UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: sika on September 10, 2013, 05:32:28 PM
-
Seems that the Mitchell camp has had a right result, with this news of a fresh look at the DNA. Any thoughts?
-
I think its fantastic news, a break through he rightly deserves.
-
So Jodi's clothes and the rope which was used to bind her are to be retested using more modern techniques.
Lets look at this. Mitchell's DNA was never found on Jodi or her clothing yet he was her boyfriend and had been with her earlier on the day on which she was murdered. The strange factor in all of this is that Mitchell's DNA should have been on Jodi and/or her clothing.
Finding his DNA now will not advance the case one iota. Finding his DNA on the rope however will be game over!
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-family-angry-as-murder-re-examined-1-3082016
-
Won't it be interesting if in the final analysis the guy who confessed to murdering her turns out to be the actual killer? ...and after the police chose to rule him out!
-
I'm starting to have my doubts now, over his conviction!
-
This young lad had an anger control problem obviously, and a fascination for Charles Manson and his followers, but if there was none of his DNA found on the body, only DNA and sperm of someone else, how on earth was he convicted of murder. All I can find is a smell of burning, his brothers testament saying he didn't see him, he used a drug and he had a knife. Was the knife checked for DNA, does anyone know ? Oh yes and he had brandished something on his knife holder too. Is he still in prison ?
-
Looks like Luke has been knocked back by the SCCRC, and by Sandra Lean?
-
SCCRC yeah - as for SL didn't she do this with Stephanie Hall too? I remember Hall posting topics on the blue asking SL to please get back in touch with her because she'd fallen off the radar and wasn't replying.
-
Won't it be interesting if in the final analysis the guy who confessed to murdering her turns out to be the actual killer? ...and after the police chose to rule him out!
Wait - somebody confessed? Who was that, then?
-
Wait - somebody confessed? Who was that, then?
A lad in Saughton confessed to his cell mate that he did it. I met this guy and believe you me he was capable of anything. What was interesting is that some of the information he had was never in the public domain. I let Donald Findlay know about it and the police interviewed him in Saughton while Mitchell was awaiting trial but nothing came of it as far as I am aware.
I also informed Corinne directly about the claim several years ago and more recently Mitchell's new lawyers about two years ago. It just struck me at the time that this guy was cycling round all the bridle paths in the Dalkeith area with a rape kit so he was well placed as a suspect. He had form for such attacks and was convicted of the one below.
Notice how there is no mention of a bicycle in any press reports?
www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/life-sentence-for-rape-kit-sex-attacker-1.69800
-
A lad in Saughton confessed to his cell mate that he did it. I met this guy and believe you me he was capable of anything. What was interesting is that some of the information he had was never in the public domain. I let Donald Findlay know about it and the police interviewed him in Saughton while Mitchell was awaiting trial but nothing came of it as far as I am aware.
I also informed Corinne directly about the claim several years ago and more recently Mitchell's new lawyers about two years ago. It just struck me at the time that this guy was cycling round all the bridle paths in the Dalkeith area with a rape kit so he was well placed as a suspect. He had form for such attacks and was convicted of the one below.
Notice how there is no mention of a bicycle in any press reports?
www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/life-sentence-for-rape-kit-sex-attacker-1.69800
I have been left with the impression that you believe Luke to be guilty. If so, what changed your mind?
-
I have been left with the impression that you believe Luke to be guilty. If so, what changed your mind?
It goes back several years when I was a member of the WAP forum and was asking questions which Corinne Mitchell refused to answer about her sons involvement. From that point on I knew that there was more to this case than was being told by those in the know. Sandra Lean's withdrawal from all aspects of the case is vindication of my own view at that time, it just took her longer to open her eyes.
-
A lad in Saughton confessed to his cell mate that he did it. I met this guy and believe you me he was capable of anything. What was interesting is that some of the information he had was never in the public domain. I let Donald Findlay know about it and the police interviewed him in Saughton while Mitchell was awaiting trial but nothing came of it as far as I am aware.
I also informed Corinne directly about the claim several years ago and more recently Mitchell's new lawyers about two years ago. It just struck me at the time that this guy was cycling round all the bridle paths in the Dalkeith area with a rape kit so he was well placed as a suspect. He had form for such attacks and was convicted of the one below.
Notice how there is no mention of a bicycle in any press reports?
www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/life-sentence-for-rape-kit-sex-attacker-1.69800
I had genuinely never heard of this!
You'd like to think that the cops have checked this, and ruled him out - another reason for testing and accounting for all DNA samples present, one would think.
-
I had genuinely never heard of this!
You'd like to think that the cops have checked this, and ruled him out - another reason for testing and accounting for all DNA samples present, one would think.
I certainly thought that it was worthy of investigation at the time, so much of it seemed to add up. At least Findlay knew about it, what he did with the information was up to him.
-
What's the latest? Does anyone know?
-
What's the latest? Does anyone know?
Nothing really, I dont think the SCCRC will be making any further moves in this case any time soon.
-
Guessing here that nothing new was thrown up here? Perhaps more clarification that those ? strands of male DNA still showed the same as the laddies?! They didn't dissolve into nothing?
-
With all this talk of dna recently , does anyone know what the sccrc results were after further testing was approved? Was the failed appeal report shared?
-
With all this talk of dna recently , does anyone know what the sccrc results were after further testing was approved? Was the failed appeal report shared?
No, but i suspect Lean will have a copy, i also suspect the information in the report would clear up much of the nonsense that is getting branded about of late. If you had a hoax to sell, the last thing you would be doing is publishing a report that will go against the narrative. As they and much of their deluded followers keep preaching about the police, having something to hide, the same can be said of Lean & Forbes why are they hiding the report/statement of reasons from their followers? I think we know why.
-
No, but i suspect Lean will have a copy, i also suspect the information in the report would clear up much of the nonsense that is getting branded about of late. If you had a hoax to sell, the last thing you would be doing is publishing a report that will go against the narrative. As they and much of their deluded followers keep preaching about the police, having something to hide, the same can be said of Lean & Forbes why are they hiding the report/statement of reasons from their followers? I think we know why.
Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?
The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean
as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist
Sandra Lean, the killer and his mothers PR campaign was, and is, a hoax from day one
Sandra Lean did not attend the killers trial and she did not hear all 42 days worth of evidence.
Although the Scottish criminal cases review commissions (SCCRC) statement of reasons will not have called out this innocence fraud, the reasons given by the SCCRC for dismissing the application will without doubt expose more of this fraud
-
Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?
The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean
as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist
Agreed. But it won't be by an English police force, they have very little jurisdiction in Scotland 8((()*/
-
Agreed. But it won't be by an English police force, they have very little jurisdiction in Scotland 8((()*/
Will be interesting to see what 2023 has in store for this HOAX PR campaign
-
Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?
The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean
as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist
Sandra Lean, the killer and his mothers PR campaign was, and is, a hoax from day one
Sandra Lean did not attend the killers trial and she did not hear all 42 days worth of evidence.
Although the Scottish criminal cases review commissions (SCCRC) statement of reasons will not have called out this innocence fraud, the reasons given by the SCCRC for dismissing the application will without doubt expose more of this fraud
In response to hoaxer Sandra Lean’s above Facebook post - Gordon Graham Aka gordo30 states
Gordon Graham
I’m guessing most of what we know now about the two essays and all the other evidence that was destroyed was part of the review of the SCCRC? We certainly knew about the essay about killing a girl in the woods prior to the application to the SCCRC so has the majority of the destroyed evidence already been reviewed by the SCCRC? If so why didn’t they refer the case back to the appeal courts? Do they still have the various reviews of sed evidence and if so is it really lost!
-
What actually were the findings from the SCCRC when they retested the DNA materials from this case between 2012-2014? My memory's a bit cloudy, but wasn't there another partial profile found on Jodi's trousers which had markers that were similar to those in LM's genetic makeup? And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?
-
What actually were the findings from the SCCRC when they retested the DNA materials from this case between 2012-2014? My memory's a bit cloudy, but wasn't there another partial profile found on Jodi's trousers which had markers that were similar to those in LM's genetic makeup? And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?
Yep and another reason why con-artist Sandra Lean knew she’d been duped by the killer and his mother
Some useful info and links to the killers DNA, the DNA agreement & the SCCRC can be found here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/05/police-scotland-is-satisfied-that-no-further-investigation-is-required-nobody-else-requires-to-be-traced-in-connection-with-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-pa/
-
And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?
Don’t expect fraudster Sandra Lean to do that Mr Apples
It sounds like her second book is as bad as her first
Why didn’t Sandra Lean write about guilty killer Luke Mitchell’s other missing bike and about the questions the police would have asked him, his lying mother Corinne and lying brother Shane about this
Con-artists like Sandra Lean and killers and con-artists like Luke Mitchell are renowned for distraction and deflecting and for using selective attention in their innocence fraud PR campaigns
Although the killers other missing bike does not appear to have been found, it’s still extremely possible it was used by him on the 30th June 2003
How was killer Luke Mitchell getting to and from school most days?
And again what did the various witnesses say about his bikes?
Con-artist Sandra Lean only ever appears to have mentioned John [Name removed] and Gordon [Name removed] but what did everyone else say?
Sandra Lean 2017
The police were running around asking all and sundry what they knew about Luke and push bikes. In their earliest statements, JF and GD "volunteered" stories about Luke and various pushbikes.
Phoney criminologist Sandra Lean never ever mentioned the ‘loud’ and ‘larey shirt’ (in her first discredited book) guilty killer Simon Hall was wearing on the 15/16th December 2001
👇
Part 5 The Missing ‘Larey or Loud’ Top With ‘Red Splashes’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/06/quite-a-hall-tale-part-5-%ef%b8%8f/
-
Yep and another reason why con-artist Sandra Lean knew she’d been duped by the killer and his mother
Some useful info and links to the killers DNA, the DNA agreement & the SCCRC can be found here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/05/police-scotland-is-satisfied-that-no-further-investigation-is-required-nobody-else-requires-to-be-traced-in-connection-with-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-pa/
Thanks, Nicholas. Who wrote all of that? It's very interesting, though it doesn't seem like it's from an ''official source" (not that this is the be all and end all). An agreement wouldn't have been made had there been none of Luke Mitchell's DNA present at the locus? How so? I don't understand this part. Because of the amount of the victim's blood that was present at the locus, it was, imo, lucky they were able to obtain any results whatsoever -- inconclusive, non-reportable, or partials from LM or otherwise. Let's say, hypothetically, those DNA results in 2003/2004 showed absolutely nothing of LM's genetic makeup -- what then? What would have happened? Surely, they would have still tried to build a very robust strictly circumstantial case against LM without DNA evidence? After all, it was he -- and not another -- against the Crown? Why even mention an agreement having been -- or not having been -- made at the original trial? The crux of the matter is that no incriminating dna evidence was found from LM or a stranger (though a few partials matching LM's genetic makeup, & unidentified, inconclusive and non-reportable results were found; It depends on which side of the fence one sits on when interpreting these results). So, yes, the DNA results in this case matter not a jot. It was -- and still is --completely futile discussing the DNA results in this case. In lieu of conclusive dna results, a completely circumstantial case was built against LM, and, imo, it succeeded. Succeeded beyond reasonable doubt -- although, I still think it's worthwhile to hang on to DNA materials for further testing . . . just in case! I concede that this case is still complex and the initial crime scene on 01.07.03 should've been better managed (covering the body from the elements immediately after the photographer finished his work at the scene of the crime). Still, I think LM is as guilty as hell.
-
Thanks, Nicholas. Who wrote all of that? It's very interesting, though it doesn't seem like it's from an ''official source"
Do you consider bogus ‘criminologist’ Sandra Lean and fantasist Scott Forbes “official sources” Mr Apples?
-
An agreement wouldn't have been made had there been none of Luke Mitchell's DNA present at the locus? How so? I don't understand this part.
Which part are you referring to ? can you be more specific
-
It's confusing Mr Apples for the agreement was made around him. Ms Lean and "another source" had let the Mitchell's know of an agreement to not use DNA evidence. Nope, it was an agreement to not use DNA as evidence.
The main point of highlighting that agreement is purely to do with deception. Part of that explanation around those ludicrous questions placed such as 'How could it be to not discuss DNA evidence when it was discussed?' The whole basis of blanking the reason is for that purpose, to cause confusion and deflect into what was accepted to not do at trial.
Think of Kelly here, that one profile and the acceptance of trace/diffusion transferal of other parts found. The same applied to Mitchell, that acceptance of the same type of trace transferal. The acceptance that it was NOT stranger DNA, nothing found pointing this murder to 'a another'
Chris points out that each and every sample should be treated in its own merit. Yes, if going through it all piece by piece. Which is something they accepted not to do as it was NOT getting put forward as evidence in the case against Mitchell.
So, the only point in highlighting the technicalities of an agreement, was to say, if there had been nothing and no more of the same, then NO agreement need have been made. It is confusion because the person is actually blanking the actual reason for it. Soley to do with what had been accepted by both sides. And not and never to forget here, those team of bodies who dealt with such matters day in and out. Who would have had experts study the original tests and reports, in turn who gave their expertise around this.
Faith said once, who to trust here? Me or the media, a criminologist and someone who had access to defence papers (more than Joe public). Indeed, who do we trust here? The actual experts who dealt with this case or Joe public in the shape of Ms Lean!
The mangling and manipulation, of Joe public giving their opinion in areas far beyond their reach of understanding. Who claimed they were in a mess, that they could not match samples to reports. Who put a book to print stating the same thing, applied all sorts of conclusions around multiple giant IF's. But has everything of Mitchell's in ship shape fashion, executed perfectly!
The deception to manipulate. The "another source" was directly in front of Mitchell, explained without any doubt fully to him. There is no reason other than deception for NOT knowing the actual details of that agreement.
-
Who do we trust? Two people who from the moment the murder took place had their sights on others. Ms Lean who placed Mitchell in a box and closed the lid. Shouting from the rooftops, that a boy/family she claims were complete strangers, that she did not know from Adam, was NOT involved in that young girls death. Shouting so loud that Ms Mitchell popped a note to her asking for help - With bloody what exactly? There was no case, it was at a time (the claimed note) when the Mitchell's were celebrating the "end of a difficult time" Believing there would be no arrest. Ms Lean, and that is everything we gather from her own claims, was a vocal, local mouthpiece?
