated many times now, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. There, I deigned to respond.
-
Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.
For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.
If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:
That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.
Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.
Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.
Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.
Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.
MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.
A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.
Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:
LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it. Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.
Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.
The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.
So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.
Thanks again for your input, Parky. Btw, what about the sighting of the bike that looked similar to LM’s that day? What time was this at? Did your buddy who was at the trial tell you about this? Do you think LM cycled to meet Jodi? Do you know for a fact that the scream had nothing about Jodi’s death? Was it raised in court?
It’s interesting that DF never allowed LM to take the stand. As articulate and bright as this 14-year-old at the time was, this might’ve just been out of his depth. Or, as other people have mentioned, this seemingly detatched and impervious boy might’ve incriminated himself further with his deameanour, body language and attitude. Would be interesting to know what others think about DF not putting LM on the stand.
-
Speculation is synonomous with message forums; it’s inevitable, and interesting. Besides, this was an entirely citcumstantial case, so speculation was, and is, unavoidable. As I’ve indicated many times now, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. There, I deigned to respond.
I agree…the case as presented to the jury was, if not overwhelming, certainly compelling. Overwhelming would have resulted in a unanimous verdict, of course that’s not what we got.
I do wonder what would have happened if the media had not been given free reign with the police feeding them information or if identity parades had been carried out in the proper manner or if pressure hadn’t been exerted on Shane Mitchell or if Andrina Bryson had stuck to her original statement or indeed if the searchers had stuck to theirs and so many, many more anomalies in the conduct of this case that, if known by the jury, could have without a doubt brought back a very different verdict.
-
I agree…the case as presented to the jury was, if not overwhelming, certainly compelling. Overwhelming would have resulted in a unanimous verdict, of course that’s not what we got.
I do wonder what would have happened if the media had not been given free reign with the police feeding them information or if identity parades had been carried out in the proper manner or if pressure hadn’t been exerted on Shane Mitchell or if Andrina Bryson had stuck to her original statement or indeed if the searchers had stuck to theirs and so many, many more anomalies in the conduct of this case that, if known by the jury, could have without a doubt brought back a very different verdict.
I’m sitting here in company having a few drinks, but I’ll give this a bash. This is one of those unique cases where, simultaneously, a miscarriage of justice likely had taken place, but where the defendent is still guilty. Come on, Faith, admit it — you think he’s guilty. Deep down, you think he is — regardless of the flaws in the investigation. The police had to employ those seemingly unorthodox tactics in order to go ‘to-to-toe’ with an underhand, devious and intelligent teenager — the same teenager that needed no intervention from social workers. The identity parades would’ve, imo, resulted in the same outcome — i.e., “There’s the guy with the clumps sticking up at the back! That’s him. There he is!” Maybe not, though. The problem with identity parades, in this case, is that LM was still developing and going through puberty; he might’ve been unrecognisible by the time those ID parades came around. There’s a reason why statement changes are permissible in Scottish Law: people are initially affected by stress and trauma, and not all first accounts are the most accurate. Many, many more anomalies? Why not list ‘em, instead of glib generalisations? It sounded good, eh, Faith? In summation: the police may not have banked on Luke being Luke, but he and his family sure as hell didn’t bank on the police being the police; they were one step ahead. And thank god for that!!
Ps: Would you trust Luke Mitchell around your children, nephews and nieces? I unequivocally wouldn’t!
-
I’m sitting here in company having a few drinks, but I’ll give this a bash. This is one of those unique cases where, simultaneously, a miscarriage of justice likely had taken place, but where the defendent is still guilty. Come on, Faith, admit it — you think he’s guilty. Deep down, you think he is — regardless of the flaws in the investigation. The police had to employ those seemingly unorthodox tactics in order to go ‘to-to-toe’ with an underhand, devious and intelligent teenager — the same teenager that needed no intervention from social workers. The identity parades would’ve, imo, resulted in the same outcome — i.e., “There’s the guy with the clumps sticking up at the back! That’s him. There he is!” Maybe not, though. The problem with identity parades, in this case, is that LM was still developing and going through puberty; he might’ve been unrecognisible by the time those ID parades came around. There’s a reason why statement changes are permissible in Scottish Law: people are initially affected by stress and trauma, and not all first accounts are the most accurate. Many, many more anomalies? Why not list ‘em, instead of glib generalisations? It sounded good, eh, Faith? In summation: the police may not have banked on Luke being Luke, but he and his family sure as hell didn’t bank on the police being the police; they were one step ahead. And thank god for that!!
Ps: Would you trust Luke Mitchell around your children, nephews and nieces? I unequivocally wouldn’t!
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
-
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
-
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
She would and she does
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
IMO, wouldn't have mattered what was thrown. The only time I have heard of half a bar of Mars being thrown was by SL on a YouTube video. If it was mentioned in court, I haven't read it. Only half a Mars Bar, mind? Not a whole one.
-
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
Luke Mitchell had a parka. He changed his jacket. If not, why was Kane's parka so important? Kane didn't have a bomber jacket as far as I'm aware but he did have a parka. Had Kane had a bomber jacket we would all have known a long time ago. One boy, two jackets.
-
The parts I’ve highlighted in bold are what interest me. Certainly not enough to sway my opinion to innocent, but Bryson’s words here make me feel uneasy. She honestly initially thought LM was in his early 20s?? And the boy and girl she saw didn’t look like they were coming to meet?? Yikes!
The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed.
Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen.
Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path.
She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men.
She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.'
The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record.
Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen.'
Asked whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: 'I don't know.' Cross-examined by Mr Findlay, Mrs Bryson said when she saw the two people at the path entrance, the male had his arms at his side with his palms facing out towards the female.
She continued: 'It looked very strange. They didn't seem to be coming to meet.
'The girl was stopped and she was looking and the other person stopped and was looking. I just wondered, 'What's happening there'.'
Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.
Mitchell denies murdering Jodi by striking her with a knife or similar instrument.
He has lodged defences of alibi and incrimination to the murder allegation.
Mitchell also denies carrying a knife or knives and supplying cannabis.The trial continues.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
-
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in EasthoTuse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
Parky41, if you are still out there, I'd be grateful if you could tell me where you heard about AB & LF & RW mentioning the German army badge on LM's jacket. I've probably read every single online news article there is in counction with this case, read all replies on various forums that discuss this case, read SL's IB, and yet I've never, not once, read a single thing about any of those 3 women mentioning the German army badge on LM's parka jacket. I know they all testified about seeing LM in a longish khaki, olive green parka type jacket (a jacket that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that he had owned before 30.06.03), but I've never read a single solitary thing about any witness referencing this badge. Anyone else on the forums have a cite for this?
-
Parky41, if you are still out there, I'd be grateful if you could tell me where you heard about AB & LF & RW mentioning the German army badge on LM's jacket. I've probably read every single online news article there is in counction with this case, read all replies on various forums that discuss this case, read SL's IB, and yet I've never, not once, read a single thing about any of those 3 women mentioning the German army badge on LM's parka jacket. I know they all testified about seeing LM in a longish khaki, olive green parka type jacket (a jacket that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that he had owned before 30.06.03), but I've never read a single solitary thing about any witness referencing this badge. Anyone else on the forums have a cite for this?
Well that of course is the never ending problem with the limitation of what can be sourced. - Very much why certain people have attempted to monopolise the case, manipulate around what they know is limited. The warning of those fearing the truth, the demand for cites and so forth.
Many people testified and many more gave statements around the Germany style khaki green army type jacket. I will draw your attention to something else here. The author makes inference of the police simply making up the statements around this, not true at all. Where of course we are left with the limits of what she has had access to, the manipulation around all else. Of what the defence may have retained to do with proceedings of witnesses at court.
It is mid-June 2003 and there is a 'gig' taken place in Edinburgh, a band by the name of "Ramage Inc" were playing. Many people attended this and many did give statements, and yes at court also. Most not used of course, simply no need. There was ample enough from different times, different connections and occasions who proved without doubt that coat existed and disappeared. So Ms Lean is wrong and no doubt she knows this.
LM attended this 'gig' with Jodi Jones and he was wearing his fashion, his style, his heavier outer garment, that Army style parka complete with German badge. It is mid- June and it is summertime.
As with the other witnesses, the time of year it was simply what he liked to wear irrespective of the weather. One can take themselves now to the 30th of June in these quiet suburbs. The East end in that lane, this youth in summertime wearing his fashion, his style. Odd enough to see in a place not heavily populated by many people walking around. We move forward around 45mins, a short distance away, to an area where it is extremely odd to see pedestrians, and there is this youth, in his fashion, his dress sense wearing that heavier outer garment - That Khaki green, army style jacket, army fishing style, whatever - The army highlighted by colour and that badge. Then we add in the hair the identifications of this male who was the same person, same clothing. It was LM wearing his style, his dress sense, his fashion.
We move forward to after the murder and he buys a new coat, in his style, his fashion, his dress sense, this heavier outer garment worn still in summertime.
We revert to those little clues, those contradictions that flow in IB. When one is attempting to highlight information around MB (AB's) brother-in-law, of telling people that she had seen this male dressed in army style clothing. And of F&W. And of the other witnesses.
And it does all tie together for many reasons - least not this lad, this youth who simply wore that clothing irrespective of time of year. Seen and Identified that day by three people, not one. In quiet areas, this was no coincidence, this was no mistaken Identity, this was without a doubt LM.
-
It is mid-June 2003 and there is a 'gig' taken place in Edinburgh, a band by the name of "Ramage Inc" were playing. Many people attended this and many did give statements, and yes at court also. Most not used of course, simply no need. There was ample enough from different times, different connections and occasions who proved without doubt that coat existed and disappeared. So Ms Lean is wrong and no doubt she knows this.
This ‘Ramage Inc’ ?
https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Ramage_Inc.
Formed in 2004?
-
This ‘Ramage Inc’ ?
https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Ramage_Inc.
Formed in 2004?
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative? of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
Therefore yes, I assume it is one and the same band, certainly called the same although my brain cottoned on to 'Ink' as opposed to 'Inc' - Most definitely "Ramage --" and certainly that the drummer was a stand in at the time and connected to Jodi Jones.
The wonderful world of the grapevine, those many people through the years talking of LM and his "magic coat" as one innocent supporter calls it. To the point being made, that many people saw LM wearing this style, his fashion irrespective of the time of year. And he was certainly wearing his style that day when seen by AB and F&W. In those quiet suburbs in Midlothian. The very reason for the desperation in trying to split these sightings, attempting to make them into different people - They were not, they were of LM in Easthouses and around 45mins later on Newbattle Road. The very reason for an author who simply pushes out disinformation in an attempt to lesson the validity of these sightings:
Those clear lies of that bright sunshine and no other outside factors to make hair appear darker. Why does one assume this type of disinformation is wilfully spread? Reaching out to the wider public who would take no time to fact check this nonsense. That lane and area of Newbattle Road, both shaded. A day of grey skies but as one supporter states 'I know there are lies but I still believe ------' Fantastic stuff, how does one even begin then to know what is actually true? from someone who wilfully lies? In the exact same fashion as Mitchell of course, the abundance of lies flowing, how did the author even begin to determine what was true and false? Taken it on board and hiding those lies one after the other - This 'Truthseeker?'
-
Thanks once again for your reply, parky41. I never doubted that the German army badge was mentioned by those 3 women . . . it's just that I'd hitherto never read a single solitary thing about it. Did you read about it on that private group you are a member of? The group which has members who were at the actual trial?
And I agree about LM's hair colour appearing darker or lighter, depending on the weather. For example, in the pics of LM at Jodi's grave with his mother & LW, his hair appears a lot lighter and radiant -- like a platinum blonde colour -- due to the very sunny weather that day. This is in stark contrast to the colour of his hair in the pic of him leaving his house in NB Abbey Crescent wearing parka jacket number 2 (the probable replacement jacket that was bought about a week after the murder). In that pic, it was a very dull day and LM's hair looked considerably darker that it did in the graveside pic -- so much so that you could definitely excuse someone for describing his hair colour as dark (and even more so when matted down with hair gel as those 2 women mentioned when they saw the suspicious-looking youth at that gate on the NB Rd that day at 1745).
And on the subject of parka jacket number 2 -- what do you all think about it being purchased? It's very strange, isn't it? Obviously LM liked it, and was coddled and indulged by his mother (i.e, what Luke wanted, Luke got). Wasn't he and his mother worried that purchasing it would come back to bite them? LM was obviously aware that there was a strong chance that people saw him wearing it that day between 1645 - 1745. He and mother Corinne were probably very confident at that point that the purchase of a new jacket wouldn't be problematic as they had (probably, imo) destroyed the first jacket completely in a fire (or got SM to dispose of it some 7 or 8 miles away; it was ascertained that SM was at a petrol station 7 miles away on 30.06.03). They knew the jacket would never be found and knew there were no photos of Luke wearing it (if there were any such photos, they were probably burned too?). Perhaps purchasing that second parka jacket was a decoy of sorts, in that the Mitchells probably assumed the police would have assumed they wouldn't be so stupid to buy an identical jacket to the one LM was wearing when he murdered his girlfriend? Who knows. At the end of the day, I think the Mitchells underestimated the police and circumstantial evidence. What are your thoughts on the purchase of this second parka jacket?
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
It doesn’t clarify things at all. It simply makes your claim murkier.
‘Around 2003’? Rather ambiguous. Sounds as if the person writing the article doesn’t really know. As to the rest, yet again you fail to provide any proof beyond your word. Concrete proof of your claims may indeed clarify things.
-
Thanks once again for your reply, parky41. I never doubted that the German army badge was mentioned by those 3 women . . . it's just that I'd hitherto never read a single solitary thing about it. Did you read about it on that private group you are a member of? The group which has members who were at the actual trial?
And I agree about LM's hair colour appearing darker or lighter, depending on the weather. For example, in the pics of LM at Jodi's grave with his mother & LW, his hair appears a lot lighter and radiant -- like a platinum blonde colour -- due to the very sunny weather that day. This is in stark contrast to the colour of his hair in the pic of him leaving his house in NB Abbey Crescent wearing parka jacket number 2 (the probable replacement jacket that was bought about a week after the murder). In that pic, it was a very dull day and LM's hair looked considerably darker that it did in the graveside pic -- so much so that you could definitely excuse someone for describing his hair colour as dark (and even more so when matted down with hair gel as those 2 women mentioned when they saw the suspicious-looking youth at that gate on the NB Rd that day at 1745).
And on the subject of parka jacket number 2 -- what do you all think about it being purchased? It's very strange, isn't it? Obviously LM liked it, and was coddled and indulged by his mother (i.e, what Luke wanted, Luke got). Wasn't he and his mother worried that purchasing it would come back to bite them? LM was obviously aware that there was a strong chance that people saw him wearing it that day between 1645 - 1745. He and mother Corinne were probably very confident at that point that the purchase of a new jacket wouldn't be problematic as they had (probably, imo) destroyed the first jacket completely in a fire (or got SM to dispose of it some 7 or 8 miles away; it was ascertained that SM was at a petrol station 7 miles away on 30.06.03). They knew the jacket would never be found and knew there were no photos of Luke wearing it (if there were any such photos, they were probably burned too?). Perhaps purchasing that second parka jacket was a decoy of sorts, in that the Mitchells probably assumed the police would have assumed they wouldn't be so stupid to buy an identical jacket to the one LM was wearing when he murdered his girlfriend? Who knows. At the end of the day, I think the Mitchells underestimated the police and circumstantial evidence. What are your thoughts on the purchase of this second parka jacket?
So beyond Parky’s reassurance you still have no concrete proof of the German claim or perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.
Could you please point out what concrete proof you see that I don’t?
I hope you don’t mind me asking you another question? Of course you don’t have to answer but it is obvious you have doubts, pertinent doubts, about the evidence in this case and you make some excellent points. However you seem to be rather easy to convince that those doubts are not justified, without being given even the merest scintilla of provable facts. Why is that? What are you more interested in, simply upholding the status quo or actually knowing the truth?
-
Therefore yes, I assume it is one and the same band, certainly called the same although my brain cottoned on to 'Ink' as opposed to 'Inc' - Most definitely "Ramage --" and certainly that the drummer was a stand in at the time and connected to Jodi Jones.
Quite a coincidence that. So who was the drummer connected to Jodi…this stand in? Was it Mat Orrock, who was the band’s drummer from it’s formation until 2007, or Casey McManus, his replacement, or perhaps some other drummer who made one, random, appearance and was, almost unbelievably, connected to the murder victim?
And not one report in any of the newspapers of any witness from this concert, not one, which is odd as the jacket played such a pivotal role in the prosecution’s case.
It would be useful if you could provide a link to this, interestingly, secret group where the ‘real’ evidence is allegedly discussed that others believe that you have access to. Odd that you haven’t done it up until now.
-
So beyond Parky’s reassurance you still have no concrete proof of the German claim or perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.
Could you please point out what concrete proof you see that I don’t?
I hope you don’t mind me asking you another question? Of course you don’t have to answer but it is obvious you have doubts, pertinent doubts, about the evidence in this case and you make some excellent points. However you seem to be rather easy to convince that those doubts are not justified, without being given even the merest scintilla of provable facts. Why is that? What are you more interested in, simply upholding the status quo or actually knowing the truth?
Firstly, the German army badge matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things. Eight separate witnesses testified in court that he owned a green parka jacket that AB, RW & LF saw him wearing on 30.06.03 (and these 3 women unequivocally & positively id'd LM on that fateful day; I am 100% convinced it was LM at both ends of that path between 1655 and 1745 -- 50 mins to murder, hide and carry out those mutilations). Secondly, I don't have doubts. You are putting words into my mouth. I've stated many times on here that the circumstantial evidence against was overwhelming and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. However, it was a purely circumstantial case, so there is still the possibility that LM, in fact, wasn't responsible (about a one in a million chance, imo, as per the circumstantial evidence).
I knew nothing of this case until the C5 doco last year. After only 2 weeks of research, I was convinced that LM was guilty. After a further 9 months, I was absolutely certain he did it. Yes, I concede that Parky41's extensive, eloquent and informative posts have been, to an extent, instrumental in shaping my opinion. But, I do not treat his posts as some kind of Bible. As you say, it would be nice if he would confirm what this private group was/is and provide cites for these seemingly obscure pieces of evidence (eg, SM being at a petrol station 7 to 8 miles away that night, LM appearing cleaner than normal that night, LM's bedroom looking as though it had been cleaned when the police swooped on it and raided it, LM's bike being spotted at a school gate, those women referencing the German army badge on the green parka jacket and, last but not least, those multiple partial profiles thought to be from LM as per the law of averages).
