Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

[Parky41]

The time from Gorebridge Coop to Easthouses is 7-9 minutes -- not 12 - 14. And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference. The fact is, no one on the planet knew/knows what the exact times were or are, not even SL (who, just to remind you & everyone else, did not/does not have access to everything in connection with this case and, more crucially, did not attend a single day of that 9-week trial). The most accurate time available was from her bank statement (ie, 1632 hrs), and from that bank statement we can begin to accurately formulate a theory on driving routes and times. I've already highlighted how tiny Easthouses was and still is, and the strong likelhood that it literally only added 2-3 minutes on to her journey (5 mins at the absolute most, imo), especially as it was not a pre-arranged viewing with an estate agent; AB merely looked at it from her car briefly, for less than a minute or two -- a quick glance and not an extensive inspection, then drove southbound back home (the journey home likely taking about 5 - 10 mins). I would guess that AB only bought a basket full of shopping (2 small bags of groceries) and getting her 2 children back in car would have taken only 2 mins (in 2003, car seats weren't mandatory for children, so there was no time wasted in having to strap a 2-year-old in thoroughly). So, the 1655 sighting is, in fact, very realistic.

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?

And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.

[faithlilly]

And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.

Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.

[Parky41]

And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.

As we know, in 2003 AO's had told the police his routine after finishing work, they did not take his word for it, they obtained the CCTV footage from the fuel station he said he went to, and there he was, telling the truth. They did not film his route home, they timed it. No CCTV along the way.

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we? Honesty over dishonesty?

What was to trust here? The one who was telling the truth or the one who was not? Now AB also told the police her movements, they checked these out and again she was telling the truth, no CCTV out in the sticks on those routes, but time the honest woman they did, just like AO's.

SM again, did not tell the police the correct details of his movements, neither did he offer them up? They discovered he had not went directly home via outside factors. As has been posted many times by people, he had fuelled his car up later in the evening, many miles from home, was there CCTV footage of this? Bank receipt perhaps, and what exactly did SM tell the police, as to why he went up town to do this? - All these questions around SM with no known answer, yet if we turn to others, we can almost tell you the colour of their underwear - Odd that, isn't it?

 

[faithlilly]

As we know, in 2003 AO's had told the police his routine after finishing work, they did not take his word for it, they obtained the CCTV footage from the fuel station he said he went to, and there he was, telling the truth. They did not film his route home, they timed it. No CCTV along the way.

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we? Honesty over dishonesty?

What was to trust here? The one who was telling the truth or the one who was not? Now AB also told the police her movements, they checked these out and again she was telling the truth, no CCTV out in the sticks on those routes, but time the honest woman they did, just like AO's.

SM again, did not tell the police the correct details of his movements, neither did he offer them up? They discovered he had not went directly home via outside factors. As has been posted many times by people, he had fuelled his car up later in the evening, many miles from home, was there CCTV footage of this? Bank receipt perhaps, and what exactly did SM tell the police, as to why he went up town to do this? - All these questions around SM with no known answer, yet if we turn to others, we can almost tell you the colour of their underwear - Odd that, isn't it?

CCTV was obtained to establish that Alan Ovens was telling the truth about his journey home…indeed it was. CCTV was obtained from Morning, Noon and Night ( a very small corner shop)  to correct Corrine’s recollection of her journey home which does make you wonder why not one still of CCTV footage was ever obtained from the rather larger shop in which Bryson shopped before spotting the youths at the path. It would have certainly put to bed the bank statement/till recept question, but perhaps that was the point. Of course it could have been that by the time the police needed Bryson’s statement to shore up their faltering case against Luke the footage no longer existed. Either option isn’t great.

What movements did the police check out with regard to  Bryson? The ones in at least her first two statements? Well they didn’t check out, did they? In fact if they had checked those timings out they would have seen that it was either a different couple that Bryson  had seen at the path or that Jodi wasn’t killed at 5.15….and if Jodi wasn’t killed at 5.15, well you know the rest.

[Mr Apples]

Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.

Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.

