New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly, no offence, but all of the above makes you sound deeply mental and in denial. Are you okay?  Though, to a certain extent, I too was/am a tad surprised that none of these photos of LM in the old parka were published. Still, I'm 100% convinced he had a parka before 30.06.03; and I 100% believe he was wearing it while he murdered that poor girl.

No offence taken. Just trying to stop you looking foolish but you are obviously ploughing on regardless.

[Nicholas]

He seems to still be shrouded in mystery. It strikes me as odd that the only thing we ever saw of him physically was footage of him walking in to Edinburgh High Court desperatelý hiding face with his jacket (this can be seen on the BBC Frontline Scotland doco, originally aired in 2007).

Sandra Lean stated the following in her ‘thesis’ from Corinne Mitchell on her other son Shane Mitchell

Page 141 of Sandra Lean’s ‘thesis’

One family reported a combination of misleading information, dishonesty, coercion and threats in quick succession, long before the accused was ever identified as a suspect:

“They brought us back from the station. We were exhausted, in total shock, we just couldn‟t believe it. We‟d been there all night, but there was nothing we could tell them... my son found the body, that was really it... Over the next few weeks, it was like a nightmare. The liaison officer was the worst. She kept telling us “It’s just procedure, it‟s just procedure.‟ That was their favourite – everything they did was just procedure. When they descended on us at 7 o‟clock in the morning, this female cop, she kept barking at me, stand up, sit down, go over there, get over here. I hadn‟t a clue what was going on, but I thought, well, we‟ve got nothing to hide – let them get on with it...they weren‟t going to find anything, cos there was nothing to find. I found out later they waited until we were out of the house, and then they searched it. They questioned my other son – they told him, we‟ve got people telling us this and that – trying to make him think his brother was lying...We didn‟t know what to do. I asked them, is *** a suspect? No, they said, this is just procedure. But they were telling his brother, if we find out you‟re lying ... that‟s really serious... you‟ll go down for it.‟
(family member, accused convicted, sentenced to 20 years.)

Note too how Sandra Lean conflates the varying alleged events

Didn’t Corinne Mitchell ask the police if her killer son Luke was ‘a suspect’ on the 1st of July 2003 before the FLO’s involvement?

[Parky41]

No offence taken. Just trying to stop you looking foolish but you are obviously ploughing on regardless.

Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'

No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.

Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.

But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!

It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!

Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.

Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think  of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.

[faithlilly]

Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'

No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.

Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.

But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!

It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!

Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.

Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think  of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.

Thank you for the confirmation…it is appreciated….although it is simply nonsense to claim that since the trial photographs of Luke wearing the parka before the murder have come to light, isn’t it?

Further just for clarity…not sure how many times this has to be repeated…Bryson specifically said that her sighting was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that. She explained this under oath.

[Mr Apples]

Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'

No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.

Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.

But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!

It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!

Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.

Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think  of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.

Well, of course there's every possibility that the woman I spoke to is mistaken about these photos being shown in court. It would be rude of me to second guess or question what the woman told me. Who knows. Parky, tell me how you know for certain that they were never produced in court? More guesswork?

Edit:  you don't believe the cctv footage from St David's High School existed, either? That the testimony from the 8 cherry-picked witnesses called to give evidence specifically about seeing LM in that parka prior to the murder was sufficient enough to get the point across that he did, in fact, own a parka before 30.06.03?  It might well have been, but I'd be surprised if those photos and cctv footage didn't exist, and even more surprised if they weren't shown in court.

And how do you know that LF & RW mentioned the badges on the sleeves of that jacket?

[faithlilly]

Well, of course there's every possibility that the woman I spoke to is mistaken about these photos being shown in court. It would be rude of me to second guess or question what the woman told me. Who knows. Parky, tell me how you know for certain that they were never produced in court? More guesswork?

Edit:  you don't believe the cctv footage from St David's High School existed, either? That the testimony from the 8 cherry-picked witnesses called to give evidence specifically about seeing LM in that parka prior to the murder was sufficient enough to get the point across that he did, in fact, own a parka before 30.06.03?  It might well have been, but I'd be surprised if those photos and cctv footage didn't exist, and even more surprised if they weren't shown in court.

And how do you know that LF & RW mentioned the badges on the sleeves of that jacket?

And I’d be surprised if your ‘source’ didn’t see you coming.

[Mr Apples]

And I’d be surprised if your ‘source’ didn’t see you coming.

It would be more dignified if you would grow a pair of lady-bollocks, finally admit you're wrong, and put a choke-hold on the insipid one-liners. And, thanking Parky41 for 'confirmation'?!?!! Too cute, Faith. Tell me, was there another full moon in Faithland last night?

[faithlilly]

It would be more dignified if you would grow a pair of lady-bollocks, finally admit you're wrong, and put a choke-hold on the insipid one-liners. And, thanking Parky41 for 'confirmation'?!?!! Too cute, Faith. Tell me, was there another full moon in Faithland last night?

Ouch..I seem to have bruised your rather fragile ego. Never mind, I’m sure you’ll live.

At times like this the old adage, latterly attributed to Mark Twain, comes to mind that it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

[Parky41]

Thank you for the confirmation…it is appreciated….although it is simply nonsense to claim that since the trial photographs of Luke wearing the parka before the murder have come to light, isn’t it?

Further just for clarity…not sure how many times this has to be repeated…Bryson specifically said that her sighting was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that. She explained this under oath.

Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.

The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.

Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.

So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.

Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.

[Parky41]

Ouch..I seem to have bruised your rather fragile ego. Never mind, I’m sure you’ll live.

