UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Hi, VS. It is common knowledge that L&B P took apart the plumbing and drainage systems in the Mitchell family home and searched them meticulously and extensively for incriminating circumstantial DNA evidence during the initial investigation (this has been mentioned in IB, documentaries and other forums that discuss this case. Likewise, all cars, other properties and caravans used frequently by he Mitchell family would've all been examined extremely carefully too. Why wouldn't they've been?? You do raise an interesting point about what amount of blood from Jodi the police would've deemed incriminating or innocently transferred if found in the Mitchell family home, since LM had been over the wall and next to the locus & Jodi's bloodied cadaver between 2330 and midnight on 30.06.03; likewise, you have to wonder what innocent transfer was found on SK & AW (JANJ was the only one out of the search party who never went over the wall, but that's not to say that she herself couldn't have become contaminated from contact with the other 3 from the group). There is still so much info from this case that is undisclosed, but I suppose if there was anything of significance it would have made its way into the public domain. It was interesting that LM refused to go back over the wall when the police asked him, saying that he was too traumatised (too traumatised yet never showed any emotion upon finding the body, no emotion when on phone to operators during the 999 calls, no emotion in the immediate aftermath of finding the body, whilst the others were screaming in absolute horror, and casually texting away on his phone as the chaos unfolded -- noted by the ambulance crew). Interestingly, both LM & CM later said that they were convinced that the reason police wanted LM back over that wall was to 'get his dna there' or so that 'Jodi's DNA/blood would be on him'. Could this be a Freudian slip or projection? I think so.

Regarding how much blood the killer would have on their person after murdering Jodi in the manner she was murdered ... who knows. It's been established that the killer wouldn't necessarily be conspicuously dripping with blood, especially if they were standing behind Jodi as her throat was being slit. And if blood traces did make it on to the killer, a long olive green army parka with hood would certainly take the brunt of it and, more importantly, would camouflage it very well -- to the extent that one could only see it if one was up close and personal (and hence why those 8 witnesses on the NB rd between 1740 - 1820 never mentioned that the youth they all saw was blood-soaked). Crucially, the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM did indeed own such a parka before the murder even though he denied it. Why did LM deny ever having this parka prior the murder? Very strange and alarming. It's also worth noting that LM had a history of violence against girls from a young age, and we know about his unhealthy interest in knives and the macabre. And not forgetting he owned gloves and balaclava (which he wore when he pranked an ex-gf with a knife to her throat, scaring the poor girl so much that she actually ended their relationship as a direct result of this violent prank. It wouldn't surprise me if LM was wearing this balaclava along with gloves when he attacked and murdered Jodi in that woodland strip (which would, imo, point towards a degree of premeditation), but that long parka no doubt took most of -- if not all -- the incriminating DNA traces (i.e., blood splatter) from Jodi and that's why LM got rid of it (he was aware of DNA basics as per his giving the police scientifically accurate answers during some of his interviews and interrogations. No doubt his mother and brother gave him advice too, along the way, acting as an accessory whenever. LM probably did go home between 1820-1930 and change clothing after rinsing himself briefly at a small river in the woodland near his house. He wasn't seen by anyone between 1820 and 1930. He met the boys at his in the abbey at 1930 and one of the boys testified in court that he looked a lot cleaner that night and less unkempt as he normally was (funny that, eh?), so either he got changed in the house or someone brought clean clothes to him somewhere (unlikely though, imo). Is it a coincidence that a fire was burning in the Mitchell back garden between 1900-1930 and again at just after 2200 -- times when he was at home??! (Btw, there were fibre traces found in the log burner when it and its ashes were taken away for examination on 04.07.03, but they could not be linked to the murder -- most likely because of a thorough disposal job by the Mitchell; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.)

Btw, any takers yet on MK's whereabouts for the full day of 30.06.03?

Thank you for explaining to her the way the Police would have searched LM's house. I actually thought she was pulling my leg with those comments. I've gave up responding to her for obvious reasons.