Hi, fl. I replied to your other post last night but the battery on my mobile conked out just as I was about to finish. Anyway, AB said "she had passed that way" (meaning the Easthouses main road ) when seeing a news report on 01.07.03. If she was on that road, then logic tells you that she travelled along Easthouses Rd, Morris Rd & Bryans Rd going back home. Occam's Razor, logic, the law of averages, and so on. 5-7 mins only to get back home and 15 mins at the maximun. If the police didn't have cctv evidence, then presumably there were no cameras on said roads? I'm sure the police tried desperately to trace AB's exact routes that day; it was a brutal murder they were trying to solve, after all, so they had to get it right. LM may have aroused suspicion really early on in the investigation, but he wasn't arrested until 14.04.04.... do you really think the police didn't do all in their power to trace AB's exact routes with CCTV evidence between her statements in July/August '03 and Luke's arrest in April '04? Of course they did. It would be gross negligence or gross incompetence if they didn't (and I'm sure this was probably mentioned during the trial). No CCTV evidence = there were no cameras on her routes. All of this getting 'lost' whilst looking for that house for sale is hyperbole; EH is a tiny settlement and AB lived a mere 5-minute drive away in an adjacent village (Newtongrange) -- of course she knew it to an extent (even if she didn't, it would have only taken her mere minutes to find her bearings again and reverse out of that small culdesac and onto that main EH rd again). The point is, her flying visit to EH would have only added about 5 mins (maximum) onto her journey time. And again, as Parky has said over the years on these forums, how many lads fitting LM's description are likely to have been skulking around those busy rural roads? And, yet again, I must mention how categorical AB & RW were that it was him they saw; likewise, when he'd slyly changed into the shiny green bomber jacket from the dull green parka, 6 separate people saw him on the nb rd in those clothes and positively identified him (although, the couple did say, in court, it wasn't him but got his clothes right . . . it was LM they saw, let's face it; MK supposedly had a parka but didn't have a shiny green bomber jacket, and plus his (MK's) dna wasn't found at the locus). Regarding AB saying she got in about half an hour before that call at 1817, well, as you say, it was a guesstimate; she didn't specify an exact time. Logic, however, tells us that she arrived home at around 1715, and, because she was busy with kids, shopping and preparing dinner for the family, she lost track of time and misremembered during the 1715-1745 window. I firmly believe that using logic, common sense and Occam's razor, we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM murdered and mutilated Jodi (and that's only with going by what was reported in the public domain; there was far more incriminating evidence led at court, which folk who were on the jury and at the actual trial have attested in private to members of the public).

[Mr Apples]

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we?

Hi, Parky. Good to see you posting regularly again. That's interesting about her journey home from work (I may have read about it previously but forgotten. Yeah, the more I read about this case, the more obvious it becomes that LM did it. There's just an avalanche of circumstantial evidence against him (and I've not even heard or read it all). SM, too, during his first statement on 03.07.03 (maybe it wasn't his first statement) saying he got back at his usual time of 1530, yet it was a known fact he'd phoned Luke at 1600 on the landline phone on 30.06.03. He then changed it on 07.07.03 to align with his mother's. And then reverted back to I can't remember on 14.04.04. Debacle.

[Chris_Halkides]

Same with LF & RW. They were both incredulous at just how much the photo in the newspaper looked like that boy they had seen some 6 weeks earlier acting strangely that gate. That's why the woman was so keen to show her friend that pic of him in the newspapers -- for she knew it was definitely him and was so overwhelmed emotionally by the resemblance that she just had to show her friend this pic. It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier. Again, it was compelling evidence used by AD Turnbull, and most likely contributed greatly to swinging the jury in the prosecution's favour -- as probably did AB's eyewitness testimony.

RW's claim of being certain is both meaningless and misleading.  A witness's level of confidence is only of value of his or her memory is tested one time and the test is a scientifically correct one.  The identifications of RW, LF (and also AB) fail to adhere to the second condition at least.  The relevant citation is 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.  Having all four of these authors on one paper is a little like having a Formula One racing team consisting of Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, and Michael Schumacher.

Besides the problems that I previously listed, another problem I have with the RW/LF identification is that it isn't very probative, even under the unlikely scenario that they saw him where they eventually claimed to have done so.

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?

If the FLO had not badgered and confused him and if he had not had the charge of perverting the course of justice to think about, I might put more weight on SM's ambiguous words.  Those two things are the elephant in the room for me, and no one has taken on the question of why they should be ignored.

Regarding the parka, my first comment is that I would put more weight on testimony from the eight witnesses if LM's picture had not appeared in the paper.  My second comment is that if the police had produced a receipt for the purchase a parka at some time before the murder, I would take that very seriously.  That is objective, not subjective, evidence.