Mr Forbes and having MK ear marked as being involved, so the same. Two people who had Mitchell placed as NOT responsible from the moment the murder took place - Lawyer, criminologist. Absolutely not. Two members of the public locked fast in tunnel vision from day one.
-
Mr. Apples,
I read through some of the links recently provided upthread, and it read like a cut-and-paste of some comments here in at least one other thread. When those comments were made, I asked for a citation. I would be quite skeptical of the existence of overlapping partial profiles, until and unless some support of this claim were offered.
Regarding the source of a DNA profile, my only comment right now is that when there are mixed profiles, knowledge of the association fallacy (which I may have discussed in another thread) precludes us from assigning the source of either profile definitively. For example, suppose that one finds two DNA profiles in a blood stain. Although it is possible that both DNA profiles arose from blood, it is far from certain that they did.
Finally, I am more than 90% certain that Luke Mitchell is not the murderer. I am quite uncertain about the location of the murder, which might well have been different from where Jodi's body was found.
-
Nicholas -- I don't consider anyone an 'expert' on this case. Even those best placed to comment -- ie, l&bp and the legal experts at the original trial -- don't have all the answers; no one is omniscient. As I've said before on here, until we get a confession from the killer (s), speculation on this case will go on until the end of time. As for SL and SF, I think it's safe to say that the former is far more reliable that the latter, although the former is clearly biased and without all the facts. Like I said, there is not one living being on the planet who could be deemed as an 'expert' on this case, and nor will there ever be. It was, after all, a purely circumstantial case where forensic evidence wasn't used due to its inconclusiveness and futility.
Chris -- that's interesting. Like I said, discussing the forensic evidence from this case, while interesting, is completely futile; it will never ever, imo, prove anything. Even with the refinements and advancements in laboratory techniques and technology, mathematical models and biostatistical software, I still don't think anything fruitful or useful will ever be yielded from this case. There was no incriminating DNA found (neither from LM or a stranger; the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously). And besides, any trace from another was likely lost in all that blood from that poor girl, and her dead mutilated body being exposed to the rain and elements for 8 full hours could've lost other DNA traces from LM or a stranger (though I doubt very much a stranger's would've been found). The circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming -- and I've not even heard it all! And, again, why do you think LM's parka jacket went missing? The one thing that probably did have incriminating dna on it (ie, jodi's blood)? You are not convinced by the circumstantial evidence outhwith the DNA evidence, Chris? Btw, how many unidentifed profiles were found?
Parky41 -- I appreciate that you put a lot of effort into your posts. Most of them are very informative and convincing. However, I don't think a novella is needed to let it be known that an 'agreement' was made to not use forensic evidence in this case. We get it -- it was futile (for reasons explained many times before). I would like to know how you know fully why that agreement was made. What is your source? You infer that there was a lot more dna evidence relating to LM found -- so much so that this agreement was more favourable to LM than the prosecution? How so? What is your source? You've seen all the results first hand? He was in an intimate relationship with her -- so it was futile to try and connect him to the murder scene? Innocent transfer of any dna sources (semen, saliva, sweat, hair and skin cells, and so on)? How many unidentified profiles were found? Was this ever revealed to the defence (they never got the funding to do their own DNA tests independently)? I agree
agree that SL craftily omits stuff when it suits and does often ramble on about insignificant aspects of the case (such as the phone calls between the Joneses and Walkers on the night of 30.06.03; all it amounts to is waffle), but I don't think her omitting why the agreement was made is such a big deal, for even your average layman can figure it out? I'm sure the jury were made aware of said agreement and why? Clearly explained? Unless, of curse, there was much much more of Mitchell's dna present that most of us don't know about? But, how do you know about it? What is your source? Tell me, Parky, had nothing of LM's dna been found at the locus, not even a single solitary profile, what would the prosecution have done then? Odd as that may have been, surely they would have done the same thing: built a purely circumstantial case against LM without forensic evidence?
-
Mr. Apples,
I will break my response into separate comments over several days, starting with "...the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously..."
With all due respect the use of the word "unequivocally" makes what you wrote nonsense. What the authorities offered is a possibility; it is speculation without evidence. In addition it is a hypothesis which depends upon the actions of two people who did not even live in the same household.
-
Mr Apples, I too disagree - The blanking of the reason for the agreement is so much more that simply Mitchell's DNA - It is the attempt by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, manipulating this case into something it was NOT. Which in turn via that manipulating is without a doubt treating the victim in this case with the utmost disrespect.
I do not give a monkey for (not you) people who then profess to know lots around forensic evidence, who in turn do NOT know this case, putting forth support to those who have manipulated those results massively. So, in one hand they go on about forensic evidence being the be all of Mitchell and innocence. In the other hand they put out such utter bollocks, with absolutely NO forensic evidence, that the victim was not only raped Mr Apples but by multiple people. With absolutely NOTHING to back this up. Jodi Jones was not raped, she had NOT been physically, sexually assaulted. Leaving aside whatever her killer may have gotten personal pleasure from!
Gordo30 and his more than one way to ejaculate with absolutely no forensic evidence to back anything of this up. Ms Lean, and if the victim is all but dead or dead, there would be no physical evidence of rape taking place. So, they have it that Mitchell just has to be innocent as there was NO forensic evidence. yet can apply multiple males, who left not a snifter of any forensic evidence!
-
Chris - Seriously! So, tell us in your infinite wisdom how and why? That the team of forensics went into that woodland strip on the morning of July 1st. They built the picture of that crime scene, of the murder taken place within a contained area of that woodland strip. From where they believed the attacked commenced and ended.
What the actual hell do you imagine happened here? You have obviously given it ample thought. Do you imagine the killer/s drained her body somewhere else, your actual crime scene? Then filled spray bottles and re-invented the actual crime scene? That they executed this with such perfection Chris, they managed to fool that team of forensic experts from the morning of July 1st?
And again, evidence, actual forensic evidence, where one can apply any killer/s they choose. Apply whatever manipulation they choose. It was as - That young girl was taken by surprise, a blow to the front of her face. That she without any doubt turned to try and escape, she was then dealt a massive blow to the back of her head. This blow in itself almost killing her instantly. Dragged, savagely attacked with a knife. strangled then that final wound placed with the blood spray upon that wall. All forensic evidence from NW to W of that V break in that wall.
So, you tell us Chris, with your infinite knowledge of forensics, how? - Starting with why? What reason on this earth could that forensics team have had to be so inadequate, they failed to pick up that it was all staged? Location and why there Chris, what reason did the killer/s have for murdering the girl somewhere else, then taken her body to that area to then mimic a crime scene?
How Chris did they get her body there, the killers, for we are talking a dead weight here. We are talking a location that was in no way easy to cart a dead body to. Where on earth do you imagine they carted this dead body from, to access that isolated area of that woodland strip? Without leaving any trace whatsoever of gaining that access. It is summertime, so we are talking traffic here on both sides of the entry points. The lane, having to take a body from a car, along that lane, past the cottage, down through that woodland strip - Really! Or the Newbattle end, and up that path. In broad bloody daylight!
Why there, my goodness, all those places that could have been chosen, why choose somewhere that was NOT easy to access, that carried massive risk, that is some intellect of those killers there, is it not? No trace, not seen carting a dead body around, mimicking a crime scene, leaving absolutely no trace of themselves. Oh, wait a minute, Kelly. That will be him and the sister them, carting the dead body of her sister into that isolated area of that woodland strip - Let me guess, to fit Mitchell up because they knew he was to be meeting her?
Or could it just be Chris that the forensics are actually correct. That the poor girl was attacked there, NW to W of that V break in the wall. Where all of the forensic evidence was found. That there was nothing, that is zero found Chris, N, S, E of that break in the wall. Nothing found of any attack taken place from that lane, the top of that woodland strip or upon the path itself. - Dam, couldn't be, could it now? After all, for Mitchell to be innocent, the the absolute ludicrous notion is applied that "everything" else just has to be wrong. - Have a word!
-
"In broad bloody daylight!" Why do you say this? If Jodi's body were moved, it might have been moved at any time between her death and the time it was found. Sunset was roughly around 10 PM. One problem I have with the hypothesis that she was murdered where she was found is that she lost about 6 liters of blood, and I have not read any description of the crime scene that accounts for this. A lesser problem is that there were people in the area (JF, for instance) who did not see Jodi's body. One way to resolve this paradox is that her body was not yet there.
-
That explains nothing of mimicking a crime scene that the dumb forensic team failed to pick up on? Applying darkness simply makes it far worse! The evidence, forensic evidence, of a girl barely alive, a weak beating heart Chris, that final wound placed and the spray/pattern upon that wall. Seriously! If this girl met her death by 5:30pm and taken away by the pathologist some 14hrs and more later. There were bouts of heavy rain fall, there were bogs that filled with rainwater into the 'Ochre Burn' There is multiple types of wildlife, porous soil and on it goes. Going by the attack from A - B and the blood trails found between these points, considerable blood loss had also occurred. These experts who had absolutely no reason other than gather evidence of that murder. They were NOT interested in identity of any killer as such, as in playing to a police narrative. So their hypothesis of the crime scene was backed to the hilt with their expertise and forensic evidence. - But you are correct Chris, of what you have read, are you not?
So, it still does not answer in the slightest the whys? Does it now. How the actual hell and how many bodies exactly, did it take to cart a dead weight from one of your hypothesis, to then take to an area that was not easy to access, to then mimic an actual crime scene - Behave. Unless of course you have become engulfed in this ritualistic nonsense, bit short of the witching hour, were they not?
JaF and a condom that was found some distance from the actual area of where the crime scene was, from the forensic evidence of blood and so forth. With absolutely no viewpoint of where that poor girls body had been hidden. Off the beaten track, behind the wall and tree, with masses of foliage in the way. Summer growth at its fullest. I am not interested in, 'IF' Ms Lean has deciphered his directions correctly some three years later, that she has him walking through trees - Behave. Or the 50yards down to 20yards. Found even by those measurements from whatever she deciphered! Over 60ft (much more) NE of where that poor girl was hidden, which as we know, was 43ft W of that break in the wall.
Hunting dogs, let us deal with them also. Reconstruction carried out to check if DD's account rung true. The police who did not investigate anything, have a word. Raw bloodied meat placed for dogs that hunted animals! And they did exactly as DD stated, up and over that V break and followed with their master on their usual walk. Up E of the V, the usual walked, trodden route, excited to be going on their walk into woodland. They picked nothing up of the scent from what had been placed 43ft W of that break in the wall. Simply following their masters instruction to heed. And Ms Lean states, it is NOT the same, yet contradicts herself when she says they should have had the pigs carcass for the the other test! - One which I think the defence saw as pointless for they knew by the very accounts given that NO dog had picked up any scent from Mitchell's claims, for he was NOT were he was attempting to claim to have been, was he now? The evidence was going to show this, to prove once more that Mitchell just opened his mouth and kept on lying.
-
"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash. Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per one million parts of water. Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water to dilute it to the point of undetectability. One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously. The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf
-
"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash. Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per million parts of water. Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water. One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously. The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf
Interesting, thank you.
If she was killed elsewhere how would that tally with the blood spatter on the wall close to Jodi’s body?
-
"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash. Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per million parts of water. Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water. One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously. The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf
No Chris don't be absurd, whilst it is admiral that you pick one thing out and give us yet again some knowledge around science, it has nothing to do with what I was saying nor answering questions placed.
Three points is what I will place now. A - B - C. A is where evidence was found believed to be the onset of that attack, from A -B is a considerable distance with lots of evidence found of that savage attack, which without a doubt led to substantial blood loss along its path. B is where that final fatal wound was made, and C is where that poor girl was moved/hidden to. The killer hiding her body behind that tree/foliage. If you have studied anything at all you will see the width of that woodland strip, not a great distance but certainly ample area for blood loss in total.
The forensic team entering that area were only working around gathering evidence from the morning of July 1st. That they in their expertise and findings concluded that Jodi Jones had entered that area alive and met with her death there. That they found absolutely no evidence of any altercation taken place outwith that certain area, nor nothing of the killer making his way N, S or E. Their role from that onset was around evidence only and not in bias of any certain killer/s. Unlike of course, those who look at photographs, conclude from these that they cannot 'see' enough blood, who are working in the ultimate bias, of a narrative to fit around Mitchell not being the killer.
So, that is my point. Which is forensic experts and their findings. time, area of loss, surface which was different in type, soil, foliage, moss (possibly), rainfall, wildlife, wall (also porous). These all played a part without any doubt on what the actual experts concluded upon. They, the experts, placed that area as the crime scene.
All these findings, evidence gathering, expertise with absolutely no bias, from the morning of July 1st and the ensuing days of gathering evidence in that area. Which all took place before any form of cleaning, before opening the area back up to the public.
So that is what I am highlighting here and applying multiple factors that experts would have taken into consideration upon their findings. They did not place any ? around there 'not' being enough blood, did they now?
So tell us Chris - How the actual hell did these killers you have in mind, mimic that crime scene to fool the experts? How the hell did they cart that weight into that area before mimicking a crime scene without leaving any trace of getting there nor of leaving any trace of themselves in that area? Why Chris, once you have worked that out, would they even have thought about taking such risk, having such intellect themselves, go to that area at all? Masses of woodland area surrounding there with ease of access. So, it is not just about your query of the experts not extracting 6ltrs of blood from multiple surface type over a given area, or of JaF walking through trees, it is all the forensic evidence here, flying carpet? teleport? For there was nothing found, not snifter of anything outside that area bar of course that condom and another one found in cave, in another area of woodland altogether. Both of which yielded absolutely nothing of the victim, nor of anything of the donors upon the victim!
-
Faithlilly,
Recently I found this quote: ‘The body wasn’t covered so it was open to the elements overnight,' Sallens said. 'The amount of evidence you can get from a crime scene if handled properly is incredible. It would have been a bloodbath, the injuries were horrendous.
'We think she was murdered elsewhere and dragged there. The person who murdered her would have been covered in blood.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9287769/Luke-Mitchell-jailed-killing-girlfriend-aged-14-claims-innocence-bars.html
I'll try to write a short reply later about the wall.
-
Parky41,
You wrote, "Unless, of curse, there was much much more of Mitchell's dna present that most of us don't know about?" We have been through this before. There is no credible evidence that any of Mitchell's DNA was found; Ms. Ure's comments do not say that it was. Her comments are one piece of evidence among many suggesting a biased and incompetent investigation. You keep assuming that the investigation was performed in an expert manner, but the facts don't support this inference.