At times like this the old adage, latterly attributed to Mark Twain, comes to mind that it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.

And that is one of the most logical things you have ever said - Ain't that the truth Faith. - Fancy that, it is actually the one thing being said repeatedly against those bogged down in the mire of deceit.

[KenMair]

Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.

Agreed. Maybe a few hundred fanatics at best. And of those probably 80% S*n readers. I really don't understand what attracts people to Sandra Lean, defender of at least 3 convicted killers, and friend of various thugs and criminals.

[faithlilly]

Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.

The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.

Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.

So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.

Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.

Let’s leave aside the fact that legal procedures with regard to witness identification were not followed in this case. Identification procedure states that if the witness and the suspect are both available to take part in an identification parade then that’s what should happen. It didn’t here. Couple this with the unreliability of eye witness evidence https://www.science.org/content/article/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh, especially weeks after the sighting and really it’s hard to see how anyone can put any reliance on AB’s photograph identification. The age was wrong, the coat wasn’t a parka, AB said so….and enough of this nonsense of making unsubstantiated claims, you can  know no more than anyone else here what AB was shown in relation to her sighting’s jacket, so no fishing, army or combat style jackets, not a khaki jacket but green ( producing photos of only khaki jackets would certainly have been leading the witness). AB did her best but I’m sure she was under severe pressure to help secure a conviction. Of course in the end even she couldn’t stomach identifying a lad who could be entirely innocent.

Further F&W’s testimony was roundly destroyed by the defence with one being reduced to tears after being trapped in a web of their own lies. Poor things.

[faithlilly]

And that is one of the most logical things you have ever said - Ain't that the truth Faith. - Fancy that, it is actually the one thing being said repeatedly against those bogged down in the mire of deceit.

It’s absolutely the truth Parky…I suppose that’s why some don’t recognise when they are having the wool pulled over their eyes by your unevidenced  nonsense.

[Mr Apples]

Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.

The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.

Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.

So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.

Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.

Parky41, now you've dealt with the small fry above, can I invite you over to the big boys' table so you can endeavour to answer the questions I put to you earlier?

[Mr Apples]

Let’s leave aside the fact that legal procedures with regard to witness identification were not followed in this case. Identification procedure states that if the witness and the suspect are both available to take part in an identification parade then that’s what should happen. It didn’t here. Couple this with the unreliability of eye witness evidence https://www.science.org/content/article/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh, especially weeks after the sighting and really it’s hard to see how anyone can put any reliance on AB’s photograph identification. The age was wrong, the coat wasn’t a parka, AB said so….and enough of this nonsense of making unsubstantiated claims, you can  know no more than anyone else here what AB was shown in relation to her sighting’s jacket, so no fishing, army or combat style jackets, not a khaki jacket but green ( producing photos of only khaki jackets would certainly have been leading the witness). AB did her best but I’m sure she was under severe pressure to help secure a conviction. Of course in the end even she couldn’t stomach identifying a lad who could be entirely innocent.

Further F&W’s testimony was roundly destroyed by the defence with one being reduced to tears after being trapped in a web of their own lies. Poor things.

AB was 'as sure as she could be' that it was him when shown that book of photos (her words to the police, verbatim). The police knew early on that they were dealing with a devious teenager who was smarter than your average; LM would've went out of his way to try and look completely different at the ID parade than from what he did at the Easthouses end of RDP on 30.06.03, and the police likely knew this. I still think AB would've identified him at an ID parade, too-- as long as it took place as quickly as possible. Besides, wasn't the photo from which AB identified him from a photo of him NOT in a parka? It was of photo of him in a black t-shirt only?

LF & RW upon seeing a pic of LM in a newspaper, said: "Oh my god! It's him!" They were both unequivocal it was him on the N'battle road that day. They were crying because they were intimidated by the pressure of the occassion -- a daunting, disagreeable experience for any human being. Add to that one of the best lawyers in the land aggressively placing your every word under the microscpe, calling you a liar; sensitive women overwhelmed by such a horrible one-off experience. The crux of the matter was that they stated what they'd always seen: LM in a particular style of jacket at a wooden gate on n'battle rd acting not normal. And they also identified him in court 18 months later. These women weren't idiots -- it was LM. Then then 3 push bike boys identified him 25 mins later on the same road and two of them knew Luke personally (albeit with a different green jacket on), along with witness Carol Heatlie who also saw LM on N'battle road acting suspiciously and said 'the youth she saw was very very similar to the youth she saw on a sky tv interview'. Very telling. Of course it was Luke Mitchell. Guilty as! So, 2 people, who didn't know him, identified him on n'battle rd by himself and said he looked suspicious. AB identified him 45 mins earlier at the opposite end of path with a female he agreed he was to meet with. And again, it was his suspicious and strange behaviour that caught stranger AB's attention -- that of him confronting and arguing with a girl who, according to AB, matched Jodi's description. He is then spotted by 6 witnesses 45 mins later, on newbattle road (8, if you count MO & DH, though they said it wasn't LM they saw in the dock -- though, imo, the reason for this was wholly to do with just how much LM had changed between their sighting and their court appearance) -- by himself this time --  and, according to 3 of them, acting suspiciously, trying to avoid people's gaze. I suspect that the only reason the 3 push bike boys who knew him who saw him on the n'battle road didn't say he was acting suspiciously was because he was on his mobile phone at the time when they cycled past him. Had he not been on that phone, he would no doubt have started acting suspiciously like the guilty person he was and still is.