Luke Mitchell Theories

[Mr Apples]

My claims about Mitchell’s interest in satanism have been thoroughly backed up with cites including  remarks by the judge at his trial and by the creep’s own request foe books on satanism whilst in prison on the grounds that he is entitled to them on religious grounds.  Also I did not say I am “so sure” he did it. I said I was more or less satisfied that he did it but would have no objection  if a re-trial was ever deemed necessary.   It’s clear you are not a fair and honest debater when you won’t even acknowledge these basic truths so there is no way I am going to get dragged into any further pointless debate wrt to the logistics of this murder.  The explicit detail of the case (which I have already acknowledged I am not sufficiently au fait with) satisfied the judge and at least 8 members of the jury - of course that might just be because Mitchell’s defence were so incredibly poor that they failed to demonstrate in court your claim about the complete impossibility that Mitchell was the murderer, in which case your beef must surely be with them.  So kindly take your snarky comments and direct them at those who apparently perpetrated this gross injustice against the poor wee Satanist, not me.  In the meantime I will continue to read the debate here and comment when I see blatant attempts at bending the truth or downplaying Mitchell’s well documented sinister leanings.

Well said, VS. That's pretty much my take on the case. Just one little ammendment to what you've said, if I may: Judge Lord Nimmo Smith specified that, in order to convict, a strong majority verdict was needed (i.e., at least 80%; a minimum of 12 jurors). This highlights how compelling and robust the prosecution's case was against LM, and, I've got to say, I'm thoroughly convinced he's guilty. I'd be utterly astonished if it wasn't him.

[faithlilly]

Well said, VS. That's pretty much my take on the case. Just one little ammendment to what you've said, if I may: Judge Lord Nimmo Smith specified that, in order to convict, a strong majority verdict was needed (i.e., at least 80%; a minimum of 12 jurors). This highlights how compelling and robust the prosecution's case was against LM, and, I've got to say, I'm thoroughly convinced he's guilty. I'd be utterly astonished if it wasn't him.

Where did you hear about the judge’s directions? I can’t seem to find a cite anywhere.

[William Wallace]

My claims about Mitchell’s interest in satanism have been thoroughly backed up with cites including  remarks by the judge at his trial and by the creep’s own request foe books on satanism whilst in prison on the grounds that he is entitled to them on religious grounds.  Also I did not say I am “so sure” he did it. I said I was more or less satisfied that he did it but would have no objection  if a re-trial was ever deemed necessary.   It’s clear you are not a fair and honest debater when you won’t even acknowledge these basic truths so there is no way I am going to get dragged into any further pointless debate wrt to the logistics of this murder.  The explicit detail of the case (which I have already acknowledged I am not sufficiently au fait with) satisfied the judge and at least 8 members of the jury - of course that might just be because Mitchell’s defence were so incredibly poor that they failed to demonstrate in court your claim about the complete impossibility that Mitchell was the murderer, in which case your beef must surely be with them.  So kindly take your snarky comments and direct them at those who apparently perpetrated this gross injustice against the poor wee Satanist, not me.  In the meantime I will continue to read the debate here and comment when I see blatant attempts at bending the truth or downplaying Mitchell’s well documented sinister leanings.

Requesting books and scribblings on jotters proves what? I've read books about Peter Tobin, does that make me a serial killer? There were no 'snarky comments' - this is just an attempt by you to deflect from the questions I asked you, which you have still failed to provide a credible response to which was predictable, because you can't provide a credible answer.

[Venturi Swirl]

Requesting books and scribblings on jotters proves what? I've read books about Peter Tobin, does that make me a serial killer? There were no 'snarky comments' - this is just an attempt by you to deflect from the questions I asked you, which you have still failed to provide a credible response to which was predictable, because you can't provide a credible answer.

If you had requested books on serial killers on religious grounds it would certainly make you very suspect imo yes. To request books on satanism on religious grounds  years after the murder you’ve been jailed for and in which satanism was considered a key factor, is just plain weird not to mention deeply sinister imo.