-
faithlilly,
Let me quote two paragraphs from Scott Forbes' book on pages 134-135. "Professor Busuttil, however, was sure of one thing, Jodi Jones would have lost at least six litres of blood, but there was NO 'blood spill' under her body or at the immediate locus, no photographs of the blood-soaked ground, the blood spray that was the locus was not "arterial spray" and did not reflect that of the blood lost. There were no soil reports or samples taken.
"There is no trace of the six litres of blood. There are a few drops of blood on branches lying on the floor and the 'spray' on the wall is approximately four meters away from where Jodi was found lying, approximately 500 mm off the ground is a 'spray' approximately 800 mm wide with the largest area of "spray" being 40 mm x 300 mm, along with some smaller spots of blood. Considering the injuries to Jodi Jones, pre and post death, the scene should have been covered in blood. Many professional people believe that Jodi was not murdered where she was found, as a result of the lack of blood."
-
Faith is very familiar with Scots book, one would think she was a big influence with it
-
faithlilly,
Let me quote two paragraphs from Scott Forbes' book on pages 134-135. "Professor Busuttil, however, was sure of one thing, Jodi Jones would have lost at least six litres of blood, but there was NO 'blood spill' under her body or at the immediate locus, no photographs of the blood-soaked ground, the blood spray that was the locus was not "arterial spray" and did not reflect that of the blood lost. There were no soil reports or samples taken.
"There is no trace of the six litres of blood. There are a few drops of blood on branches lying on the floor and the 'spray' on the wall is approximately four meters away from where Jodi was found lying, approximately 500 mm off the ground is a 'spray' approximately 800 mm wide with the largest area of "spray" being 40 mm x 300 mm, along with some smaller spots of blood. Considering the injuries to Jodi Jones, pre and post death, the scene should have been covered in blood. Many professional people believe that Jodi was not murdered where she was found, as a result of the lack of blood."
Did you just quote Forbes there as an answer, you did, didn't you? And you place a ? against me - Have a word!
So already, the average body holds approx: 4.5-6 litres of blood, and he has it that Jodi Jones lost "at least" 6 litres of the stuff. Let me tell you something about the prof here Chris, that same prof who explained the spray upon that wall, position of that poor girl for the spray of the angle her killer had to have held her. I don't care who, how many, male of female killers here, that girl lost her life in that woodland strip, and yes, dam right I place every faith in the actual experts who entered that woodland on the morning of July 1st, over you, Forbes, Lean and of course Mitchell, any day of the week!
Forbes who has transported the moped boys by teleport from BTH into the that woodland strip behind the V break at 5pm, who has a very dumb Jodi Jones being followed by her brother, who is carrying a see through ruck sack containing a whopping big bowie knife, the time of him following her is 4:50pm to bring them to the boys behind the V break in the wall. They are using telepathy to communicate. He then has one running up Newbattle Road waving that big bowie knife to plant in a skip. The boys are up and over the V break just after 5:15pm to go home in time for DD to go into the woods around 5:30pm to put stuff down to mask the trails.
Surprised they have not all got several eyes, extra heads the lot here. Quite the thing, DD is used to such horror, sets to with his kit masking those trails for he is a hunter. Mr Forbes carried out a survey he claims, asking mothers if they would protect their sons for a murder. Most he says, said yes, BUT only the first born son for they are special! So, can you help me out here Chris? where did all the blood go in one of Mr Forbes fantasy, where at other times he does indeed use the word "blood bath" for the killing behind that wall, I mean the person running up the road certainly has a whopping big bowie knife dripping with blood! Did DD take a vax with him? Were cordless ones invented then to soak up "at least" 6 litres of blood? Or of Mitchell's dog scenting blood, not possible is it now? There was NO blood to scent, just a drop or two of the stuff, but Forbes has it that it travelled all the way through the plant life, up the plants on that wall, and the clever dog picked up the scent of blood from this when there was no blood into that plant life - Or perhaps it was animal blood that DD put there - And YOU are QUOTING Forbes!
Shall we go on? He has a 9 yr old Jodi Jones on the vodka, after teleporting her from 1000's of miles away to be home the night her father died. He has a 10-11yr old boy fathering his niece, but then he has this boy as an adult and 19yrs old at the time of the murder, he was only 16. - Facts and truth are not present in fantasist Forbes sci fi world, are they now Chris?
-
And isn't that the problem with multiple different claims/scenarios? They just keep tumbling over each other with utter BS and constant contradictions. That giant melting pot of "what If?"
Not at all sure then what Mitchell did with "at least" 6 litres of blood, but his dog sure as hell did not pick up any scent of it. According to fantasist Forbes, the woodland strip was used for dog baiting, an animal graveyard - Oh, is that why the dog was excited at the V break then Mr Forbes?
So just a drop or two or three, minute spraying upon that wall, a dog still 43ft away on a path some 4 ft out from a high, thick, dry stone dyke, picks up what exactly? - Hook, line and sinker.
So we blank out Mitchell's lies of where he placed his dog, precisely and "parallel" to where the body lay some 4 meters away from the high, thick, dry stone wall on the other side. We bring him all the way back to that break (where they actually were), to tie in with the truth told by the search trio, every description given of them all, Mitchell and his dog.
And as we always knew, what was proved beyond any doubt, that the dog picked up nothing of Jodi Jones, Mitchell knew exactly why he led that search to that path and nothing of that five minute walk in between. To once being on that path with the others, he instantly makes a bee line for that wall, around 7ft from ground level, up and rapidly shines his torch beyond (looking for nothing), to then do the same with the V break, directly to and up and over, directly left, around 10ft and he has found his something. Hidden behind that large oak tree with masses of foliage in the way. He describes the clothing, the bobble buried deep in the victims hair that the pathologist did not find right away.
40mins Chris from start to finish. From instantly initiating a search to that path, to be on it, in and around 8mins. For by 10:59pm he is on at that path. Meets with the others, and in and around 8mins the same, instantly the woodland, and accesses it at the first available place - Have a word. I do not care if you believe Mitchell is "90%" innocent, shouldn't innocence be 100%? He sure as hell was not home at t-time and he sure as hell knew exactly where the body of that young girl was.
-
Parky41,
If you had said that it would be better to quote from Dr. Busuttil's testimony directly than from Mr. Forbes' book or a newspaper article, I would have agreed with you. I quoted from it because this is the first time I have read a description of the blood on the wall. If you have another source which gives a different description, I would like to read that.
Let us suppose that Jodi lost four liters of blood instead of six. The amount of blood used in the test in Colorado was 0.5 L; therefore, I don't see what difference it makes. The hypothesis that Jodi was killed where her body was found still has to explain where her blood went. The hypothesis that Jodi was killed elsewhere has to explain the blood that was found at the crime scene. Neither explanation is entirely satisfactory IMO.
-
Angeline aka Sandra Lean
‘Although the evidence seems to suggest that Jodi was killed behind the wall (blood spray on the wall), this does not rule out the possibility that she was held somewhere before she was killed, or even that she went somewhere voluntarily.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s140.html
-
The circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming -- and I've not even heard it all! And, again, why do you think LM's parka jacket went missing? The one thing that probably did have incriminating dna on it (ie, jodi's blood)? You are not convinced by the circumstantial evidence outhwith the DNA evidence, Chris? Btw, how many unidentifed profiles were found?
Mr Apples,
This is where we differ. The circumstantial case against Mr. Mitchell was built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony. There are additional problems with the motive and the timeline, the details of which belong in other threads. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Mitchell had a parka until after the murder; in other words there is no missing parka. The circumstantial case is risible on its own lack of merits, apart from other considerations.
-
Class - "built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony"
CM, 'I drove my usual route home down The Beeches, arriving home by 5:05pm and Luke was in the kitchen brandishing "limp, yellow broccoli" There was NO shopping in the house, it was the day before the weekly shop, so we opted for beans instead. By the time we got it organised and plated up, we sat to eat some ten minutes later. I went out back to enjoy the fine weather, Luke ate in front of the TV. So there she is telling the police of having NO shopping in the house.
Luke the same, of mother arriving home the same time as always. 48-72hrs later they are telling the exact same tale.
SM, I arrived home at my usual time, the house was empty, I had "popped" my head into the lounge. No cooking, nothing, this is July 1st when speaking with the FLO. He is then interviewed for the first time in the station, and he relates the same tale. He is asked more questions around dinner and it is "I cannot remember" anything.
He went home and related this to his mother, and she fills in the blanks for him, same tale of arriving home at her usual time so he called the station to amend his statement, he now had the exact same memory as his mother, right down to that ten minutes of waiting on dinner being plated up. He had went downstairs to greet her, saw his brother "mashing tatties" . He went back upstairs and was shouted around "10 mins later" He took his dinner up to his room to eat it.
So I couldn't agree more Chris, all these changes that had to occur as outside factors came to light, and the Mitchell's tale just had to keep on changing, right down to their testimony in court, all those changes highlighted, the coaching and all else = Guilty verdict for Mitchell.
Jogging a memory, you know, there was NO shopping in the house, but had went shopping before she had drove home. She had not went down The Beeches at all but diverted in the other direction. She had actually not physically stepped into her kitchen until no earlier than 5:17pm.
It was also of course that Luke had left home around 5:40pm, walking out in time to meet with Jodi heading to his (claimed) You know the rest, the phone logs and calls, and of him actually having to leave home no later than 5:30pm.
So all these changes Chris that were NOT volunteered by the way, they came about because they were found out to not be true at all.
SM to the AD "Was there music playing?" to which he replied, "You tell me, was there?" Oops, had Luke and his mother forgot to fill SM in on the before claimed time of his mothers arrival home, of him blasting those tunes out whilst cooking.
-
Class - "built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony"
CM, 'I drove my usual route home down The Beeches, arriving home by 5:05pm and Luke was in the kitchen brandishing "limp, yellow broccoli" There was NO shopping in the house, it was the day before the weekly shop, so we opted for beans instead. By the time we got it organised and plated up, we sat to eat some ten minutes later. I went out back to enjoy the fine weather, Luke ate in front of the TV. So there she is telling the police of having NO shopping in the house.
Luke the same, of mother arriving home the same time as always. 48-72hrs later they are telling the exact same tale.
SM, I arrived home at my usual time, the house was empty, I had "popped" my head into the lounge. No cooking, nothing, this is July 1st when speaking with the FLO. He is then interviewed for the first time in the station, and he relates the same tale. He is asked more questions around dinner and it is "I cannot remember" anything.
He went home and related this to his mother, and she fills in the blanks for him, same tale of arriving home at her usual time so he called the station to amend his statement, he now had the exact same memory as his mother, right down to that ten minutes of waiting on dinner being plated up. He had went downstairs to greet her, saw his brother "mashing tatties" . He went back upstairs and was shouted around "10 mins later" He took his dinner up to his room to eat it.
So I couldn't agree more Chris, all these changes that had to occur as outside factors came to light, and the Mitchell's tale just had to keep on changing, right down to their testimony in court, all those changes highlighted, the coaching and all else = Guilty verdict for Mitchell.
Jogging a memory, you know, there was NO shopping in the house, but had went shopping before she had drove home. She had not went down The Beeches at all but diverted in the other direction. She had actually not physically stepped into her kitchen until no earlier than 5:17pm.
It was also of course that Luke had left home around 5:40pm, walking out in time to meet with Jodi heading to his (claimed) You know the rest, the phone logs and calls, and of him actually having to leave home no later than 5:30pm.
So all these changes Chris that were NOT volunteered by the way, they came about because they were found out to not be true at all.
SM to the AD "Was there music playing?" to which he replied, "You tell me, was there?" Oops, had Luke and his mother forgot to fill SM in on the before claimed time of his mothers arrival home, of him blasting those tunes out whilst cooking.
We know that SM didn’t get home at his usual time that day. We know that from one of his friends whose car he helped fix.
-
Parky41,
Not for the first time what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Did AB change the time of her putative sighting? Did the rest of the search party change what they said about Mia signaling? Did Jodi's mother change the time at which she said Jodi left? I see no reason that these questions cannot be answered simply yes or no, but that is up to you.
Do you think that Mr. Forbes' book described the crime scene accurately with respect to where the blood was found and where it was not found? Whether or not you do, would you care to post another description so that we can all compare them? Thanks in advance.
-
Parky41,
Not for the first time what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote. Did AB change the time of her putative sighting? Did the rest of the search party change what they said about Mia signaling? Did Jodi's mother change the time at which she said Jodi left? I see no reason that these questions cannot be answered simply yes or no, but that is up to you.
Do you think that Mr. Forbes' book described the crime scene accurately with respect to where the blood was found and where it was not found? Whether or not you do, would you care to post another description so that we can all compare them? Thanks in advance.
No, actually I was addressing your post directly. It does not make any difference who you were meaning without placing them in the post, the circumstantial case by the Crown very much involved the changing accounts from the Mitchell's.
So what was the difference here? We had three people who gave set times around certain information which proved to be false. We had others who gave information around NO set times, that is the difference. So the answer is NO Chris, there were no set times placed that changed, was there now, by giving over false information. Such as the Jones family, it was always from the off that Jodi Jones had left home shortly after AO's arrived home.
I think I already answered around Forbes, did I not? - Pinch of proverbial salt. The problem for me Chris is liars, plain and simple, which as is blatantly obvious by many of my posts, I make no bones with at all. Starting from Mitchell. You mention the police lying, and again without actual proof of this. Where one can sure as hell repeatedly show the lies coming forth from Mitchell and his enablers, that is the difference. And again, how the actual hell do people even begin to work fact from fiction here?
Will we have the bog standard of 'nothing unaccounted for?' - Nothing found pointing this murder to that of a stranger, he was telling the truth. That revolving door back to the reason behind the agreement made by the Crown.
The search and again the answer is NO, they did not change dog and wall Chris, did they now? They changed who was leading who. It was always directly to the V break in the wall. It was Mitchell who made claims of his dog finding any body, and he placed that dog on a completely different area of that path - He was lying.