-
Rather than create a separate thread, can someone confirm if Luke and Jodi had had an argument in school that day (30.06.03)? I read on the blue forum that they had and that apparantely they were spotted by fellow school mates in the China Gardens, unusually, with their backs to one another and not talking. Can anyone expand on this? It's quite important as it ties in with what her best friend Kirsten Ford said of her being quieter than normal at school that day (cite below) and AB seeing them arguing at 1655 hrs at the entrance to the Easthouses end of RDP. Their argument earlier at school had continued when they met up at this point and reached its horrific climax at 1715, whereupon LM snapped and murdered Jodi in an episode of uncontrollable rage and psychosis -- rage and psychosis largely induced by excessive cannabis usage?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
Firstly, the German army badge matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things. Eight separate witnesses testified in court that he owned a green parka jacket that AB, RW & LF saw him wearing on 30.06.03 (and these 3 women unequivocally & positively id'd LM on that fateful day; I am 100% convinced it was LM at both ends of that path between 1655 and 1745 -- 50 mins to murder, hide and carry out those mutilations). Secondly, I don't have doubts. You are putting words into my mouth. I've stated many times on here that the circumstantial evidence against was overwhelming and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. However, it was a purely circumstantial case, so there is still the possibility that LM, in fact, wasn't responsible (about a one in a million chance, imo, as per the circumstantial evidence).
I knew nothing of this case until the C5 doco last year. After only 2 weeks of research, I was convinced that LM was guilty. After a further 9 months, I was absolutely certain he did it. Yes, I concede that Parky41's extensive, eloquent and informative posts have been, to an extent, instrumental in shaping my opinion. But, I do not treat his posts as some kind of Bible. As you say, it would be nice if he would confirm what this private group was/is and provide cites for these seemingly obscure pieces of evidence (eg, SM being at a petrol station 7 to 8 miles away that night, LM appearing cleaner than normal that night, LM's bedroom looking as though it had been cleaned when the police swooped on it and raided it, LM's bike being spotted at a school gate, those women referencing the German army badge on the green parka jacket and, last but not least, those multiple partial profiles thought to be from LM as per the law of averages).
After two weeks of research you were convinced of Luke’s guilt?
After weeks of hearing ALL the evidence for and against Luke the jury still couldn’t come to a unanimous decision with regard to his guilt. Yet here you are convinced of his guilt after reading snippets of testimony in the tabloids and unverifiable ‘information’ from Parky. Can you see the problem?
-
Rather than create a separate thread, can someone confirm if Luke and Jodi had had an argument in school that day (30.06.03)? I read on the blue forum that they had and that apparantely they were spotted by fellow school mates in the China Gardens, unusually, with their backs to one another and not talking. Can anyone expand on this? It's quite important as it ties in with what her best friend Kirsten Ford said of her being quieter than normal at school that day (cite below) and AB seeing them arguing at 1655 hrs at the entrance to the Easthouses end of RDP. Their argument earlier at school had continued when they met up at this point and reached its horrific climax at 1715, whereupon LM snapped and murdered Jodi in an episode of uncontrollable rage and psychosis -- rage and psychosis largely induced by excessive cannabis usage?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Can you provide a cite regarding your claim that AB had said the couple she saw looked like they were arguing?
-
Can you provide a cite regarding your claim that AB had said the couple she saw looked like they were arguing?
The info in this article regarding AB's eyewitness testimony is a tad ambiguous, but, as per the circumstantial evidence in its totality, I'm of the opinion that the the two people 'who didn't look like they were coming to meet' were Luke and Jodi. Yes, we know that Jodi left her home to meet Luke in a happy mood, but they had an argument to resolve that began in school earlier that day (if someone could confirm that this young couple had had an argument in school earlier that day, that would be great). I believe the argument started again almost as soon as they met up again at that path. I don't think a random stranger with murder on their mind would be standing with their hands by their side gesticulating to their potential target/victim in broad daylight at the top of a path that was facing on to a busy road; and, likewise, I don't think Jodi would be standing looking, even momentarily, at a total stranger who was inside a pathway heading into a secluded path bordered by fields and a woodland strip. Bit of a coincidence that the guy had messy, shoulder-length hair sticking up at the back, had that jacket on that numerous people testified in court that he had owned and worn prior to 30.06.03, that Jodi had arranged to specifically meet LM earlier than normal and him alone, that his very own brother said he never saw him in the house at that crucial timeframe between 1645-1715 and that his own brother admitted that he would not be looking at those images (porn downloaded from his PC) and masturbating had anyone else been in the house at that time, that, above all else, AB said she was as sure as sure as she could be that it was LM in that book of photographs the police presented, that she said she was taken aback by how much the person she saw in a pic in a newspaper looked like LM. Far too many coincidences, imo. It was LM, imo.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
-
The info in this article regarding AB's eyewitness testimony is a tad ambiguous, but, as per the circumstantial evidence in its totality, I'm of the opinion that the the two people 'who didn't look like they were coming to meet' were Luke and Jodi. Yes, we know that Jodi left her home to meet Luke in a happy mood, but they had an argument to resolve that began in school earlier that day (if someone could confirm that this young couple had had an argument in school earlier that day, that would be great). I believe the argument started again almost as soon as they met up again at that path. I don't think a random stranger with murder on their mind would be standing with their hands by their side gesticulating to their potential target/victim in broad daylight at the top of a path that was facing on to a busy road; and, likewise, I don't think Jodi would be standing looking, even momentarily, at a total stranger who was inside a pathway heading into a secluded path bordered by fields and a woodland strip. Bit of a coincidence that the guy had messy, shoulder-length hair sticking up at the back, had that jacket on that numerous people testified in court that he had owned and worn prior to 30.06.03, that Jodi had arranged to specifically meet LM earlier than normal and him alone, that his very own brother said he never saw him in the house at that crucial timeframe between 1645-1715 and that his own brother admitted that he would not be looking at those images (porn downloaded from his PC) and masturbating had anyone else been in the house at that time, that, above all else, AB said she was as sure as sure as she could be that it was LM in that book of photographs the police presented, that she said she was taken aback by how much the person she saw in a pic in a newspaper looked like LM. Far too many coincidences, imo. It was LM, imo.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
Let’s look at the actual evidence you have presented.
You have posted no evidence that AB ever claimed that the couple she saw were arguing.
You extrapolate Jodi’s friend’s comment that, with hindsight, she was quiet on the day of her murder to validate your claim that she and Luke had argued that day. Even if Jodi had been quieter on that day there are numerous reasons why this could have been the case. With the greatest respect your conclusion is simply not supported by the known facts.
As I’ve pointed out before there is multiple problems with AB’s sighting, or at least the sighting that was latterly used in court. AB never at any time claimed the youth she saw wore a parka jacket, in fact she specifically said that it wasn’t. That she also described the clothing worn by the female she saw as crucially different from Jodi’s known attire is also problematic. That she thought the male she saw was in his early 20s when all photographs of Luke at the time prove that he did not look older than his age should also give those studying this case pause for thought. I think it’s one of the most telling moments of the trial was when AB refused to identify Luke as the youth she saw.
The timings of AB’s journey to and from the supermarket that day also only make sense if the ones she gave in her first statements are correct. Of course that being the case she could not have seen the couple she saw at the time the prosecution said.
The time Jodi left the house is also disputed by at least one of her neighbours.
As to AB’s identification of Luke via the photograph presented by the police, multiple experts have said that the way this identification was carried out was against police guidelines. Further after AB had made her initial identification, even if it was heavily weighted against Luke, it is then no surprise that she identified him again in the newspaper. I’d have been surprised if she hadn’t.
-
I thought I read that Jodi was "chuffed" to be meeting Luke that afternoon. That suggests to me that either they did not fight at school or that it was trivial. The problems within the testimony of AB were also discussed at the International Skeptics Forum under the Luke Mitchell section of the Trials and Errors sub-forum.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
Your 'nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
The point is that you are spreading misinformation. I have a close relative, rather younger than me, who followed the band you mentioned. There were no gigs mid-June where a stand-in band member was needed…that’s a fact. Having asked I’m told that the band didn’t perform live until much later than you’ve claimed and that their drummer was in place from their formation until 2007 and that he played each and every live gig.
Your ‘nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
What is interesting is that almost all the information you supply appears to only have been mentioned by you. Not the newspapers, not news reports, no members of forums, in fact no one else but yourself. And are we really meant to believe that there is a secret forum that no one else interested in this case has ever had access to which, handily, has members who were actually at the trial? Really? That is manipulation of course, trouble is you’re not very good at it.
As to the khaki jacket, all these witnesses testifying about a vital plank of the prosecution’s case and it’s not reported..ANYWHERE?
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
It’s not what I or you believe but what we can provide evidence for and I’m afraid with you that is more often than not not much. Further surely if Luke had worn his beloved parka as often as suggested then his closest friend would have been in no doubt about its existence. ‘Would not and could not state that he had never seen’ surely is really just saying ‘I could have seen him but I’m not sure’?
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
How many of the original witness statements have you had access to?
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
Deflection.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
No cites, no proof, just your word. I think it is rather you who demands blind faith.
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
-
I thought I read that Jodi was "chuffed" to be meeting Luke that afternoon. That suggests to me that either they did not fight at school or that it was trivial. The problems within the testimony of AB were also discussed at the International Skeptics Forum under the Luke Mitchell section of the Trials and Errors sub-forum.
Things can change in an instant... especially if they argued about Luke's bit on the side, at their evening tryst.
-
Things can change in an instant... especially if they argued about Luke's bit on the side, at their evening tryst.
They can but there is no evidence that they did. BTW when did Jodi find out about Luke’s ‘bit on the side’? She was described as upbeat when she left the house.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
Your 'nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
Parky, with all due respect, providing cites and links is part of the forum's rules !!!
-
They can but there is no evidence that they did. BTW when did Jodi find out about Luke’s ‘bit on the side’? She was described as upbeat when she left the house.
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
-
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1)
The link didn't work for me, so I just cut Google reference out...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1)
-
Faith, happy to have been of assistance to your young relative. The 'gig' happened and Luke with Jodi attended.
We can simply apply context of what would certainly have made her (Jodi) upbeat that day. This girl had been carrying out different forms of punishment over a course of weeks, still semi grounded until she completed daily chores. Her arrival home from school that day saw that punishment lifted in full, her time once more her own.
She had no phone, she had not been using her mothers phone nor landline daily, to arrange any meetings with Mitchell over the course of time her phone was broken, she had been making arrangements with him at school around times to meet. Chores completed by around 6pm and it is from this we can apply their recent 'normal' time of meeting being just that. Changing that day and contacting him, she did not have to wait, she was free to go out at this earlier than could have been anticipated time.
No phone logs produced (over the broken phone period) to back up Mitchells claims that there was no pre arranged meeting time, that he had to make dinner and did not go out until around 6pm. He may very well have stayed home for dinner but it was around when Jodi was allowed out, he had no restrictions as such. Again, one is being asked to believe that the older brother, normally home well before Luke would have the 14yr old making his dinner for him. If dinner was usually over by 6pm in the Mitchell home, it is indictive of the mother making it upon her arrival home. The boys perhaps helping at points with preparation, peeling the "totties" for instance.
KT and Jodi, the two girls in Mitchells life, one showering him with adoration in person, the other hanging onto his every word with that constant communication by phone. It is not about Mitchells feelings towards these girls, it is about their feelings, how they felt their place was in his life. Absolutely nothing to do with, 'he was hardly in love, not demanding to go see her, travelling those couple of hours' It is about the deceit, trying to distance himself from any involvement with KT, lying about the relationship and constant communication, of planning to meet with her once more in the school break. It has everything to do with a young girl and having her trust broken. Of adoration turning to confrontation and accusation, upset and wanting to have it out with him. Being allowed out earlier than anticipated would have been beneficial to releasing those pent up feelings, having that 'set to' sooner rather than later! - So yes, it is not at all difficult to realise why this girl was upbeat that day.
Contacting one person only and that person was LM to let him know of this change. Leaving home shortly afterwards to meet with him. LM seen with this girl at the lane tying in with her confirmed time of leaving home. She had no phone, no means of contacting anyone else. That phone plays a key part to several things;
A young girl who knew what danger was, articulate and bright. The ban on that path, of placing herself into dangerous situations. She had no phone, no security, no back, no means of reaching out for help. And again, the person she was leaving to meet knew this, her killer knew she had nothing to reach out with.
The utter nonsense, the complete bollocks - Of a boy who knew of that ban, knew the dangers of that path, knew his girlfriend had no phone, no security, no back up - Claiming to have simply hung around for the best part of 90mins, her non arrival in Newbattle and toddling off to see his pals. Instantly back on the phone to them, chasing them up, wondering where the hell they were! He was setting alibi in place, plain and simple.
And please with the repetitive bleat of pass the buck. Jodi's family were blindsided, it was early evening, around dinner time, they had no idea if Luke was simply running late, where Jodi may have been waiting for him "Up here" The grans, anywhere but that path. That is the difference, massively. That without a doubt, that no further call from Mitchell had her family believing fully they had met and were spending the night together. The first person contacted when her curfew time past by, was LM. Of meeting with LM and asking him why? Why had he not called back wondering where Jodi was? His answer and used at trial "I thought ? you had grounded her ----------" Telling others the same, of "not coming out" and "being grounded again"
So one family, her mother/father believing the two were together, absolutely nothing to alert them to any danger, no thought of going to Newbattle, of using any path alone, simply nothing. To and please - A lad knowing of the ban, the dangers, of having no phone. Claims of meeting in his end with many dangers on the way. Of claiming to simply hang about in one spot, going nowhere near that path of course (The F&W sighting), for around 90mins. Being asked to believe that not only would any other normal type of boy, simply have walked the route in reverse to meet on the way. But did not bother, thought of no dangers and on it goes. To the boys and chasing them up, phoning them back within minutes of no arrival. To that claimed call to his mother of asking if Jodi had been, the claimed jokes shared, but nothing from a parent, again aware of those dangers. To that lie of coming home around 9pm and again, that brush off from a parent, 'oh she will have got caught up gabbing' For goodness sake he was NOT even in the house again. Not arriving home until 10pm - But the point, from him, his mother, the parent, absolutely no concern. - There was none for Jodi was already dead by his hands! Winging it and making it up.
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it. that outstanding circumstantial case. Caught in their own web of deceit, continuously. Blaming others! Picking on him, singling him out - As bloody IF. Which of course the bulk of the manipulation is around, one big massive almighty IF! Starting with IF the enablers of this killer are being honest with you. Try starting from there?
-
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
I think it’s an accepted fact now that there was an overlap between Luke’s romantic tristes…I’m sure it’s not a particularly unusual occurrence in the life of a teenage boy. Have their cake and eat it…there’s very few teenage boys who wouldn’t indulge.
Still nothing by way of evidence that they had actually rowed. Jodi had used Luke’s phone that day…was that before or after they’d rowed ? Oh wait it must have been before or why would he have let her use it? Hold on, why let her use his phone at all if there was texts from another girl on it? Further if Jodi had found something incriminating on Luke’s phone at lunchtime why was she so upbeat at home and when leaving to meet Luke? Surely she would have confided in someone about a body blow like that? Her friend? Her mum?
It really doesn’t convince, does it?
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
Don’t tell me - abuser & con artist Sandra Lean also omitted this from IB ?
-
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it.
Wonder if Shane Mitchell has ever told anyone what he knows ?
-
Faith, happy to have been of assistance to your young relative. The 'gig' happened and Luke with Jodi attended.
Parky, Parky, Parky, a ‘gig’ may have happened but not with the band claimed who weren’t even paying live at that time.
We can simply apply context of what would certainly have made her (Jodi) upbeat that day. This girl had been carrying out different forms of punishment over a course of weeks, still semi grounded until she completed daily chores. Her arrival home from school that day saw that punishment lifted in full, her time once more her own.
Absolutely. Upbeat because she was, at last, able to see her boyfriend in the way she wanted. No suggestion that she had found out about Jodi’s ‘other woman’.
She had no phone, she had not been using her mothers phone nor landline daily, to arrange any meetings with Mitchell over the course of time her phone was broken, she had been making arrangements with him at school around times to meet. Chores completed by around 6pm and it is from this we can apply their recent 'normal' time of meeting being just that. Changing that day and contacting him, she did not have to wait, she was free to go out at this earlier than could have been anticipated time.
Not what her mother said, under oath.
‘The pair would usually make arrangements to meet by text message and Jodi would sometimes visit Luke's house. Jodi was usually a good timekeeper who would observe curfews imposed by her mother, the court heard.’
There certainly doesn’t seem anything to suggest that there was any fixed time for them to meet.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html
No phone logs produced (over the broken phone period) to back up Mitchells claims that there was no pre arranged meeting time, that he had to make dinner and did not go out until around 6pm. He may very well have stayed home for dinner but it was around when Jodi was allowed out, he had no restrictions as such. Again, one is being asked to believe that the older brother, normally home well before Luke would have the 14yr old making his dinner for him. If dinner was usually over by 6pm in the Mitchell home, it is indictive of the mother making it upon her arrival home. The boys perhaps helping at points with preparation, peeling the "totties" for instance.
Rather counterproductive for Luke to wipe anything from his phone when he would have known that there would have been the corresponding messages on Jodi’s mum’s phone, don’t you think? Further strange that the corresponding texts weren’t found on Judith’s phone…why was this? The most plausible reason to me is that Jodi, having texted Luke to say that she would come to him then deleted the texts knowing her mum would not be pleased if she knew that her daughter was going to use that quiet, isolated path.
KT and Jodi, the two girls in Mitchells life, one showering him with adoration in person, the other hanging onto his every word with that constant communication by phone. It is not about Mitchells feelings towards these girls, it is about their feelings, how they felt their place was in his life. Absolutely nothing to do with, 'he was hardly in love, not demanding to go see her, travelling those couple of hours' It is about the deceit, trying to distance himself from any involvement with KT, lying about the relationship and constant communication, of planning to meet with her once more in the school break. It has everything to do with a young girl and having her trust broken. Of adoration turning to confrontation and accusation, upset and wanting to have it out with him. Being allowed out earlier than anticipated would have been beneficial to releasing those pent up feelings, having that 'set to' sooner rather than later! - So yes, it is not at all difficult to realise why this girl was upbeat that day.
There is not on scintilla of proof that Jodi knew anything about Kimberly. The rest of your post is simply nonsensical hyperbole.
Contacting one person only and that person was LM to let him know of this change. Leaving home shortly afterwards to meet with him. LM seen with this girl at the lane tying in with her confirmed time of leaving home. She had no phone, no means of contacting anyone else. That phone plays a key part to several things;
A young girl who knew what danger was, articulate and bright. The ban on that path, of placing herself into dangerous situations. She had no phone, no security, no back, no means of reaching out for help. And again, the person she was leaving to meet knew this, her killer knew she had nothing to reach out with.
The utter nonsense, the complete bollocks - Of a boy who knew of that ban, knew the dangers of that path, knew his girlfriend had no phone, no security, no back up - Claiming to have simply hung around for the best part of 90mins, her non arrival in Newbattle and toddling off to see his pals. Instantly back on the phone to them, chasing them up, wondering where the hell they were! He was setting alibi in place, plain and simple.