I don't think MK's whereabouts were ever confirmed that whole day other than being briefly seen on CCTV at 10pm (or 730pm). MK wrote essays about killing a girl in the woods which PC Plod denied ever existed. We know now that those essays do exist but were called "No Remorse" and were hidden from the Defence. I believe MK was floating around the area that day at different times. That wouldn't be abnormal as he was living in Newbattle College, but M.O'S and her partner saw someone in the lane next to her father in laws house wearing a green jacket who was much taller than Mitchell and older, early 20s she said. I think that person was MK. That doesn't mean he did it of course.

Mitchell was also definitely seen by 3 cyclists at about 6.00pm. They said he was wearing a green shirt, not a jacket. All the other sightings were hopeless; AB didn't see the youth's face, and Fleming and Walsh's sightings were hopeless - one admits to only seeing a youth in her car rear view mirror and the other said she saw LM in the papers on a date no photos of LM had been in the Press - hopeless. Were some or all  of these sightings MK and not LM? MK - whereabouts unknown all day and night. Why did MK turn up at Forbes' flat in Edinburgh the day after the murder with scratches on his face? Writing essays about killing a girl in the woods?

You havie already been questioning thei police’s competence, repeatedly.  I have given reasons why I don’t believe the police would have covered Mitchell’s house in luminol or unscrewed drainpipes but concede his clothes were likely examined with such a substance or similar.  Out of interest was he strip searched on the night of the murder and his clothes and shoes bagged and sent off for forensic analysis?  And not a drop of Jodi’s DNA was found?  Despite being in close contact with her bloodied corpse and crime scene?  That is remarkable.

Hi, VS. It is common knowledge that L&B P took apart the plumbing and drainage systems in the Mitchell family home and searched them meticulously and extensively for incriminating circumstantial DNA evidence during the initial investigation (this has been mentioned in IB, documentaries and other forums that discuss this case. Likewise, all cars, other properties and caravans used frequently by he Mitchell family would've all been examined extremely carefully too. Why wouldn't they've been?? You do raise an interesting point about what amount of blood from Jodi the police would've deemed incriminating or innocently transferred if found in the Mitchell family home, since LM had been over the wall and next to the locus & Jodi's bloodied cadaver between 2330 and midnight on 30.06.03; likewise, you have to wonder what innocent transfer was found on SK & AW (JANJ was the only one out of the search party who never went over the wall, but that's not to say that she herself couldn't have become contaminated from contact with the other 3 from the group). There is still so much info from this case that is undisclosed, but I suppose if there was anything of significance it would have made its way into the public domain. It was interesting that LM refused to go back over the wall when the police asked him, saying that he was too traumatised (too traumatised yet never showed any emotion upon finding the body, no emotion when on phone to operators during the 999 calls, no emotion in the immediate aftermath of finding the body, whilst the others were screaming in absolute horror, and casually texting away on his phone as the chaos unfolded -- noted by the ambulance crew). Interestingly, both LM & CM later said that they were convinced that the reason police wanted LM back over that wall was to 'get his dna there' or so that 'Jodi's DNA/blood would be on him'. Could this be a Freudian slip or projection? I think so.