16mins in and around Chris split into two lots. This is the time it took Mitchell to initiate an actual physical search directly to that path. Nothing of that five minute walk from where he claimed to idle for around 90mins earlier. Just that path. A 7min walk the normal route from house to path alone. In and around 8mins he initiated an actual physical search, claimed to debate with his mother, to have to go upstairs to borrow a torch from an imaginary brother, for the imaginary brother to locate a torch somewhere downstairs, to be out and on that path. From just after 10:50pm to 10:59pm. Marvellous stuff.
The next lot, of in and around 8mins. He is physically in the company of others, they are to be searching the path and verges and he instantly initiates the notion of that woodland as viable for his something to be found. Straight to that 'Gino' break, through the undergrowth and up, shining his torch rapidly beyond in the darkness, and says "nothing there" Super powers with a super torch! To do the exact same at the V break and this time he goes over and left, a few steps, and with his super powers and super torch, he produces magic. Those few feet walked and he see's what was impossible to see - Behave.
So he goes to this break, he goes over, he does not need any dog to show him the way, he knows exactly where he is going. - So, you tell me Chris, what role you feel the dog played in this, in and around 16mins in total. That had Mitchell once more fuel the police with lies? To initiate an actual physical search directly to that path, to be on it, to meet with the others, to instantly initiate the woodland beyond that high, thick, dry stone dyke. To again go directly with his dog doing summersaults (it makes no difference), to the V break and bang!
Those times cannot be changed or altered. In and around 16mins in total, for the everything directly to do with Mitchell. Now if he is as he says, at that path and on it by 11pm. it is an 11min walk, what was he doing Chris? Other than waiting on the others of course, who he knew was heading to that place to meet with him, to search.
For the further lies were of him racing up the path, no buttons turned on for the dog, he had been racing nowhere, had he now?
-
An educated guess around photographs used as production of evidence Chris, around areas of the attack, the reports which would deal with the why this area was deemed to be the actual crime scene, a life living then no more.
You mention the tests again that can be used to determine blood loss at any given point, the simple truth is Chris, neither you nor I know exactly what was carried out by that forensic team. Only that stark reality that certainly something had them conclude this to be the crime scene.
This quote from Forbes is all a little off is it not? Something missing here? It is one thing attempting to place a partial account that is not the everything? This X amount from ground level to width, a large spray with a large spray in it. But nothing of height? As in actual area then applying measurements of one smaller area within it. Cherry picking something would be my guess with some form of fallacy applied. - Bog standard for Mr Forbes. Especially with the expert insertion.
Which was my point around the "at least 6 litres" It very does much matter overall if one simply embellishes at will, does it not? Such as those clear contradictions. No blood but enough to travel up plant life, to the over hang of that wall, for the dog to pick the scent up with --- All utter fallacy and bollocks of course, applied once more to an area that no dog was at.
Which even with the incomplete of everything, still does not answer the spray, the overall area of that attack and any loss. That there was nothing found outside that area. So many other factors around context to apply here. Every single thing inside this melting pot of what IF's has absolutely nothing logical to answer any of it. - Where every answer to there being no evidence is it was all such a mess! Bar anything to do directly with Mitchell, that is some fit up, is it not?
-
Mr. Apples,
I will break my response into separate comments over several days, starting with "...the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously..."
With all due respect the use of the word "unequivocally" makes what you wrote nonsense. What the authorities offered is a possibility; it is speculation without evidence. In addition it is a hypothesis which depends upon the actions of two people who did not even live in the same household.
Chris -- without seeing for ourselves all the DNA results, data, charts, inventory, and so on, it is a waste of time discussing the DNA evidence relating to this case. What I will say is, had that full profile obtained from SK's semen on the laundered t-shirt been from a recent fresh deposit (notwithstanding it being exposed to the rain & elements for a full 8 hours), it would have been detected and subsequently made public as incriminating forensic evidence; as it wasn't, we can strongly infer that it wasn't a fresh deposit of semen and very much a degraded semen stain (or a 'laundered semen stain') that had survived a wash cycle. It was definitively SK's semen and he and Janine were in an intimate relationship, so it mattered not a jot that they didn't live in the same household (though, I suspect Janine lived with her gran so she could have privacy, her being 19 or 20 years old at the time of the murder).
Besides, SK's father (Robert Kelly) gave both SK and JANJ an alibi for that afternoon/early evening (from 1600 - 2000 HRS), as they all had dinner and watched tv between these times at RK's house. More importantly, this young couple split up a few years after the conviction and she still alibies him in the present day (and, from what I understand, she is currently employed as a police officer). She and Jodi were always quite close (and hence why Janine allowed Jodi to borrow her clothes back in 2003), so why would she provide her boyfriend with a false alibi if he'd brutally murdered her younger sister who she was close to?
-
Mr Apples, I too disagree - The blanking of the reason for the agreement is so much more that simply Mitchell's DNA - It is the attempt by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, manipulating this case into something it was NOT. Which in turn via that manipulating is without a doubt treating the victim in this case with the utmost disrespect.
I do not give a monkey for (not you) people who then profess to know lots around forensic evidence, who in turn do NOT know this case, putting forth support to those who have manipulated those results massively. So, in one hand they go on about forensic evidence being the be all of Mitchell and innocence. In the other hand they put out such utter bollocks, with absolutely NO forensic evidence, that the victim was not only raped Mr Apples but by multiple people. With absolutely NOTHING to back this up. Jodi Jones was not raped, she had NOT been physically, sexually assaulted. Leaving aside whatever her killer may have gotten personal pleasure from!
Gordo30 and his more than one way to ejaculate with absolutely no forensic evidence to back anything of this up. Ms Lean, and if the victim is all but dead or dead, there would be no physical evidence of rape taking place. So, they have it that Mitchell just has to be innocent as there was NO forensic evidence. yet can apply multiple males, who left not a snifter of any forensic evidence!
Parky, you're preaching to the converted regarding Luke's guilt, though I don't think I am as convinced as you or Nicholas are. There likely isn't any DNA evidence pointing to another, though, I think, if my memory serves me correctly, you dismissed the unidentified DNA profiles as 'probably yielding nothing ever'. You're probably right, especially given the strength of the circumstantial evidence outwith forensic evidence in this case. But, you just never know if those 4 or 5 unidentified profiles were present as a result of something sinister as opposed to being innocently transferred by strangers (I know it's obtuse and a cop-out to suggest the former, but, you just never know, especially if they were full profiles from a particular source).
Also, Parky41, you've mentioned alleles in respect of Luke's DNA found on Jodi, but specific information about alleles has never ever been revealed or discussed in the public domain. The only thing mentioned in the press was very vague (eg "some dna was found"). DNA markers (loci) have been mentioned in the SL's IB, but nothing specific in terms of the exact quantity and the data of the results. So, Parky41, where are you getting your information on the DNA from this case from? Are you making educated guesses?
-
Parky, you're preaching to the converted regarding Luke's guilt, though I don't think I am as convinced as you or Nicholas are. There likely isn't any DNA evidence pointing to another, though, I think, if my memory serves me correctly, you dismissed the unidentified DNA profiles as 'probably yielding nothing ever'. You're probably right, especially given the strength of the circumstantial evidence outwith forensic evidence in this case. But, you just never know if those 4 or 5 unidentified profiles were present as a result of something sinister as opposed to being innocently transferred by strangers (I know it's obtuse and a cop-out to suggest the former, but, you just never know, especially if they were full profiles from a particular source).
Also, Parky41, you've mentioned alleles in respect of Luke's DNA found on Jodi, but specific information about alleles has never ever been revealed or discussed in the public domain. The only thing mentioned in the press was very vague (eg "some dna was found"). DNA markers (loci) have been mentioned in the SL's IB, but nothing specific in terms of the exact quantity and the data of the results. So, Parky41, where are you getting your information on the DNA from this case from? Are you making educated guesses?
A good start to this Mr Apples would be you listing those five you refer to? Can you do that, have you actually managed to work out what the five are from Lean? This used to be in excess of 10 unidentified profiles now narrowed down to five, can you list them? She has one as a condom from a cave, the other as JaF's, unidentified for three years, what are the other three?
-
what are the other three?
From the people she lived with - who shared the same home/living space/bathroom etc.. ?
-
I have seen no evidence that Mr. Mitchell had a parka until after the murder; in other words there is no missing parka
I wasn't even going to mention the infamous missing parka again -- it does get extremely tedious and tiresome going over and over the same things -- but I found out something new recently that is very relevant to it; refreshingly, it was something I hadn't heard before, from a nice young lady from the Whitburn area in Scotland, UK, whose cousin was called as a Crown witness in this trial to give evidence around this parka jacket specifically. It gets a lot better: her cousin had a photo of Luke Mitchell wearing this parka jacket in May 2003, along with Jodi Jones and another couple of friends. Her cousin was one of Jodi's best friends, allegedly. The police took this photo as evidence and still have it in the present day. Interestingly, this same girl was able to tell me that the police also took a photo from Kimberley Thompson that featured Luke wearing the green parka in March 2003 and used it as evidence at court. (Oh, also, this same lass told me that the police took the CCTV tapes from St David's High School in Dalkeith, no doubt to corroborate the school teacher's testimony of also seeing Luke wearing that parka in the school playground, looking like, in the teacher's own words, "a hooded monk". So, Chris, there you have it: two separate pieces of direct evidence of Luke Mitchell wearing that parka before the murder. So, where did it go to? And why did Corinne buy Luke another parka on 08.07.03 that was identical to the old one? There are, in the public domain, newspaper articles from 2003-2005 stating that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that LM had worn a green parka prior to the murder. Very incriminating for LM, especially when linked to the other circumstantial evidence. Guilty as!
So, Chris, even from looking at the above, you get a sense of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM, outwith forensics. And it is so strong that we can infer that those couple of (as yet) unidentified profiles found at or near the crime scene were there by innocent transfer.
-
I wasn't even going to mention the infamous missing parka again -- it does get extremely tedious and tiresome going over and over the same things -- but I found out something new recently that is very relevant to it; refreshingly, it was something I hadn't heard before, from a nice young lady from the Whitburn area in Scotland, UK, whose cousin was called as a Crown witness in this trial to give evidence around this parka jacket specifically. It gets a lot better: her cousin had a photo of Luke Mitchell wearing this parka jacket in May 2003, along with Jodi Jones and another couple of friends. Her cousin was one of Jodi's best friends, allegedly. The police took this photo as evidence and still have it in the present day. Interestingly, this same girl was able to tell me that the police also took a photo from Kimberley Thompson that featured Luke wearing the green parka in March 2003 and used it as evidence at court. (Oh, also, this same lass told me that the police took the CCTV tapes from St David's High School in Dalkeith, no doubt to corroborate the school teacher's testimony of also seeing Luke wearing that parka in the school playground, looking like, in the teacher's own words, "a hooded monk". So, Chris, there you have it: two separate pieces of direct evidence of Luke Mitchell wearing that parka before the murder. So, where did it go to? And why did Corinne buy Luke another parka on 08.07.03 that was identical to the old one? There are, in the public domain, newspaper articles from 2003-2005 stating that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that LM had worn a green parka prior to the murder. Very incriminating for LM, especially when linked to the other circumstantial evidence. Guilty as!
So, Chris, even from looking at the above, you get a sense of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM, outwith forensics. And it is so strong that we can infer that those couple of (as yet) unidentified profiles found at or near the crime scene were there by innocent transfer.
So the police had photographs of Luke allegedly wearing the green parka before the murder yet never produced them in court?
Tell you what Mr Apples, I have a bridge that you might be interested in….special price just for you.
-
So the police had photographs of Luke allegedly wearing the green parka before the murder yet never produced them in court?
Tell you what Mr Apples, I have a bridge that you might be interested in….special price just for you.
The media were not allowed to report on certain aspects of killer Luke Mitchell’s trial, for example; due to age restrictions
-
I wasn't even going to mention the infamous missing parka again -- it does get extremely tedious and tiresome going over and over the same things -- but I found out something new recently that is very relevant to it; refreshingly, it was something I hadn't heard before, from a nice young lady from the Whitburn area in Scotland, UK, whose cousin was called as a Crown witness in this trial to give evidence around this parka jacket specifically. It gets a lot better: her cousin had a photo of Luke Mitchell wearing this parka jacket in May 2003, along with Jodi Jones and another couple of friends. Her cousin was one of Jodi's best friends, allegedly. The police took this photo as evidence and still have it in the present day. Interestingly, this same girl was able to tell me that the police also took a photo from Kimberley Thompson that featured Luke wearing the green parka in March 2003 and used it as evidence at court. (Oh, also, this same lass told me that the police took the CCTV tapes from St David's High School in Dalkeith, no doubt to corroborate the school teacher's testimony of also seeing Luke wearing that parka in the school playground, looking like, in the teacher's own words, "a hooded monk".
Didn’t killer Luke Mitchell tell con-artist Sandra Lean about this?
-
I wasn't even going to mention the infamous missing parka again -- it does get extremely tedious and tiresome going over and over the same things -- but I found out something new recently that is very relevant to it; refreshingly, it was something I hadn't heard before, from a nice young lady from the Whitburn area in Scotland, UK, whose cousin was called as a Crown witness in this trial to give evidence around this parka jacket specifically. It gets a lot better: her cousin had a photo of Luke Mitchell wearing this parka jacket in May 2003, along with Jodi Jones and another couple of friends. Her cousin was one of Jodi's best friends, allegedly. The police took this photo as evidence and still have it in the present day. Interestingly, this same girl was able to tell me that the police also took a photo from Kimberley Thompson that featured Luke wearing the green parka in March 2003 and used it as evidence at court. (Oh, also, this same lass told me that the police took the CCTV tapes from St David's High School in Dalkeith, no doubt to corroborate the school teacher's testimony of also seeing Luke wearing that parka in the school playground, looking like, in the teacher's own words, "a hooded monk".
Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples
Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/
Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/
Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/
-
Didn’t killer Luke Mitchell tell con-artist Sandra Lean about this?
I think you know the answer, Nicholas.
-
newspaper articles from 2003-2005 stating that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that LM had worn a green parka prior to the murder. Very incriminating for LM, especially when linked to the other circumstantial evidence. Guilty as!
Do you know how many witnesses gave evidence about seeing him up in the disposed of/burnt khaki green parka that didn’t testify in court?
-
I think you know the answer, Nicholas.