And please with the repetitive bleat of pass the buck. Jodi's family were blindsided, it was early evening, around dinner time, they had no idea if Luke was simply running late, where Jodi may have been waiting for him "Up here" The grans, anywhere but that path. That is the difference, massively. That without a doubt, that no further call from Mitchell had her family believing fully they had met and were spending the night together. The first person contacted when her curfew time past by, was LM. Of meeting with LM and asking him why? Why had he not called back wondering where Jodi was? His answer and used at trial "I thought ? you had grounded her ----------" Telling others the same, of "not coming out" and "being grounded again"
So one family, her mother/father believing the two were together, absolutely nothing to alert them to any danger, no thought of going to Newbattle, of using any path alone, simply nothing. To and please - A lad knowing of the ban, the dangers, of having no phone. Claims of meeting in his end with many dangers on the way. Of claiming to simply hang about in one spot, going nowhere near that path of course (The F&W sighting), for around 90mins. Being asked to believe that not only would any other normal type of boy, simply have walked the route in reverse to meet on the way. But did not bother, thought of no dangers and on it goes. To the boys and chasing them up, phoning them back within minutes of no arrival. To that claimed call to his mother of asking if Jodi had been, the claimed jokes shared, but nothing from a parent, again aware of those dangers. To that lie of coming home around 9pm and again, that brush off from a parent, 'oh she will have got caught up gabbing' For goodness sake he was NOT even in the house again. Not arriving home until 10pm - But the point, from him, his mother, the parent, absolutely no concern. - There was none for Jodi was already dead by his hands! Winging it and making it up.
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it. that outstanding circumstantial case. Caught in their own web of deceit, continuously. Blaming others! Picking on him, singling him out - As bloody IF. Which of course the bulk of the manipulation is around, one big massive almighty IF! Starting with IF the enablers of this killer are being honest with you. Try starting from there?
-
I think it’s an accepted fact now that there was an overlap between Luke’s romantic tristes…I’m sure it’s not a particularly unusual occurrence in the life of a teenage boy. Have their cake and eat it…there’s very few teenage boys who wouldn’t indulge.
Still nothing by way of evidence that they had actually rowed. Jodi had used Luke’s phone that day…was that before or after they’d rowed ? Oh wait it must have been before or why would he have let her use it? Hold on, why let her use his phone at all if there was texts from another girl on it? Further if Jodi had found something incriminating on Luke’s phone at lunchtime why was she so upbeat at home and when leaving to meet Luke? Surely she would have confided in someone about a body blow like that? Her friend? Her mum?
It really doesn’t convince, does it?
Again, this discussion matters not a jot. It's small fry. The main planks of circumstantial evidence -- LM having guilty knowledge of the locus & leading the search party to the body in suspicious circumstances, the broken alibi, the eyewitness testimonies that placed him at both ends of that path at crucial times and the fact he owned that parka before 30.06.03 and disposed of it -- got him convicted. I was merely asking if anyone could expand on, or provide a cite for, this alleged argument Luke & Jodi had had in school that morning and the alleged sighting of them with their backs to one another in the China Gardens.
Faith, you concede that the Prosecution put forward a very compelling and robust case against LM. A quick question for you: how do you account for the expansive amounts of time LM was not seen by anyone that evening, namely between 1740 - 1800 and 1815 - 1930? A boy of 14 chose to dilly-dally for nearly 2 hours, waiting on his girlfriend? When, ordinarily, he would meet her halfway on that secluded path or go to Easthouses and meet her? The evening she was murdered, he coincidentally doesn't go to meet her and waits for nearly 2 hours on her coming to him? Furthermore, he knows she has definitely left to meet him as per AO and the landline call at 1740 -- yet he chose to wait all that time on her coming to him (do we know how often Jodi walked to Luke's house on her own?)? He then, out of the blue, calls David High and arranges to meet up with him and some other guys for over and hour-and-a-half and doesn't bother checking where his gf -- who he knows has left to met him hours ago -- is? How often did he meet up with DH? How often had he met up with DH since dating Jodi? I think we all know. Even DH was surprised that he LM had called him to meet up that evening and he was even more surprised when Jodi wasn't with Luke when they did meet up in the abbey that night (so much so that DH asked LM where Jodi was . . . to which LM replied, "Jodi won't be coming out tonight."). He then waited the full night until Judith phoned him at 2238, asking him where her daughter was? Really!
Doesn't all the above, not even taking into account the main planks of circumstantial evidence, make you feel uneasy? And let's not also forget that LM had wiped out his mobile phone's entire history (all text messages and all call logs) before it was confiscated by the police in the early hours of 01.07.03. Why? Do you think it had incriminating evidence? For example, a meeting arrangement with Jodi at 1700 in Easthouses?
-
Again, this discussion matters not a jot. It's small fry. The main planks of circumstantial evidence -- LM having guilty knowledge of the locus & leading the search party to the body in suspicious circumstances, the broken alibi, the eyewitness testimonies that placed him at both ends of that path at crucial times and the fact he owned that parka before 30.06.03 and disposed of it -- got him convicted. I was merely asking if anyone could expand on, or provide a cite for, this alleged argument Luke & Jodi had had in school that morning and the alleged sighting of them with their backs to one another in the China Gardens.
Nothing that we discuss on this forum matters one jot but still we continue the discussion. BTW did you ever get that cite or should be just chalk it down to another rumour?
Faith, you concede that the Prosecution put forward a very compelling and robust case against LM.
Not compelling enough to convince all the jurors who had heard all the evidence and not just Parky’s stream of consciousness.
A quick question for you: how do you account for the expansive amounts of time LM was not seen by anyone that evening, namely between 1740 - 1800 and 1815 - 1930?
I could answer that but seeing Parky seems to be your go to source from everything connected to this case shall we let him do the honours?
“ He is sighted from 5.55 until 6.15 - then there is nothing until his meet with DH around 7pm”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.1290.html
A boy of 14 chose to dilly-dally for nearly 2 hours, waiting on his girlfriend? When, ordinarily, he would meet her halfway on that secluded path or go to Easthouses and meet her? The evening she was murdered, he coincidentally doesn't go to meet her and waits for nearly 2 hours on her coming to him?
2 hours? In reality there are witnesses for all but 45 minutes of that time.
Furthermore, he knows she has definitely left to meet him as per AO and the landline call at 1740 -- yet he chose to wait all that time on her coming to him (do we know how often Jodi walked to Luke's house on her own?)?
We know for fact that Jodi had arranged to meet Luke but had not appeared. What did he do then? Was he constantly on the phone? Truth is we don’t know how he reacted but what we do know is that it wasn’t totally out of character for her not to show up.
He then, out of the blue, calls David High and arranges to meet up with him and some other guys for over and hour-and-a-half and doesn't bother checking where his gf -- who he knows has left to met him hours ago -- is?
How was he supposed to check where she was? She didn’t have a phone and her stepfather had already told him that she had left her house. As to phoning DH out of the blue if he felt he had been stood up is it really so strange that he’d call his friend for company?
How often did he meet up with DH? How often had he met up with DH since dating Jodi? I think we all know.
I don’t so perhaps it would be useful at this juncture to provide a cite?
Even DH was surprised that he LM had called him to meet up that evening and he was even more surprised when Jodi wasn't with Luke when they did meet up in the abbey that night (so much so that DH asked LM where Jodi was . . . to which LM replied, "Jodi won't be coming out tonight.").
I’m sure he was surprised but that doesn’t mean Luke’s actions were sinister. Of course DH’s powers of recall were questioned in court as is statements differed and also IF Luke had thought that he had been stood up do you think he’d want to admit it to his friend?
He then waited the full night until Judith phoned him at 2238, asking him where her daughter was? Really!
Yes, really.
Doesn't all the above, not even taking into account the main planks of circumstantial evidence, make you feel uneasy? And let's not also forget that LM had wiped out his mobile phone's entire history (all text messages and all call logs) before it was confiscated by the police in the early hours of 01.07.03. Why? Do you think it had incriminating evidence? For example, a meeting arrangement with Jodi at 1700 in Easthouses?
For which there would have been corresponding messages on Jodi’s mum’s phone so what would be the point of deleting them?
Of course there is a more interesting question that needs to be answered. If Luke was the calculating murderer that some believe he is why are there so many questions remaining? If he was truly trying to cover his tracks why didn’t he call Jodi’s home more? Why say to DH that Jodi wasn’t coming out when he knew that that statement would be questioned. Why not just say that he’d been stood up? That he’d been expecting her but she had ghosted him.
So many relevant questions that aren’t being asked.
-
FL, I will get back to you on your replies. Need to go to work soon.
Just quickly . . . a neighbour said that they saw LM going home at approx 2200 on 30.06.03 and some forum members on here have said that that means LM was lying and have suggested LM didn't go home at 2100 after he left the boys in the abbey as he said. So, where did he go after he left the boys and what had he been doing? I don't think he went back to see the body and nor do I think he was disposing any evidence. Doing any of those would be very risky (it would've still been light outside) and plus he would've been risking getting contaminated with incriminating DNA after getting cleaned up and changed (LM was forensically aware?). Perhaps he just went a stroll to clear his head and think about what he was going to do (he knew Judith would've inevitably been on the phone to him, enquiring about her daughter's whereabouts. What are your thoughts on the neighbour's sighting of Luke going home at 2200? Where do you think he'd been and what do you think he had been doing?
-
FL, I will get back to you on your replies. Need to go to work soon.
Just quickly . . . a neighbour said that they saw LM going home at approx 2200 on 30.06.03 and some forum members on here have said that that means LM was lying and have suggested LM didn't go home at 2100 after he left the boys in the abbey as he said. So, where did he go after he left the boys and what had he been doing? I don't think he went back to see the body and nor do I think he was disposing any evidence. Doing any of those would be very risky (it would've still been light outside) and plus he would've been risking getting contaminated with incriminating DNA after getting cleaned up and changed (LM was forensically aware?). Perhaps he just went a stroll to clear his head and think about what he was going to do (he knew Judith would've inevitably been on the phone to him, enquiring about her daughter's whereabouts. What are your thoughts on the neighbour's sighting of Luke going home at 2200? Where do you think he'd been and what do you think he had been doing?
I’ve no idea what he was doing. What was the background to the statement from the neighbour? How long after the night of Jodi’s murder did the neighbour give their statement and if it was some time why were they so precise about the time? If true it does make you wonder why, with such observant neighbours, Luke risked coming back to his house to clean up. If a neighbour saw him in the quiet semi-darkness on the 30th why did no one in the houses around his see him in the busier daytime that very same day?
Another question has occurred to me. Corrine Mitchell may be many things but stupid she is not. Why buy her son a parka jacket after their house had been searched and no parka found? Surely she would have known that that would appear suspicious, unless it was as she claimed?
-
I've no idea why faithlilly continues with this charade. What's in for him/her?. Luke Mitchell is exactly where he should be.
This far into his sentence he should/would?be well on his way to freedom and not classed as a danger to society! He's not made it past shotts prison gates to barlinnie top end never mind castle huntly. There's a reason for that.
-
I've no idea why faithlilly continues with this charade. What's in for him/her?. Luke Mitchell is exactly where he should be.
This far into his sentence he should/would?be well on his way to freedom and not classed as a danger to society! He's not made it past shotts prison gates to barlinnie top end never mind castle huntly. There's a reason for that.
Do you think that constantly maintaining his innocence no matter what the consequences may have something to do with that?
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
Or perhaps it’s because he is innocent?
Everyone in Shotts knows he’s guilty? How? What information do they have that we who believe in his innocence don’t?
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
I subscribe to all of this. In a case such as this where there will never ever be unequivocal proof that he did it -- i.e., direct evidence -- LM will never admit his guilt. The reasons for this are twofold, imo: firstly, as Mrs S said, for his own safety and survival; and, secondly, he very probably is psychopathic and narcissistic -- disorders which won't allow him to feel shame, empathy, remorse or guilt, and won't allow him to admit that he did it.
-
I subscribe to all of this. In a case such as this where there will never ever be unequivocal proof that he did it -- i.e., direct evidence -- LM will never admit his guilt. The reasons for this are twofold, imo: firstly, as Mrs S said, for his own safety and survival; and, secondly, he very probably is psychopathic and narcissistic -- disorders which won't allow him to feel shame, empathy, remorse or guilt, and won't allow him to admit that he did it.
“Probably a psychopath and narcissistic”? Was your diagnosis based on your long years of psychiatric training or simply the notion that Luke has to be because otherwise he just might be innocent?
-
I read on the blue forum that they'd had that argument in school that Monday morning/afternoon, so presumably it had been discussed previously (maybe on the old WAP forum?). There is no smoke without fire, FL; it's probably been discussed previously, but because it probably wasn't deemed a main part of the prosecution's case it gradually petered out of discussions over the years? Perhaps it's just hard luck that no cite is available to back it up (the media didn't report every single piece of evidence led at court). As I said, it would be helpful if someone could expand on it, as it ties in with their confrontation spotted by AB at the top end of that path in Easthouses (the eastern side of Roan's Dyke Path).
He was still convicted by a majority verdict (9/6, from what I heard), such was the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Besides, juries are made of people with different abilities, intelligence and personalities. People with different analytical skills, different reading and listening comprehension abilities and different concentration levels and attention spans. Yes, this could work for or against a defendant, but I believe the circumstantial evidence led against LM as very robust. Hardly surprising he was convicted, imo.
Very telling you chose to evade those questions of LM's whereabouts during those times. He met up with DH at 1930, not 1900. Big difference, especially of what one can do in such time when full of adrenalin and when time is of the essence.
Yes, nearly 2 hours. He initially said he left his house at just after 1730 (but it subsequently and, ahem, conveniently changed to 1745 when evidence came through of his calls to the Jones' landline and CM being captured on CCTV at 1710; the whole alibi debacle would be hilarious if this wasn't such a heartbreaking and tragic case) and he met up with DH and co at 1930.
I presume he didn't call, as the police would have been able to ascertain this by obtaining phone logs from the Jones' landline (as they had done with LM's calls to the Jones' landline at 1732 and 1740). I believe most mobile phone operators, unlike with text messages -- which are not retained at all -- retain call records for a certain amount
of time (varies from operator to operator) so maybe the police looked into that (probably not, though, imo). And again, LM had wiped his entire phone history before the police took it on 01.07.03. As I understand it, Jodi had only failed to meet Luke once in their time of dating, and even on that single solitary occasion she had phoned Luke to let him know. So, yes, it was out of character for her not to show up. Also, she told her mother just before she left that she'd be "mucking around up there" (meaning Easthouses), and yet LM claimed she was coming to meet him at nbattle (which was a far less frequent occurrence than LM meeting her at Easthouses).
He was religiously with Jodi since they met (most nights as their relationship went on, and certainly most nights by the 30.06.03). But, on the night she uncharacteristically fails to show up, he uncharacteristically called DH (hopefully a cite will be provided in due course, confirming meeting up with him was not what he'd normally do)? I feel uneasy.
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all. Besides, even if Judith's phone held incriminating info, LM would obviously deny it (although, info of their meeting, especially at 1700 in Easthouses, would be important for the defence). Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case; it is inevitable and could go on til the end of time. It's also important to bear in mind that there were a few coincidences (eg, that 2 known delinquents were nearby when Jodi was murdered) and LM got lucky in some instances (like Jodi deleting those texts between 1634-1639, but the main slice of luck that LM had was that he never left any incriminating DNA behind . . . any incriminating DNA was likely on that Parka, and jeans and boots that were all likely disposed of in a fire). Calling the Jones' landline more would've alarmed them and that's what he would definitely not have wanted, especially as it was the height of summer and still light outside; he needed time to cover his tracks, which he did, but there were things that went against him (AB, RW and LF sightings, most notably and the police's foresight). He was very cunning calling the Jones' landline when he did; it was just enough time to set the alibi in place, give the Jones family the impression that he cared and that nothing was wrong. And I believe he had called them at a time just after he'd murdered Jodi and hid her body. So calm and collected beyond his years. Chilling. As for saying to DH that she wasn't coming out, I guess that because they were inseparable by that point he (DH) would not have believed it and to avoid any more questions from DH that that answer would have incited (by telling him she would not be out is direct and straight to the point; a conversation stopper, if you will). LM saying he'd been stood up probably would have been better, but I suspect he had let his guard down here and had a lapse in concentration (inevitable, after what he'd recently done). He may well have been very intelligent and advanced, but he did, imo, give the police several things to use as evidence against him, which was bound to happen because of stress and pressure (he told police that Jodi borrowed clothes and the exact clothes and led them to that body far too quickly to escape suspicion, imo).
Sorry for any typos, etc. My iPhone is broken and I'm using a really substandard phone temporarily.
-
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all.
Or he simply told her too
-
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case
People like con women Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean have created questions where there are none
Had both women attended each and every day of the trial they would have had the answers to a lot of their questions
Just like con women Lynne Hall and Stephanie Bon had
‘Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Re-Writing History’ https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/08/quite-a-hall-tale-part-7%EF%B8%8F/
‘The ‘Affair’, Ghosting & Reinvention of Stephanie Bon (Part 1)’
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/12/quite-a-hall-tale-part-9%EF%B8%8F/
-
Or he simply told her too
Hi, Nicholas. Good to see you are still around. You post a lot of good stuff, imo.
A quick question for you, if you don't mind: do you think this murder by LM was premeditated?
-
Hi, Nicholas. Good to see you are still around. You post a lot of good stuff, imo.
A quick question for you, if you don't mind: do you think this murder by LM was premeditated?
I suspect Luke Mitchell did fantasise about murder
And he lured [Name removed] to that path
So yes I do
-
People like con women Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean have created questions where there are none
Had both women attended each and every day of the trial they would have had the answers to a lot of their questions
Just like con women Lynne Hall and Stephanie Bon had
‘Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Re-Writing History’ https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/08/quite-a-hall-tale-part-7%EF%B8%8F/
‘The ‘Affair’, Ghosting & Reinvention of Stephanie Bon (Part 1)’
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/12/quite-a-hall-tale-part-9%EF%B8%8F/
I don't know if SL and CM are 'con women'. There seem to be flaws in her book (maybe brought about by being emotionally attached to the Mitchells to an extent, and not as neutral as she should be?).
Regarding the trial -- I read some screenshots from a Rangers FC forum that were posted on the blue JB forum. They contained posts from S Kelly communicating with another member from the Rangers FC forum. The other guy said that he was one of the jurors at the trial, sat through and heard every single piece of evidence . . . he stated unequivocally that he was more than satisfied that the correct verdict was returned. Will upload it in due course (if it's still available).
-
I don't know if SL and CM are 'con women'
I do, as do many others 8((()*/
-
Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
He did and I agree
Have Corrine and Shane Mitchell’s telephone records from 30th June to 4th July been published?
-
I read on the blue forum that they'd had that argument in school that Monday morning/afternoon, so presumably it had been discussed previously (maybe on the old WAP forum?). There is no smoke without fire, FL; it's probably been discussed previously, but because it probably wasn't deemed a main part of the prosecution's case it gradually petered out of discussions over the years? Perhaps it's just hard luck that no cite is available to back it up (the media didn't report every single piece of evidence led at court). As I said, it would be helpful if someone could expand on it, as it ties in with their confrontation spotted by AB at the top end of that path in Easthouses (the eastern side of Roan's Dyke Path).