  I have given you a honest answer as to why I can’t give answers to your questions and that’s because I am not well enough versed in the minute by minute details of the case but one thing I would query is how anyone can state with absolute certainty (as you appear to have done) that there was no trace of dirt, blood  or incriminating evidence when Mitchell was apparently sat on a wall 40 minutes after the murder apparently occurred.  Was he subjected to a forensic examination at that moment?   

[Venturi Swirl]

If Mitchell was just an ordinary common or gsrden teenage boy with normal teenage interests why did he complain that he was being set up because he was “the local weirdo”?  If scrawlings in jotters” and an interest in satanism and knives  is just normal boy stuff why did Mitchell himself think that made him seem weird?

[William Wallace]

If you had requested books on serial killers on religious grounds it would certainly make you very suspect imo yes. To request books on satanism on religious grounds  years after the murder you’ve been jailed for and in which satanism was considered a key factor, is just plain weird not to mention deeply sinister imo.

  I have given you a honest answer as to why I can’t give answers to your questions and that’s because I am not well enough versed in the minute by minute details of the case but one thing I would query is how anyone can state with absolute certainty (as you appear to have done) that there was no trace of dirt, blood  or incriminating evidence when Mitchell was apparently sat on a wall 40 minutes after the murder apparently occurred.  Was he subjected to a forensic examination at that moment?

Thank you for replying. I am not versed in the minute by minute details either so there are things both of us don't know. It's true he wasn't examined at 600pm of course, but when he was, his hair was greasy and had not been washed and he was also grubby with no sign of recent washing. There are certain things with this case that just don't fit. They are like jigsaw pieces from 2 different jigsaws. The Bryson timings are wrong, she went to look for a house on the way home and didn't pass that path at 4.55pm. She said she got in just before taking a call to her landline at about 6pm which was verified, which meant she got in at about 540pm. The journey from the path to her house is a few minutes, not 45m.

The issue of LM having to carry out the murder and re-appear looking normal 40 minutes later with no marks or blood on him, just seems almost impossible.

I do agree with you about those books, it's definitely weird and could certainly be viewed as sinister.

There was very little blood found exactly where the body was found, so it had undoubtedly been moved. This becomes even more sinister..... Police dogs failed to trace exactly where the blood was and evidence was found that bleach had been used in certain areas near the murder scene. Who takes bleach into the woods? As you no doubt know, bleach can be used to stop dogs picking up scents. If LM was the killer and he moved the body then he would absolutely certainly have had blood and DNA on him, but it is also certain the body was moved because there was very little blood at the murder scene. Yet another thing that just doesn't add up.

[Venturi Swirl]

Thank you for replying. I am not versed in the minute by minute details either so there are things both of us don't know. It's true he wasn't examined at 600pm of course, but when he was, his hair was greasy and had not been washed and he was also grubby with no sign of recent washing. There are certain things with this case that just don't fit. They are like jigsaw pieces from 2 different jigsaws. The Bryson timings are wrong, she went to look for a house on the way home and didn't pass that path at 4.55pm. She said she got in just before taking a call to her landline at about 6pm which was verified, which meant she got in at about 540pm. The journey from the path to her house is a few minutes, not 45m.

The issue of LM having to carry out the murder and re-appear looking normal 40 minutes later with no marks or blood on him, just seems almost impossible.

I do agree with you about those books, it's definitely weird and could certainly be viewed as sinister.

There was very little blood found exactly where the body was found, so it had undoubtedly been moved. This becomes even more sinister..... Police dogs failed to trace exactly where the blood was and evidence was found that bleach had been used in certain areas near the murder scene. Who takes bleach into the woods? As you no doubt know, bleach can be used to stop dogs picking up scents. If LM was the killer and he moved the body then he would absolutely certainly have had blood and DNA on him, but it is also certain the body was moved because there was very little blood at the murder scene. Yet another thing that just doesn't add up.