I do Mr Apples
Though I strongly suspect someone’s told her since but she’s chosen to keep it hidden
-
Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples
Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/
Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/
Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/
No. This was a girl I spoke to on social media last week. She has a younger female cousin who was close to Jodi and who had a photograph that featured Luke, Jodi, her female cousin and a couple of other friends. Said photograph was taken in May 2003. Crucially, Luke was wearing the olive green parka in it. The police took the photo and used it as evidence in court, with the girl's cousin also there at court as a witness. This girl's cousin was at court during the same days as Kimberley Thompson; KT had a photo of LM wearing that parka in March 2003 which was presented at court as evidence. CCTV footage from St David's High School was show in court, revealing LM wearing the parka before the murder. So much incriminating circumstantial evidence.
Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?
I wonder if LM was DNA-aware at the time of the murder or if Corinne or Shane told him about it that day.
-
Do you know how many witnesses gave evidence about seeing him up in the disposed of/burnt that didn’t testify in court?
Don't know exactly, Nicholas. I suspect a lot (I heard about another 20 saw him in the original parka but weren't called to give evidence).
Interestingly, on the Shirley McKie tapatalk website, there is a thread exclusively on the LM case and it contains some interesting — sometimes obscure — info on the case. One of the most interesting pieces of info I’ve read from that site was from a woman with the username ‘alison’, and you can tell from her posts that she’s not a troll or anyone with an agenda against either Luke or Jodi. This woman grew up near LM & JODJ and said her two children knew both LM & JODJ and said that both her children had been deeply traumatised by the case (she never mentioned if her children were called as witnesses to court; she made a point of not revealing too much of her family and personal details, which was fair enough and sensible). Anyway, this woman called alison said, categorically, that she had seen LM wearing a green parka a couple of times before the murder — one of her sightings was a couple of weeks before the murder and the other was in late May, 2003. She indicated that Jodi was with Luke in one of these sightings. She also said that if she was ever called to court and had to give the evidence of her sightings of LM with the green parka on before the murder that she would, and also claimed that CM was a liar for denying any knowledge of Luke having a parka before the murder (alison never said she had seen CM with LM when he was wearing the parka before 30.06.03, but maybe this is what she was implying by that comment?). She also said that she thought LM was guilty. This info from alison in regards to the parka was enough to convince me that LM did definitely own one before the murder.
-
So the police had photographs of Luke allegedly wearing the green parka before the murder yet never produced them in court?
Tell you what Mr Apples, I have a bridge that you might be interested in….special price just for you.
You've completely misconstrued. Again.
Btw, Faith, if there's any more daft reasoning from you they'll come after you with a big butterfly net!
-
Don't know exactly, Nicholas. I suspect a lot (I heard about 20 saw him in the original parka but weren't called to give evidence).
I suspect a lot too.
It’s obvious the idea to get a replacement replica was done to cause confusion - wonder if Corinne Mitchell’s adoptive mother Ruby Guetta aided any of this behaviour?
-
Interestingly, on the Shirley McKie tapatalk website, there is a thread exclusively on the LM case and it contains some interesting — sometimes obscure — info on the case. One of the most interesting pieces of info I’ve read from that site was from a woman with the username ‘alison’, and you can tell from her posts that she’s not a troll or anyone with an agenda against either Luke or Jodi. This woman grew up near LM & JODJ and said her two children knew both LM & JODJ and said that both her children had been deeply traumatised by the case (she never mentioned if her children were called as witnesses to court; she made a point of not revealing too much of her family and personal details, which was fair enough and sensible). Anyway, this woman called alison said, categorically, that she had seen LM wearing a green parka a couple of times before the murder — one of her sightings was a couple of weeks before the murder and the other was in late May, 2003. She indicated that Jodi was with Luke in one of these sightings. She also said that if she was ever called to court and had to give the evidence of her sightings of LM with the green parka on before the murder that she would, and also claimed that CM was a liar for denying any knowledge of Luke having a parka before the murder (alison never said she had seen CM with LM when he was wearing the parka before 30.06.03, but maybe this is what she was implying by that comment?). She also said that she thought LM was guilty. This info from alison in regards to the parka was enough to convince me that LM did definitely own one before the murder.
There are several threads exclusively on killer Luke Mitchell
I do recall seeing the name Alison albeit not back in 2010
“It is commen knowledge in the area of mayfield/easthouses that jodi stayed at her grans house a lot of the time”
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-new-thread-t600-s1030.html
Liar Corinne Mitchell - 27th July 2010
👇
..there is an "innocent" explanation for Kellys semen AND blood on Jodis clothing
Be wary of who you defend.....and who you condemn......remember....we have the paperwork!
*&^^&
-
I suspect a lot too.
It’s obvious the idea to get a replacement replica was done to cause confusion - wonder if Corinne Mitchell’s adoptive mother Ruby Guetta aided any of this behaviour?
Definitely to cause confusion. I think him changing back into the bomber jacket after the Lf & RW sighting lends credence to that theory. After all, there were loads of jackets of his hanging up on his bedroom door, but he chose another green jacket. Not a coincidence, imo. Done deliberately, very much to cause confusion
-
Definitely to cause confusion. I think him changing back into the bomber jacket after the Lf & RW sighting lends credence to that theory. After all, there were loads of jackets of his hanging up on his bedroom door, but he chose another green jacket. Not a coincidence, imo. Done deliberately, very much to cause confusion
Liar Lynne Hall claimed her killer son was wearing a jumper and blue jeans and chunky boots when he went to his parents house that morning.
Many of the mothers involved in these innocence fraud scams lie for their murdering sons
Had Shane Mitchell ever been arrested prior to his brother committing murder?
-
Reg126 aka un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton - 25th June 2010
“ As far as I am aware Mrs Mitchell and Shane deny any fire being in the burner that night”
*&^^&
It was Killer Luke Mitchell who said Corinne and Shane Mitchell were having a fire in the back garden
And Corinne Mitchell told the jury she might have been burning pampas grass
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-new-thread-t600-s710.html
-
No. This was a girl I spoke to on social media last week. She has a younger female cousin who was close to Jodi and who had a photograph that featured Luke, Jodi, her female cousin and a couple of other friends. Said photograph was taken in May 2003. Crucially, Luke was wearing the olive green parka in it. The police took the photo and used it as evidence in court, with the girl's cousin also there at court as a witness. This girl's cousin was at court during the same days as Kimberley Thompson; KT had a photo of LM wearing that parka in March 2003 which was presented at court as evidence. CCTV footage from St David's High School was show in court, revealing LM wearing the parka before the murder. So much incriminating circumstantial evidence.
And killer Luke Mitchell didn’t tell Sandra Lean any of this - or if he has since and she’s playing dumb
-
Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?
Corinne Mitchell didn’t like this woman (flo) from the moment she set eyes on her by the sounds of it - you could be onto something here Mr Apples
-
Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?
I wonder if LM was DNA-aware at the time of the murder or if Corinne or Shane had told him that day about it.
While they were helping him dispose of/burn/skip all incriminating evidence
Maybe all three of them were forensically aware
15 years old and he was happy to make himself centre of attention on the day of [Name removed] funeral when he knew he was, by this time, suspected of having been the murderer
He was even happy to stage a scene for the cameras of him lighting the candles - when this was meant to be a private family affair
*&^^&
Why did they choose to light the candles for the cameras
*&^^&
If liar Corinne Mitchell was so unhappy with the way her son was interviewed, why didn’t she kick them all (Sky TV) out
In reality - I suspect both Corinne and Luke Mitchell were pleased with themselves after their staged TV performance
Until that is - it backfired on them both
-
No. This was a girl I spoke to on social media last week. She has a younger female cousin who was close to Jodi and who had a photograph that featured Luke, Jodi, her female cousin and a couple of other friends. Said photograph was taken in May 2003. Crucially, Luke was wearing the olive green parka in it. The police took the photo and used it as evidence in court, with the girl's cousin also there at court as a witness. This girl's cousin was at court during the same days as Kimberley Thompson; KT had a photo of LM wearing that parka in March 2003 which was presented at court as evidence. CCTV footage from St David's High School was show in court, revealing LM wearing the parka before the murder. So much incriminating circumstantial evidence.
Parky41 is correct, though: LM, without a doubt, owned a khaki green parka jacket before 30.06.03. So, why deny its existence? And why buy the exact same parka again, on 08.07.03? Could it be that the old one had traces of Jodi's blood on it? Could it be that he also knew he had been spotted in it that early evening of 30.06.03 -- but hoped the newly purchased one on 08.07.03 would help get him off because the old one was destroyed and this new one obviously had no incriminating dna on it? Was LM originally not going to deny having a parka jacket before the 30.06.03? He was only going to deny being at the easthouses end of the path? But, his plans were scuppered by the FLO who was watching their every move and purchase?
I wonder if LM was DNA-aware at the time of the murder or if Corinne or Shane had told him that day about it.
Kimberley Thompson had a photo of Luke in his parka jacket from March did she? Despite her seeing him for the last time before the murder on St Valentine’s Day and despite the reams and reams of newsprint detailing Kimberley’s testimony in court not one of those reports mentions a photograph. Give your head a wobble.
Further the police used the CCTV and photographs of Luke in court wearing the parka yet not one mention of what would have been a slam dunk moment in the press.
I’m not sure if you’re gullible or are simply desperate to justify your opinion but none of what you allegedly were told passes the sniff test.
Of course the powers that be will know that and no amount of tittle tattle on an obscure forum will change that.
-
Kimberley Thompson had a photo of Luke in his parka jacket from March did she? Despite her seeing him for the last time before the murder on St Valentine’s Day and despite the reams and reams of newsprint detailing Kimberley’s testimony in court not one of those reports mentions a photograph. Give your head a wobble.
Did he write to KT and send her photographs of himself?
-
Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples
Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/
Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/
Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/
Didn’t Parky write about this Mr Apples
Part 27 The Never To Be Seen Again ‘Magic Coat’
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-27/
Part 37 The Gig & The Replacement Parka
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/02/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-36-2/
Part 70 Facts Concerning The Log Burner
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/
Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.
-
Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.
Has this woman spoken to the media
-
Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.
Does anyone know what they did on valentine day 2003 and where they went exactly ?
And were there reporting restrictions on the media because of KT’s age at the time she gave her evidence?
“Miss Thomson told the court that Mr Mitchell had never mentioned Miss Jones to her”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
Luke's Poem to Jodi
"Goodbye Jodi. Please can you say what happened,
Please tell us who it was, who took your life so cruelly
For no apparent cause.
You had so much to give us, you lived life your own way,
Whoever did this to you, should just be put away.
You didn’t see bad in others, you didn’t like to judge,
We’re sorry Jodi, truly, but we’ll always hold a grudge.
You were taken from us so cruelly,
Please don’t ask us to forgive,
We cannot get this from our hearts however long we live.
You’ve been laid to rest, but not in peace,
We know that just can’t be,
But we’ll say goodbye and forever hope
That justice we will see."
*&^^&
”It had been two months since Jodi's murder, and her family had told him to stay away. They suspected then what a jury would later confirm - that he was her killer.
I'd phoned the Mitchell house and his mother told me that Luke was paying his own, private tribute.
Mother and son agreed that we could film it. So the camera rolled as the teenager lit candles on a shrine to Jodi that he'd created on his dining table.
Yet more double binds
-
Nicholas -- I spoke to this woman again and she says the photo was in fact from a concert, though she couldn't confirm an exact date (she indicated on another social media platform weeks earlier that the picture was from May 2003) or the name of the band (she is going to look into it for me; she mentioned it was "a band of a particular taste", so it could well be the same photo that Parky41 has referenced). It was actually her younger sister and not her cousin who was called to court as a witness, where her sister's photo was shown to the jury along with other photos from other witnesses of LM in that parka prior to the murder (including Kimberley Thompson's), and CCTV footage from St David's High School showing LM in the parka before the murder. Oh, and KT's photo of LM in the parka was from Feb 2003 and not March 2003 as I had previously said.
Stop it. You’re just making yourself look silly now.
-
Has this woman spoken to the media
Good question….or her cousin…or is it her sister?
-
Does anyone know what they did on valentine day 2003 and where they went exactly ?
And were there reporting restrictions on the media because of KT’s age at the time she gave her evidnece?
“Miss Thomson told the court that Mr Mitchell had never mentioned Miss Jones to her”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
If there had been reporting restrictions in place Kimberley wouldn’t have been named let alone the reams of her testimony published.
-
If there had been reporting restrictions in place Kimberley wouldn’t have been named let alone the reams of her testimony published.
Haven’t read ‘reams’ just titbits here and there
Suspect her statements would have given a lot more detail though
-
Haven’t read ‘reams’ just titbits here and there
Suspect her statements would have given a lot more detail though
The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.
As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.
The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.
-
The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.
As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.
The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.
Did KT, or her representative ie; prosecutor, make a request to the court to ask that she not be identified by a photograph?
-
Has this woman spoken to the media
I don't thinks so, although I haven't asked (don't want to pester the woman too much; maybe she'll tell me in future chats). She did say that the police interviewed her wee sister and that, according to her wee sister, the police were very nice at all times -- not the bullies who were out to intimidate young witnesses into giving false confessions to fit LM up, like SL occasionally suggests. Her wee sister is friends with a few of the other witnesses and they all said/say that the police were very nice and fair with them, too; no bullying or trying to get them to make false statements.
She also told me that her wee sister knows David High and the other boys who were at the abbey with LM that night. They all said that LM was, as well as being a lot cleaner than normal, acting extremely weird all night. Apparantely, DH also said LM was "digging his fingers in the mud" a lot that night. Is this why CM wasn't too kind about DH in the media (I think Corinne called him a liar and wannabe in a press interview)?
-
Did KT, or her representative ie; prosecutor, make a request to the court to ask that she not be identified by a photograph?
Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.
-
I don't thinks so, although I haven't asked (don't want to pester the woman too much; maybe she'll tell me in future chats). She did say that the police interviewed her wee sister and that, according to her wee sister, the police were very nice at all times -- not the bullies who were out to intimidate young witnesses into giving false confessions to fit LM up, like SL occasionally suggests. Her wee sister is friends with a few of the other witnesses and they all said/say that the police were very nice and fair with them, too; no bullying or trying to get them to make false statements.
She also told me that her wee sister knows David High and the other boys who were at the abbey with LM that night. They all said that LM was, as well as being a lot cleaner than normal, acting extremely weird all night. Apparantely, DH also said LM was "digging his fingers in the mud" a lot that night. Is this why CM wasn't too kind about DH in the media (I think Corinne called him a liar and wannabe in a press interview)?