So in short you read something on a forum and having no idea of the provenance of that information or of it’s veracity have chosen to believe it. Further although nowhere in any of AB’s statements or her testimony in court does she mention that the couple she saw seemed to be having an altercation you still believe, and indeed perpetrate that myth. Now have I got that right?
He was still convicted by a majority verdict (9/6, from what I heard), such was the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Besides, juries are made of people with different abilities, intelligence and personalities. People with different analytical skills, different reading and listening comprehension abilities and different concentration levels and attention spans. Yes, this could work for or against a defendant, but I believe the circumstantial evidence led against LM as very robust. Hardly surprising he was convicted, imo.
9/6….I didn’t realise that so few of the jury were convinced of Luke’s guilt after Parky claimed that the judge directed the jury that he wanted a strong majority. By anyone’s standards 9/6 isn’t strong majority.
Very telling you chose to evade those questions of LM's whereabouts during those times. He met up with DH at 1930, not 1900. Big difference, especially of what one can do in such time when full of adrenalin and when time is of the essence.
‘He has got what he deserves and I'm just glad it's finished. But I suppose for Jodi's family it's just beginning.'
Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.
He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+FEEL+SICK%3b+JODI+JONES%3a+THE+AFTERMATH+EXCLUSIVE%3a+Pal+reveals...-a0127512565
Yes, nearly 2 hours. He initially said he left his house at just after 1730 (but it subsequently and, ahem, conveniently changed to 1745 when evidence came through of his calls to the Jones' landline and CM being captured on CCTV at 1710; the whole alibi debacle would be hilarious if this wasn't such a heartbreaking and tragic case) and he met up with DH and co at 1930.
Luke called the Jones’s landline to tell Jodi that he was out at 17.32 and 17.40 so not sure the point that you are trying to make. As I have shown previously Luke met up with DH, according to testimony given under oath, around 7.
I presume he didn't call, as the police would have been able to ascertain this by obtaining phone logs from the Jones' landline (as they had done with LM's calls to the Jones' landline at 1732 and 1740). I believe most mobile phone operators, unlike with text messages -- which are not retained at all -- retain call records for a certain amount
of time (varies from operator to operator) so maybe the police looked into that (probably not, though, imo). And again, LM had wiped his entire phone history before the police took it on 01.07.03.
I’m sure he didn’t call but don’t you think he would have if trying to cover his tracks, this psychopathic narcissist ?
As I understand it, Jodi had only failed to meet Luke once in their time of dating, and even on that single solitary occasion she had phoned Luke to let him know.
Again do you have a cite for that or is it something else you saw discussed on the blue forum?
So, yes, it was out of character for her not to show up. Also, she told her mother just before she left that she'd be "mucking around up there" (meaning Easthouses), and yet LM claimed she was coming to meet him at nbattle (which was a far less frequent occurrence than LM meeting her at Easthouses).
She had stood Luke up before, that’s the point and therefore it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he may have thought that he had been stood up again.
“She’d be “mucking about up there”? Doesn’t sound as if she was spoiling for a fight with Luke, does it?
Further if she intended to walk down the path to Newbattle alone do you think, knowing her mum’s feelings, that Jodi would have told her mum truth? Of course that would also explain why she may have wiped her texts to Luke that afternoon from her mum’s phone.
He was religiously with Jodi since they met (most nights as their relationship went on, and certainly most nights by the 30.06.03). But, on the night she uncharacteristically fails to show up, he uncharacteristically called DH (hopefully a cite will be provided in due course, confirming meeting up with him was not what he'd normally do)? I feel uneasy.
’Hopefully a cite will be provided in due course’….we can but hope.
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all. Besides, even if Judith's phone held incriminating info, LM would obviously deny it (although, info of their meeting, especially at 1700 in Easthouses, would be important for the defence). Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
What would be the use of denying it, if the information was available on Judith’s phone?
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case; it is inevitable and could go on til the end of time. It's also important to bear in mind that there were a few coincidences (eg, that 2 known delinquents were nearby when Jodi was murdered) and LM got lucky in some instances (like Jodi deleting those texts between 1634-1639, but the main slice of luck that LM had was that he never left any incriminating DNA behind . . . any incriminating DNA was likely on that Parka, and jeans and boots that were all likely disposed of in a fire). Calling the Jones' landline more would've alarmed them and that's what he would definitely not have wanted, especially as it was the height of summer and still light outside; he needed time to cover his tracks, which he did, but there were things that went against him (AB, RW and LF sightings, most notably and the police's foresight). He was very cunning calling the Jones' landline when he did; it was just enough time to set the alibi in place, give the Jones family the impression that he cared and that nothing was wrong. And I believe he had called them at a time just after he'd murdered Jodi and hid her body. So calm and collected beyond his years. Chilling. As for saying to DH that she wasn't coming out, I guess that because they were inseparable by that point he (DH) would not have believed it and to avoid any more questions from DH that that answer would have incited (by telling him she would not be out is direct and straight to the point; a conversation stopper, if you will). LM saying he'd been stood up probably would have been better, but I suspect he had let his guard down here and had a lapse in concentration (inevitable, after what he'd recently done). He may well have been very intelligent and advanced, but he did, imo, give the police several things to use as evidence against him, which was bound to happen because of stress and pressure (he told police that Jodi borrowed clothes and the exact clothes and led them to that body far too quickly to escape suspicion, imo).
Sorry for any typos, etc. My iPhone is broken and I'm using a really substandard phone temporarily.
No problem about the typos but you can’t simply weave a case from the fibres of rumour, myth and supposition.
-
Regarding the trial -- I read some screenshots from a Rangers FC forum that were posted on the blue JB forum. They contained posts from S Kelly communicating with another member from the Rangers FC forum. The other guy said that he was one of the jurors at the trial, sat through and heard every single piece of evidence . . . he stated unequivocally that he was more than satisfied that the correct verdict was returned. Will upload it in due course (if it's still available).
Corinne Mitchell missed a lot of her killer son Luke Mitchell’s trial because she wouldn’t have been able to listen in until after she gave her evidence
And Sandra Lean did not attend the trial and has been making it up ever since
TruthSeekers
@sl_seekers
@eastlothianmp
its taken 18 years and social media to compliment Dr
@SandraLean5
. Everyone 23k + knows the truth. Its a public enquiry for this case.
Quote Tweet
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
· Jun 13
A 14yr old, with no history of violence or cruelty to animals, nothing.But all of a sudden, out of no where, carriez out extreme violence on a scale as bad as Tobins. Didn't happen and you'll know that. But Hamilton and cops spread lie after lie to smear him,and create a murderer
Show this thread
4:44 PM · Jun 15, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/sl_seekers/status/1537098835373264897
And Sandra Lean had no idea what went on in the Mitchell household before she met them
-
TruthSeekers
@sl_seekers
@eastlothianmp
its taken 18 years and social media to compliment Dr
@SandraLean5
. Everyone 23k + knows the truth. Its a public enquiry for this case.
Quote Tweet
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
· Jun 13
A 14yr old, with no history of violence or cruelty to animals, nothing.But all of a sudden, out of no where, carriez out extreme violence on a scale as bad as Tobins. Didn't happen and you'll know that. But Hamilton and cops spread lie after lie to smear him,and create a murderer
Show this thread
4:44 PM · Jun 15, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/sl_seekers/status/1537098835373264897
Sandra Lean’s PhD thesis is nonsense and she used the nonsense of others like Philip Saunder’s killer Michael O’Brien & con man and groomer Michael Naughton, in an attempt to back up her nonsense
-
Corinne Mitchell missed a lot of her killer son Luke Mitchell’s trial because she wouldn’t have been able to listen in until after she gave her evidence.
Good point. During the 2007 BBC Frontline Scotland documentary, I was left with the distinct impression that Corinne was genuinely bamboozled that her son Luke was found guilty and looked like a woman who genuinely and sincerely believed he didn't do it. Perhaps Corinne doesn't know the full story of what happened on 30.06.03 and Shane was the one fully in the know and the one who helped Luke that fateful day? Or was she/is she in denial? Was she acting and pretending in front of the cameras? Did anyone else get this impression when watching the 2007 Frontline doco?
-
Good point. During the 2007 BBC Frontline Scotland documentary, I was left with the distinct impression that Corinne was genuinely bamboozled that her son Luke was found guilty and looked like a woman who genuinely and sincerely believed he didn't do it. Perhaps Corinne doesn't know the full story of what happened on 30.06.03 and Shane was the one fully in the know and the one who helped Luke that fateful day? Or was she/is she in denial? Was she acting and pretending in front of the cameras? Did anyone else get this impression when watching the 2007 Frontline doco?
So only Shane was in the know? Didn’t Corrine come home at 17.15? Are you saying that, if AB’s testimony in court is true, that Luke murdered Jodi, got back to his home and cleaned up completely, with not a jot of forensic transfer, in under 20 minutes?
Do you not think the Corrine was bamboozled because she knew that it was impossible for her son to have committed the crime in the time suggested? Further if you think Corrine knew nothing then you must believe that she didn’t burn Luke’s clothes or buy another parka to replace the one that was burned?
Things don’t really fit together, do they?
-
So only Shane was in the know? Didn’t Corrine come home at 17.15? Are you saying that, if AB’s testimony in court is true, that Luke murdered Jodi, got back to his home and cleaned up completely, with not a jot of forensic transfer, in under 20 minutes?
Do you not think the Corrine was bamboozled because she knew that it was impossible for her son to have committed the crime in the time suggested? Further if you think Corrine knew nothing then you must believe that she didn’t burn Luke’s clothes or buy another parka to replace the one that was burned?
Things don’t really fit together, do they?
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?
FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together?
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.
-
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?
FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together?
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.
You have clarified your opinion on the case and thank you, it certainly was a gargantuan effort.
Unfortunately when individuals resort to inventing scenarios to justify their uninformed opinion I tend to disengage.
-
What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.
That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.
The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.
What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.
The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.
LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.
A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.
The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.
The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.
The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.
-
What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.
I notice that you have stopped describing the jacket worn by Luke as a parka. I suppose it’s progress of a sort. Of course the rest of you post is, to most right thinking people, nonsense. The road you describe is a busy road, especially at between 5 and 6pm on a weekday, yet not one solitary individual except F and W, whose ‘recollections’were, let us not forget, destroyed by Findlay in court, saw Luke cross that road. Further Luke had allegedly reached the gate by the time F and W saw him so why wouldn’t he go a few steps further, past the gate and into heavy vegetation where he would definitely not be seen? Why hang about at the gate in, we are lead to believe, a heavily bloodstained jacket? A much more logical explanation for F & W’s sighting is that they saw Luke, as others who knew him had, further up towards the college and his home, at just the point that the jogger came onto Newbattle Road and where Luke said he had been standing. Why F & W changed their testimony can only be guessed at but sometimes the need to help can leave witnesses uniquely open to manipulation.
That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.
I’m not sure why you are claiming that Luke still had himself at home. That is simply nonsense. The jogger who F & W claim seeing, had herself leaving Newbattle Abbey Cresent at around 5.45pm, at a time when Luke had certainly left home. Therefore it’s only logical to extrapolate that F &W did see Luke and the jogger but further up Newbattle Road than they recollected. Why their recollection was at odds with my hypothesis I have dealt with in my last paragraph. Of course it is also worth remembering that LF couldn’t positively identify Luke in court either. Further RW described her sighting’s jacket as ‘hip length’, more the length of a bomber jacket. When asked what type of jacket it was she said ‘parka but only because of the length’….of course we all know that parkas are almost exclusively mid thigh length, as can be seen in the now famous photo of Luke in his .
The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.
What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.
Was that before or after the mobile shampooing unit came to give him a wash and blow dry? Of course it’s easy to simply make things up to substantiate your beliefs and that might be enough for some but there simply is no evidence of the above, not one jot. Further your claim makes no sense. Why wouldn’t there be a noisy motorbike in the vicinity of where Luke claims he made the call from? Was the street where he was waiting inaccessible to motorbikes? When time, you would have thought, was of the essence why wait 8 minutes to call Jodi’s house again?
The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.
Again are there no motorbikes on Luke’s road?
LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.
A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.
The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.
The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.
The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.
Such clever criminals yet when the police took almost every stitch of clothing Luke had directly after the murder his mother is stupid enough to buy him a parka exactly like the one he had used during the murder, supposedly not realising the stupidity of flagging up the fact that the parka Luke had regularly been seen wearing, and that they didn’t find in the search, had been replaced. Rookie error eh !
-
BTW Parky Mr Apples mentioned a forum you were a member of which had members who attended the trial. I’ve never heard in all the time I’ve been studying the case of such a forum. I’m sure it would be especially helpful for all the members here if you could post a link to this forum.
-
AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings, LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely). He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo. But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling. His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe. So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi), is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home, and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . . LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!), but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily. Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy? Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!), those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi, and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court), he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours, coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show? She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting? He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him? Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose, LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded (his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew), giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).
As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03). That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point). Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps? Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid? Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously? One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.
Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.
-
AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings,
Doesn’t it concern you that neither Bryson or Fleming could positively identify Luke in court? That the timings in Bryson’s initial statements were completely at odds with the prosecution’s timescale? That Bryson stated in court that the jacket worn by her sighting was, categorically, not a parka but simply of the photos she was shown the parka was closest? That proper police procedures hadn’t been followed regarding an identification parade? That Fleming and Walsh directly contradicted each other in court when Walsh was asked about showing her sil the 15th of August newspaper photo of Luke? Further you mention that the three eyewitnesses were drawn to their sighting’s ‘strange behaviour’ yet nowhere in any of those witness’s statements do they mention any kind of strange behaviour….although it was added by both Fleming and Walsh in court.
Eyewitness identification can be problematic especially in a circumstantial case. That’s why in English law we have the Turnbull directions.
“ In criminal cases, the case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA) provides that whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of an identification of the accused that the defence alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification. The judge should also direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification was made. When the quality of the identification evidence is good, the jury can be left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it. However, when the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence that goes to support the correctness of the identification.”
By any standard the identification of the witnesses sighting as Luke were flawed under the above guidelines as, as you said, they were gleaned only after a fleeting glance and in difficult conditions ie when driving.
LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely).
Kelly did not mention a choking sound in his first statement. This is what he said under questioning by DF “ Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.
He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'
"Why did you not describe it as a strangling noise?"
Mr Kelly replied: "I can only put it down to nerves at the time.“
Of course there is also talk that Kelly changed his testimony under duress but I was unable to verify this.
He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo.
It makes absolute sense. From the appeal papers
“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived.”
If we take the earliest time it makes absolute sense for Luke to call Jodi to tell her that he was out of the house and to see where she was. I’m really not sure why you find it odd.
But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling.
And also not true, as posted before:
“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived”..
His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe.
I notice you failed to add context to all of Shane’s dealings with the police and the court. Why do you think that the judge said that the way in which Shane’s interrogation was carried out was unfair? Why do you think he was charged with perverting the course of justice and then the charges dropped at trial? Imagine it was one of your children being treated in this way. Would you expect their answers not to be affected by such duress and intimidation? Be honest.
“
So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi),
Bryson never claimed that she thought that the couple were having a dispute and you have never been able to provide a cite for your claim. The only time I have heard this ‘argument’ mentioned was by Parky. Is that where you got it from?
is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home, and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . .
Again neither Walsh or Fleming mentioned their sighting ‘acting strangely’ in any of their statements. He was described as simply standing by a wooden gate.
LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!),
Agreed if the sighting had been the murderer he would be trying to get home quickly and with the least people noticing him so wh6 do you think that he was simply standing at a gate on the edge of a busy road with no sign that he was in a hurry and, of course no sign of blood on his clothes, the reason, allegedly, for burning his clothes.
but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily.
Why would he stop for Walsh and Fleming to get a better look at him? Surely is he knew that he’d been seen his main concern would be limiting what the witnesses saw not giving them more time to gat a better description ? Can’t you see why that would make no sense?
Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy?
No.
Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!),
Was it uncharacteristic? Why would it be unusual to phone a friend to keep you company if you thought that you’d been stood up by your girlfriend or, indeed, asking him to hurry up? Their meetings might have been infrequent but not unusual. Would you like to hang about unnecessarily waiting for a friend?
those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi,
I’m sure they did if he and Jodi were together most of the time but it’s not in itself suspicious.
and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court),
Then you can provide a cite? BTW it is common knowledge that when Luke was forensically examined at the police station in the early hours of the 1st of July his hair hadn’t been washed and there was dirt around his neck and ankles. He was also wearing the same clothes that he had worn at school.
he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours,
He left the house at 17.30, was seen on the Newbattle Road between 17.45 and 18.15 and then met his friends at the Abbey at 19.00.
coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show?
If she hadn’t shown it was all the more understandable that he waited about on the Newbattle Road. She didn’t have a phone so he couldn’t contact her.
She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting?
He knew that she wasn’t at her house, Ovens had told him that, so what would have been the point?
He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him?
On the contrary, if he was guilty surely phoning the Jones’s landline again to distance himself from the crime would exactly what he would have done?
Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose,
Yes let’s not. Even the BBC has pointed out how Jodi’s families recollections changed from their initial statements to their court testimony. Shameful business.
LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded
I have never heard about the joke text. Do you have a cite? As I have said before there was no use Luke deleting ‘incriminating’ texts as the recipients would also have a copy of the texts. Of course the phone was also in the hands of the police from very early on.
(his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew),
Do you mean the emergency services? The services whose operator who stated how upset the boy on the other end was?
giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).
Buying more time? For what reason?
As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03).
I’m sure they didn’t because of course they weren’t as not one witness had mentioned a parka by that point ( of course Bryson never did). Further if it wasn’t there when the police searched and it ‘appeared’ several days later that would look suspicious. A rather rookie error by arch criminals Luke and his mother to buy an identical jacket to the one used in the murder when they would have known it would flag up it’s absence in the first search.
That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point).
The Mitchell’s didn’t anticipate the jacket being a problem? Really? Of course, according to your good self, Luke knew he had been seen in that very same parka by Walsh and Fleming and surely that must have, in no small part, informed his decision to get rid of it. How do you square that circle?
Okay
Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?
How does that work then?
Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid?
The police never underestimate the stupidity of criminals, believe me.Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously?
And Corrine, a mature adult, went along with this plan, knowing it could result in her son being suspected of murder, why?
One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.
Or perhaps that it had never existed?
Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming.
Not that overwhelming as according to your good self the jury was split 9/6.
It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.
Such as? If it was not reported in the MSM where did you find out about it?
-
Hi Mr. Apples,
"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"
And in another thread: "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."
As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere. There are other indications that he was fairly normal: A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example. Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime. I have substantial doubt.
-
Hi Mr. Apples,
"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"
And in another thread: "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."
As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere. There are other indications that he was fairly normal: A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example. Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime. I have substantial doubt.