If everything you claim is the undisputable truth then it’s almost as if Mitchell didn’t receive a defence in court of any kind.  Were none of these issues brought up in court? 
In my view fwiw - blood can be washed off hands and hair without soap, so in a stream or under a cold tap.  If shampoo isn’t used hair will dry lank and fingernails will remain dirty. As he wasn’t a suspect 40 minutes after the likely time of the murder no one would have been looking at him expecting to see signs that he’d just committed a murder.  What was he doing between 5pm and the time that the body was discovered?  Strikes me that is ample time in which to remove and destroy evidence but happy to be corrected on that score.  At what point were dogs brought in?  My understanding was that the body was left out uncovered overnight during heavy rain which may explain some of the issues regarding blood at the scene.  I don’t know about the bleach.  Was it neat bleach or a cleaning product containing bleach that may have been used by the killer to clean up after himself? 

[William Wallace]

If everything you claim is the undisputable truth then it’s almost as if Mitchell didn’t receive a defence in court of any kind.  Were none of these issues brought up in court? 
In my view fwiw - blood can be washed off hands and hair without soap, so in a stream or under a cold tap.  If shampoo isn’t used hair will dry lank and fingernails will remain dirty. As he wasn’t a suspect 40 minutes after the likely time of the murder no one would have been looking at him expecting to see signs that he’d just committed a murder.  What was he doing between 5pm and the time that the body was discovered?  Strikes me that is ample time in which to remove and destroy evidence but happy to be corrected on that score.  At what point were dogs brought in?  My understanding was that the body was left out uncovered overnight during heavy rain which may explain some of the issues regarding blood at the scene.  I don’t know about the bleach.  Was it neat bleach or a cleaning product containing bleach that may have been used by the killer to clean up after himself?

As far as I recall Police dogs were brought in several days later and they came from England. They didn't find anything and it was discovered by Police that bleach had been used on the ground. I don't think a lot of this was brought up in Court because it was not known to the defence. I don't think the type of bleach was ever disclosed.

Yes the body was left out in the rain all night uncovered and it was also moved by the Police before forensics arrived. Rain would definitely not get rid of all traces of blood. The body was moved by whoever killed her and left behind the V. It may not have been moved far, but it was moved.

His whereabouts that night prior to going up that path at about 10.40pm do not appear to be fully established by evidence. Eg; he claimed to have been in the house from about 9pm until 10.40pm, but he was seen walking towards his house outside by a neighbour at about 10pm.

The biggest problem with this whole case is that other persons of interest were not investigated properly, in MK's case not at all for 3 years after the trial. Whilst there is a lack of clarity about where LM was at certain times, that applied to others but they were never investigated properly. Another example.....nobody knows where [Name removed] was from mid afternoon of the murder for the following 24 hours. Ju J said he was in the house , well he wasn't because he was identified by a witness as The Stocky Man seen following Jodi near the path. After the murder when Police came to the house, they reported seeing only JuJ and AO. [Name removed] was supposedly in bed, but the Police did not check to see if he was in bed or not. Thus, his whereabouts are not known for a much longer period than LM's. He should have been investigated along with MK, whose whereabouts were also unknown on the night of the murder apart from being seen on a shop's CCTV at 730pm.

[Venturi Swirl]

As far as I recall Police dogs were brought in several days later and they came from England. They didn't find anything and it was discovered by Police that bleach had been used on the ground. I don't think a lot of this was brought up in Court because it was not known to the defence. I don't think the type of bleach was ever disclosed.

Yes the body was left out in the rain all night uncovered and it was also moved by the Police before forensics arrived. Rain would definitely not get rid of all traces of blood. The body was moved by whoever killed her and left behind the V. It may not have been moved far, but it was moved.

His whereabouts that night prior to going up that path at about 10.40pm do not appear to be fully established by evidence. Eg; he claimed to have been in the house from about 9pm until 10.40pm, but he was seen walking towards his house outside by a neighbour at about 10pm.