There will no doubt be a lot of information/evidence contained within David High’s witness statement(s) that hasn’t seen the light of day - similar to killer Simon Hall’s case
For example, con-artist Sandra Lean made no mention in her 1sts discredited book of the fact Stephanie Bon was in a relationship with killer Simon Hall at the time he committed his murder.
Sandra Lean also made no mention of the fact killer Simon Hall had swapped bracelets with his older brother Shaun Hall just before his arrest
-
The media reported the most important parts of Kimberley’s testimony. If she had given the police a photograph of Luke in the parka he was alleged to have worn that would have been a very important piece of evidence and she would have been asked about it by counsel. Further the photograph would have been shown to the jury. All this would, of course, have been reported by the media.
As I have said before…if reporting restrictions were in place for Kimberley’s appearance they would have been in place for all her testimony.
The photograph wasn’t mentioned in the media because it didn’t exist. Simple really.
It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
-
It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
8((()*/
Great post!
And this is one of the main factors as to how and why sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s, and his enablers, innocence fraud has rumbled on for so long
An online search regarding killer Simon Hall, and his and his family members lies and concoctions, that were said by the prosecution to be “woven into the general framework of the case” throws up nothing!
Yet this was highly relevant evidence in his case - woven into the general framework of the case, much like the Mitchell’s lies and concoctions.
And even by the time of the appeal, the 3 judges had somehow managed to magic this crucial evidence from their narrative, disingenuously claiming - on behalf of the crown no less *&^^&
“The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis”
This was also down to interpretation but also down to a crown prosecutor (or prosecutors) playing along with the innocence fraud
Simon Spence blocked me on Twitter btw (as did his chambers) rather than explains how and why such a fundamental and crucial aspect and evidence of the original prosecutions case was able to seemingly vanish into thin air
The CCRC have chosen to say nothing about the part they played in this innocence fraud also
-
Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.
The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.
-
The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.
8((()*/
-
The photo that KT had of Luke wearing the parka in Feb 2003 was shown in court as evidence, along with other photos of him wearing it prior to the murder (that several people/witnesses had of him). The cctv footage of him wearing it prior to 30.06.03 at high school was also shown as evidence in court. What is it you don't understand here, Faithlilly? Just because these photos weren't released in the media doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Again CCTV was shown to the jury of killer Simon Hall outside the Tesco’s, Copdock superstore but again there’s nothing online about the jury being shown the CCTV/images
Maybe the journalists reporting on the case didn’t understand the relevance of this evidence so didn’t think it was worth reporting on and publishing the images
-
It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
Also there wasn’t a single journalist assigned to cover each and every day of the 42 days of the trial
And if there had of been, again it would have been down to their interpretation
As Jane Hamilton wrote somewhere - you’d need an entire newspaper and some to report on each days worth of evidence
-
It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
No one reported a thing on Shane Mitchell having a fire in the back garden with his mother Corinne that night even though his killer brother told the police he did
-
Even in 2005 faces on photographs were able to blurred out. This would not have stopped the photograph being presented in court.
Sandra Lean didn’t attend the 42 day trial - she had a shop to run and manage
Corinne Mitchell also didn’t attended the 42 day trial - she wasn’t allowed to hear any evidence until after she gave her own - which wasn’t until the last week or so
You don’t appear to be taking on board the fact Sandra Lean is a fraud imo.
Not for the sake of ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ - all for her own sake
-
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
And this extremely relevant factor has been played down by many people, who have chosen to suggest it’s normal for 14 year old, weed smoking, sexually actively (and sexually aggressive) teenage boys to ‘two time’
The extremely relevant factor, which again has been played down, is the fact killer Luke Mitchell denied it
Then attempted to pretend to TV cameras he was all about [Name removed]
*&^^&
So much so he couldn’t be bothered to phone her mother back during those 90 minutes he pretended to wait for her
Many journalists chose to focus their reporting on Judith Jones leaving the court upset after hearing this evidence instead of photos of previously worn khaki green parka jackets, and gigs/concerts and other such evidence for example
-
It's erroneous to suggest that journalists will report the most important parts of each witness's testimony; what are the most important bits is open to interpretation, and no doubt each journalist will have their own take on what they deem crucial information. This was a long and complex case, so, inevitably, important evidence from each day's proceedings wouldn't have always been reported in the papers. Ideally, it should, but it doesn't. Besides, some journalists assigned to certain cases are out of their depth, which results in inadequate reporting.
The nub of KT's testimony, imo, was that she thought she and Luke were an item -- that she was his girlfriend.
Agreed…the nub of Kimberley’s testimony was that she believed that she and Luke were an item. What it wasn’t about was that she had a photograph of Luke in a parka and, as the parka was intrinsic to both alleged sights of Luke, it certainly would have been.
The fact that you appear to be suggesting that no media, either print or visual, reported on what would have been one of the single most important pieces of physical evidence in the trial is simply ridiculous.
Which can only lead to two conclusions….you have either been sold a pup or have made the whole sorry tale up…which is it?
-
Con-artist Sandra Lean didn’t attend the 42 day trial - she had a shop to run and manage
Corinne Mitchell also didn’t attended the 42 day trial - she wasn’t allowed to hear any evidence until after she gave her own - which wasn’t until the last week or so
You don’t appear to be taking on board the fact Sandra Lean is a [moderated], a fraud, a charlatan, who has groomed and conned many people - and still is
Not for the sake of ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ - all for her own sake
I’m not taking into account Dr Lean at all. What I am taking into account is the evidence presented in court and reported in the media but if you think that a photograph of the only physical evidence tying Luke to the two alleged sightings of him was not somehow not reported on by a single media outlet then I really can’t help you.
-
Agreed…the nub of Kimberley’s testimony was that she believed that she and Luke were an item. What it wasn’t about was that she had a photograph of Luke in a parka and, as the parka was intrinsic to both alleged sights of Luke, it certainly would have been.
The fact that you appear to be suggesting that no media, either print or visual, reported on what would have been one of the single most important pieces of physical evidence in the trial is simply ridiculous.
Which can only lead to two conclusions….you have either been sold a pup or have made the whole sorry tale up…which is it?
Faithlilly, no offence, but all of the above makes you sound deeply mental and in denial. Are you okay? Though, to a certain extent, I too was/am a tad surprised that none of these photos of LM in the old parka were published. Still, I'm 100% convinced he had a parka before 30.06.03; and I 100% believe he was wearing it while he murdered that poor girl.
-
No one reported a thing on Shane Mitchell having a fire in the back garden with his mother Corinne that night even though his killer brother told the police he did
He seems to still be shrouded in mystery. It strikes me as odd that the only thing we ever saw of him physically was footage of him walking in to Edinburgh High Court desperatelý hiding face with his jacket (this can be seen on the BBC Frontline Scotland doco, originally aired in 2007).
-
Faithlilly, no offence, but all of the above makes you sound deeply mental and in denial. Are you okay? Though, to a certain extent, I too was/am a tad surprised that none of these photos of LM in the old parka were published. Still, I'm 100% convinced he had a parka before 30.06.03; and I 100% believe he was wearing it while he murdered that poor girl.
No offence taken. Just trying to stop you looking foolish but you are obviously ploughing on regardless.
-
He seems to still be shrouded in mystery. It strikes me as odd that the only thing we ever saw of him physically was footage of him walking in to Edinburgh High Court desperatelý hiding face with his jacket (this can be seen on the BBC Frontline Scotland doco, originally aired in 2007).
Sandra Lean stated the following in her ‘thesis’ from Corinne Mitchell on her other son Shane Mitchell
Page 141 of Sandra Lean’s ‘thesis’
One family reported a combination of misleading information, dishonesty, coercion and threats in quick succession, long before the accused was ever identified as a suspect:
“They brought us back from the station. We were exhausted, in total shock, we just couldn‟t believe it. We‟d been there all night, but there was nothing we could tell them... my son found the body, that was really it... Over the next few weeks, it was like a nightmare. The liaison officer was the worst. She kept telling us “It’s just procedure, it‟s just procedure.‟ That was their favourite – everything they did was just procedure. When they descended on us at 7 o‟clock in the morning, this female cop, she kept barking at me, stand up, sit down, go over there, get over here. I hadn‟t a clue what was going on, but I thought, well, we‟ve got nothing to hide – let them get on with it...they weren‟t going to find anything, cos there was nothing to find. I found out later they waited until we were out of the house, and then they searched it. They questioned my other son – they told him, we‟ve got people telling us this and that – trying to make him think his brother was lying...We didn‟t know what to do. I asked them, is *** a suspect? No, they said, this is just procedure. But they were telling his brother, if we find out you‟re lying ... that‟s really serious... you‟ll go down for it.‟
(family member, accused convicted, sentenced to 20 years.)
Note too how Sandra Lean conflates the varying alleged events
Didn’t Corinne Mitchell ask the police if her killer son Luke was ‘a suspect’ on the 1st of July 2003 before the FLO’s involvement?
-
No offence taken. Just trying to stop you looking foolish but you are obviously ploughing on regardless.
Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'
No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.
Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.
But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!
It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!
Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.
Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.
-
Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'
No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.
Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.
But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!
It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!
Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.
Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.
Thank you for the confirmation…it is appreciated….although it is simply nonsense to claim that since the trial photographs of Luke wearing the parka before the murder have come to light, isn’t it?
Further just for clarity…not sure how many times this has to be repeated…Bryson specifically said that her sighting was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that. She explained this under oath.
-
Alas Mr Apples, I think there is a little fabrication going on just now. - Chinese whispers perhaps? People doing as the 'Romans do?'
No pictures produced at Mitchell's trial of him wearing that coat pre-murder. That said, there has certainly been some come to light since then.
Tangled together now no doubt, applying them as being shown in evidence as opposed to simply being in existence, film developed lying in a drawer. Camera phones not the in thing then but certainly occasion photo's, such as holiday snaps, and I do wonder what was destroyed from a mother taken those pictures? Just a thought.
But there we have it, those multiples of tens of people who gave statements around its existence, the choice of those used at trial to testify of its existence. He wore one and it disappeared, of that there is absolutely no doubt. The cunning in buying that new one for the exact reason we hear time and again. From CM, from the enablers, that people have become confused with the images of Mitchell proudly putting that new one on show, even in sweltering conditions!
It is this further nonsense, the claims of peoples evidence being annihilated by the defence, such as seeing Mitchell in that coat - Nope, not true at all. It shows the opposite of what is being preached, the strength of the evidence and not its weakness. - Mitchell was found guilty, and not because the evidence was shown to be either false or weak!
Sad as it is, Faith on this occasion is correct but not around media reporting, that remains the same, the choices they made around what to report upon. The two witnesses specifically chosen around that coat, fully reported upon. The others were testifying around multiple things. Knives, cannabis, coat, search and on it goes. Not going to report around the same multiple times, of course they will choose other areas to give a broader picture.
Chris I am afraid has went down a further few notches - Really Chris, parroting are we not? 'Why destroy a coat that was not blood stained?' What was the evidence? Was it around the coat NOT being bloodstained, of course it wasn't. It was around the killer NOT necessarily being dripping with the stuff. But there is not just blood to think of here, other forensic evidence along with three people seeing Mitchell wearing that coat. Each on either side of the murder site.
Well, of course there's every possibility that the woman I spoke to is mistaken about these photos being shown in court. It would be rude of me to second guess or question what the woman told me. Who knows. Parky, tell me how you know for certain that they were never produced in court? More guesswork?
Edit: you don't believe the cctv footage from St David's High School existed, either? That the testimony from the 8 cherry-picked witnesses called to give evidence specifically about seeing LM in that parka prior to the murder was sufficient enough to get the point across that he did, in fact, own a parka before 30.06.03? It might well have been, but I'd be surprised if those photos and cctv footage didn't exist, and even more surprised if they weren't shown in court.
And how do you know that LF & RW mentioned the badges on the sleeves of that jacket?
-
Well, of course there's every possibility that the woman I spoke to is mistaken about these photos being shown in court. It would be rude of me to second guess or question what the woman told me. Who knows. Parky, tell me how you know for certain that they were never produced in court? More guesswork?
Edit: you don't believe the cctv footage from St David's High School existed, either? That the testimony from the 8 cherry-picked witnesses called to give evidence specifically about seeing LM in that parka prior to the murder was sufficient enough to get the point across that he did, in fact, own a parka before 30.06.03? It might well have been, but I'd be surprised if those photos and cctv footage didn't exist, and even more surprised if they weren't shown in court.
And how do you know that LF & RW mentioned the badges on the sleeves of that jacket?
And I’d be surprised if your ‘source’ didn’t see you coming.
-
And I’d be surprised if your ‘source’ didn’t see you coming.
It would be more dignified if you would grow a pair of lady-bollocks, finally admit you're wrong, and put a choke-hold on the insipid one-liners. And, thanking Parky41 for 'confirmation'?!?!! Too cute, Faith. Tell me, was there another full moon in Faithland last night?
-
It would be more dignified if you would grow a pair of lady-bollocks, finally admit you're wrong, and put a choke-hold on the insipid one-liners. And, thanking Parky41 for 'confirmation'?!?!! Too cute, Faith. Tell me, was there another full moon in Faithland last night?
Ouch..I seem to have bruised your rather fragile ego. Never mind, I’m sure you’ll live.
At times like this the old adage, latterly attributed to Mark Twain, comes to mind that it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
-
Thank you for the confirmation…it is appreciated….although it is simply nonsense to claim that since the trial photographs of Luke wearing the parka before the murder have come to light, isn’t it?
Further just for clarity…not sure how many times this has to be repeated…Bryson specifically said that her sighting was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that. She explained this under oath.
Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.
The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.
Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.
So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.
Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.
-
Ouch..I seem to have bruised your rather fragile ego. Never mind, I’m sure you’ll live.
At times like this the old adage, latterly attributed to Mark Twain, comes to mind that it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
And that is one of the most logical things you have ever said - Ain't that the truth Faith. - Fancy that, it is actually the one thing being said repeatedly against those bogged down in the mire of deceit.
-
Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.
Agreed. Maybe a few hundred fanatics at best. And of those probably 80% S*n readers. I really don't understand what attracts people to Sandra Lean, defender of at least 3 convicted killers, and friend of various thugs and criminals.
-
Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.
The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.
Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.
So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.
Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.