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
-
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
After Janine’s and Steven’s testimony changed so did the weight that we can attach to it. So unless you were there there is absolutely no way that you can know how the finding of the body played out. Further your narrative is further compromised by the fact that you were never in the courtroom, never heard a word of direct testimony and, from what you’ve intimated, everything has been gleaned from press reports and forums like this….hardly the most authoritative of sources.
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.
Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.
Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?
It was John [Name removed] who said initially that it was Mark Bill Bryson who said (in Alice Walker's house on the afternoon of 01.07.03) his brother (AB's husband) had spotted the youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots at the Easthouses end of the path. Also according to [Name removed], there waa a general agreement that this sighting was Luke on the basis of his Army Cadet membership.
SL tries to make a big deal out of a photograph that was taken -- 6 weeks after the murder -- of Mark Bill Bryson & his brother (AB's husband) in the house of a close relative of Jodi's with other members of Jodi's family. Also, she tries to imply that there could have been collusion between the Brysons and the Jones & Walker families as Mark Bill Bryson's girlfriend started cutting Judith's hair at the Joneses' family home after 30.06.03. Clutching at straws, imo.
-
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.
‘Everything pertaining to this case’ isn’t in the public domain
And [moderated] didn’t attend the 42 day trial so she doesn’t have a clue about the ‘everything’ to do with the case against killer Luke Mitchell
Also there wasn’t a single journo who covered the trial in its entirety
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point).
What about the yellow framed bike?
Did grifter Sandra Lean ‘craftily’ omit details of this too. What exactly did she state in her second book about what John F (JOF) said about killer Luke Mitchell’s push bike?
-
This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting.
How did con artist Sandra Lean form this tale?
-
SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages.
Sandra Lean
Push bikes featured with an almost ridiculous amount of significance in the early investigation, and it was literally years before I discovered why.
And there was a reason fraudster Sandra Lean omitted the ‘ridiculous amount’ of significant evidence regarding the push bikes
-
I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to?
Did this young guys mother give evidence/make a statement ?
-
You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.
Corinne Mitchell knew - just like she knew her killer son Luke Mitchell had owned that parka jacket before she replaced it with another one
-
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo.
What did Shane Mitchell tell the police about the German shepherd dog the family had before Mia?
-
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point.
On what date was killer Luke Mitchell’s missing parka first mentioned to the police?
-
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
Suzy says;
“The author has mentioned the “jury” several times here. It is important for us to remember that the verdict against Luke Mitchell was NOT unanimous. It was a majority verdict. We never find out the voting ratio but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 juror, maybe more, did not believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that Luke Mitchell committed this heinous crime.”
Admin says;
“For ‘20 years’ you have been duped by this guilty killer and his toxic enablers innocence fraud.
You have stated; “I am very much of the opinion that you read the initial statements of witnesses”.
Psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page written statement was read to the jury during his trial.
At the time of making his 22 page statement he was a witness and his mother Corinne Mitchell was sat next to him when he made this statement.
Can you tell us all what he said in those 22 pages, as was read out during open court in November 2004?”
(See foot here👇)
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-24/
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unbelievable_Story_of_Rape
A woman (pseudonym Marie) claimed that she was raped. Police repeatedly interviewed her and got her to recant; she was later charged with a gross misdemeanor. Evidence later turned up against a serial rapist in another state linked him to Marie's rape. At the NYT Emily Bazelon wrote, "An external reviewer said that if the two police officers who interrogated Marie hadn’t documented their own “bullying and coercive” behavior, he “would have been skeptical” that such conduct actually happened." There have been several articles, a book, and a podcast about these cases, and my short summary above is merely meant to introduce these cases, not as a complete summary.
Clearly the particulars of the crime are different. My point is that police can convince a witness to say (and presumably believe) things that are not true, even when it is against that person's interests to say it. As I have ruminated on the Mitchell/Jones case, I. have become increasingly troubled by the number of witnesses who made material changes between their initial statements and their courtroom. It is one of the reasons why this conviction is unsafe.
-
From Alice Walker’s court testimony.
“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”
Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+The+finest+day+I+ever+had+was+when+tomorrow...-a0126288471
The link above has this quote. One wishes that Pat Brown had dug into this sort of conflicting testimony.
-
From Alice Walker’s court testimony.
“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”
Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?
You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.
10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.
10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.
11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.
10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.
After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.
Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.
And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.
So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
-
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path. /
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here. / Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
The time spent loitering on the path is very revealing of his need for control in finding the body IMO. If LM defenders claims had an ounce of truth then the tracker dog, which was so good, missed the body first time round yet found it second time on the shortest leash with all those other woodland animals and various scents abound. If your girlfriend was missing after 11pm at night why would you wait 30 mins before putting it in "tracker mode"?
Of course, if it were all an elaborate sacrificial killing as put forth by Lean & Co then surely the search party would have lead LM to the V and encouraged him to go over and turn left in the darkness?
-
You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.
10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.
10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.
11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.
10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.
After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.
Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.
And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.
So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
“ The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
Except Jodi wasn’t going to the path, was she? According to Judith Jodi was ‘mucking about up here’ so why did Alice Walker think that the path is where she should look? What did Judith say to Alice in that first phone call? A logical question from Alice would obviously be “where was Jodi going” and from Alice’s testimony in court it doesn’t appear that the answer was ‘mucking about in Easthouses’.
-
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799221.police-tore-up-the-guidelines-claim-lukes-defence-team/
"Mr Findlay maintains that if a proper ID parade had been held - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the 'stand-ins'. 'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,'" he [Donald Findlay] said.
-
"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389
-
"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389
There was talk that Luke showed no emotion when photographs of Jodi’s body was shown to the court. Your second link seems to suggest otherwise.
-
There was talk that Luke showed no emotion when photographs of Jodi’s body was shown to the court. Your second link seems to suggest otherwise.
Your inference seems quite likely.
-
“ The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
Except Jodi wasn’t going to the path, was she? According to Judith Jodi was ‘mucking about up here’ so why did Alice Walker think that the path is where she should look? What did Judith say to Alice in that first phone call? A logical question from Alice would obviously be “where was Jodi going” and from Alice’s testimony in court it doesn’t appear that the answer was ‘mucking about in Easthouses’.
They, they, they, not Jodi but they -- Do get it correct at least.
I will give you two clues here, one is "they" and the other is time - What was related to AW via her daughter? That LM had said he had not seen Jodi, now we add in time here, where would the time factor and relevance be of saying to her mother, Luke said he had not seen her and that "they" did not happen, so there would be no "up here" as there was no "they" - Pretty sure the worry and panic that set in around someone being wrong took priority, without the slightest thought process being applicable in that time frame - As in, barely time to sit, think, digest anything at all before LM is dialling 999. - So we are still at, no they, something wrong, checks made, Luke path, search, area where the couple would meet regularly, a place when met, if met, where there would then be this "they" to head off wherever "they" were supposed to be going together. - Get my drift?
Now for time and realism around those 54mins - Now we can cut that right down to what? Around 20mins of communication to several bodies from these people, each other, police, friends, before AW headed out of her house, after leaving her house, take off the travel distance, and we had around 8min from setting off together before LM is dialling 999. - So you see, there was no up here, no they, no chance of any thought process of moving off anywhere else from that path, BECAUSE LM is dialling 999. Very much why there was also nothing from JaJ's, of we did not get a chance to think of searching anywhere else, for there was NO need to be searching anywhere else, because LM went straight to the wall once, then again, over it and - bang. And to not and never forget that these were DF's attempts at trying to say, well they went to the path too without anywhere else, and that clincher, of "If it hadn't been for Luke then Jodi would still have been lying there?" Oops, he was the very reason why she was not because he knew exactly where to go in record breaking time, because of his special knowledge! Because, and let's face us, that poor girl would not have been lying there at all, if it had not been for LM?
It was dark then it was light, it was searching to not searching, to racing up a path because it was dark, no it was light, to dog doing nothing because one was racing up a path and did not pay any attention to anything his dog may have been doing - No wait, that cannot possibly be correct, for, from 10:59pm - 11:18pm he had only gotten as far as the area of the V break in that wall - Oh dear, do you see a problem with this utter nonsense of constant conflicting accounts, to try and excuse, explain and evade the stark reality of LM's special knowledge.
Will we deflect now into why on earth did they not have their torches on in the complex? That open playing field where again, that ludicrous notion of putting any torch on to shine around that open playing field, where darkness had just fell, where many and multiple people had been all over that open field over the course of that evening - Realistic at all to be doing that, when there had been no they anyway? No up here, just nothing but something wrong, caught up in a rapid series of events - Bang.
The police, the calls, something wrong, going to attend any minute, they arrive at Jodi's house to take further details to help around something being wrong, a young girl missing and bang. Barely 15mins later from knocking the door and that call comes through that a body has been found.
And all because of AW wanting to check the path, the verges properly - Gave cause to LM going to the wall directly and firstly, then to the next break, up and over, around 10steps and bang - Did you see anything of any cattle prod in the statements, from LM? No of course not, these were LM's actions, no one else's.
10:40pm to 11:34pm with only around 5mins of actually searching, what was supposed to be a path and verges together -
-
They, they, they, not Jodi but they -- Do get it correct at least.
I will give you two clues here, one is "they" and the other is time - What was related to AW via her daughter? That LM had said he had not seen Jodi, now we add in time here, where would the time factor and relevance be of saying to her mother, Luke said he had not seen her and that "they" did not happen, so there would be no "up here" as there was no "they" - Pretty sure the worry and panic that set in around someone being wrong took priority, without the slightest thought process being applicable in that time frame - As in, barely time to sit, think, digest anything at all before LM is dialling 999. - So we are still at, no they, something wrong, checks made, Luke path, search, area where the couple would meet regularly, a place when met, if met, where there would then be this "they" to head off wherever "they" were supposed to be going together. - Get my drift?
Now for time and realism around those 54mins - Now we can cut that right down to what? Around 20mins of communication to several bodies from these people, each other, police, friends, before AW headed out of her house, after leaving her house, take off the travel distance, and we had around 8min from setting off together before LM is dialling 999. - So you see, there was no up here, no they, no chance of any thought process of moving off anywhere else from that path, BECAUSE LM is dialling 999. Very much why there was also nothing from JaJ's, of we did not get a chance to think of searching anywhere else, for there was NO need to be searching anywhere else, because LM went straight to the wall once, then again, over it and - bang. And to not and never forget that these were DF's attempts at trying to say, well they went to the path too without anywhere else, and that clincher, of "If it hadn't been for Luke then Jodi would still have been lying there?" Oops, he was the very reason why she was not because he knew exactly where to go in record breaking time, because of his special knowledge! Because, and let's face us, that poor girl would not have been lying there at all, if it had not been for LM?
It was dark then it was light, it was searching to not searching, to racing up a path because it was dark, no it was light, to dog doing nothing because one was racing up a path and did not pay any attention to anything his dog may have been doing - No wait, that cannot possibly be correct, for, from 10:59pm - 11:18pm he had only gotten as far as the area of the V break in that wall - Oh dear, do you see a problem with this utter nonsense of constant conflicting accounts, to try and excuse, explain and evade the stark reality of LM's special knowledge.
Will we deflect now into why on earth did they not have their torches on in the complex? That open playing field where again, that ludicrous notion of putting any torch on to shine around that open playing field, where darkness had just fell, where many and multiple people had been all over that open field over the course of that evening - Realistic at all to be doing that, when there had been no they anyway? No up here, just nothing but something wrong, caught up in a rapid series of events - Bang.
The police, the calls, something wrong, going to attend any minute, they arrive at Jodi's house to take further details to help around something being wrong, a young girl missing and bang. Barely 15mins later from knocking the door and that call comes through that a body has been found.
And all because of AW wanting to check the path, the verges properly - Gave cause to LM going to the wall directly and firstly, then to the next break, up and over, around 10steps and bang - Did you see anything of any cattle prod in the statements, from LM? No of course not, these were LM's actions, no one else's.
10:40pm to 11:34pm with only around 5mins of actually searching, what was supposed to be a path and verges together -
I’m not getting caught in the weeds.
“The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
There was no reason for Alice to go to the path unless she had been told that that Jodi had walked that way to Luke’s. No reason to look if she thought that Luke, as was alleged, always walked her granddaughter down the path. Who told her that Jodi was walking the path….Judith, Janine, who knows? No need to walk the length of the path if Jodi was simply going to meet Luke at the beginning to ‘muck about up here.
We are told that Judith asked Luke why he hadn’t phoned her back when Jodi didn’t turn up. Think about that. Doesn’t that suggest that Jodi was going to Luke and not Luke to Jodi and that Judith knew that.
-
Gary L. Wells, Brian L. Cutler, and Lisa Hasel wrote a chapter on eyewitness identification for the book "Race to Injustice." On pages 313-314 they listed the characteristics of a good lineup, which included:
"Fillers should match the general description that the eyewitness gave of the culprit, and the administrators should take any other measures that will ensure the suspect will not stand out.
Witnesses should be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, and told not to guess."
[My paraphrase] The lineup should be double-blind.
"The lineup administrator should record a clear statement of the witness' certainty at the time of the identification."
The authors also point out that showing a witness a suspect's photo repeatedly can lead to "memory source error," which is when the witness remembers the face from the photo, not the crime scene.
-
I would like to return to the subject of two witnesses in the Newbattle area, Mrs. Walsh and Ms. Fleming. "Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant.
[101] Miss Fleming's police statement hinted at what may actually have occurred. She had informed the police that Miss Walsh, the sister of her partner, provided her with a copy of the Daily Record of 15 August 2003 on 21 August. Miss Walsh spoke to having seen this newspaper and to it featuring a picture of the appellant whom she recognised as the male she had seen. She accepted that she had then shown this picture to Miss Fleming. This demonstrated that Miss Fleming had been confused about how she came to see the picture and that she had manufactured a piece of evidence. The cross-contamination of the identification evidence between Miss Walsh and Miss Fleming was of particular importance, given the fact that no identification parade had taken place." Murderpedia
Sandra Lean wrote, On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture [which had appeared on the 15th]. The following day Ms Fleming said in a statement that Ms. Walsh came to her house around 6:25pm the previous evening and said, "I know I'm not supposed to talk to you, but take a look at this" and handed her the Daily Record..."
"Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006)."
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
The prosecution's case is almost nothing but eyewitness testimony. It is remarkable how poor in quality this testimony was.
-
I would like to return to the subject of two witnesses in the Newbattle area, Mrs. Walsh and Ms. Fleming. "Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant.
[101] Miss Fleming's police statement hinted at what may actually have occurred. She had informed the police that Miss Walsh, the sister of her partner, provided her with a copy of the Daily Record of 15 August 2003 on 21 August. Miss Walsh spoke to having seen this newspaper and to it featuring a picture of the appellant whom she recognised as the male she had seen. She accepted that she had then shown this picture to Miss Fleming. This demonstrated that Miss Fleming had been confused about how she came to see the picture and that she had manufactured a piece of evidence. The cross-contamination of the identification evidence between Miss Walsh and Miss Fleming was of particular importance, given the fact that no identification parade had taken place." Murderpedia
Sandra Lean wrote, On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture [which had appeared on the 15th]. The following day Ms Fleming said in a statement that Ms. Walsh came to her house around 6:25pm the previous evening and said, "I know I'm not supposed to talk to you, but take a look at this" and handed her the Daily Record..."
"Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006)."
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
The prosecution's case is almost nothing but eyewitness testimony. It is remarkable how poor in quality this testimony was.
“ On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke”
The police had to approach Mrs Walsh because neither she nor Mrs Fleming appear to have thought that recognising a suspected murderer warranted them informing the police themselves. In fact it was a colleague of Walsh who eventually informed the police of her ‘identification’.
-
If the police had constructed a proper photo ID to show Ms. Walsh, that would be one thing. However, showing her the photo that appeared in the paper could have contaminated her memory, and she later did the same thing regarding Ms. Fleming.
"For instance, simply seeing an innocent suspect in a lineup can lead a witness to later misidentify that now-familiar suspect as the perpetrator. Because human memory is inherently malleable, an eyewitness’s memory will be contaminated after a first test, even if it and subsequent tests use pristine procedures."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/may-2022-pspilive-eyewitness-testimony.html
-
If the police had constructed a proper photo ID to show Ms. Walsh, that would be one thing. However, showing her the photo that appeared in the paper could have contaminated her memory, and she later did the same thing regarding Ms. Fleming.
"For instance, simply seeing an innocent suspect in a lineup can lead a witness to later misidentify that now-familiar suspect as the perpetrator. Because human memory is inherently malleable, an eyewitness’s memory will be contaminated after a first test, even if it and subsequent tests use pristine procedures."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/may-2022-pspilive-eyewitness-testimony.html
I don’t know how showing the witness an article describing the arrest of Luke with a photograph of him and asking was that the youth she saw can be described as anything but prejudicial.
-
I don’t know how showing the witness an article describing the arrest of Luke with a photograph of him and asking was that the youth she saw can be described as anything but prejudicial.
I agree. Defenders of the police/prosecution here said words to the effect, "They are just guidelines." This kind of thinking ignores the obvious question. What good reason was there for ignoring them? If no answer can be given, then the conclusion must be that they were deliberately flouted in order to obtain a conviction.
The author of a 2022 article at The Economist newsmagazine wrote, "The answer, as he and Dr Loftus argue in a recently published paper, is to test a witness’s memory as fairly as possible, and—crucially—to do so only once...Dr Wixted cited the case of Charles Don Flores, a prisoner awaiting execution for a murder committed in 1998. Initially, when shown a line-up that included Mr Flores, a crucial witness said none of the people matched her recollection. (She had recalled a white man with long hair. Mr Flores is of Latin American extraction, and had short hair then.) By the time the case came to trial a year later, she had changed her mind, and Mr Flores was convicted. His appeal on the basis of the witness’s change of mind has been denied. Dr Wixted, however, suggests she was likely to have been right the first time and wrong the second."
It is regrettable that the appeals process in the case of Mr. Flores did not recognize the discrepancy, and it helps explain why the highly problematic eyewitness testimony in the Mitchell case was not enough to generate a successful appeal. Another take-home message is that the appearance of Luke Mitchell's photograph in the press on 15 August was a major element in the Fleming/Walsh apparent sighting (Innocents Betrayed, pp. 130-131). The newspaper photograph also had some influence on Andrina Bryson, according to the appeal as found at Murderpedia: "The witness had seen a picture of the appellant in a newspaper the following day and had confirmed in evidence that this had added some weight to her identification." Mrs. Bryson had viewed a photo lineup on 14 August, if I am not mistaken.
-
Chris: do you believe LM is not guilty or are you just not convinced about the evidence that convicted him? I have now met 2 people who attended the trial, one who attended every day, and they have no doubt about the verdict.
It would seem the pro-LM camp consider that every single witness (apart from LM & CM) has lied, and that police corruption and media input were to blame without considering the totality of evidence that convicted him.
-
KenMore,
Let's take the second paragraph first. No, I do not believe that every witness lied, and the examples that I provided suggests that the witnesses' changing their stories has other explanations. The two primary causes are contamination of memories (for which I have given examples and discussion) and the police cajoling/persuading witnesses to change their stories over time. The latter is plausibly inferred from other cases (two of which I discussed upthread). One cannot simply look at the final result (however strong or weak) without digging into how it was obtained. Putting it another way, guidelines regarding identifications were adopted for a reason, that reason being to obtain the most reliable information possible.