Regarding how much blood the killer would have on their person after murdering Jodi in the manner she was murdered ... who knows. It's been established that the killer wouldn't necessarily be conspicuously dripping with blood, especially if they were standing behind Jodi as her throat was being slit. And if blood traces did make it on to the killer, a long olive green army parka with hood would certainly take the brunt of it and, more importantly, would camouflage it very well -- to the extent that one could only see it if one was up close and personal (and hence why those 8 witnesses on the NB rd between 1740 - 1820 never mentioned that the youth they all saw was blood-soaked). Crucially, the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM did indeed own such a parka before the murder even though he denied it. Why did LM deny ever having this parka prior the murder? Very strange and alarming. It's also worth noting that LM had a history of violence against girls from a young age, and we know about his unhealthy interest in knives and the macabre. And not forgetting he owned gloves and balaclava (which he wore when he pranked an ex-gf with a knife to her throat, scaring the poor girl so much that she actually ended their relationship as a direct result of this violent prank. It wouldn't surprise me if LM was wearing this balaclava along with gloves when he attacked and murdered Jodi in that woodland strip (which would, imo, point towards a degree of premeditation), but that long parka no doubt took most of -- if not all -- the incriminating DNA traces (i.e., blood splatter) from Jodi and that's why LM got rid of it (he was aware of DNA basics as per his giving the police scientifically accurate answers during some of his interviews and interrogations. No doubt his mother and brother gave him advice too, along the way, acting as an accessory whenever. LM probably did go home between 1820-1930 and change clothing after rinsing himself briefly at a small river in the woodland near his house. He wasn't seen by anyone between 1820 and 1930. He met the boys at his in the abbey at 1930 and one of the boys testified in court that he looked a lot cleaner that night and less unkempt as he normally was (funny that, eh?), so either he got changed in the house or someone brought clean clothes to him somewhere (unlikely though, imo). Is it a coincidence that a fire was burning in the Mitchell back garden between 1900-1930 and again at just after 2200 -- times when he was at home??! (Btw, there were fibre traces found in the log burner when it and its ashes were taken away for examination on 04.07.03, but they could not be linked to the murder -- most likely because of a thorough disposal job by the Mitchell; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.)

Btw, any takers yet on MK's whereabouts for the full day of 30.06.03?

Ach! Could be worse. They could set up innocent people of murder, now that would be a story worth linking too.

Dirty cops are capable of anything. Ask Andrew Malkinson.

If someone is thought to have returned to a house after a murder, obviously they WOULD TEST THE HOUSE. 

These comments you make honestly. 

Back to the mockery and emojis I see.  What does TEST THE HOUSE actually mean?   Describe the precise actions of the police then.  Presumably you would have them apply luminol on every square inch of the garden and interior of the house, not to mention dismantling the plumbing in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet to ensure nothing was missed?  How long did this process take?  Surely in a house with at least one self harmer and a menstruating woman there would have been signs of blood somewhere so these would all also have had to be swabbed and sent off to the lab for forensic analysis. Are you 100% confident all this happened in the time Mitchell and his family were being questioned down the police station?  And if they had gone to all this effort and found a few minute traces of Jodi’s blood what exactly do you think that would have proved?  How about addressing the points in my posts instead of resorting to insults? And how about dropping the promises not to keep on engaging with me?  oOviously you’re enjoying the opportunity to mock and deride, but sadly that’s about all you’ve got, nothing in your posts to me makes me think you’ve really thought things through logically or come up with an alternative plausible explanation for what occurred that night. 

https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/collecting-dna-evidence-at-property-crime-scenes/crime-scenes/locating-evidence

Precautions to consider when using luminol include the following:
The chemical reaction can destroy evidence at the crime scene.
Luminol will react to other substances, including copper and bleach.
Luminol reactions must be viewed in complete darkness to observe the luminescence.
Based on these considerations, this method can be a valuable tool. It is generally only used after exhausting other options.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol3.htm

One problem with luminol is that the chemical reaction can destroy other evidence in the crime scene. For this reason, investigators only use luminol after exploring a lot of other options. It is definitely a valuable tool for police work, but it's not quite as prevalent in crime investigation as presented on some TV shows. The police don't walk into a crime scene and start spraying luminol on every visible surface

And let’s not forget Mitchell’s house wasn’t even the crime scene, so….

You havie already been questioning thei police’s competence, repeatedly.  I have given reasons why I don’t believe the police would have covered Mitchell’s house in luminol or unscrewed drainpipes but concede his clothes were likely examined with such a substance or similar.  Out of interest was he strip searched on the night of the murder and his clothes and shoes bagged and sent off for forensic analysis?  And not a drop of Jodi’s DNA was found?  Despite being in close contact with her bloodied corpse and crime scene?  That is remarkable.

Seriously, you should give up.