Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 108219 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #480 on: March 12, 2024, 06:55:18 PM »
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.

You are absolutely right Mr Apples DNA at the juncture is unlikely to move the case forward. That however does not mean it couldn’t have if looked at objectively in 2003-2004.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #481 on: March 12, 2024, 07:56:22 PM »
I wonder why the defence agreed not to interrogate the DNA evidence if it was potentially so pertinent to Mitchell’s defence…?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline William Wallace

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #482 on: March 13, 2024, 01:53:01 AM »
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.

The bleach issue was not raised in Court, so it was not known to the defence, nor was the fact there was no blood under the body. It's easy to say he had hours to clean up. He had 40 minutes. You're not seriously telling me somebody could carry out an attack as savage as this and get rid of all signs or evidence in 40m. He didn't go near the house, not a trace found in there. If it was him seen by Fleming and Walsh which seems very doubtful considering one of them admitted to only seeing him from their rear view mirror, that would mean he had moved from the V to the path end between 5.15pm and about 5.45pm. That would rule out any possibility that he ran towards the Esk which is further away and where it's likely in summer there would be people around at that time walking dogs etc. There is a burn which runs through the field opposite the V about 100 yards away. That's the only place he could have cleaned anything or dumped anything. I assume that burn was searched and nothing was found.

The likelihood of him crossing that field to the burn at 5.15pm is what? Nobody such as L.Kelly cycling saw anyone in the field did they? That's because he wasn't there. I believe LM is innocent because the timescales, lack of physical evidence and suggestions that he has cleaned up in a burn or even the Esk are just not credible.

It is far more likely that the person who did this had some means of getting away from the area other than on foot, which is why he vanished without trace without one person seeing him. The moped which was up that path at the time of the murder clearly had something to do with it, which is why it was melted down as fast as possible. The police in this case not only made a lot of errors such as contaminating the crime scene, they were so useless they couldn't even find the owners of an illegal noisy moped and had to put an appeal out in an area with a population of about 8,000. Seriously?

Online Chris_Halkides

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #483 on: March 13, 2024, 02:30:34 AM »
I wonder why the defence agreed not to interrogate the DNA evidence if it was potentially so pertinent to Mitchell’s defence…?
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3290
What basis is there for the claim that the defense agreed not to interrogate the DNA evidence?  I have seen this stated here and perhaps in one of Jane Hamilton's articles, but nothing more.  Only the fingernails from one of Jodi's hands was tested; the nails from the other hand were not.  If any deceased person has non-spousal DNA underneath his or her fingernails, that is extremely probative evidence.  The case of Chad Heins is an example, although there was other DNA also found.  The murder of Penny Williams in Lake County, Illinois is another example.


Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #484 on: March 13, 2024, 07:22:43 AM »
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3290
What basis is there for the claim that the defense agreed not to interrogate the DNA evidence?  I have seen this stated here and perhaps in one of Jane Hamilton's articles, but nothing more.  Only the fingernails from one of Jodi's hands was tested; the nails from the other hand were not.  If any deceased person has non-spousal DNA underneath his or her fingernails, that is extremely probative evidence.  The case of Chad Heins is an example, although there was other DNA also found.  The murder of Penny Williams in Lake County, Illinois is another example.

Only testing the fingernails from one of Jodi's hands just doesn't seem plausible at all. Do you have a cite for this, Chris?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #485 on: March 13, 2024, 07:25:28 AM »
The bleach issue was not raised in Court, so it was not known to the defence, nor was the fact there was no blood under the body. It's easy to say he had hours to clean up. He had 40 minutes. You're not seriously telling me somebody could carry out an attack as savage as this and get rid of all signs or evidence in 40m. He didn't go near the house, not a trace found in there. If it was him seen by Fleming and Walsh which seems very doubtful considering one of them admitted to only seeing him from their rear view mirror, that would mean he had moved from the V to the path end between 5.15pm and about 5.45pm. That would rule out any possibility that he ran towards the Esk which is further away and where it's likely in summer there would be people around at that time walking dogs etc. There is a burn which runs through the field opposite the V about 100 yards away. That's the only place he could have cleaned anything or dumped anything. I assume that burn was searched and nothing was found.