Regarding the media, I would say that publishing Luke Mitchell's picture created profound problems for the investigation, and the investigators made things worse by using the photograph. Regarding the question of possible police corruption, there is no bright line between an incompetent investigation and a corrupt one. The evidence that this was at least a sloppy, biased investigation begins but does not end with the events of 1 July.
Even apart from the changing stories (itself a red flag), these were poor identifications. For example, Ms. Bryson's descriptions of a man and a woman do not resemble Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones. IIRC only with time did Ms. Fleming or Ms. Walsh claim even to have glimpsed Luke's face. Eyewitness identifications without one's getting a good look at someone's face should have been seen as non-probative. The fact that both identifications were done by people traveling in cars is another problem, one that was particularly severe in the case of Ms. Bryson, who was traveling around a bend in the road.
On the side of guilt we have utterly untrustworthy identifications and the testimony of the search party. There is no motive, apart from pure conjecture. There is no reasonable murder weapon (who holds a knife using just one's thumb and forefinger?). There is no confession. On the side of innocence we have plausible alternative suspects. There is no forensic evidence against Luke Mitchell. There is a timeline that is dubiously short, one that becomes even tighter if you allow for the possibility that Jodi Jones' body was moved. There is an alibi from Corinne Mitchell. I trust that this answers the question from your first paragraph.
-
On the side of innocence we have plausible alternative suspects. There is no forensic evidence against Luke Mitchell. There is a timeline that is dubiously short, one that becomes even tighter if you allow for the possibility that Jodi Jones' body was moved. There is an alibi from Corinne Mitchell. I trust that this answers the question from your first paragraph.
I'm still not sure if you say LM is guilty? A few points: if the search party changed their statements to incriminate LM, would they not have all agreed to the same statement fro the start? As regards witnesses - I couldn't recall exactly what clothing someone was wearing yesterday when I drove past them. As regards Corinne, unfortunately she has lied many times on podcasts and forums so can't be seen to be reliable source. She even changed her her initial police statement after being seen on CCTV. Even the great detective Forbes claims that more than half of mothers he spoke to claim they would lie to protect their son from murder.
I have walked the crime scene area many times - it is easy to cover this distance with time to spare, plus the time between 9-11pm to dispose of evidence and clean up. There is also no forensic evidence against any other person. There are no plausible alternative suspects - they were all interviewed and eliminated at the time despite Lean & Co's protestations. The totality of evidence firmly places LM as the only possible suspect, 3000+ police statements, 100 court witness statements, only one alibi from his mother and his brother unable to alibi him etc.
-
There are other DNA profiles, including Steven Kelly's DNA profile; the official explanation for that is implausible on the grounds that Jodi and Janine were not living in the same house. If the police or prosecution claim to have investigated other suspects, this claim must be weighed against the misleading or untrue things that they have said.
Your reconstruction has Luke Mitchell cleaning up between 9 and 11. Yet none of the people who may have seen him said anything about seeing blood. Nor is there any evidence of a cleanup/disposal.
You keep talking about the totality of the evidence without addressing the multitude of problems associated with it. To take just one example, you said that you cannot remember what someone was wearing when you drove past them. Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh did not get a good look at Mr. Mitchell's face, and they did not describe his hair color or color of footwear correctly. Upon what information, then, is their identification based? Ms Fleming claimed to remember seeing a photograph of Mitchell that never existed. "Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'" (from a story by Gordon McIlwraith found at TheFreeLibrary.com). I agree with Mr. Findlay.
-
There are other DNA profiles, including Steven Kelly's DNA profile; the official explanation for that is implausible on the grounds that Jodi and Janine were not living in the same house. If the police or prosecution claim to have investigated other suspects, this claim must be weighed against the misleading or untrue things that they have said.
Your reconstruction has Luke Mitchell cleaning up between 9 and 11. Yet none of the people who may have seen him said anything about seeing blood. Nor is there any evidence of a cleanup/disposal.
You keep talking about the totality of the evidence without addressing the multitude of problems associated with it. To take just one example, you said that you cannot remember what someone was wearing when you drove past them. Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh did not get a good look at Mr. Mitchell's face, and they did not describe his hair color or color of footwear correctly. Upon what information, then, is their identification based? Ms Fleming claimed to remember seeing a photograph of Mitchell that never existed. "Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'" (from a story by Gordon McIlwraith found at TheFreeLibrary.com). I agree with Mr. Findlay.
No disprespect, but if you knew the local area you might see things differently. Of course there were many witness inconsistencies on botrh sides, but neither of us were at the trial to witness the full presented evidence where the jury gave a majority guilty verdict. I have not met anyone that was at court that doubted the verdict and have spoken to associates of SM who verify this. You/we can grasp at straws that may shed a tiny speck of doubt on the verdict, but no appeal has been anywhere near gaining ground in altering the original decision. If SL was to publish even parts of the 200 page statement of reasons from the SCCRC then the whole sorry affair would soon collapse.
No credible Scottish lawyer will touch this case which is why it falls to Lean & Forbes to whip up those who are easily lead.
PS: If I was guilty of any crime I would have Findlay KC on my side - one of the sharpest legal minds around - but LM prefers Forbes and a small town local criminal defence lawyer.
-
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5182
I would like to focus on eyewitness testimony a little more before moving on to other matters. In the Dean Gillispie wrongful conviction, Mr. Gillispie's photograph stood out from the others. "The detective created a photo lineup in which Gillispie’s photo “was closer and larger than the other photos in the spread and, unlike the other photos, had a matte finish,” Judge Merz wrote." Also, "The defense challenged the lineup as being unfairly suggestive because the photo of Gillispie had a yellow background while the other photos had blue backgrounds." For more on the problems of memory with respect to eyewitness identifications, Chapter 5 in Mark Godsey's book Blind Injustice is a good read. Mr. Godsey is a former prosecutor. In the present case there was one badly flawed photo lineup, and one identification that had no lineup at all. Astonishing.
Juries are indeed present for the whole trial, yet there are still wrongful convictions; therefore, being present is not sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jim and Nancy Petro's book "False Justice" gives some reasons. One is that not all jurors understand finality in the criminal justice system, believing that if they make a mistake, that the appeals system will correct it. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only dumb luck led to her freedom. Todd Willingham lost all of his appeals an was executed, yet several top arson investigators have found no evidence of arson. Anyone pinning his or her hopes on being exonerated by the appeals system is naive.
BTW portions of the denial of the 2008 appeal can be found at Murderpedia.org, and the passages that I have read are predictable in their defense of the police and prosecution. I do not recall seeing the SCCRC's decision, and until I do, I will withhold judgment on it. But while looking for more information on it, I did find this piece of information in another thread here: "The results indicated that although it was likely the DNA was attributable to semen, it was not possible to say conclusively that other body fluids were not also included." Hmmm...
-
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5182
I would like to focus on eyewitness testimony a little more before moving on to other matters. In the Dean Gillispie wrongful conviction, Mr. Gillispie's photograph stood out from the others. "The detective created a photo lineup in which Gillispie’s photo “was closer and larger than the other photos in the spread and, unlike the other photos, had a matte finish,” Judge Merz wrote." Also, "The defense challenged the lineup as being unfairly suggestive because the photo of Gillispie had a yellow background while the other photos had blue backgrounds." For more on the problems of memory with respect to eyewitness identifications, Chapter 5 in Mark Godsey's book Blind Injustice is a good read. Mr. Godsey is a former prosecutor. In the present case there was one badly flawed photo lineup, and one identification that had no lineup at all. Astonishing.
Juries are indeed present for the whole trial, yet there are still wrongful convictions; therefore, being present is not sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jim and Nancy Petro's book "False Justice" gives some reasons. One is that not all jurors understand finality in the criminal justice system, believing that if they make a mistake, that the appeals system will correct it. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only dumb luck led to her freedom. Todd Willingham lost all of his appeals an was executed, yet several top arson investigators have found no evidence of arson. Anyone pinning his or her hopes on being exonerated by the appeals system is naive.
BTW portions of the denial of the 2008 appeal can be found at Murderpedia.org, and the passages that I have read are predictable in their defense of the police and prosecution. I do not recall seeing the SCCRC's decision, and until I do, I will withhold judgment on it. But while looking for more information on it, I did find this piece of information in another thread here: "The results indicated that although it was likely the DNA was attributable to semen, it was not possible to say conclusively that other body fluids were not also included." Hmmm...
Further if a family member had been the perpetrator of this crime then it would not be odd to find their DNA on the victim. Indeed it would be odd not to. There was no forensic examination of Jodi’s family’s home or any site connected to the family so who knows what that would have thrown up.
Jodi’s brother was identified by a witness as a man seen following her yet it appears he was never questioned about this let alone being asked to attend an identification parade, after all there were two witnesses who saw Jodi being followed. He was also never put on the witness stand by the defence. This I find odd. His only alibi was his mother and while his mother was indeed a victim of this horrendous crime it does not rule out the fact that she may have lied to save her son.
-
Mark Godsey (p. 113 of Blind Injustice) wrote, “In 1979 in Georgia, a woman was raped by an intruder in her home. She told police that her attacker had a round face and a stocky build.1 Several weeks after the rape, the police had her look at suspects in a live lineup (see fig. 3).
“All five suspects in the lineup are quite thin with narrow faces, except the man on the far right. The man on the right seems to be the only one who fit the physical characteristics of the rapist described by the victim. Nevertheless, the victim selected the man in the middle, John Jerome White. After she identified him again at trial, White was convicted and spent more than twenty-two years in prison before DNA testing exonerated him.2 The testing further proved , however, that the man on the far right, James Parham, was the actual rapist.
“Why did the victim erroneously choose White when the real rapist was right in front of her? Because a few days before the live lineup, the police had her look at a photo spread, which included a photo of White but not of Parham…As I will explain, memory experts now understand that when a rape victim incorrectly selects the photo of an innocent person, the face in that photo often transplants the face of the real perpetrator, and the victim may no longer even recognize the actual rapist.”
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
-
Mark Godsey (p. 113 of Blind Injustice) wrote, “In 1979 in Georgia, a woman was raped by an intruder in her home. She told police that her attacker had a round face and a stocky build.1 Several weeks after the rape, the police had her look at suspects in a live lineup (see fig. 3).
“All five suspects in the lineup are quite thin with narrow faces, except the man on the far right. The man on the right seems to be the only one who fit the physical characteristics of the rapist described by the victim. Nevertheless, the victim selected the man in the middle, John Jerome White. After she identified him again at trial, White was convicted and spent more than twenty-two years in prison before DNA testing exonerated him.2 The testing further proved , however, that the man on the far right, James Parham, was the actual rapist.
“Why did the victim erroneously choose White when the real rapist was right in front of her? Because a few days before the live lineup, the police had her look at a photo spread, which included a photo of White but not of Parham…As I will explain, memory experts now understand that when a rape victim incorrectly selects the photo of an innocent person, the face in that photo often transplants the face of the real perpetrator, and the victim may no longer even recognize the actual rapist.”
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
Absolutely and further if Bryson in her first statements claimed the sighting was an hour later than it actually was how can she ever be described as a credible witness.
-
I would like to return to Rosemary Walsh and the photograph of Luke Mitchell. Sandra Lean wrote (p. 130), "After Luke's picture appeared in the media for the first time on August 15th, Rosemary Walsh began telling colleagues that Luke was the persons she and her sister-in-law saw on the evening of June 30th...On August 21st, police approached Mrs Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture."
The BBC reported, "Recalling the newspaper when speaking to police last September, Ms Walsh told them: 'As soon as I saw the photo, he jumped out at me as the male I saw on the path at the gate that night.' She told the court that she had seen the newspaper story at her work. She said the delay in speaking to police was because she wanted to check with her sister-in-law [Ms. Fleming] first."
The report from the BBC is a little ambiguous in one respect, namely that "as soon as I saw the photo" could refer to when she saw the photo in the paper (on or after 15 August) or when the police showed it to her (I favor the former interpretation). Some commenters say that Ms. Walsh exclaimed words to the effect, "Oh my God, it's him" when she saw the photograph, but I cannot find a citation for this.
If Ms. Walsh saw Luke Mitchell's photo before 21 August, then the identification process was already compromised. That does not excuse the police, however, for not showing her a photo or live lineup. Even if Ms. Walsh said those words to the police on 21 August, it may only reflect her transplanting the photographic image onto the events of the late afternoon of 30 June. The more I look into the eyewitness evidence in this case, the more I think that it was a Potemkin village.
-
Chapter 3 of Brandon L. Garrett's book Convicting the Innocent covers eyewitness identification errors. He wrote on page 57, "Additional eyewitness misidentifications, other than from showups, occurred after witnesses were exposed to single images of the exoneree. Some witnesses also saw wanted posters or media coverage displaying a composite drawing of the subject. In Michael Blair's case, for example all three eyewitnesses had already seen photos of him in the local newspaper or on television before picking his photo from a lineup.40"
This passage is relevant to the present case because from the sources I have consulted, both Rosemary Walsh and Andrina Bryson saw Luke Mitchell's photograph in the newspaper (see comments upthread).
-
In Convicting the Innocent, a retrospective analysis of wrongful convictions, Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory.41
This passage is relevant to the photo lineup that was shown to Andrina Bryson. Mr. Mitchell's photo stood out, and he was the only one with long hair. The fact that it was a photo lineup is also problematic. "If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]. https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/)
Some of the specifics of this identification are open to question. "She never identified the girl as Jodi but described a male with lots of messy hair making a strange gesture towards the girl." Her initial description was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and his hair pretty much hangs down. Ms. Bryson was going around a turn, and to see the two people, she would have had to look left while turning right if northbound or right while turning left if southbound. How she would have had time to observe strange gestures is not clear.
-
No disprespect, but if you knew the local area you might see things differently. Of course there were many witness inconsistencies on botrh sides, but neither of us were at the trial to witness the full presented evidence where the jury gave a majority guilty verdict. I have not met anyone that was at court that doubted the verdict and have spoken to associates of SM who verify this. You/we can grasp at straws that may shed a tiny speck of doubt on the verdict, but no appeal has been anywhere near gaining ground in altering the original decision. If SL was to publish even parts of the 200 page statement of reasons from the SCCRC then the whole sorry affair would soon collapse.
No credible Scottish lawyer will touch this case which is why it falls to Lean & Forbes to whip up those who are easily lead.
PS: If I was guilty of any crime I would have Findlay KC on my side - one of the sharpest legal minds around - but LM prefers Forbes and a small town local criminal defence lawyer.
KenMore,
I doubt that the average local resident has spent time pondering the right and wrong ways to elicit an eyewitness identification: why should they? It is a subject that abuts one of my professional interests, and reading up on it has been both interesting and informative. The present case has many points of similarity with other problematic eyewitness identifications, as I have touched upon in my recent comments.
The case took over forty days, yet the jury took just five hours to reach a verdict. It is difficult for me to see how they had time to deliberate about each witness and every forensic question. I also think that the defense should have called an expert in eyewitness testimony to walk the jury through the...shortcuts...that the police employed. The comments of Tim Valentine in the BBC Frontline documentary were enlightening.
-
The BBC Frontline documentary apparently had access to the original police statements from Janine Jones and her boyfriend Steven Kelly, who along with Alice Walker and Luke Mitchell, formed the search party on the night of 30 June 2023. Starting at about 21 minutes into this documentary, the statements are compared and contrasted to the testimonies. These discrepancies are consistent with my recollection the discussion of this topic within Dr. Lean's book, and their existence undermines a major plank of the prosecution's case. Professor Tim Valentine (https://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/valentine/) is quoted at several points in the documentary including this one. One wishes that an expert in eyewitness identifications had given evidence at the trial, but I am unaware of any such testimony.
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted. Instead (and assuming that he wished to participate in finding the body for some reason), he should have insisted on obtaining a piece of Jodi's clothing to present to Mia, his Alsatian dog who was being trained to track.
-
The BBC Frontline documentary apparently had access to the original police statements from Janine Jones and her boyfriend Steven Kelly, who along with Alice Walker and Luke Mitchell, formed the search party on the night of 30 June 2023. Starting at about 21 minutes into this documentary, the statements are compared and contrasted to the testimonies. These discrepancies are consistent with my recollection the discussion of this topic within Dr. Lean's book, and their existence undermines a major plank of the prosecution's case. Professor Tim Valentine (https://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/valentine/) is quoted at several points in the documentary including this one. One wishes that an expert in eyewitness identifications had given evidence at the trial, but I am unaware of any such testimony.
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted. Instead (and assuming that he wished to participate in finding the body for some reason), he should have insisted on obtaining a piece of Jodi's clothing to present to Mia, his Alsatian dog who was being trained to track.
Is this the same as what you posted here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14093916
Roberta Glass has a playlist on Innocence fraudsters Knox & Sollecito
👇
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZCroaJ4oThAQ908NkEzftgURqs7CEqBo
-
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted.
That’s what he did do
One month shy of his 15th birthday and he wasn’t at all phased and stayed over that side of the wall, even when he eventually dialled 999
Amanda Knox Explains it All to You
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/OtTnNR_eHpI?feature=share
-
Nicholas,
Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent or guilty? I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass, and it had the usual nonsensical arguments. After I heard her make an obvious forensic chemistry error, I gave up.
EDT
These are more general questions: Do you know of any wrongfully convicted individuals? Do you know of any false confessions?
-
Roberta Glass has a playlist on Innocence fraudsters Knox & Sollecito
👇
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZCroaJ4oThAQ908NkEzftgURqs7CEqBo
Roberta Glass is another guilt grifter. She makes Pat Brown look fair and balanced by comparison.
-
I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass
Amanda Knox Changes Her Story Again!
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/HsPxozrB6os?feature=share
-
Roberta Glass claimed that the rock that broke Filomena's window was thrown from the inside.
"To establish whether the window was broken from inside or out, the investigation lawyers recruited forensic glass specialist Greg Waite. Returning to the scale set, Mr Waite set about throwing a similar rock through a window from the outside-in and then repeated it from the inside-out. After consulting the limited crime scene photographs, he concluded that it was 'more likely' that the rock had come from the outside."
This is far from the only forensic mistake Roberta Glass made. Yet she speaks in such derogatory tones about other people who do not share her views. I hope that she does not take on the Luke Mitchell case; the results would inevitably be a pathetic mess of a podcast.
-
Roberta Glass claimed that the rock that broke Filomena's window was thrown from the inside.
"To establish whether the window was broken from inside or out, the investigation lawyers recruited forensic glass specialist Greg Waite. Returning to the scale set, Mr Waite set about throwing a similar rock through a window from the outside-in and then repeated it from the inside-out. After consulting the limited crime scene photographs, he concluded that it was 'more likely' that the rock had come from the outside."
Do you mean like Peter Bull in actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall case?
