New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[faithlilly]

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.

[KenMair]

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!

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Parky41]

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?

[faithlilly]

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?

[Parky41]

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.

[KenMair]

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.

[Rusty]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[KenMair]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[Mr Apples]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.