Luke Mitchell Theories

[Venturi Swirl]

Well the exact number is open to debate. We could start with these:

1. JF - "doesn't remember" in Court what he was doing at the V at the time of the murder and gets rid of the moped.

2. GD - doesn't remember" in Court what he was doing at the V at the time of the murder.

3. LK hears branches rustling but then in Court says it was strangling noises.

4. Ja J's main answers in Court were "I don't know/don't remember and she claims not to know the RD Path despite living 300 yards away from it before moving to her Gran's (AW) house.

5. AW could not explain in Court the reasons for going straight to the path, nor why when walking up it did not look amongst the trees adjacent to the path before the wall leading to where the V is.

6. Ju J claimed "he who cannot be named" was in the house from mid afternoon on the day of the murder and never went out at all until the next day. Not true - he was identified by a witness who knew who he was and saw him following Jodi at 4.45pm - "The Stocky Man".

7. Craig Dobbie perjured himself in Court by claiming search warrants were issued only for Mitchell's house and his father's house. He lied - a warrant was issued to search a house in Woodburn also and a Parka was removed from that house which was owned by someone who lived there. Dobbie decided not to tell the Court the only Parka he had found didn't belong to Mitchell.

8. Andrina Bryson claimed not to know the Jones family. Her partner's brother was a regular visitor to their house. She was not an independent witness.

I think 8 will do for now. Ask yourself this, why are there so many people involved in this case talking utter bull ****???

That is a massive, unwieldy conspiracy that would surely have cracked by now.  It’s as far fetcched as the Tapas 9 conspiracy in the other case I follow.  I’ve already asked, but what is the motivation here to protect this person?   Has there ever been another murder case ever where so many disparate people sought to cover up for for one person and to ensure that a perfectly innocent one goes down for the crime?  I can’t think of one.  This is like the polar opposite of Occam’s Razor!

[KenMair]

I think 8 will do for now. Ask yourself this, why are there so many people involved in this case talking utter bull ****???

WW, have you seen the CM/SM transcripts and LM's police statement and been able to apply the same scrutiny? For me, I think it was crucial for the jury to hear that all 3 Mitchell's had different accounts of where he was between 5-6pm and jury ultimately couldn't believe any of them which decided his fate.

[faithlilly]

WW, have you seen the CM/SM transcripts and LM's police statement and been able to apply the same scrutiny? For me, I think it was crucial for the jury to hear that all 3 Mitchell's had different accounts of where he was between 5-6pm and jury ultimately couldn't believe any of them which decided his fate.

The whole jury? Or perhaps as little as 8 of them.

If the prosecution case was really as strong as you suggest then why the need for all the tattoo nonsense? Or indeed the urine business? If the lies were so obvious why the need to further denigrate Corrine’s honesty?

[KenMair]

The whole jury? Or perhaps as little as 8 of them.

If the prosecution case was really as strong as you suggest then why the need for all the tattoo nonsense? Or indeed the urine business? If the lies were so obvious why the need to further denigrate Corrine’s honesty?

AT skillfully dismantled LM's only alibi (CM) by exposing her inconsistencies and misremembering's that convinced a majority jury. DF was unable to convince otherwise. I'm not sure about AT's approach, you'd have to ask him. From her court testimony and subsequent media outings on podcasts etc, I haven't seen anything that highlights CM's honesty though.

[Venturi Swirl]

The whole jury? Or perhaps as little as 8 of them.

If the prosecution case was really as strong as you suggest then why the need for all the tattoo nonsense? Or indeed the urine business? If the lies were so obvious why the need to further denigrate Corrine’s honesty?

the “tattoo nonsense “ proved that Corinne would lie for her son to help him get what he wanted.  The “urine business” was just plain weird and helped paint a picture of the character under scrutiny.  Did Mitchell’s defence object to it being introduced as evidence?

[faithlilly]

AT skillfully dismantled LM's only alibi (CM) by exposing her inconsistencies and misremembering's that convinced a majority jury. DF was unable to convince otherwise. I'm not sure about AT's approach, you'd have to ask him. From her court testimony and subsequent media outings on podcasts etc, I haven't seen anything that highlights CM's honesty though.

Considering the prejudicial nature of the media reporting before hand coupled with where the case was heard I know a few legal students who would have had no trouble getting the verdict Turnbull did. If Turnbull had dismantled Luke’s alibi as skilfully as you suggest then why only a majority decision? Why did a substantial section of the jury, maybe as many as seven jurors, believe the case against Luke was at least not proven? What pieces of evidence do you think were unconvincing to those jurors?

Care to comment on the honesty of Jodi’s mum? How do you feel about her lying to her son’s mental health team with ‘the usual excuse’ on the very day that her daughter was murdered? That even though she had been warned not to let her son smoke cannabis as it exacerbated his psychosis had not only allowed him to commit an illegal act under her own roof but had covered up his drug taking to his own mental health team. Does her lying impact on her honesty in regard to her son’s alibi? Judith had lied once that day to the authorities about her son’s whereabouts surely a second time would have been just as probable?

[Venturi Swirl]

Considering the prejudicial nature of the media reporting before hand coupled with where the case was heard I know a few legal students who would have had no trouble getting the verdict Turnbull did. If Turnbull had dismantled Luke’s alibi as skilfully as you suggest then why only a majority decision? Why did a substantial section of the jury, maybe as many as seven jurors, believe the case against Luke was at least not proven? What pieces of evidence do you think were unconvincing to those jurors?

