New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[Nicholas]

No. This was a girl I spoke to on social media last week. She has a younger female cousin who was close to Jodi and who had a photograph that featured Luke, Jodi, her female cousin and a couple of other friends. Said photograph was taken in May 2003. Crucially, Luke was wearing the olive green parka in it. The police took the photo and used it as evidence in court, with the girl's cousin also there at court as a witness. This girl's cousin was at court during the same days as Kimberley Thompson; KT had a photo of LM wearing that parka in March 2003 which was presented at court as evidence. CCTV footage from St David's High School was show in court, revealing LM wearing the parka before the murder. So much incriminating circumstantial evidence.

And killer Luke Mitchell didn’t tell Sandra Lean any of this - or if he has since and she’s playing dumb

[Nicholas]

Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?

Corinne Mitchell didn’t like this woman (flo) from the moment she set eyes on her by the sounds of it - you could be onto something here Mr Apples

[Nicholas]

Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?

I wonder if LM was DNA-aware at the time of the murder or if Corinne or Shane had told him that day about it.

While they were helping him dispose of/burn/skip all incriminating evidence

Maybe all three of them were forensically aware

15 years old and he was happy to make himself centre of attention on the day of [Name removed] funeral when he knew he was, by this time, suspected of having been the murderer

He was even happy to stage a scene for the cameras of him lighting the candles - when this was meant to be a private family affair

 

Why did they choose to light the candles for the cameras

 

If liar Corinne Mitchell was so unhappy with the way her son was interviewed, why didn’t she kick them all (Sky TV) out

In reality - I suspect both Corinne and Luke Mitchell were pleased with themselves after their staged TV performance

Until that is - it backfired on them both

[faithlilly]

No. This was a girl I spoke to on social media last week. She has a younger female cousin who was close to Jodi and who had a photograph that featured Luke, Jodi, her female cousin and a couple of other friends. Said photograph was taken in May 2003. Crucially, Luke was wearing the olive green parka in it. The police took the photo and used it as evidence in court, with the girl's cousin also there at court as a witness. This girl's cousin was at court during the same days as Kimberley Thompson; KT had a photo of LM wearing that parka in March 2003 which was presented at court as evidence. CCTV footage from St David's High School was show in court, revealing LM wearing the parka before the murder. So much incriminating circumstantial evidence.

Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?

I wonder if LM was DNA-aware at the time of the murder or if Corinne or Shane had told him that day about it.

Kimberley Thompson had a photo of Luke in his parka jacket from March did she? Despite her seeing him for the last time before the murder on St Valentine’s Day and  despite the reams and reams of newsprint detailing Kimberley’s testimony in court not one of those reports mentions a photograph. Give your head a wobble.

Further the police used the CCTV and photographs of Luke in court wearing the parka yet not one mention of what would have been a slam dunk moment in the press.

I’m not sure if you’re gullible or are simply desperate to justify your opinion but none of what you allegedly were told passes the sniff test.

Of course the powers that be will know that and no amount of tittle tattle on an obscure forum will change that.

[Nicholas]

Kimberley Thompson had a photo of Luke in his parka jacket from March did she? Despite her seeing him for the last time before the murder on St Valentine’s Day and  despite the reams and reams of newsprint detailing Kimberley’s testimony in court not one of those reports mentions a photograph. Give your head a wobble.

Did he write to KT and send her photographs of himself?

[Mr Apples]

Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples

Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/

Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/

Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/

Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples

Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/

Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/

Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/

Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.

[Nicholas]

Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.

Has this woman spoken to the media

[Nicholas]

Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.

Does anyone know what they did on valentine day 2003 and where they went exactly ?

And were there reporting restrictions on the media because of KT’s age at the time she gave her evidence?

“Miss Thomson told the court that Mr Mitchell had never mentioned Miss Jones to her”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1

Luke's Poem to Jodi


"Goodbye Jodi.  Please can you say what happened,

Please tell us who it was, who took your life so cruelly

For no apparent cause.

You had so much to give us, you lived life your own way,

Whoever did this to you, should just be put away.

You didn’t see bad in others, you didn’t like to judge,

We’re sorry Jodi, truly, but we’ll always hold a grudge.

You were taken from us so cruelly,

Please don’t ask us to forgive,

We cannot get this from our hearts however long we live.

You’ve been laid to rest, but not in peace,

We know that just can’t be,

But we’ll say goodbye and forever hope

That justice we will see."

 

”It had been two months since Jodi's murder, and her family had told him to stay away. They suspected then what a jury would later confirm - that he was her killer.

I'd phoned the Mitchell house and his mother told me that Luke was paying his own, private tribute.

Mother and son agreed that we could film it. So the camera rolled as the teenager lit candles on a shrine to Jodi that he'd created on his dining table.

Yet more double binds

[faithlilly]

Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.

Stop it. You’re just making yourself look silly now.

[faithlilly]

Has this woman spoken to the media

Good question….or her cousin…or is it her sister?

[faithlilly]

Does anyone know what they did on valentine day 2003 and where they went exactly ?

And were there reporting restrictions on the media because of KT’s age at the time she gave her evidnece?

“Miss Thomson told the court that Mr Mitchell had never mentioned Miss Jones to her”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1

If there had been reporting restrictions in place Kimberley wouldn’t have been named let alone the reams of her testimony published.

[Nicholas]

If there had been reporting restrictions in place Kimberley wouldn’t have been named let alone the reams of her testimony published.

Haven’t read ‘reams’ just titbits here and there

Suspect her statements would have given a lot more detail though

[faithlilly]

Haven’t read ‘reams’ just titbits here and there

Suspect her statements would have given a lot more detail though

The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.

As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.

The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.

[Nicholas]

The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.

As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.

The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.

Did KT, or her representative ie; prosecutor, make a request to the court to ask that she not be identified by a photograph?

[Mr Apples]

Has this woman spoken to the media

I don't thinks so, although I haven't asked (don't want to pester the woman too much; maybe she'll tell me in future chats). She did say that the police interviewed her wee sister and that, according to her wee sister, the police were very nice at all times -- not the bullies who were out to intimidate young witnesses into giving false confessions to fit LM up, like SL occasionally suggests. Her wee sister is friends with a few of the other witnesses and they all said/say that the police were very nice and fair with them, too; no bullying or trying to get them to make false statements.

She also told me that her wee sister knows David High and the other boys who were at the abbey with LM that night. They all said that LM was, as well as being a lot cleaner than normal, acting extremely weird all night. Apparantely, DH also said LM was "digging his fingers in the mud" a lot that night. Is this why CM wasn't too kind about DH in the media (I think Corinne called him a liar and wannabe in a press interview)?