I’ve said several times on here now that I think Luke murdered Jodi, but cannot say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Here are a few reasons why I’m still not 100% sure he’s guilty:
Just back from a camping hol there, so had some time to read more of IB. In ch.13, from p.233 - 244, SL offers an account that suggests that there may have been a mistaken identity between Luke and Mark Kane on the NB rd on 30.06.03. She makes it clear that MK was in the case files as early as the first week of the investigation, as a person to be traced an interviewed. Although no names are given, an independent witness, according to what MK himself had allegedly told another witness, is said to have seen MK running up the NB rd on the early evening of 30.06.03, on his way to buy alcohol from either the Morning, noon & night store or Eskbank Trading store. Furthermore, he was named by another 3 separate people to police in the incipient stages of the investigation, as someone the police should speak to. Why did these people draw MK to the police’s attention? Well, the inference is that he was an erratic character, often carried knives, regularly consumed drugs and alcohol (was even on a methadone programme at the time) and was an avid fan of Marilyn Manson and Nirvana. Above all, however, it was his strong resemblance to Luke; he had the same colour & structure of hair to Luke’s, albeit that his was shorter at the back, was of the same build, had the same shape of face, and wore similar clothing (it was established as fact that MK had wore a parka jacket often since 2002). Only difference was that MK was 7 years older and was taller (does anyone know how much taller?). SL indicates, rightly, imo, that given he was on the NB rd that evening, it is possible that the sighting by F & W could have been MK and not Luke — especially as this ‘parka’ type jacket they seen the suspicious looking youth at the gate wearing @ 1744 on the NB rd that fateful night was the type of garment he wore habitually since 2002. Also, F&W said that the person they saw was wearing dark trainers, whereas LM was wearing white trainers/snowboarding boots. (Those 3 cyclists that saw Luke on the nb rd @ 1755 & then 1 of them again at 1820, I know they testified and identified him as wearing the green bomber jacket, but what did they say he was wearing on his feet? Anyone remember? Maybe they never mentioned footwear.)
It seems strange that when the appeal came around, the crown never checked those 2 stores above to see if MK was in them in the early evening, but accepted the footage which placed him in an off-licence at closing time (2200 HRs) meant he had no involvement in the murder? And, more importantly, why was MK deemed ‘untraceable’ when he was living in the student accomodation 6 weeks after the murder?
The above is just one of several little elements of the case that prevent me from saying LM was categorically guilty or that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. I will add some more examples of aspects of the case that effuse niggling doubts re LM’s guilt when I have time.
Oh, btw, while I’m here ........ did Leonard Kelly say where behind the wall he heard the disturbing ‘strangling’ noise? Did he say it was nearer to the west or east? Or about halfway? Did he mention the V break in the wall?
And again, this free to give "Make of it what you will?"
Pie in the sky. Those cherry picked areas from the SCCRC (as with everything), of any similarities between Mitchell and MK. That hair parting is something else. is it not? And onto the credibility of both Ms Lean and the claimed witnesses. Whom MK had told that he had ran for booze that evening. Mainly, she highlights only which is necessary for the story and points she wishes to make. That report, as with everything needs entirety of context, not Ms Leans choosing at will, what suits. Even for the very limited areas she does show, with far more self narrative around it - It clearly shows that they were not interested in Ms Leans rather odd logic? Plain and simple. The information and all else was not new.
Where one can clearly see themselves, outwith the cherry picking - that there are no striking similarities between Mitchell and MK. Furthermore there was absolutely no evidence of MK being on that stretch of road at the given time. The only running MK had been doing, as he clearly stated to anyone, was to catch that off licence before it closed at 10pm. And this was confirmed by the very fact of being on that CCTV. Footage that was obtained in 2003.
That MK most definitely had NOT purchased any alcohol at "Morning, Noon and night" nor that of Eskbank Trading - this nonsense of no CCTV footage being checked for him? Where does one imagine the police managed to obtain any? In short, as we had with the claimed witness who gave a statement, of a bike at the V break in the wall - is was not credible, it was impossible. It was confirmed to be lacking of any credible substance. The exact same as with SF, and these other two who gave an account, placing that ? upon MK.
Ms Lean attempts to infer that the SCCRC were missing the point? That being one of mistaken ID? Really? Ms Leans waffle reaches far beyond that of simple mistaken ID. The SCCRC had every right to include, nothing that placed him as suspect in the actual murder. That it, as I have always stated - does not change the evidence against LM, one bit. Perhaps if Ms Lean had not attempted to go the "whole hog" with MK, as she does in the book - then they may just, have given a little more credibility to her logic?? - nope, for every part of the input Ms Lean put in, clearly showed that Ms Lean is rather lacking where common sense comes into play, is she not? Or logic. in one of the "blindingly obvious" Q's she asked in her book?
The Parka and the Log Burner. P 223. IB.
"Amongst all the confusion and lack of logical reasoning, there is one blindingly obvious question. If the murderer was "not necessarily" bloodstained (the prosecution's position at trial), what possible reason would there be for completely destroying an article of clothing alleged to be associated with the murder?"
And as stated, the whole report, everything put forward. MK and the section 14 interview were only a part of Ms Leans submission - the whole lot giving a rather thoughtful insight, into Ms Lean working mind? She appears genuinely offended at the slight on her credibility - which she has clearly taken the wrong way? They were saying to her, that any similarities did not matter, for there was nothing credible in the first instance to place him, where she stated. That the whole fact the CCTV footage had been obtained, that he had clearly run (tying in with what he had related to others) to catch the shop, to buy the booze before closing time.
Which in itself cancels out a lot more, of this being out of his head, on booze, drugs and all else - not so much? that he managed to run and catch the shop prior to closing - this is logic. Not being off his head, scratched and all else with claimed amnesia, that he ran to get booze after 5.30, did god knows what else before and after. Then ran to get booze again pre 10pm - BS.
Intelligence and common sense stretch much further here. Parka if it were to be MK, no Parka just length, if it were not to be him? If it were him, and this striking resemblance?! wearing khaki green clothing,?? but missing the other one in khaki green clothing? On the same stretch of road. Then if it were not at the gate but further down, to tie in with the jogger, then it was LM, but near to the Abbey entrance where he said he was? So in this they got his ID spot on? But only if it was not at the gate? So what happened to MK?, who Ms Lean goes to extraordinary lengths to place him on the road at the same time? - is it at all surprising the SCCRC were putting this in the trash?
"Lack of logical reasoning?" - Indeed. MK was NOT seen running on NB road at that time. Really, but not which direction? Nonsense. CCTV of CM after 5pm but nothing more - BS. As with Eskbank Trading, lots of footage checked.