The biggest problem with this whole case is that other persons of interest were not investigated properly, in MK's case not at all for 3 years after the trial. Whilst there is a lack of clarity about where LM was at certain times, that applied to others but they were never investigated properly. Another example.....nobody knows where [Name removed] was from mid afternoon of the murder for the following 24 hours. Ju J said he was in the house , well he wasn't because he was identified by a witness as The Stocky Man seen following Jodi near the path. After the murder when Police came to the house, they reported seeing only JuJ and AO. [Name removed] was supposedly in bed, but the Police did not check to see if he was in bed or not. Thus, his whereabouts are not known for a much longer period than LM's. He should have been investigated along with MK, whose whereabouts were also unknown on the night of the murder apart from being seen on a shop's CCTV at 730pm.

How do you know bleach was used on the ground if it was never brought up in court?  Not that I think it in any way rules out LM if it was.  Ditto the body being moved.  Clearly there were hours in which LM could have cleaned up after himself, got rid of evidence, etc. I don’t know enough about any investigations into other potential suspects to comment on that part so will have to take your word for it.  I would say though that witness(es) also saw LM with Jodi that evening at a time when he claimed to be at home so clearly you don’t believe in the reliability of witnesses if you sincerely believe that LM is innocent.

[faithlilly]

As far as I recall Police dogs were brought in several days later and they came from England. They didn't find anything and it was discovered by Police that bleach had been used on the ground. I don't think a lot of this was brought up in Court because it was not known to the defence. I don't think the type of bleach was ever disclosed.

Yes the body was left out in the rain all night uncovered and it was also moved by the Police before forensics arrived. Rain would definitely not get rid of all traces of blood. The body was moved by whoever killed her and left behind the V. It may not have been moved far, but it was moved.

His whereabouts that night prior to going up that path at about 10.40pm do not appear to be fully established by evidence. Eg; he claimed to have been in the house from about 9pm until 10.40pm, but he was seen walking towards his house outside by a neighbour at about 10pm.

The biggest problem with this whole case is that other persons of interest were not investigated properly, in MK's case not at all for 3 years after the trial. Whilst there is a lack of clarity about where LM was at certain times, that applied to others but they were never investigated properly. Another example.....nobody knows where [Name removed] was from mid afternoon of the murder for the following 24 hours. Ju J said he was in the house , well he wasn't because he was identified by a witness as The Stocky Man seen following Jodi near the path. After the murder when Police came to the house, they reported seeing only JuJ and AO. [Name removed] was supposedly in bed, but the Police did not check to see if he was in bed or not. Thus, his whereabouts are not known for a much longer period than LM's. He should have been investigated along with MK, whose whereabouts were also unknown on the night of the murder apart from being seen on a shop's CCTV at 730pm.

That there was semen from another male on the body when there was no reasonable explanation for it being there should have raised all kinds of red flags for any competent investigation. Obviously it didn’t.

[Venturi Swirl]

That there was semen from another male on the body when there was no reasonable explanation for it being there should have raised all kinds of red flags for any competent investigation. Obviously it didn’t.

Why didn't Mitchell's defence raise this in court?

[Parky41]

Why didn't Mitchell's defence raise this in court?

And that really is the question, it will always be the question. Because it is never as is seems, as it is portrayed publicly just now!

Word play, this 'another male' semen 'on' the victims body. The claim it was untested, that it was hidden from his original defence. Absolute BS. You can bet your bottom dollar that some samples are the very ones attributed to LM. That anything else, fully disclosed to the defence came under the same header, that there was nothing found directly linking anyone to the murder.

SL and her latest live! Back to square one she claims with the samples, of any testing of them. Still trying to work out she claims which ones would be viable, the best ones for re-testing! Speaks volumes, it will always speak volumes, around such claims of there being semen from 'another male' upon the victims 'body'

[Parky41]

How do you know bleach was used on the ground if it was never brought up in court?  Not that I think it in any way rules out LM if it was.  Ditto the body being moved.  Clearly there were hours in which LM could have cleaned up after himself, got rid of evidence, etc. I don’t know enough about any investigations into other potential suspects to comment on that part so will have to take your word for it.  I would say though that witness(es) also saw LM with Jodi that evening at a time when he claimed to be at home so clearly you don’t believe in the reliability of witnesses if you sincerely believe that LM is innocent.

