Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 98928 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #615 on: March 28, 2024, 07:29:41 AM »
I always find it interesting that while Parky and his compadres ridicule the idea of [Name removed] and [Name removed] becoming unwittingly embroiled in a murder of their friend’s making they see nothing wrong with believing that Luke, a fourteen year old boy with no previous criminal experience, was able to commit a horrific murder, a murder where even the police said that the perpetrator would be covered in blood, without a spec of unexplained DNA on him. Not only that but managed to change his clothes, if the eyewitnesses were to be believed, at least three times in the space of around 20 minutes without anyone seeing him return to the house where he lived to retrieve clean clothes or get cleaned up. That the three witnesses who were with him when he found the body didn’t no, really, honestly didn't change their story, even though it’s obvious that they did. Astonishing!

And yet after all the subterfuge used to create an alibi he lets it slip that his mother had a fire that night. Shoddy!
So is that what you believe happened?  The two moped boys accidentally witnessed a murder taking place and decided to cover up for a friend?  Why could that person not have been Mitchell?  One regularly sold drugs to him, no?  Why come forward to the police at all in any case?  And - in court didn’t the forensics expert testify under oath that the murderer would not necessarily have been covered in blood?  But you believe that this conspiracy also includes members of Jodi’s family, so at least 5 people involved, including the mother of the victim?  That really does stretch credulity yes, I can see why that idea is ridiculed.
"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 #616 on: Today at 01:51:19 AM »
If they didn’t commit the murder then why the need to dispose of the moped?  Did he say he had his haircut so as to not be mistaken for the killer and if so where was this reported?  Where precisely was this bleach found? How far from the site of the body was this?  Why is it not possible that Mitchell introduced bleach to the scene?  How did the murderer covered in blood leave the scene?  Previously it was suggested on a moped - how would that have been physically possible when that would have meant at least 3 people leaving the scene on a clapped out old banger?

Ok good questions. I'll answer them to the best of my knowledge. If F and D knew absolutely nothing and were up there having a picnic, they wouldn't have took 5 days to come forward. Anyone else would have gone straight to the Police to assure them they had absolutely nothing to do with it and told them please examine that moped right now as you will find no trace of anyone's blood or DNA on it that shouldn't be there. Instead they made sure the moped disappeared first and they made such a good job of it, it was never found.

F definitely said that was why he had his hair cut off. I cannot recall who it was said to, but I can find out.

The bleached areas were not far away. The dogs were searching around the area where the body was found so the bleach must have been found relatively nearby. That would make sense, because anyone moving the body did so for a reason, probably to avoid forensic analysis of the actual place the murder happened, but it would be reasonable to assume they wouldn't be spending much time doing that hence the body was probably not moved far. How far is anyone's guess.

I think we can rule out Mitchell at age 14/15 bleaching the area because how would he know bleach would stop dogs picking up the scent? I didn't know that until I read about it and most people just wouldn't know about that.

Where the killer went afterwards is most definitely baffling. I mean this wasn't just a stabbing, the injuries were absolutely horrendous. People who say the killer might not have had blood on them are just being absolutely nonsensical.

The way the killer could have left on the moped is if either F or D took him on the back of it and one of them then left the area on foot by disappearing into the woods. That would explain how the killer disappeared without any trace. It would also explain why F cut his hair off, because he knew who did it. It would also explain why that moped also disappeared in a hurry and was never traced. It would also explain why neither F or D could remember anything in Court about what they were doing when the moped was parked at the V, but there was no sign of them. They obviously parked at the V for a reason, to go through it. Where else could they have gone up there? The answer is nowhere because opposite the V is an open field with absolutely nothing in it. This is why I say they saw something or were involved, because they were almost certainly over that V at the alleged time of the murder. It's quite incredible that they were never made suspects considering all of that.

Those 2 drove that moped up the path from Easthouses to Newbattle and were seen in the yard of Basically Tool Hire just before closing time, so about 4.55-5.00pm. So they must have entered the path at the Easthouses end at about 4.45pm which means they should have passed Mitchell on their way to Newbattle who supposedly walked that path between about 4.35pm and 4.55pm. They didn't see him.




« Last Edit: Today at 01:54:56 AM by William Wallace »