Let’s leave aside the fact that legal procedures with regard to witness identification were not followed in this case. Identification procedure states that if the witness and the suspect are both available to take part in an identification parade then that’s what should happen. It didn’t here. Couple this with the unreliability of eye witness evidence https://www.science.org/content/article/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh, especially weeks after the sighting and really it’s hard to see how anyone can put any reliance on AB’s photograph identification. The age was wrong, the coat wasn’t a parka, AB said so….and enough of this nonsense of making unsubstantiated claims, you can know no more than anyone else here what AB was shown in relation to her sighting’s jacket, so no fishing, army or combat style jackets, not a khaki jacket but green ( producing photos of only khaki jackets would certainly have been leading the witness). AB did her best but I’m sure she was under severe pressure to help secure a conviction. Of course in the end even she couldn’t stomach identifying a lad who could be entirely innocent.
Further F&W’s testimony was roundly destroyed by the defence with one being reduced to tears after being trapped in a web of their own lies. Poor things.
-
And that is one of the most logical things you have ever said - Ain't that the truth Faith. - Fancy that, it is actually the one thing being said repeatedly against those bogged down in the mire of deceit.
It’s absolutely the truth Parky…I suppose that’s why some don’t recognise when they are having the wool pulled over their eyes by your unevidenced nonsense.
-
Excellent confirmation once again Faith - Of your ability to blurt things out without even realising what you are saying. Stuck in limbo around futile points. AB told the court, the defence, of what was told to the police. That from a selection of photographs she saw the youth from the lane that day. That she was absolutely sure, as sure as anyone could be, that the youth was him. When at trial, and as anyone with a fragment of anything above the neckline could see, that youth, the lad from the photo, was not sitting in that courtroom. In a passage of time of around 18months he had filled out, aged, his hair severely tied back in a ponytail, and she responded that she was 'not sure' - So yes, she most definitely did not pick that same youth from the lane out in court that day, not that he wasn't there, just different.
The coat and spot the difference. She had been shown, again, a selection of photographs, khaki green coats, army style, fishing style, combat style. And she told the police that from the photographs then the parka was closest to memory. She could not be absolute, but it certainly was NOT any of the other ones. So we have this positive ID of the youth, we have a coat picked from a selection of many as being closest to the memory of the clothing he had been wearing.
Then we have F&W, and we have Mitchell again, some 45mins later by that wooden gate. He is wearing that khaki green, army style coat. Then we add in the multiples of tens of people who gave statements around the existence of that coat pre-murder. Then we add how many where chosen to represent different times/occasions. Where for years the focus has been around only two - That manipulation chosen from media reports around the only two, specifically testifying to the coat alone.
So, one can keep on repeating the same futile claims over and over, you only strengthen the evidence, not weaken it. - Very few people out there Faith who actually believe that jury had Mitchell tried and guilty before stepping into that court. That they ignored this claimed annihilation of every piece of evidence - Behave.
Please don't cite this 25K nonsense. Most simply passing a few seconds around reason for it, to apply their signature, what harm can helping with any review do. Then getting on with their lives. It is not 25K who actively support any of this utter BS.
Parky41, now you've dealt with the small fry above, can I invite you over to the big boys' table so you can endeavour to answer the questions I put to you earlier?
-
Let’s leave aside the fact that legal procedures with regard to witness identification were not followed in this case. Identification procedure states that if the witness and the suspect are both available to take part in an identification parade then that’s what should happen. It didn’t here. Couple this with the unreliability of eye witness evidence https://www.science.org/content/article/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh, especially weeks after the sighting and really it’s hard to see how anyone can put any reliance on AB’s photograph identification. The age was wrong, the coat wasn’t a parka, AB said so….and enough of this nonsense of making unsubstantiated claims, you can know no more than anyone else here what AB was shown in relation to her sighting’s jacket, so no fishing, army or combat style jackets, not a khaki jacket but green ( producing photos of only khaki jackets would certainly have been leading the witness). AB did her best but I’m sure she was under severe pressure to help secure a conviction. Of course in the end even she couldn’t stomach identifying a lad who could be entirely innocent.
Further F&W’s testimony was roundly destroyed by the defence with one being reduced to tears after being trapped in a web of their own lies. Poor things.
AB was 'as sure as she could be' that it was him when shown that book of photos (her words to the police, verbatim). The police knew early on that they were dealing with a devious teenager who was smarter than your average; LM would've went out of his way to try and look completely different at the ID parade than from what he did at the Easthouses end of RDP on 30.06.03, and the police likely knew this. I still think AB would've identified him at an ID parade, too-- as long as it took place as quickly as possible. Besides, wasn't the photo from which AB identified him from a photo of him NOT in a parka? It was of photo of him in a black t-shirt only?
LF & RW upon seeing a pic of LM in a newspaper, said: "Oh my god! It's him!" They were both unequivocal it was him on the N'battle road that day. They were crying because they were intimidated by the pressure of the occassion -- a daunting, disagreeable experience for any human being. Add to that one of the best lawyers in the land aggressively placing your every word under the microscpe, calling you a liar; sensitive women overwhelmed by such a horrible one-off experience. The crux of the matter was that they stated what they'd always seen: LM in a particular style of jacket at a wooden gate on n'battle rd acting not normal. And they also identified him in court 18 months later. These women weren't idiots -- it was LM. Then then 3 push bike boys identified him 25 mins later on the same road and two of them knew Luke personally (albeit with a different green jacket on), along with witness Carol Heatlie who also saw LM on N'battle road acting suspiciously and said 'the youth she saw was very very similar to the youth she saw on a sky tv interview'. Very telling. Of course it was Luke Mitchell. Guilty as! So, 2 people, who didn't know him, identified him on n'battle rd by himself and said he looked suspicious. AB identified him 45 mins earlier at the opposite end of path with a female he agreed he was to meet with. And again, it was his suspicious and strange behaviour that caught stranger AB's attention -- that of him confronting and arguing with a girl who, according to AB, matched Jodi's description. He is then spotted by 6 witnesses 45 mins later, on newbattle road (8, if you count MO & DH, though they said it wasn't LM they saw in the dock -- though, imo, the reason for this was wholly to do with just how much LM had changed between their sighting and their court appearance) -- by himself this time -- and, according to 3 of them, acting suspiciously, trying to avoid people's gaze. I suspect that the only reason the 3 push bike boys who knew him who saw him on the n'battle road didn't say he was acting suspiciously was because he was on his mobile phone at the time when they cycled past him. Had he not been on that phone, he would no doubt have started acting suspiciously like the guilty person he was and still is.
-
AB was 'as sure as she could be' that it was him when shown that book of photos (her words to the police, verbatim). The police knew early on that they were dealing with a devious teenager who was smarter than your average; LM would've went out of his way to try and look completely different at the ID parade than from what he did at the Easthouses end of RDP on 30.06.03, and the police likely knew this. I still think AB would've identified him at an ID parade, too-- as long as it took place as quickly as possible. Besides, wasn't the photo from which AB identified him from a photo of him NOT in a parka? It was of photo of him in a black t-shirt only?
LF & RW upon seeing a pic of LM in a newspaper, said: "Oh my god! It's him!" They were both unequivocal it was him on the N'battle road that day. They were crying because they were intimidated by the pressure of the occassion -- a daunting, disagreeable experience for any human being. Add to that one of the best lawyers in the land aggressively placing your every word under the microscpe, calling you a liar; sensitive women overwhelmed by such a horrible one-off experience. The crux of the matter was that they stated what they'd always seen: LM in a particular style of jacket at a wooden gate on n'battle rd acting not normal. And they also identified him in court 18 months later. These women weren't idiots -- it was LM. Then then 3 push bike boys identified him 25 mins later on the same road and two of them knew Luke personally (albeit with a different green jacket on), along with witness Carol Heatlie who also saw LM on N'battle road acting suspiciously and said 'the youth she saw was very very similar to the youth she saw on a sky tv interview'. Very telling. Of course it was Luke Mitchell. Guilty as! So, 2 people, who didn't know him, identified him on n'battle rd by himself and said he looked suspicious. AB identified him 45 mins earlier at the opposite end of path with a female he agreed he was to meet with. And again, it was his suspicious and strange behaviour that caught stranger AB's attention -- that of him confronting and arguing with a girl who, according to AB, matched Jodi's description. He is then spotted by 5 witnesses 45 mins later, on newbattle road (7, if you count MO & DH) -- by himself this time -- and, according to 3 of them, acting suspiciously, trying to avoid people's gaze. I suspect that the only reason the 3 push bike boys who knew him who saw him on the n'battle road didn't say he was acting suspiciously was because he was on his mobile phone at the time when they cycled past him. Had he not been on that phone, he would no doubt have started acting suspiciously like the guilty person he was and still is.
You have proven from your previous posts that you’ll believe any old rubbish. Nothing that you’ve posted above has changed that.
So many assumptions, distortions and downright lies. Not really worth my time trying to disentangle them all.
-
A quick question, not sure if it's been mentioned before. If the moped boys were seen at the V break around 5.15pm did the cyclist LK confirm this as he was on the path and heard moaning sounds at that time. Why are the moped boys and MK still being brought up?
Did Scott Columbo-Forbes not name the killer in his book so why keep talking about every other male in the area? You would think after 19 years they would have cracked the case but have named around ten possible suspects all apart from the knife carrying two-timing drug smoking boyfriend who was on his way to meet her and found the body within 10 minutes. Remarkable!
-
Concerning Mia's behavior, I found this at the Herald on 16 September 2018: “Documents from the investigation, reveal that all three statements of the family search party, corroborated with Mitchell’s claim that the dog [Mia] had led him to Jodi. All three statements changed to deny this one month later.”
From the Murderpedia.org entry on Luke Muir Mitchell: "In his defence, Mitchell claimed that he went through a distinctive "V"-shaped hole in one part of the wall to find the body, because a family dog had alerted him to something suspicious. This was challenged by members of the 'search team' in court, although their original statements for up to a month after the murder corroborated Mitchell's - they spoke of the dog [Mia] scrabbling at the wall, and "suddenly pulling Luke over to the wall." No explanation was ever offered as to why their stories later changed to deny that the dog had reacted."
and from the 2008 appeal as quoted at Murderpedia
[100] The identification evidence of Miss Fleming and Miss Walsh was also criticised. They had spoken to seeing the appellant. Fleming claimed to have seen a picture of the appellant in the Daily Record newspaper on 15 August 2003, following the murder. Her evidence in this respect was confused. In particular, she initially claimed that the newspaper was brought home to her by her partner, the witness Patrick Walsh. However, in cross-examination she confirmed that her partner was in Ireland when the newspaper in question was published. Her position then changed as to the date on which she had seen this photograph, claiming that it had been in the week of 4 - 8 August. She later accepted that she was mistaken in this regard also, as no such picture had been printed at that time. Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant.
[101] Miss Fleming's police statement hinted at what may actually have occurred. She had informed the police that Miss Walsh, the sister of her partner, provided her with a copy of the Daily Record of 15 August 2003 on 21 August. Miss Walsh spoke to having seen this newspaper and to it featuring a picture of the appellant whom she recognised as the male she had seen. She accepted that she had then shown this picture to Miss Fleming. This demonstrated that Miss Fleming had been confused about how she came to see the picture and that she had manufactured a piece of evidence. The cross-contamination of the identification evidence between Miss Walsh and Miss Fleming was of particular importance, given the fact that no identification parade had taken place.
I will not have time to post again for a while.
-
Ok Chris - Explain please, from yourself, not from reading books for the third time, yourself. What took place that evening between 10:40pm and 11:34pm. Now going with what you have put up, you fully understand that everything took place at the V break in that wall. I'll give you four of the enablers first:
Danni B - He knew to go left as the dog had not reacted before that point (I'll get back to this)
Mr Dempsey - The dog sniffed to the left when standing up against the V break.
Lean - Just one of her multiple choice reasons here. He went left due to being a child, safety in numbers, following down closely from where the others were walking on the path side.
Forbes - The dog picked up a scent through the greenery overhanging the wall. All that non existent blood!
That is four, now we have Mitchell - We had all walked past where there is a break in the wall, " some distance past not even 20 yards when ------------" I had to make my way back whilst JaJ's and SK continued walking down the path. AW had lagged some way behind so I gave her the dogs lead to hold and accessed the woods.
So, you are picking up clarification from the search trio, the usual predictive nonsense of changing their minds from agreeing with Mitchell bollocks. To do this, one has erased everything that Mitchell said, erased what the search trio actually did say, to have dog and wall. And you actually do believe that you have a point here? So, it is ok for any enabler to cancel Mitchell out, ignore what he said and clarified, changed, from-to. And say that the search trio did something wrong - Hypocrite?
This "pulling" "scurrying" "head level with the V" and WALL never changed, the change was of who was leading who Chris. So, do you care to add to the others here Chris, and explain to us how Mitchell found that body in and around 10-15 seconds of entering that woodland. How did he know exactly where to go Chris? Then once you have managed to do this, care to explain to us how on earth his torch could see through trees, masses of foliage to give any of the descriptions he gave?
Still waiting on the spray explanation of course - No doubt now, fully put down to the dumb forensic team. All this inadequacy, dam Scotland is rife with the intellectually inept experts, are they not? Or, of you actually highlighting all your lies that the police told, yet picking another poster up for not giving examples around the Mitchells?
But, if you please, just two questions for you here, the first, explain Mitchell's miracle to us, then list all these unknown, unidentified profiles you mention over on IS? Three times of reading that book, one should surely be able to rhyme them off?
-
Ok Chris - Explain please, from yourself, not from reading books for the third time, yourself. What took place that evening between 10:40pm and 11:34pm. Now going with what you have put up, you fully understand that everything took place at the V break in that wall. I'll give you four of the enablers first:
Danni B - He knew to go left as the dog had not reacted before that point (I'll get back to this)
Mr Dempsey - The dog sniffed to the left when standing up against the V break.
Lean - Just one of her multiple choice reasons here. He went left due to being a child, safety in numbers, following down closely from where the others were walking on the path side.
Forbes - The dog picked up a scent through the greenery overhanging the wall. All that non existent blood!
That is four, now we have Mitchell - We had all walked past where there is a break in the wall, " some distance past not even 20 yards when ------------" I had to make my way back whilst JaJ's and SK continued walking down the path. AW had lagged some way behind so I gave her the dogs lead to hold and accessed the woods.