It is a nonsense claim made. That the police bleached the scene to stop the dogs from scenting in any other direction than W NW. Or of SF's and maybe the killer put it down to mask scents, magic bleach that the forensic team did not pick up upon.

Not only that re eye witness testimony. What is always left out, there were no witnesses called to show that it actually had been the victim walking that road around 5pm. Nothing produced to show her last movements. Because clearly, it turned out to be a false trail, not her around 5pm that day. Not to separate those three important factors. The brother was never positively ID as being the mystery male, ever. It does not even border on what passes for eye witness sightings in the slightest. It was an over phone claimed further ID, that was it. Fully put to bed by the SCCRC report - We know it was put to bed because, if there had been anything of worth to use in that report it would have been broadcast loud and clear. Instead it has been the same old manipulated to hell and back BS.

[Mr Apples]

Why didn't Mitchell's defence raise this in court?

Because it would've been absolutely futile to do so. The DNA in this case can't move any debate forward; it was neutral as no incriminating DNA was ever found at the locus or anywhere else, and hence why an agreement was made between defence & prosecution not to use or discuss the DNA.

The only one full profile that was found in this case  was a tiny semen stain from SK on the t-shirt that Jodi wore that evening. It was explained scientifically at court that said semen stain got on that t-shirt innocently; the t-shirt actually belonged to JanineJ and Jodi had borrowed it that evening, and, unbeknownst to her, it had a degraded semen stain on it -- a semen stain that had survived a washing machine cycle (the t-shirt had been freshly laundered, but, because SK & JanineJ were in an intimate relationship, semen from a previous sexual encounter between the courting, intimate couple found its way onto that t-shirt and survived a washing machine cycle and then Jodi borrowed it. This was all explained  carefully & scientifically in court and it was accepted. It was accepted as 'innocent transfer'. As regards semen being found on Jodi's body, etc, well, that too got there innocently and was accepted in court; the rain had diffused the degraded semen stain from SK across Jodi's body (ie, traces of semen had migrated from one place on Jodi's body to another). What's also worth considering is the fact that where Jodi was murdered and where her body lay was a popular place for youths to congregate, smoke, drink alcohol and have sex -- so it stands to reason there would have been used condoms and traces of semen from previous sexual encounters between youths and these traces would have innocently got onto Jodi's body (ie, 'innocent transfer'). The crux of the matter is that there was no incriminating DNA found at the locus (ie clumps of hair from an assailant, an assailant's blood or  and no fresh.semen found); it was all partial profiles and inconclusive results from degraded dna that got there innocently. If there was fresh dna at the locus it woukd have been detected as the forensic equipment used in this investigation back in 2003/04 was state-of-the art that could pick up the smallest of traces of DNA (and the rainfall on 01.07.03 would not have been able to completely wash away all traces of DNA). There was nothing found. Besides, the pathology report confirmed that Jodi had't been raped. So, again, nothing incriminating was found forensically to take the case forward, and certainly nothing to suggest it was a stranger who did it.

What are we left with? Any logical thinker would be able to deduce that LM got rid of his german army parka and shirt because they likely had traces of Jodi's blood on it (and many people, including school teachers and best friend David High, said LM owned these items of clothing prior to the murder on 30.06.03). Why did he and Corinne deny he ever had the German parka jacket & shirt prior to 30.06.03, when so many peoole said under oath he did have both prior to the murder? And why did LM buy the exact same jacket and shirt as the ones in question, on 08.07.03? It's a rhetorical question, obviously. We all know why. He's guilty as hell.

[Venturi Swirl]

Thanks for the info Mr A.  It occurred to me that any would be rapist / murderer making the effort to conceal their dna profile by using a condom is unlikely to then theow away said condom anywhere near their victim’s body.