Maybe as few as one.  This is such a lame arguement, time to give it up.

[KenMair]

Care to comment on the honesty of Jodi’s mum? How do you feel about her lying to her son’s mental health team with ‘the usual excuse’ on the very day that her daughter was murdered? That even though she had been warned not to let her son smoke cannabis as it exacerbated his psychosis had not only allowed him to commit an illegal act under her own roof but had covered up his drug taking to his own mental health team. Does her lying impact on her honesty in regard to her son’s alibi? Judith had lied once that day to the authorities about her son’s whereabouts surely a second time would have been just as probable?

Nothing Jodi's mum did that day contributed towards her daughter's death. Victim blaming at it's finest. You sound like one of the people relentlessly posting pictures of the Jones' and extended family on social media for Police Scotland to investigate because it's just not fair.

[William Wallace]

well that includes a forensic expert under oath in court then.  I think the claim was that if the murderer was behind the victim reaching round to cut the neck that the blood would gush out frontwards and little of it would go onto the assailant. I’m not an expert but wounds inflicted post mortem would not bleed out as severely I believe.  Out of interest and by the by, was Jodi stabbed theough her clothes or after they had been removed?   Is it possible that Mitchell (or the murderer if you prefer)  left Jodie for dead by hitting / strangling / stabbing and then returned later that evening to mutilate the corpse?

The "claim" is laughable. Whether it was behind her or not, what happened after that with the dozens of slashings - he just managed to get no blood on him? Her hands were tied, so we have this person who cut her to bits then ties her up but gets no blood on him? I mean seriously??

[William Wallace]

That is a massive, unwieldy conspiracy that would surely have cracked by now.  It’s as far fetcched as the Tapas 9 conspiracy in the other case I follow.  I’ve already asked, but what is the motivation here to protect this person?   Has there ever been another murder case ever where so many disparate people sought to cover up for for one person and to ensure that a perfectly innocent one goes down for the crime?  I can’t think of one.  This is like the polar opposite of Occam’s Razor!

Do you expect me to tell you who it was and the motive on here? You can't even name certain people on here or you get banned. What is far fetched? All of the above are FACTS, all of the above is TRUE, it's up to people to work out why there were so many liars involved including Craig Dobbie who lied in Court about the search warrants. You have to think outside the box with this case and one of the biggest ways to do it is look at what's obvious - that a multitude of people involved LIED in COURT including Craig Dobbie. If Mitchell did it, what is it that makes them all have to LIE about not knowing paths, not knowing what they were doing at the murder location, not knowing why they went straight to RD Path to search, changing branches rustling to strangling noises in Court?

 

[KenMair]

The "claim" is laughable. Whether it was behind her or not, what happened after that with the dozens of slashings - he just managed to get no blood on him? Her hands were tied, so we have this person who cut her to bits then ties her up but gets no blood on him? I mean seriously ??

Yet you argue your killer, who was supposedly almost comatose due to drug use, was able to inflict such intricate injuries and escape unseen? Are you aware what kind of knots the killer used? You've been on whatever SL/SF are on.

[William Wallace]

It would make sense if the guy got off on witnessing people’s horrified reactions to discovering a mutilated corpse belonging to someone they lived.  A sadist in other words.   Or perhaps he wanted the kudos of being the one to find her.

Do you honestly believe a 14 year old boy would do that? Do you know of any other murder cases where a 14 year old has done that? The person who did this was a complete maniac, probably suffering from delusions and paranoia. The FBI described it as a "lust killing" which could not be carried out by someone of Mitchell's age, you would need to read why that is, it's too long to explain.

[William Wallace]

It's just not fair that the police focused on a main suspect due to overwhelming evidence against him even after questioning and eliminating other possible candidates.

Even 20 years later, the fact that various others weren't treated as suspects still angers LM supporters - they were interviewed and eliminated and again and again the police could look no further than the killer LM.

I'm afraid that is not true. MK was not interviewed until long after Mitchell's trial. "He who cannot be named" was never interviewed at all because of his mental health. Neither was interviewed and eliminated. They were IGNORED because Dobbie was suffering from confirmation bias regarding Mitchell.

[William Wallace]

it does seem that for every question raised by Mitchell’s supporters there is a logical and plausible explanation if enough thinking is applied to it.

Those who give the" logical and plausible explanations" merely speculate about supposed sightings of Mitchell and how he managed to carry out this murder in 40 minutes and leave no trace. They never give credible answers to that and they never give credible explanations for the lies told by at least the 8 people mentioned in my other post, including DOBBIE who lied in Court about the search warrants.

[KenMair]

I'm afraid that is not true. MK was not interviewed until long after Mitchell's trial. "He who cannot be named" was never interviewed at all because of his mental health. Neither was interviewed and eliminated. They were IGNORED because Dobbie was suffering from confirmation bias regarding Mitchell.

Why was MK even a suspect in the first place? Only on the word of SF who tried to set him up for a media payout scoop claiming MK had multiple scratches etc yet MK claimed he only had a minute scratch and SF had bullied him. Yes MK was interviewed and eliminated after the trial.

Joe was certainly interviewed at the time. Unless he was in hospital between the date of the murder until the trial there is no law to say he could not be spoken to. You are singing from Forbes hymnsheet which is worrying.