So, you are picking up clarification from the search trio, the usual predictive nonsense of changing their minds from agreeing with Mitchell bollocks. To do this, one has erased everything that Mitchell said, erased what the search trio actually did say, to have dog and wall. And you actually do believe that you have a point here? So, it is ok for any enabler to cancel Mitchell out, ignore what he said and clarified, changed, from-to. And say that the search trio did something wrong - Hypocrite?
This "pulling" "scurrying" "head level with the V" and WALL never changed, the change was of who was leading who Chris. So, do you care to add to the others here Chris, and explain to us how Mitchell found that body in and around 10-15 seconds of entering that woodland. How did he know exactly where to go Chris? Then once you have managed to do this, care to explain to us how on earth his torch could see through trees, masses of foliage to give any of the descriptions he gave?
Still waiting on the spray explanation of course - No doubt now, fully put down to the dumb forensic team. All this inadequacy, dam Scotland is rife with the intellectually inept experts, are they not? Or, of you actually highlighting all your lies that the police told, yet picking another poster up for not giving examples around the Mitchells?
But, if you please, just two questions for you here, the first, explain Mitchell's miracle to us, then list all these unknown, unidentified profiles you mention over on IS? Three times of reading that book, one should surely be able to rhyme them off?
Why do you think AW and SK turned left after going over the V ? They both made it perfectly clear that they could not see where Luke had gone. Further when asked AW said that she didn’t know why she turned to the left. Was their choices suspicious as well?
-
Why do you think AW and SK turned left after going over the V ? They both made it perfectly clear that they could not see where Luke had gone. Further when asked AW said that she didn’t know why she turned to the left. Was their choices suspicious as well?
Still erasing Mitchell out then? - Erasing his "Down there ----" to where he had hidden that girls body earlier. Some 43ft west of that V break, several feet in from that wall, behind his "large Oak tree"
Scraping, clawing and lying your way through everything to ride on the back of that killer. They say it takes a certain type and you certainly fit that bill. Re-writing Mitchell, just how desperate a person are you? Far too personally involved to even think straight.
How does it go? The search trio corroborated Mitchells lies, the lies you erase out to have them change their mind to not corroborate the lies you erase out? - Are you on something?
I see you played the "experts card" over on the blue forum. That agree with you? is that, the first accounts are always the most accurate - Straight to the V break, to, straight to the V break. Mitchell, not quite 20 yards past to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" Or Jack and Victor? 'So they were all saying the same thing Jack?' aye, erm aye they were. - Liars, not experts at all.
16 mins, and people may very well think, plausible, around 16mins for the dog to pick something up. Nope, that is 16 mins of two lots of 8. The first which had Mitchell instantly initiate an actual physical search directly to that path. Borrowing torches of imaginary brothers. To walk that 7min distance and be on that path. Not a snifter of that stretch of road from where he claimed to idle for 90mins on a girl, according to your genius that was "prone" to not show up. Such intellect, not.
To drawing Jodi's family to that path, only that path, the ruse to search it. And in and around 8mins again, inclusive of that brief discussion, Mitchel instantly initiates the notion of that woodland as viable for his something to be found. Directly to that Gino break, directly in front, directly to the verge of that field and directly in front, directly to that V break and up an over. 10steps and bingo. In around 6mins of what is a 5 minute walk.
16 bloody minutes - To activate an actual search and to find that hidden body - Have a word! Fuelled with lies, his very precise lies to account for knowing exactly where to go. Your scraping and clawing, erasing out his lies, re-writing everything to deflect from Mitchell knowing exactly where that poor girls body was.
-
I see the Crown have rejected the latest petition for an independent review. The Cult are maintaining police corruption etc and the fight for justice, while the killer remains at large, goes on. SL is named as LM's legal advisor which shows the extent of desperation involved.
-
I see the Crown have rejected the latest petition for an independent review.
A petition that everybody and their granny could sign, from Alaska to Fiji. A petition that everybody could sign multiple times, with multiple e-mail address's. It was always going to fail based on these facts.
SL is named as LM's legal advisor which shows the extent of desperation involved.
Some of the flying monkeys may be desperate, unaware they are being used to keep the grift going.
-
Still erasing Mitchell out then? - Erasing his "Down there ----" to where he had hidden that girls body earlier. Some 43ft west of that V break, several feet in from that wall, behind his "large Oak tree"
Scraping, clawing and lying your way through everything to ride on the back of that killer. They say it takes a certain type and you certainly fit that bill. Re-writing Mitchell, just how desperate a person are you? Far too personally involved to even think straight.
How does it go? The search trio corroborated Mitchells lies, the lies you erase out to have them change their mind to not corroborate the lies you erase out? - Are you on something?
I see you played the "experts card" over on the blue forum. That agree with you? is that, the first accounts are always the most accurate - Straight to the V break, to, straight to the V break. Mitchell, not quite 20 yards past to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" Or Jack and Victor? 'So they were all saying the same thing Jack?' aye, erm aye they were. - Liars, not experts at all.
16 mins, and people may very well think, plausible, around 16mins for the dog to pick something up. Nope, that is 16 mins of two lots of 8. The first which had Mitchell instantly initiate an actual physical search directly to that path. Borrowing torches of imaginary brothers. To walk that 7min distance and be on that path. Not a snifter of that stretch of road from where he claimed to idle for 90mins on a girl, according to your genius that was "prone" to not show up. Such intellect, not.
To drawing Jodi's family to that path, only that path, the ruse to search it. And in and around 8mins again, inclusive of that brief discussion, Mitchel instantly initiates the notion of that woodland as viable for his something to be found. Directly to that Gino break, directly in front, directly to the verge of that field and directly in front, directly to that V break and up an over. 10steps and bingo. In around 6mins of what is a 5 minute walk.
16 bloody minutes - To activate an actual search and to find that hidden body - Have a word! Fuelled with lies, his very precise lies to account for knowing exactly where to go. Your scraping and clawing, erasing out his lies, re-writing everything to deflect from Mitchell knowing exactly where that poor girls body was.
For once could you just answer the question….and while you’re at it I think Mr Apples has some questions that he wants answered too?
-
A petition that everybody and their granny could sign, from Alaska to Fiji. A petition that everybody could sign multiple times, with multiple e-mail address's. It was always going to fail based on these facts.
Probably about 25 real people turned up for the petition handover which is probably a more realistic level of support the Justice campaign has.
Justice for Mark K and all the others who have been falsely accused by these loons.
-
And this extremely relevant factor has been played down by many people, who have chosen to suggest it’s normal for 14 year old, weed smoking, sexually actively (and sexually aggressive) teenage boys to ‘two time’
The extremely relevant factor, which again has been played down, is the fact killer Luke Mitchell denied it
Then attempted to pretend to TV cameras he was all about [Name removed]
*&^^&
So much so he couldn’t be bothered to phone her mother back during those 90 minutes he pretended to wait for her
Many journalists chose to focus their reporting on Judith Jones leaving the court upset after hearing this evidence instead of photos of previously worn khaki green parka jackets, and gigs/concerts and other such evidence for example
All apposite points, Nicholas. The Sky interview (as per the C5 doco footage) did not, imo, show LM in a good light -- teenager or not; he seemed, to me, like a young lad completely bereft of any emotion and very much detached from the enormity of the crime, which was very odd indeed for someone so young who was maintaining their innocence. If he was truly innocent of this brutal crime, then I don't think he'd be as calm, emotionless, impervious and monosyllabic as he was throughout the interview, but perhaps this is confirmation bias on my part. As for CM during said interview -- that's much trickier to deduce or read. She certainly looked strained and emotionally stressed and drained; but was this owed to her fear of being caught out helping her own son cover up a brutal murder, or owed to her fear of her son being falsely imprisoned for a particularly heinous crime? I definitely think the former. (And, btw, I don't think CM was being inappropriately tactile to her own son during the interview -- ie, stroking his back and the back of his hair -- as I think it was purely a mother's natural instincts kicking in, to reassure her youngest son that she fully supports him no matter what.)
Interestingly, some people have previously said that LM doing the Sky Television interview and attending Jodi's graveside signified a narcissistic personality -- the need to be in control and the centre of attention. I should add to this that LM was out at a nightclub called Studio 24 in Edinburgh the same week Jodi had died. It gets worse: not only out and about so soon & enjoying himself, but swaggering around town and boasting to school pals in Studio 24 that he was a murder suspect; LM was living off his notoriety, it would seem (there is an article in the public domain about this -- a school pal testified regarding LM boasting about being a murder suspect -- but I can't find it). Likewise, a former girlfriend of LM either testified or gave a newspaper interview, describing him being in the Woodburn area of Dalkeith like a 'strutting peacock' living off his notoriety just weeks after the murder (again, there is an old article in the public domain about this, but I can't find it right now). Anyway, this 'boasting' of being a murder suspect, literally only days after this poor girl was butchered -- and who was his girlfriend -- further reinforces how much he thought of himself and how little he thought of his girlfriend Jodi Jones.
-
So the police had photographs of Luke allegedly wearing the green parka before the murder yet never produced them in court?
Tell you what Mr Apples, I have a bridge that you might be interested in….special price just for you.
Another comment on Scott Forbes's most recent video with Premeditated Patter from a week or so ago indicated that LM''s dad Phillip said LM had that parka before the murder (Phillip apparantely had the exact same jacket and had worn it at a concert he went to with LM & LM's friends). So, it seems C Dobbie was 100% truthful when he told the press that relatives, friends, acquaintances and school teachers all gave statements saying he did own a parka before the murder). It seems that the more one delves into this case, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that LM did murder that poor girl. I'd go as far as to say that the parka jacket evidence is the most incriminating of all.
-
Another comment on Scott Forbes's most recent video with Premeditated Patter from a week or so ago indicated that LM''s dad Phillip said LM had that parka before the murder (Phillip apparantely had the exact same jacket and had worn it at a concert he went to with LM & LM's friends). So, it seems C Dobbie was 100% truthful when he told the press that relatives, friends, acquaintances and school teachers all gave statements saying he did own a parka before the murder). It seems that the more one delves into this case, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that LM did murder that poor girl. I'd go as far as to say that the parka jacket evidence is the most incriminating of all.
I have watched the video mentioned and I am didn’t hear either Scott Forbes or the presenter mention Luke’s dad in connection to a parka. Perhaps you can give an approximate time within the video we’re it was discussed.
Further in relation to the concert Luke was supposed to have attended wearing the parka, where did this information come from? More anonymous postings?
-
I have watched the video mentioned and I am didn’t hear either Scott Forbes or the presenter mention Luke’s dad in connection to a parka. Perhaps you can give an approximate time within the video we’re it was discussed.
Further in relation to the concert Luke was supposed to have attended wearing the parka, where did this information come from? More anonymous postings?
SF or the presenter never mentioned LM's dad saying he had a parka -- it was one of the people on the comments section that said it. I know the Youtube comments section is hardly a bastion of truth & integrity, but, Craig Dobbie is on record as saying relatives, friends, acquaintances and school teachers all gave statements saying that LM owned such a jacket pre-murder. Like I said, just because it isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it didn't happen. Furthermore, another girl I spoke to on there said her sister was a witness at court around the same time as KT -- both of whom who testified that LM did have that parka pre-murder and who provided photographic evidence of such to police. Doesn't all of this make you feel uncomfortable, FL? Surely they all can't be attention-seekers or mistaken?
-
SF or the presenter never mentioned LM's dad saying he had a parka -- it was one of the people on the comments section that said it. I know the Youtube comments section is hardly a bastion of truth & integrity, but, Craig Dobbie is on record as saying relatives, friends, acquaintances and school teachers all gave statements saying that LM owned such a jacket pre-murder. Like I said, just because it isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it didn't happen. Furthermore, another girl I spoke to on there said her sister was a witness at court around the same time as KT -- both of whom who testified that LM did have that parka pre-murder and who provided photographic evidence of such to police. Doesn't all of this make you feel uncomfortable, FL? Surely they all can't be attention-seekers or mistaken?
Can you imagine how valuable a photograph of Luke wearing a parka before Jodi’s murder would have been to the prosecution? Do you really believe that such a photograph, if presented in court, wouldn’t have been reported all over the mainstream media? Why even old Parky has confirmed that no photograph exists and he’s no friend of Luke.
I think you’ve been sold a pup but who am I to deny you the substantiation of guilt you are so obviously seeking. It is easier to fool a person than to convince them that they’ve been fooled….never a truer word.
-
SF or the presenter never mentioned LM's dad saying he had a parka -- it was one of the people on the comments section that said it. I know the Youtube comments section is hardly a bastion of truth & integrity, but, Craig Dobbie is on record as saying relatives, friends, acquaintances and school teachers all gave statements saying that LM owned such a jacket pre-murder. Like I said, just because it isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it didn't happen. Furthermore, another girl I spoke to on there said her sister was a witness at court around the same time as KT -- both of whom who testified that LM did have that parka pre-murder and who provided photographic evidence of such to police. Doesn't all of this make you feel uncomfortable, FL? Surely they all can't be attention-seekers or mistaken?
From my understanding I thought there were a few witnesses called to say Luke had a parka before the murder(did not think any were his family members though) If the police had photographs in their possession and provided at court the defence would have copies therefore does that not mean Sandra or Scott would have these? I really think the person saying they have photos has to be lying. They could sell them to the papers and make a fair bit of money I’d think lol. But if I seen a picture proving Luke had a parka before the murder that would be near enough case closed for me and many others. Also if Luke’s dad confirmed in court he had a parka that would definitely have been in the papers at the time, did any relatives give evidence in court on this? Sorry to say I really think you have been fed a pack of lies. Question is why people feel the need to make this rubbish up, if they feel the case was strong enough on the evidence given in court.
-
From my understanding I thought there were a few witnesses called to say Luke had a parka before the murder(did not think any were his family members though) If the police had photographs in their possession and provided at court the defence would have copies therefore does that not mean Sandra or Scott would have these? I really think the person saying they have photos has to be lying. They could sell them to the papers and make a fair bit of money I’d think lol. But if I seen a picture proving Luke had a parka before the murder that would be near enough case closed for me and many others. Also if Luke’s dad confirmed in court he had a parka that would definitely have been in the papers at the time, did any relatives give evidence in court on this? Sorry to say I really think you have been fed a pack of lies. Question is why people feel the need to make this rubbish up, if they feel the case was strong enough on the evidence given in court.
Nail on the head Bullseye….why?