My third comment relates to a book I previously recommended, the earlier of two books called "Convicting the Innocent," this one written by Edwin M. Borchard.  The first of over sixty wrongful convictions he discussed was Herbert T. Andrews, whom seventeen people misidentified as the person who passed a bad check to each of them.  The prosecutor wrote, "As the two men stood at the bar, I wondered how so many person could have worn that the innocent man was the one that had chased the bad checks.  The two men were as dissimilar in appearance as could be."  Nor is this the only case of multiple mistaken eyewitnesses that I have read about.

Let us follow the logic of two parkas, anyway.  The only reason to burn the parka would be if it were stained in blood.  No one saw LM walking through his neighborhood or anywhere else with bloodstained clothing, yet it would have been 4 and a half hours before sunset and at a time of the day when people were returning home.  This is implausible.  Then the parka has to be disposed of.  I am not an expert in the analysis of debris, but I did find an interesting passage in the book Scientific Protocols for Forensic Examination of Clothing (Taupin and Cwiklik).  They wrote (p. 170), "Metal spheres and other particles can be tested and compared with other sources using elemental analysis."  In other words the fire debris could be analyzed and possibly related to a known item of clothing.  I am not aware of anything incriminating coming from the analysis of fire debris in this case, but there should have been something.  Taking all of this information into consideration, it is more parsimonious to conclude that the witnesses were mistaken.

[Parky41]

If the FLO had not badgered and confused him and if he had not had the charge of perverting the course of justice to think about, I might put more weight on SM's ambiguous words.  Those two things are the elephant in the room for me, and no one has taken on the question of why they should be ignored.

Regarding the parka, my first comment is that I would put more weight on testimony from the eight witnesses if LM's picture had not appeared in the paper.  My second comment is that if the police had produced a receipt for the purchase a parka at some time before the murder, I would take that very seriously.  That is objective, not subjective, evidence.

My third comment relates to a book I previously recommended, the earlier of two books called "Convicting the Innocent," this one written by Edwin M. Borchard.  The first of over sixty wrongful convictions he discussed was Herbert T. Andrews, whom seventeen people misidentified as the person who passed a bad check to each of them.  The prosecutor wrote, "As the two men stood at the bar, I wondered how so many person could have worn that the innocent man was the one that had chased the bad checks.  The two men were as dissimilar in appearance as could be."  Nor is this the only case of multiple mistaken eyewitnesses that I have read about.

Let us follow the logic of two parkas, anyway.  The only reason to burn the parka would be if it were stained in blood.  No one saw LM walking through his neighborhood or anywhere else with bloodstained clothing, yet it would have been 4 and a half hours before sunset and at a time of the day when people were returning home.  This is implausible.  Then the parka has to be disposed of.  I am not an expert in the analysis of debris, but I did find an interesting passage in the book Scientific Protocols for Forensic Examination of Clothing (Taupin and Cwiklik).  They wrote (p. 170), "Metal spheres and other particles can be tested and compared with other sources using elemental analysis."  In other words the fire debris could be analyzed and possibly related to a known item of clothing.  I am not aware of anything incriminating coming from the analysis of fire debris in this case, but there should have been something.  Taking all of this information into consideration, it is more parsimonious to conclude that the witnesses were mistaken.

List please Chris - Dates of statements from everyone who told the police of any clothing and where?  Have you even bothered to find this out before making judgement?

No one saw LM in bloodied clothing around the housing estate - No one saw LM at all in the housing estate, until arriving home nearly an hour later than he claimed.

I can never grasp this, why get rid of clothing if not heavily blood stained, used in a murder - Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.

[faithlilly]

List please Chris - Dates of statements from everyone who told the police of any clothing and where?  Have you even bothered to find this out before making judgement?

No one saw LM in bloodied clothing around the housing estate - No one saw LM at all in the housing estate, until arriving home nearly an hour later than he claimed.

I can never grasp this, why get rid of clothing if not heavily blood stained, used in a murder - Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.

He was 14, had never been in trouble with the police and there was nothing anywhere on his computer to indicate that he had an interest in forensics. Where do you think he got this knowledge?

[KenMair]

Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.

He gave as good as he got during police interviews and was knowledgeable about DNA profiles. Perhaps he watched CSI.

However he must be the unluckiest murderer ever. If only those girls he attacked or threatened hadn't lied, the 8 people (at least) who lied about seeing him in a parka pre-murder, the friends who lied about his murder fantasies and his knife collection and drug use, his neighbours who lied about the burner, the search party who all lied about finding the body, the 5 witnesses who lied seeing him approx 5-6pm. In fact the only person who didn't lie was dear old CM, his enabler.

