Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.  (Read 70918 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #120 on: July 31, 2019, 04:34:12 PM »
G30 .


One of the main areas around doubt being cast on the LM case is the presence of DNA from traced sources. Of which there are two full profiles- one being SK and the other condom man. There has been, time and time again misinformation pushed out on this. So much so that still, 16yrs later it is used as one of the main points to draw in support. For those who believe in the wrongful conviction of LM. SK, is a very unfortunate guy whom by a simple twist of fate, was drawn into being a suspect in one of this countries most heinous crimes. Not enough for this guy to have known the victim, to have been there when she was found, no doubt traumatized, the main supporters of LM feel it is right that he is brought to the fore time and time again. Books, podcasts and so forth. 

The continuous attempts to cast doubt on the search parties statements revolve around this. For those not aware of many aspects of this case. The search party went to the Path connecting the areas to meet LM as he was already at the foot of it.  The mismatch of telephone conversations centre on what LM has stated (proven to have lied over and over) and not the truth-heard at trial.

SK- I have provided a link below in respect of, the testing of sperm residue through washing cycles. Evidence was shown in court to this effect. The victims clothing smelt strongly of washing powder,( LM's hair of shampoo although dirty from his escapades in the woods later that evening) Evidence also produced on the transfer of sperm between clothing. The claims that it could not have transferred via the rain and so forth on that night. How do these people know that-by their own admission they do not know at what points the clothing may have been together, neither do they know if it transferred via a washing cycle. One scenario given of white clothes washed with dark, that it just doesn't happen? I'm guilty of that. Are others? when washing items at a low temp. Was the bra within the t-shirt and not noticed? No one knows. BUT the innocent reason for the DNA being there is and IMO was just that

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508

Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #121 on: August 01, 2019, 12:02:55 PM »
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

I am compiling a list of comments and sources when I get home from holiday.  The report came from a post by 'Jigsawman' from the Fact & Myth site.



Offline John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #122 on: August 01, 2019, 01:39:22 PM »
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and the penalties for breaching same. Please keep posts amicable and constructive and above all, on topic. TY
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #123 on: August 04, 2019, 12:41:28 PM »

Quote
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL
Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #124 on: August 05, 2019, 09:19:32 AM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #125 on: August 05, 2019, 10:12:27 AM »
Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.


What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #126 on: August 05, 2019, 10:55:08 AM »

What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?

I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #127 on: August 05, 2019, 11:46:28 AM »
I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.

Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]


It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #128 on: August 05, 2019, 12:05:27 PM »



It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.

My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.


Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #129 on: August 05, 2019, 12:13:09 PM »
My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.

Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #130 on: August 05, 2019, 01:28:38 PM »
Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?

Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #131 on: August 05, 2019, 03:32:19 PM »
Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."


SL is picking up on the word 'shampoo' She is not disputing her reference to the police doctors report on 'smelling washed'. She is, as your are?, putting forth that I am taking things out of context. (pushing out misinformation) You asked a question about proof of 'shampoo'. I gave an answer of 'similarity'  - IF (IMO) some ones hair 'smells' washed, it would give the 'impression' one had 'smelled' shampoo.

I therefore apologized to yourself for using the word 'shampoo'. However, what SL may take from 'her' comment on this, 'smelled washed,' is neither here nor there. IF she is correct, that the police doctor did indeed say LM's hair smelled washed, it is up to us, as individuals to deduce what we may from it. For me, that although his hair had been dirtied over the evening, it had at some point been washed.

Offline Rusty

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #132 on: August 05, 2019, 04:53:02 PM »
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #133 on: August 05, 2019, 08:24:17 PM »
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

I don’t think it matters who baz is, what they are saying is spot on imo

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2019, 08:37:21 AM »
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

Voldemort?