The likelihood of him crossing that field to the burn at 5.15pm is what? Nobody such as L.Kelly cycling saw anyone in the field did they? That's because he wasn't there. I believe LM is innocent because the timescales, lack of physical evidence and suggestions that he has cleaned up in a burn or even the Esk are just not credible.

It is far more likely that the person who did this had some means of getting away from the area other than on foot, which is why he vanished without trace without one person seeing him. The moped which was up that path at the time of the murder clearly had something to do with it, which is why it was melted down as fast as possible. The police in this case not only made a lot of errors such as contaminating the crime scene, they were so useless they couldn't even find the owners of an illegal noisy moped and had to put an appeal out in an area with a population of about 8,000. Seriously?
Just a couple of questions- if the bleach was not brought up in court how do you know about it?  Was a thorough forensic sweep done of Mitchell’s house, if so how long after the murder?  I don’t get the 40 minute timeframe for cleaning up and disposing of evidence, sorry.  What happened to Mitchell 40 minutes after the murder that meant he was subject to close scrutiny of signs of being involved in it?  Not being obtuse, it’s a genuine question.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #486 on: March 13, 2024, 07:27:59 AM »
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3290
What basis is there for the claim that the defense agreed not to interrogate the DNA evidence?  I have seen this stated here and perhaps in one of Jane Hamilton's articles, but nothing more.  Only the fingernails from one of Jodi's hands was tested; the nails from the other hand were not.  If any deceased person has non-spousal DNA underneath his or her fingernails, that is extremely probative evidence.  The case of Chad Heins is an example, although there was other DNA also found.  The murder of Penny Williams in Lake County, Illinois is another example.
If defence didn’t agree not to interrogate the DNA evidence then why didn’t they bring it up if it was salient to Mitchell’s defence?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline KenMair

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #487 on: March 13, 2024, 08:42:44 AM »

It is far more likely that the person who did this had some means of getting away from the area other than on foot, which is why he vanished without trace without one person seeing him. The moped which was up that path at the time of the murder clearly had something to do with it, which is why it was melted down as fast as possible.

The moped wasn't melted down. It was taken to Melrose scrapyard as no longer working and lay there for weeks, possibly months, before being collected by the main metal merchants. If they had wanted to "dispose of evidence" they would have doused it in petrol and set in on fire, not leave it in a scrap yard for weeks. The fact that someone could have been spirited away from the locus on a noisy unreliable moped and dropped home unseen is even more unlikely - it didn't happen.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #488 on: March 13, 2024, 08:47:04 AM »
You are absolutely right Mr Apples DNA at the juncture is unlikely to move the case forward. That however does not mean it couldn’t have if looked at objectively in 2003-2004.

It was all treated with disinterest and neutrality during the 2003/04 investigation. They certainly weren't going to ruin a young boy's life purely on gut instinct or because they didn't like him. They had to get it right, hence the 18-month long investigation and a 42-day trial which was, for a time, the longest of a single accused in Scottish criminal history. Suspicion did fall on LM very quickly, but for good reason. That suspicion also remained there for very good reason. All this talk about an inadequate police investigation, other potential suspects not being looked into, a young boy being fitted up, etc, it's for the birds.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #489 on: March 13, 2024, 10:48:26 AM »
Only testing the fingernails from one of Jodi's hands just doesn't seem plausible at all. Do you have a cite for this, Chris?

It is a claim made by SL Mr Apples, one that Chris takes on board readily without any proof being shown to him to back it up. Not that one hand was  untested, she states the wrong type of testing was carried out? Seriously, so they tested one hand correctly but the other hand wrongly? But then Chris has fully bought into the forensic team working in bias for a police narrative. Again from IB. Clearly they were, thus why we had SK's DNA fully extracted and reported upon?