Is it known that SM has an injunction about being mentioned by SL & Co hence the lack of knowledge as to his movements that night despite, as you mentioned, everything been known about everyone else.

[Parky41]

He gave as good as he got during police interviews and was knowledgeable about DNA profiles. Perhaps he watched CSI.

However he must be the unluckiest murderer ever. If only those girls he attacked or threatened hadn't lied, the 8 people (at least) who lied about seeing him in a parka pre-murder, the friends who lied about his murder fantasies and his knife collection and drug use, his neighbours who lied about the burner, the search party who all lied about finding the body, the 5 witnesses who lied seeing him approx 5-6pm. In fact the only person who didn't lie was dear old CM, his enabler.

Is it known that SM has an injunction about being mentioned by SL & Co hence the lack of knowledge as to his movements that night despite, as you mentioned, everything been known about everyone else.

Well it stands to reason for some, for LM to be innocent then everything else has to be wrong. Sadly people do not realise they are being lied to. Or indeed see the tactics at play. 'To sway public opinion by taken focus away from the convicted, trying to show that others may have been acting out of self interest -------'

Very much why there is so much focus being placed upon the victim and her family - Wrong on so many levels, but hey it works for some. 5 witness's alone, important witnesses are from the victims family. Especially the three from the search, who do people trust with all the BS put out about them? - LM of course.

Then to top it off we have the victim herself being abused repeatedly, and again people fail to see, that these actions on the outside, are the voice, the vessels of LM from the inside. Not only lying about the victims family, about everyone, but lying about the victim, her life and her death. - Innocent? What kind of innocent promotes the wilful lies and abuse of the victim. But their actual killer would do exactly this, wouldn't they?

[Rusty]

He was 14

For somebody that spends their life trolling the internet, to then get things, so spectacularly wrong, is extraordinary.

Luke Mitchell was 14 years and 11 months by the time he claimed his victim.
He was also the school's cannabis dealer, and by his own admission smoked copious amounts of the stuff.
Self-proclaimed local gangster, that carried an array of weapons on him.
Used and abused multiple females, physically and mentally. 
Had his mother around his thumb, to the point she performed what could be deemed as foreplay on national TV to him.
Continued to not give a $hit after he butchered his victim, parting, $hagging, taking drugs, enjoying the limelight.

Happy to help.

[Chris_Halkides]

Daily Record:  "The prosecution sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell’s home had been used around 6.30pm and 7.30pm and later, at around 10pm that night with an unusual smell as reported by neighbours."

From an article in The Herald on 16 September 2018: "A log burner was removed from the family home, to undergo forensic testing."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/

If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures), they should have obtained an identical parka and an identical log burner.  Then they should have burned the parka in the log burner and examined the debris.  They should have compared those debris with those from the log burner in question.  I am not sure of the best choice of techniques in this situation, but there are several methods for finding which elements are present, if that would be useful.  Among them are inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES), X-ray fluorescence, and neutron activation analysis (which does not seem to be as commonly performed as it used to be).

The second news story quotes Corinne:

“You can’t accuse me of helping him get rid of all the stuff in my ¬ ¬- as the papers put it - ‘incinerator’ in the back garden. They took the whole thing away, and they didn’t find anything!” she says.

“I did an experiment. We built an exact replica of my log burner that I built in my garden and got an exact replica of Luke’s parka that I was supposed to have burnt - which he never owned anyway at the time. I bought him it after and the cops have the receipt for that.

“It (the parka) wouldn’t burn and there was tons of black smoke. There were zips, buckles - you name it.”

If I read the story from The Herald previously, I had forgotten it.  But now that I have, it seems to me that Corinne was on the right track here.

[Nicholas]

If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures), they should have obtained an identical parka and an identical log burner.  Then they should have burned the parka in the log burner and examined the debris.  They should have compared those debris with those from the log burner in question.  I am not sure of the best choice of techniques in this situation, but there are several methods for finding which elements are present, if that would be useful. 

Lol! Are you for real?!

Fibres were found in the log burner which is why it was believed clothing had been burned in it

It would have taken seconds to remove the debris left behind to dispose of it elsewhere

Why don’t you ask Sandra Lean to publish what forensics were found