-
I hope that she does not take on the Luke Mitchell case
Is this you (about 3/4 of the way down)
👇
“Chris Halkides is one of Amanda Knox’s most effusive supporters. He has pontificated extensively about the case on his blog View from Wilimington and on other Internet websites.
On 30 July, he was finally prompted to post an interview with Professor Balding done some months previously. I suspect Halkides had been very keen to interview Professor Balding after reading Colin Barras’ article on the New Scientist website; but was holding back on posting it because it went against his own claims.
Indeed, his interview has turned out to be quite a slap in the face for the Friends of Amanda and Colin Barras, because Professor Balding categorically described the DNA evidence against Sollecito to Halkidis as “strong”ť.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
In Convicting the Innocent, a retrospective analysis of wrongful convictions, Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory.41
This passage is relevant to the photo lineup that was shown to Andrina Bryson. Mr. Mitchell's photo stood out, and he was the only one with long hair. The fact that it was a photo lineup is also problematic. "If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]. https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/)
Some of the specifics of this identification are open to question. "She never identified the girl as Jodi but described a male with lots of messy hair making a strange gesture towards the girl." Her initial description was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and his hair pretty much hangs down. Ms. Bryson was going around a turn, and to see the two people, she would have had to look left while turning right if northbound or right while turning left if southbound. How she would have had time to observe strange gestures is not clear.
👇
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14093916
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case. The Knox/Sollecito prosecution did not call a witness to test its hypothesis that the window was broken with a rock thrown from the inside. Raffaele Sollecito's team called a witness who demonstrated what throwing a rock through a window would do. "Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, presented a video in court that included three different scenarios showing how the rock could have been thrown from the outside to break the window, located 13 feet off the ground...'By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
Ms. Glass was talking nonsense here and elsewhere in her podcasts.
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case.
Raffaele Sollecito's team called a witness who demonstrated what throwing a rock through a window would do
The 2007 BBC Rough Justice innocence fraud TV show “The Innocents’ Brief” on actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall has footage of Prof. Peter Bull using a rock like ornament to demonstrate what using/throwing a rock like ornament at a window would do
‘It will reveal how tests undertaken on Mrs Albert's original window frame show her murderer's clothes would have been ingrained with tiny fragments of glass. Her killer is believed to have broken in to her Capel St Mary home through the window
The programme goes on to point out the clothing fibres which led to Hall's conviction for murder bore no traces of glass.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21302057.documentary-highlight-murder-case/
-
There is a minor profile on the autosomal DNA of the bra clasp that is likely to be Mr. Sollecito's DNA; there is also a Y-Chromosomal profile that is likely to be his. One problem for the prosecution is that there are additional alleles in the autosomal profile and probably a total of three donors to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. If some of the YSTR DNA was deposited in ways that were unrelated to the crime, then there is no reason to think differently with respect to Mr. Sollecito's DNA. The second major problem for the prosecution is that the bra clasp was collected about six weeks after the rest of the evidence, enhancing the possibility of transfers unrelated to the crime. The third problem is that the forensic workers stored the clasp improperly, making it impossible to retest. Why should one trust a lab that does not store evidence in a way to prevent microbial degradation? The fourth problem for the prosecution is that Raffaele was known to have been in contact with Meredith's door. If a forensic worker touched Mr. Sollecito's DNA then collected the bra clasp, this would be tertiary transfer. In the last fifteen years, the evidence for tertiary and higher order transfers of DNA has accumulated.
I don't have a fundamental objection to what Professor Balding and others have done, which is to create software to analyze complex autosomal mixtures, but there are specific issues that must be properly addressed in each case (I suggest reading some of Professor Dan Krane's writings on this subject if one is interested). Nor do I believe that his conclusion regarding the bra clasp was flawed, as I indicated above. But this sort of mixture analysis cannot make the problems that I discussed somehow disappear.
Now let us talk about one aspect of the DNA from the Mitchell case that relates to the issue of DNA mixtures. Dr. Balding was doing his work during the Knox/Sollecito case (a paper of his appeared circa 2013). TruAllele made its courtroom debut in 2009, although it is older. The DNA from Jodi's bra had at least three contributors and these were partial profiles. Given the state of art circa 2005, how was it possible to deconvolute a three-person (or more) mixture that was not even of full profiles? Without a specific and credible answer to this question, the claim that Luke's DNA was present is unsustainable.
-
profile
Is this you or are You someone else ?
👇
Is this you (about 3/4 of the way down)
👇
“Chris Halkides is one of Amanda Knox’s most effusive supporters. He has pontificated extensively about the case on his blog View from Wilimington and on other Internet websites.
On 30 July, he was finally prompted to post an interview with Professor Balding done some months previously. I suspect Halkides had been very keen to interview Professor Balding after reading Colin Barras’ article on the New Scientist website; but was holding back on posting it because it went against his own claims.
Indeed, his interview has turned out to be quite a slap in the face for the Friends of Amanda and Colin Barras, because Professor Balding categorically described the DNA evidence against Sollecito to Halkidis as “strong”ť.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case.
You sure?
👇
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.msg584655#msg584655
-
Un-Convicted baby killer and scammer Billy Middleton published the following after scammer Sandra Lean shared with him material from the case files back in 2010
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/06/20/killer-luke-mitchell-more-on-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-their-regurgitated-2010-nonsense-from-the-wap-website-on-the-undated-circumstantial-dna-part/
This was in response to your post in 2021
👇
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12062.msg649899#msg649899
-
I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass, and it had the usual nonsensical arguments. After I heard her make an obvious forensic chemistry error, I gave up.
‘Some credit must go to Chris Halkides for finally posting the interview with Professor Balding even though it categorically said the DNA evidence against Sollecito is strong. I’m not sure he’ll be invited to any FOA events in the future.
Shame though on Colin Barras, for writing such a misleading article, and for using a straw man argument to highly misrepresent the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox which was then deliberately fed to the Italian media.
He completely ignored the six pieces of evidence that place her at the crime scene on the night of the murder. He also completely ignored the most important of Professor Balding’s findings. ie that the DNA evidence against Sollecito is strong.
This finding implicates Knox and places her at the crime scene when Meredith was killed, and makes a mockery of Barras’s headline that suggested otherwise.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
There is a minor profile on the autosomal DNA of the bra clasp that is likely to be Mr. Sollecito's DNA; there is also a Y-Chromosomal profile that is likely to be his. One problem for the prosecution is that there are additional alleles in the autosomal profile and probably a total of three donors to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. If some of the YSTR DNA was deposited in ways that were unrelated to the crime, then there is no reason to think differently with respect to Mr. Sollecito's DNA. The second major problem for the prosecution is that the bra clasp was collected about six weeks after the rest of the evidence, enhancing the possibility of transfers unrelated to the crime. The third problem is that the forensic workers stored the clasp improperly, making it impossible to retest. Why should one trust a lab that does not store evidence in a way to prevent microbial degradation? The fourth problem for the prosecution is that Raffaele was known to have been in contact with Meredith's door. If a forensic worker touched Mr. Sollecito's DNA then collected the bra clasp, this would be tertiary transfer. In the last fifteen years, the evidence for tertiary and higher order transfers of DNA has accumulated.
I don't have a fundamental objection to what Professor Balding and others have done, which is to create software to analyze complex autosomal mixtures, but there are specific issues that must be properly addressed in each case (I suggest reading some of Professor Dan Krane's writings on this subject if one is interested). Nor do I believe that his conclusion regarding the bra clasp was flawed, as I indicated above. But this sort of mixture analysis cannot make the problems that I discussed somehow disappear.
Now let us talk about one aspect of the DNA from the Mitchell case that relates to the issue of DNA mixtures. Dr. Balding was doing his work during the Knox/Sollecito case (a paper of his appeared circa 2013). TruAllele made its courtroom debut in 2009, although it is older. The DNA from Jodi's bra had at least three contributors and these were partial profiles. Given the state of art circa 2005, how was it possible to deconvolute a three-person (or more) mixture that was not even of full profiles? Without a specific and credible answer to this question, the claim that Luke's DNA was present is unsustainable.
’Ominous Development For Sollecito And Knox: A DNA Conviction Based On A Tiny Sample Of DNA’ ie; serial killer and innocence fraudster David Burgess
👇
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
Do you recall the innocence fraud of serial killer David Burgess and his enablers
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/05/quite-a-hall-tale-part-19k%ef%b8%8f/
-
Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent or guilty?
Neither Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito have proved their innocence!
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/30/killer-luke-mitchell-naive-cult-like-follower-sharon-indy-sunshines-projections-part-104/
-
Amanda Knox Explains it All to You
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/OtTnNR_eHpI?feature=share
Amanda Knox - Persecuted By Facts
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/M_i7bwnYXh8?feature=share
-
You mentioned the Simon Hall case once in a thread about Billy Middleton, but that does not mean that I ever looked into it. With respect the Knox/Sollecito case, Ms. Glass has proved herself to be lacking in knowledge of the forensics of the case. She is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and she is condescending on top of everything else.
Over the last couple of pages I have contrasted good practice in eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.
-
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
Are you claiming Gordon McIIwrath had a “transplanted memory” ?
[119]….Mrs Bryson returned to the witness box. In further examination in chief she described how police officers had come to her home and shown her a booklet of photographs which she had looked at carefully, taking her time. When asked whether at that time she recognised anyone, she responded "I seen someone there, yes". That person she had been asked to point out. She had pointed to photograph No. 4 (that of the appellant). She later explained the features which were the basis of her recognition - his hair and his small face. She confirmed that at the time she had said to the police officers - "Image 4 is very very like the male I saw at the top of the path", "He has the same shape of face, same colouring and same colour and style of hair" and "I am sure as I can be that is the same male". That was what she had felt on that day. The next day she had seen a photograph of the appellant in a newspaper, which had identified him by name. She had been totally taken aback by it. She testified "I just remember seeing it and I couldn't believe it ... because it looked to me like the same person".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
She is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
Okay Elizabeth Loftus 🙄
-
Over the last couple of pages I have contrasted good practice in eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.
You think? @)(++(*
-
If I were giving a class in investigations, I might use the Mitchell case as an object lesson in how not to elicit eyewitness testimony. I briefly discuss the Knox/Sollecito case in this way in forensic chemistry, but there are so many instances of slipshod work and faulty inferences in DNA and body fluid forensics, that it is hard to choose which one to use.
-
Are you claiming Gordon McIIwrath had a “transplanted memory” ?
[119]….Mrs Bryson returned to the witness box. In further examination in chief she described how police officers had come to her home and shown her a booklet of photographs which she had looked at carefully, taking her time. When asked whether at that time she recognised anyone, she responded "I seen someone there, yes". That person she had been asked to point out. She had pointed to photograph No. 4 (that of the appellant). She later explained the features which were the basis of her recognition - his hair and his small face. She confirmed that at the time she had said to the police officers - "Image 4 is very very like the male I saw at the top of the path", "He has the same shape of face, same colouring and same colour and style of hair" and "I am sure as I can be that is the same male". That was what she had felt on that day. The next day she had seen a photograph of the appellant in a newspaper, which had identified him by name. She had been totally taken aback by it. She testified "I just remember seeing it and I couldn't believe it ... because it looked to me like the same person".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
I don't have a positive or negative opinion of Gordon McIlwraith as a reporter, but I will take as a given for now that he reported accurately in this instance. Let's briefly go through what is wrong with Ms. Bryson's evidence in light of good practice. A photo lineup should not make a suspect stand out (I gave a citations that bears on this question upthread). Luke Mitchell's photograph was the only one showing a person with long hair and the only one with a white background (the latter is similar to the Dean Gillispie case in Ohio discussed upthread). If a solicitor had been present, he or she could have raised an objection to a biased photo lineup. Ms. Bryson's seeing Luke Mitchell's photograph in the paper increased her certainty, but this is separate from the question of accuracy. As I discussed upthread, once you see a photograph more than once, you remember the previous viewings.
In brief other problems with Ms. Bryson's testimony include but are not limited to the following: Her description of the man was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and described his hair in a way that does not resemble Mr. Mitchell's hair. Her initial estimate of the time of the sighting was about 50 minutes later than her testimony. She had to be looking one way while turning the car the other way, and she did not have much time to identify anyone.
-
Chris you make a good arguement without hyperbole or overt sentiment or sanctimony. I think your efforts shpuld be applauded. It’s a shame (for Mitchell) that you aren’t handling his case instead of the squabbling rabble he’s currently got behind him.
-
Luke Mitchell's photograph was the only one showing a person with long hair
Where’s your evidence for this
And why do you claim he had “long hair” in 2003?
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell had long hair by the time of his trial
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
-
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
That is your claim; therefore, the burden of proof falls on you.
-
That is your claim; therefore, the burden of proof falls on you.
Lol
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
I’ve often wondered what length Luke’s hair was at the actual time of the murder. 6 weeks had passed between the murder and the Polaroid of Luke being taken. I can’t imagine his hair would have been the same length after 6 weeks which is the usual time people wait between haircuts. Had it been cut? Was the question even asked?
-
There are photos of Luke at Jodi's grave, and his hair looks longish. It is difficult to tell, however.
-
There are photos of Luke at Jodi's grave, and his hair looks longish. It is difficult to tell, however.
3 months growth
-
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
"'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." As reported by in the Glasgow Times. There is also some discussion in the appeal, which is posted at Murderpedia: "The senior police officer involved in the investigation was never able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why an identification parade had not been held."
-
"'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." As reported by in the Glasgow Times. There is also some discussion in the appeal, which is posted at Murderpedia: "The senior police officer involved in the investigation was never able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why an identification parade had not been held."
👇
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
-
Luke's hair could have been no more than 3/4 of an inch shorter on 30 June than it was on 15 August, even if he did not have a haircut in the interim (which I don't think that we know). To the best of my knowledge the prosecution did not challenge the defense regarding the difference between Luke and the other people in the photo lineup.
A good lineup should conform to the following: A person who is not a witness but who reads the description of the perpetrator should only pick the perpetrator out of a lineup with the frequency that chance would predict. In other words, the rest of the people in the lineup should be plausible on the basis of their general appearance.
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder at the trial. In a portion of the documents relating to the 2008 appeal (at Murderpedia), it stated, "She had had only a fleeting glance of the male and, while she had picked out the appellant's photograph from a number of others, there were serious questions about the reliability of the procedures which had been adopted by the police - by the use of photographs at all, by the nature of the particular photographs used and by the failure to hold an identification parade." I infer that the 2008 appeal panel did not dispute the multiple problems with Ms. Bryson's identification that Donald Findlay highlighted; rather, they believed that the instructions to the jury on this point were sufficient. Obviously I disagree.
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder
Did the jury see photographs of killer Luke Mitchell taken on the 1st July 2003 whilst at Dalkeith police station?
-
I’ve often wondered what length Luke’s hair was at the actual time of the murder
Why haven’t f........s Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean published a photo of psycho killer Luke Mitchell in the paper suit Corinne Mitchell referred to seeing him wearing when she arrived at Dalkeith police station on 1st July 2003?
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder
Psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell was taken to Dalkeith police station sometime after 01:00hrs
Apparently he was photographed sometime during the morning of the 1st July 2003
By whom and at what time has not been published - nor have any photographs
According to Scott Forbes;
“…at 01:00 a.m. was taken to Dalkeith Police Station where he was stripped, photographed, and forensically examined
The series of photographs taken at Dalkeith police station have been hidden by the killer and his enablers for almost 20 years!
-
Roberta Glass is another guilt grifter
Roberta Glass exposes innocence fraud
Someone like Andrew Hammel is a “guilt grifter”
-
If I were giving a class in investigations.
You wrote
👇
Pasquali and the rock
"Pasquali said that he had re-created the same conditions that were found in Romanelli's room at the time of the break-in. Pasquali said he constructed a window of the same size, with the same paint and the same type of glass, and threw the rock through it into a room with the same characteristics as Romanelli's room. Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.
By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could "exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside."" ABC News.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363048&page=20
Did you see Peter Bull in 2007 on the BBC rough justice TV show on psycho killer Simon Hall?
-
On page 129 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “The jogger was traced. She said that she ran her “usual route” through Newbattle Abbey Crescent, turning left onto Newbattle Road…This is almost certainly the jogger of whom Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh spoke…But they were clearly mistaken about seeing her running over the bridge, towards the Abbey, or having run past the youth…It’s important to note that , if the jogger was correct about the time (between twenty and a quarter to six) the time scale for Luke to be the murderer is impossible, at between 25 and 30 minutes.”
On page 131 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “Seven years later, a witness offered to provide a statement for the SCCRC application, stating that Mrs Walsh, in the week leading up to her first police statement was telling people that she and her sister-in-law had seen a youth on the Newbattle Road that night “at the entrance to the Abbey”—directly opposite where Luke was positively identified by others who knew him that evening and the evidence about the jogger placed the Fleming/Walsh sighting.”
In summary, there are two reasons for believing that whomever Ms. Fleming and Mrs. Walsh saw, it took place by Newbattle Abbey.
-
Knox/Sollecito
Self Confessed Train Robber Bert Kreischer & Innocence Fraudster & Psychopath Amanda Knox On Rudy Guede & Their Meeting On The Bottom Floor Downstairs In The Four Guys Apartment, The Weekend Of 20th/21st October 2007, Shamrocks Bar, Red Zone Nightclub, DJ Quentin Harris & The 5 Cannabis Plants
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/06/28/self-confessed-train-robber-bert-kreischer-innocence-fraudster-psychopath-amanda-knox-on-rudy-guede-their-meeting-on-the-bottom-floor-downstairs-in-the-four-guys-apartment-shamrocks/
-
Roberta Glass exposes innocence fraud
Someone like Andrew Hammel is a “guilt grifter”
PART 1: Innocence Fraud Watch On Andrew Hammel & His II Part Quillette Article Headed “The Wrongful Exoneration of Adnan Syed”
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/26/andrew-hammel-on-the-wrongful-exoneration-of-adnan-syed/
-
On page 129 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “The jogger was traced. She said that she ran her “usual route” through Newbattle Abbey Crescent, turning left onto Newbattle Road…This is almost certainly the jogger of whom Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh spoke…But they were clearly mistaken about seeing her running over the bridge, towards the Abbey, or having run past the youth…It’s important to note that , if the jogger was correct about the time (between twenty and a quarter to six) the time scale for Luke to be the murderer is impossible, at between 25 and 30 minutes.”
On page 131 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “Seven years later, a witness offered to provide a statement for the SCCRC application, stating that Mrs Walsh, in the week leading up to her first police statement was telling people that she and her sister-in-law had seen a youth on the Newbattle Road that night “at the entrance to the Abbey”—directly opposite where Luke was positively identified by others who knew him that evening and the evidence about the jogger placed the Fleming/Walsh sighting.”
In summary, there are two reasons for believing that whomever Ms. Fleming and Mrs. Walsh saw, it took place by Newbattle Abbey.
It’s pointless cherry picking tip-bits from Sandra Lean’s tip-bits, especially without seeing all of psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence
-
From the 2008 appeal “Once that inference [that Andrina Bryson saw Luke and Jodi] was drawn there was ample evidence, among the adminicles discussed in relation to sufficiency, to allow the jury reasonably to conclude that the deceased's killer was the appellant. We highlight only a few of these. There was evidence that he was next seen at the west end of the path about 50 minutes after having been seen by Mrs Bryson.”
Perhaps thinking of this passage, Sandra Lean wrote on page 133, “It would be stated at trial and in the appeal decision, that the acoounts of Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh corroborated each other and were part of the basis upon which jurors were entitled to conclude that Andrina Bryson’s sighting was of Luke. It was never explained how two sightings, 55-70 minutes apart, of two completely different individuals, neither of whom matched known descriptions of Luke that night, corroborated anything.”
Given that Mrs. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming’s memory by showing her the newspaper photograph (as discussed upthread), no corroboration between them is possible. Nor is there any linkage between their evidence and the evidence of Ms. Bryson, as Sandra Lean pointed out. For one thing their descriptions do not match Luke; for another, they don't match each other.
__________________
-
Rolfe wrote, "So the two women must have seen the jogger north of the road junction, which is 150 yards north of the bridge, not 200 yards past the end of the path, which would be about 200 yards south of the bridge.
This introduces an intriguing possibility. If the two women were mistaken about the position of the jogger, as they were, putting her at least 350 yards further back (south) along Newbattle Road than she actually was - and possibly more than that - could they equally well have been mistaken about where they saw the youth loitering on the left-hand side of the road? Could they have driven past the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, seen Luke there, then passed the jogger some little way further up Newbattle Road, but in retrospect moved the whole thing back some 500 yards? (And simply got the hair colour and the jacket and the footwear flat wrong.)
If that was Luke, at the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, at about 5.45, he couldn't have been the murderer, as there simply isn't enough time for everything to happen and for him to get back to that spot only 30 minutes after the killing. Of course the police didn't want that to be the case, they wanted Luke that 500 yards closer to the scene of the crime and somewhere other than where his own statement placed him, so they weren't going to pursue that one."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12760325#post12760325
-
Rolfe wrote, "So the two women must have seen the jogger north of the road junction, which is 150 yards north of the bridge, not 200 yards past the end of the path, which would be about 200 yards south of the bridge.
This introduces an intriguing possibility. If the two women were mistaken about the position of the jogger, as they were, putting her at least 350 yards further back (south) along Newbattle Road than she actually was - and possibly more than that - could they equally well have been mistaken about where they saw the youth loitering on the left-hand side of the road? Could they have driven past the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, seen Luke there, then passed the jogger some little way further up Newbattle Road, but in retrospect moved the whole thing back some 500 yards? (And simply got the hair colour and the jacket and the footwear flat wrong.)
If that was Luke, at the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, at about 5.45, he couldn't have been the murderer, as there simply isn't enough time for everything to happen and for him to get back to that spot only 30 minutes after the killing. Of course the police didn't want that to be the case, they wanted Luke that 500 yards closer to the scene of the crime and somewhere other than where his own statement placed him, so they weren't going to pursue that one."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12760325#post12760325
I’ve made this point several times. The evidence suggests that the youth they saw was Luke but nearer to Newbattle College than they claimed in court. The jacket in the sil’s first statements certainly sounds more like the silky bomber jacket Luke was known to have been wearing than a parka jacket.
-
They did not get the color of Luke's boots or hair correct; that is one reason that I am of two minds on the question of whether or not they even saw him. Yet it is strange how something of so little probative value is thought to be a major plank in the case.
One of my reasons for looking into this incident was to understand more clearly how the eyewitness testimony in the case went sideways. Another was to compare and contrast with other cases in which there have been problematic identifications. Mark Godsey wrote on pp. 124-125 of the book Blind Justice, "Of the first 325 DNA exonerations in the United States, 235, or 72 percent, involved mistaken eyewitness identification testimony." On pp. 129-130 he continued, "Any lawyer like myself who specializes in wrongful conviction cases can provide dozens of examples where the witnesses changed their stories--their memories--over time to keep the train moving toward conviction. I frequently saw this process at work when I was a prosecutor as well." On p. 145 he wrote, “When I look back on the cases of the individuals the Ohio Innocence Project has exonerated and freed, I am struck by my first meetings with my clients in prison—before we had evidence proving them innocent. A common comment I heard from them in these initial meetings was, ‘How did the prosecution get the witnesses to say all those things that weren’t true?’” The whole chapter is enlightening with respect to this case.
-
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/18/dominant-witness-theory-how-eyewitness-identification-becomes-flawed/
"In a multi-witness crime scene, police generally interview witnesses separately, asking each for their version of events. Most witnesses, who are eager to cooperate with police, will provide this."
The police should have separated Steven Kelly, Janine Jones, and Alice Walker from each other immediately and taken their statements separately.
-
[quote author=KenMore link=topic=12241.msg705951#msg705951 date=1686248228
It would seem the pro-LM camp consider that every single witness (apart from LM & CM) has lied, and that police corruption and media input were to blame without considering the totality of evidence that convicted him.
[/quote]
Donald Findlay made it clear that he did not think that Andrina Bryson was lying, and I agree. I think that Mrs. Walsh might have lied about not showing Ms. Fleming the newspaper with Luke's photograph, but she may simply have misremembered the incident.
-
On . 367 of the book Witness for the Defense, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham wrote:
"In a classic text on the subject, Convicting the Innocent, legal scholar Edwin M. Borchard presents sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In twenty-nine of these cases, or approximately 45 percent, mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the conviction. Borchard concludes: "These cases illustrate the fact that the emotional balance of the victim or eyewitness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy"
"Misidentifications are often blamed on the fact that the real criminal bears a close resemblance to the wrongly identified person. But in the twenty-nine cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the wrongful conviction, Borchard reports these facts:"...in eight of these cases the wrongfully accused person and the really guilty criminal bore not the slightest resemblance to each other, whereas in twelve other cases, the resemblance, while fair, was still not at all close. In only two cases can the resemblance be called striking."
I was initially under the impression that erroneous eyewitness acccusations are frequently made against people who look similar to the actual perpetrator. The Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton case comes to mind as a good example. This turns out to be true only infrequently.
-
On . 367 of the book Witness for the Defense, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham wrote:
"In a classic text on the subject, Convicting the Innocent, legal scholar Edwin M. Borchard presents sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In twenty-nine of these cases, or approximately 45 percent, mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the conviction. Borchard concludes: "These cases illustrate the fact that the emotional balance of the victim or eyewitness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy"
"Misidentifications are often blamed on the fact that the real criminal bears a close resemblance to the wrongly identified person. But in the twenty-nine cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the wrongful conviction, Borchard reports these facts:"...in eight of these cases the wrongfully accused person and the really guilty criminal bore not the slightest resemblance to each other, whereas in twelve other cases, the resemblance, while fair, was still not at all close. In only two cases can the resemblance be called striking."
I was initially under the impression that erroneous eyewitness acccusations are frequently made against people who look similar to the actual perpetrator. The Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton case comes to mind as a good example. This turns out to be true only infrequently.
What are the names of the 65 cases?
Loftus called Tim Hennis’s eye witnesses two of the worst eye witness iDs she had ever seen.
How did that turn out for her?
Tim Hennis currently sits on military death row
While Elizabeth “I don’t know how I let that line slip by’ Loftus still teaches Hennis’s case like the DNA never happened and he didn’t get convicted via a miltary court
-
What are the names of the 65 cases?
Why not read Mr. Borchard's book for yourself?
The Hennis case is unusual in that Mr. Raupach could pass for Mr. Hennis's younger brother. It may be the other eyewitness that Dr. Loftus thought was bad. The forensic evidence in the Hennis case could not have been stored in accordance with DNA protocols because DNA profiling was just in its infancy at the time of the trial.
-
https://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf
Here are two quotes that come from a document on wrongful convictions in Canada.
"When interviewing alibi witnesses, they should not be cross-examined, it should not be suggested to them that they are mistaken, and they should not be influenced to change their position although it is appropriate for police to instruct them that it is essential they tell the truth and the consequences of failing to do so (Sophonow)."
A judge had this to say: "I am disturbed that [the witness] is asked to close her eyes and imagine she’s watching a movie. The interrogation encourages her to engage in speculation and imagine herself in various places. I find the nature of the questions and the circumstances under which they were made, shocking...[the investigator] encourages her to imagine a story. It is an atmosphere ideal for implanting false memories.72"
This sounds similar to what Shane was asked to do by the FLO. Eyewitness identifications are treated in several places in this document, including a section that starts on page 44. On page 47 the report states, "The Crown should never show the witness an isolated photograph or image of the accused during the interview."
-
This sounds similar to what Shane was asked to do by the FLO
Publish Shane Mitchell’s witness statements
-
Why not read Mr. Borchard's book for yourself?
Again what are the names of the 65 cases?
List them
-
Nicholas,
I will not do your homework for you. Instead, I will refer you to a couple of examples of erroneous eyewitness testimony upthread, cases in which the suspect did not resemble the actual perpetrator. One is the Charles Flores case, and the other is the Jerome White case.
-
https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/thomas-sophonow/
"Moreover, when Mr. Doerksen first attended a line-up that included Thomas [Sophonow], he did not identify anyone – including Thomas – as the killer whom he had pursued. Two days later, however, Mr. Doerksen coincidentally saw Thomas while they were both in the Public Safety Building. By that time, Mr. Doerksen had read a newspaper that contained Thomas’ picture. He came to believe that Thomas actually was the person he had seen fleeing the donut shop, even though his appearance was essentially the same as it had been during the line-up. At the Inquiry, Dr. Loftus explained that as time passes, people not only forget information – they also become more susceptible to forming false recollections as a result of new information that they learned after the event. Furthermore, we now know that in 1982, Mr. Doerksen was not able to see well at night or in poor lighting conditions.[21]
"Furthermore, two of the Crown’s witnesses identified Thomas after being shown a photo line-up in which his picture stood out dramatically from the others. As Justice Cory put it in the Inquiry report, “The differences in Thomas Sophonow’s pictures are such that it might just as well have carried a notation saying, ‘here I am.’” As a result, this photo line-up was “startlingly unfair.” And finally, two of the witnesses who testified at trial that Thomas was the killer had not in fact been able to identify him during the live line-up that they observed. Rather, both witnesses merely thought that he was the best match as compared to the other people in the line-up. The officer conducting one of these line-ups made the situation worse by informing the witness that he had indeed picked out the current suspect, thereby strengthening his confidence in his incorrect identification. Given this incredible range of problems with the eyewitness testimony used to convict Thomas on two occasions, it is perhaps not surprising that a miscarriage of justice occurred.[22]" Link
Two points of comparison between Canada's Thomas Sophonow and Scotland's Luke Mitchell are worth emphasizing. One is that seeing a suspect in a newspaper photo increases the chances that the eyewitness will transplant his or her image on the memory of the crime. Two is that photo lineups are not infrequently constructed in such a way as to point to the suspect.
https://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf
"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. However, I agree that it is appropriate for the police to instruct the witnesses that it is essential that they tell the truth and that a statement can be used as proof of its contents. The witnesses should be advised that they should be careful to tell the truth and of the consequences of a failure to do so."
This is one of the recommendations of the commission which reviewed the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow in Canada. The contrast between this recommendation and how Shane and Corinne Mitchell were treated is stark.
-
On p. 68 of the book Convicting the Innocent, Professor Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “I was surprised at how often it emerged at trial that exonerees did not resemble the initial descriptions of the culprit. In unusual cases like Willie Jackson’s, a misidentification was understandable: the true culprit was his brother, who looked like him. However, in 62% (100 of 161 cases), the exonerees looked very different from the initial description. Witnesses had descried culprits with major differences from the exonerees in hair, facial hair, height, weight, scars, tattoos, piercings, teeth, and eyes.”
-
I previously brought up wrongful convictions in Canada. From what I understand both the commissioner who wrote the report on Guy Morin and the commissioner who wrote the report on Thomas Sophonow made recommendations. Among the seven recommendations concerning alibi defenses is this:
7. It is essential that any further interviews of Crown witnesses following the disclosure of the alibi evidence should as well be videotaped or, if that is impossible, audiotaped. Every portion of the interview should be transcribed. Any statement alleged to have been made by the witness and which does not appear on the tape recording should be deemed to be inadmissible.
I wish that I could hear how FLO Michelle Lindsey interviewed Shane Mitchell because Sandra Lean described this interview in a way that leaves me with grave doubts about Ms. Lindsey's competence and objectivity.
-
I wish that I could hear how FLO Michelle Lindsey interviewed Shane Mitchell because Sandra Lean described this interview in a way that leaves me with grave doubts about Ms. Lindsey's competence and objectivity.
Shane Mitchell has never raised any concerns!
-
Shane Mitchell has never raised any concerns!
The judge at trial did.
-
The judge at trial did.
Can you elaborate on this? On page 305 Sandra Lean wrote, "In court Shane tried very hard to explain that it was she [FLO Lindsay] who was the single most influential factor in interfering with his recall--she would not accept any of his answers to her initial questioning, telling him that they were 'not good enough' or that she 'couldn't accept that.'...She then went on to literally plant pictures in Shane's mind--'See it in your mind's eye, Shane, picture this...' right at the beginning of the investigation."
EDT
I came across additional passages from Sandra Lean's book that bear on the general topic of Shane's statements (pp. 318 and 319).
"Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites-the computer records demonstrated that the links to pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop-ups."
"Prior to the introduction of the photographs, Shane argued repeatedly that investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses that he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because his had not said so in his first statement...His first statements said that he came through the front door, yelled "Hello" to someone." (underlining in original)
-
Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211026259
"Recommendation 1 from Wells et al. (2020) is relevant. The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."
In my opinion this is pertinent both to Ms. Walsh and to Ms. Fleming. I do not question that Ms. Walsh was trying to help the investigation by showing the newspaper to Ms. Fleming, but it was poor judgement at the time, and it looks worse in retrospect.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020. At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence, which courts have long recognised can be unreliable. Safeguards include capture of all first descriptions provided by witnesses, scrutiny of the duration of observation, quality of lighting and view and any factors that may have influenced a witness’s recollection as well as strict adherence to authorised forms of identification procedure. However awful the crime, justice can never be served by a less than rigorous approach to such evidence during investigation and trial." highlighting mine
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020. At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."
Ah so Mr Malkinson didn’t even get as far as the Court of Appeal yet. Food for thought.
-
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned. Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."
It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative. The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.
-
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned. Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."
It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative. The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.
There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.
-
There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.
I am of exactly the same opinion, but I wonder why the jury did not give it more weight.
-
https://www.the-sun.com/news/8706467/innocent-andrew-malkinson-released-jail-police-corruption/
"He bedded down on a pal’s sofa in Grimbsy on the night a 33-year-old woman was raped, choked and left for dead on a motorway embankment. The friend would later say they were confused about the exact night he stayed over"
And "It later emerged that another *witness had initially *chosen a *different man at the line-up but changed it to Andrew after *leaving the room with cops."
And "The victim and one of the witnesses were driven together to the line-up in a breach of identity parade guidelines. Why was this allowed to happen?" (quotes from The US Sun)
A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.
-
A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.
Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands
She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!
She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker
-
Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223. Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California. The article (http://"https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol64/iss1/3/") covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case. I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.
"One study found that eyewitness confidence was a stronger predictor of jurors' decisions than the actual accuracy of the identifications.48...Witness confidence has also been found to wipe out jurors' sensitivity to witnessing factors.52. The reliance on witness confidence as a proxy for accuracy would be helpful if it were a good marker of accuracy. The experimental findings cast some doubt over this proposition. Studies show that the statistical relationship between identification accuracy and witness confidence is about 0.4.53 While positive, this correlation by itself is not strongly diagnostic. To illustrate, where the base rate of accuracy is fifty percent, a coefficient of 0.4 means that only seventy percent of witnesses who claim to be absolutely confident are in fact correct.54 (p. 158; edited to remove one paragraph break)
Professor Simon continued, "Confidence has also been found to be inflated by communication with co-witnesses,64 exposure to identifications by co-witnesses,65 and by exposure to other inculpatory evidence against the suspect.66 By the time witnesses testify in court, they are generally less accurate and more confident than warranted, thus making the identifications appear more reliable than they really are." (p. 160)
-
Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223. Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California. The article (http://"https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol64/iss1/3/") covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case. I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.
Where’s the evidence any of the jury members who reached a guilty verdict were influenced by any witness sighting?
-
Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.67"
The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies. Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking. Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.
-
Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.67"
The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies. Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking. Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.
@)(++(*
Hypocrite & Gaslighter Neal Keeling Of Manchester Evening News & His Memory Verses The Memory Of Violent Rapist, Former Amateur Boxer & Convicted Fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM (Part 12)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/19/hypocrite-neal-keeling-his-memory-verses-the-memory-of-violent-rapist-andrew-malkinsons-victim-part-12/
-
In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim. According to Wikipedia, "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"
-
In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim. According to Wikipedia, "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"
We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.
A case in point.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law
“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.
However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.
Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.
The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.
Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“
Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.
-
We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.
A case in point.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law
“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.
However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.
Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.
The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.
Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“
Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.
Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.
Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.
-
Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands
She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!
She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker
She also said that she scratched her attacker's face, and yet the Appeal document said that Mr. Malkinson had no scratch. The existence of fingernail DNA is highly probative (Peter Gill's book is a good source of information) and consistent with contact with her attacker. The existence of DNA from a source (saliva) is generally more probative than subsource DNA.
-
Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.
Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.
On the contrary, it is a mistake to keep one's field of vision narrowly on this case alone, when so many other cases around the world illustrate the need to follow correct procedures regarding eyewitnesses. It is even more misguided to handwave away the many irregularities in eyewitness protocols that plagued this case. The notion that Scotland has a better justice system that Wales (or England?) is an assertion without support. Who eliminated [Name removed], the same police force that failed to process the crime scene remotely correctly? The same police force that (without disput) violated LM's rights?
As to the robustness of the evidence, let us briefly examine a portion of the Fleming/Walsh evidence as an example. One, against police instruction Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil, and Ms. Fleming's memory was rendered unreliable. Moreover, Ms. Fleming was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further damaging her credibility. On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted (and may have cited upthread in some instances) states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable. Then there is the questionable 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. Finally, even if both Fleming and Walsh were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was.
EDT
I left out the jogger, which suggests that the sighting did not take place where Fleming/Walsh said it did.
-
Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil
@)(++(*
-
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
It doesn’t appear sadistic killer Luke Mitchell ever bothered to phone 999
11:39pm - Police control room telephoned killer Luke Mitchell whilst he was still on the other side of the V - woodland side - to find out where he was
Janine Jones Stated “The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone talking to the police and we were shouting at him. He then started to raise his voice”
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+%27Only+time+that+Luke+showed+emotion+after...-a0125974641
-
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing.
The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes).
10:59pm and his on that path.
11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready.
11:20pm they catch sight of each other.
11:22 head down together.
By 11:30pm he is in those woods and
by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
Where did the idea that killer Luke Mitchell phoned 999 come from?