I think one of the biggest tell tale signs for me around manipulation of forensic reports is the following. That there are never any ? marks placed against any testing carried out directly to do with LM? This was all executed to perfection, just many convenient ? marks placed against other areas.

Chris is not being honest either. To say he has only seen the agreement here or by JH. It is spoken about in IB also. Which is also a clear example of manipulation. That 'the Mitchells learnt of an agreement to not use DNA evidence' To then waffle on about it making no sense, that surely if they had 'all' that DNA evidence they would have used it? It was DNA that was evident in its existence and not evidence of murder. It is applied that way to evade the reasons for the agreement. I have said it before and do so again. Either LM is lying to SL or SL in intentionally manipulating around the truth. The agreement was made in his presence, direct source, he is under no illusion as to the terms, the exact reasons for that agreement being made.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #490 on: March 13, 2024, 10:50:01 AM »
If defence didn’t agree not to interrogate the DNA evidence then why didn’t they bring it up if it was salient to Mitchell’s defence?

 8((()*/

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #491 on: March 13, 2024, 10:59:49 AM »
It is a claim made by SL Mr Apples, one that Chris takes on board readily without any proof being shown to him to back it up. Not that one hand was  untested, she states the wrong type of testing was carried out? Seriously, so they tested one hand correctly but the other hand wrongly? But then Chris has fully bought into the forensic team working in bias for a police narrative. Again from IB. Clearly they were, thus why we had SK's DNA fully extracted and reported upon?

I think one of the biggest tell tale signs for me around manipulation of forensic reports is the following. That there are never any ? marks placed against any testing carried out directly to do with LM? This was all executed to perfection, just many convenient ? marks placed against other areas.

Chris is not being honest either. To say he has only seen the agreement here or by JH. It is spoken about in IB also. Which is also a clear example of manipulation. That 'the Mitchells learnt of an agreement to not use DNA evidence' To then waffle on about it making no sense, that surely if they had 'all' that DNA evidence they would have used it? It was DNA that was evident in its existence and not evidence of murder. It is applied that way to evade the reasons for the agreement. I have said it before and do so again. Either LM is lying to SL or SL in intentionally manipulating around the truth. The agreement was made in his presence, direct source, he is under no illusion as to the terms, the exact reasons for that agreement being made.

I asked a day or so ago about the judge demanding a strong majority and it appears the only source for the claim is yourself. It appears you and Dr Lean, if you are indeed right about her, are both doing a power of manipulation.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Online Chris_Halkides

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #492 on: March 13, 2024, 11:07:04 AM »
If defence didn’t agree not to interrogate the DNA evidence then why didn’t they bring it up if it was salient to Mitchell’s defence?
From the BBC on 15 December 2004: "Looking at that picture, in all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a perfectly innocent transfer."

Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."

Susan Ure is described in the article as a forensic scientist from Tayside.  Clearly the DNA did come up at the trial.  IIRC these were not the trousers that LM wore the day of the murder.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #493 on: March 13, 2024, 12:23:04 PM »
IIRC these were not the trousers that LM wore the day of the murder.

How could you possibly know that?

https://youtu.be/LK4rfeH2oAA?si=B3M1fPBr4BGfQIju
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #494 on: March 13, 2024, 01:01:36 PM »
From the BBC on 15 December 2004: "Looking at that picture, in all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a perfectly innocent transfer."

Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."

Susan Ure is described in the article as a forensic scientist from Tayside.  Clearly the DNA did come up at the trial.  IIRC these were not the trousers that LM wore the day of the murder.
If there was DNA evidence brought up in court in Mitchell's defence that strongly suggested someone else committed the crime then how did the prosecution explain this and why was their case more compelling than the defence's as far as the judge and jury (and subsequent appeals) were concerned?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly