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: Parky41 on October 03, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 50/100 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.
Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place.
But those witnesses, rather no witnesses to this youth at the entrance of that estate or up to Barondale cottages from 5.30 until 5.55pm. Yet two witnesses seeing him at 5.40 near to the entrance of that path, and of course those other two witnesses seeing him at that path entrance to the woods. Wearing his very distinct blouson jacket. Where we know it takes approx 5mins to walk from that woodland entrance to the estate entrance, where he was seen by those boys on the cycles, touching 6pm. Where it could not be clearer. That the initial time for leaving home was to distance himself from those sightings, at places he did not want to be seen. But the timing of those calls, and his claims only highlighted those lies more - as there were people who had arrived home into the estate, coming from the Eskbank side of Newbattle Road. None of them nor his brother, or anyone else saw him at the places he claimed to be.
And most definitely not enough time to be cleaned up properly but he needed to be seen, and then we have that 15-20mins max. Where he placed himself exactly where he claimed to be always. The entrance of that estate up to Barondale cottages. Then nothing until he was in the boys company in those Abbey grounds. Where it shows clearly how easily noticed, on a stretch of road with little pedestrians. Several times in 20mins. Once by people from that estate who knew him.
So never that there were two youths the same, or of only catching sight of one of them - Not just by one person but four. Near to the entrance of RDP but no where else on that stretch of approx 550 yards. From 5.30 until 5.55pm - Then touching 6pm, up to 20mins saw readily, then nothing at all.
And we know that contrary to these claims of Jodi not being allowed out that evening, the evidence was that only LM knew she was getting out earlier than could have been anticipated, from any arrangement made from school that day. She had been on punishment which was lifted entirely upon her arrival home from school. She only contacted LM and she left home just short of 5pm to meet with him. That if it were him and not his brother in the house at 4.25pm, there was absolutely nothing that placed him home from this point. That he did not have to wait on those exchange of texts, simply been out and about, on his way even to her house. To wait until those chores, he thought she had to do, were over with.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans, morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.
Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.
Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.
Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3. For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.
Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him! Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.
And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.
So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.
Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.
And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:
Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.
AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.
But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
8((()*/
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
I’m impressed if you’re impressed Mr Apples but as you like asking questions could you please ask Parky why he said in times past that Luke wasn’t seen between 18.15 and 19.00 when he met DH yet on this very forum stated Luke was not seen between 18.15 and 19.30 when he met DH because I’ve yet to receive an answer. Could it be because 75 minutes seems more incriminating than 45? Oh while you’re at it ask him why the youth seen by AB is now beckoning to the female youth when recently he said that AB’s attention had been attracted to the couple because they were arguing.
The devil is in the detail you see and, unfortunately for Parky, I check the detail because, unlike yourself, I want a fair appraisal of the evidence not just someone to give me information to further bolster n opinion already formed.
And FAO Parky. The more your disinformation campaign is revealed the longer your posts become. Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.
-
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.
One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.
I wonder if when Luke made the first call to Jodi's landline he heard someone close by and didn't want to be heard so still with Jodi's body? I read the reason the officer during the reconstruction wore her hair down deliberately because Jodi's hair had been tied so anyonee else going forward claiming to have seen Jodi may mention that. AB said the female's hair was tied. I believe AB saw Jodi and LM.
-
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.
Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.
Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.
-
Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.
Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.
A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.
We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.
So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:
Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
-
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.
-
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.
It is possibly is a surprise. But it is very possible, though. I think you are being kind on your 2/5 minutes. It is only 250 yards, from this woodland to front door. IMO he could have done this in less than a minute with a brisk walk. Being exposed for a minute max, without being seen, is very possible. It was tea-time, people more likely in the back side of their houses in the kitchen. 7/8 house to pass, A lot of those houses also have brushes/trees covering any decent view to the main street. The opposite side of the street, had an 8-foot fence covering any decent view from the first floor of their houses.
-
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.
What absolute nonsense. The youth F and W saw was standing nonchalantly, leaning on a gate, looking like he had all the time in the world. He looked neither rattled nor out of breath…just a little bored. He didn’t try to hide his face and wouldn’t that parka hood he was allegedly wearing have been handy at that point to obscure his features? Two seconds more and he would have been totally obscured by the trees beyond the gate yet not one step further did he take, rejecting self preservation for a bit of a rest. Is that really believable? Would you act in that way, at that time?
What is notable is that ‘deer in the headlight’ was not seen by one other member of the public darting across that road which lead to the refuge of the woodland. That busy road, that peak time traffic…how difficult must it have been to dart between those cars, how conspicuous must anyone trying to cross that road at that time have been? Yet not one member of the public came forward who actually saw a boy like Luke darting between those cars…not one.
Of course there is a more coherent narrative and one that possibly fits what is known better. The jogger who put herself much further up the Newbattle road, towards the Abbey, than F and W claimed holds the key. They saw the youth and then a little further up the jogger…which would have put the youth at exactly the place Luke claimed at exactly the time he claimed. Of course there was also the witness who offered to provide a statement that RW had told people before her first statement that the youth that she had seen had been ‘at the entrance to the Abbey’ which ties in with not only other witness statements but also the position of the jogger.
A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.
We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.
So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:
Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
-
I refer you to a very telling quote from one of the ladies’ statements: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal and unambiguous that it was him once she saw his photograph in the newspaper. She effectively positively identified him; she was almost incredulous when she saw that picture. Very incriminating (and then the uneasiness and alarm that washes over you when you read and consider the rest of the circumstantial evidence that was led). Try as you might to deflect and nit-pick, FL, but crux of the matter here is that boy was acting odd, whichever way you slice it; simultaneously trying to act nonchalantly and also trying to mask his panic and guilt; a difficult task which evidently caught him out (not making eye contact, looking angry — it all made him look peculiar and the ladies’ attention was drawn to it like a magnet). As regards ‘dodging cars’ and looking ‘conspicuous’, well, as busy a road as it might’ve been, I don’t think it was that busy; a steady stream of traffic, sure, but not the ‘whacky races’ that you are trying to portray. Providence did not work in LM’s favour on the N’battle rd that day (and, let’s face it, the chances of him not being spotted on N’battle rd were slim at that time of day, though not impossible or highly unlikely). As I said, he must have been cussing F&W under his breath. The Scottish executive employee — who spotted him with the bomber jacket on at just after 1800 on N’battle rd — also noted his strange behaviour. The not making eye contact and looking suspicious as she slowed down to get a look at this. So he’d obviously changed the jacket by the time of her sighting, but still he was on tenterhooks. The guilt was still evident no matter how hard this drug-fuelled boy tried to disguise it; murder is hard work, after all.
So, yeah, from AB’s sighting, the beginning of their dispute witnessed by her at five to five, then it, presumably, escalating, until it reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall and heard by Leonard Kelly. The subsequent phone calls to the Joneses’ landline at 1738 (the setting of the alibi, just after he’d killed and mutilated her) and then, very likely, he proceeded down that stretch of woodland west until he emerged on to the N’battle rd, crossed the road to that wooden gate where, unlucky for him, he was spotted by F&W at 1745. Admittedly, there were flaws in this investigation, but, not to the extent where you can arrive at any other conclusion than guilty, imo. Logic tells you that Luke is guilty, imo.
-
Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there he time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
Thanks
-
It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.
Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place.
I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!
-
I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
-
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity, at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.
-
I'm not sure I understand your reply. I don't buy, he was only fourteen stuff. I believe if he hadn't had the opportunity at fourteen then he would have murdered, given the opportunity, at any age. A person is either capable or they're not because this wasn't a spur of the moment killing.
This was a fantasy and if he hadn't carried his fantasy out then, he would have in time and IMHO if he had walked free from court the same thing would have happened again to someone else's child. LM is genuinely sick or unable to be changed for the good. I don't think that kind of sickness can be fixed, it can only be controlled for the good of everyone else. I believe he should stay in prison for whole of life.
Now I'm thinking of the people who defend him. The people who have manipulated, lied, accused others, veiled or not, encouraged others to bully by their silence and all of the people whose lifes have been destroyed along the path of the campaign trail for supposed justice. What about their justice? So I think this is not about justice. It can't be because none of it is just. This is about something else IMO. Shame on them.
-
I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was it checked out and able to be innocently explained?
-
There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.
This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.
We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:
We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.
So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.
It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police. These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.
For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.
Parky, sometimes I really don't understand. Good days/bad
days. Some days I don't get it and some days I do. Today, I get it. Thanks for your replies and everyone who has replied to me and everyone else too. 8((()*/
-
I also have a question for Parky: apparantely a witness heard a scream coming from the woodland strip @ 2030 hrs on that fateful night and, consequently, the police, back in early July ‘03, called for people to come forward with possible info about it — placing particular emphasis on asking people who’d been in the area between 1700 - 2030 to come forward. (The parameters for the times for people who were in the vicinity to come forward were subsequently changed shortly after, to between 1700 - 2200, presumably to coincide with Jodi’s curfew, so the police had clearly noted the person’s statement regarding the scream and were taking it very seriously.) Can you shed some light on this, Parky? Was it checked out and able to be innocently explained?
Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.
For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.
If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:
That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.
Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.
Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.
Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.
Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.
MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.
"Neither description matches Luke or the descriptions given by Andrina Bryson, who described an older male with thick, messy, sandy brown hair, sticking up in a clump at the back" As late as August the 6th, Ms Fleming and Mrs Welsh were agreed that this youth had dark hair - it was a bright, sunny evening around 6pm on June the 30th, so the descriptions of dark hair can not be explained away by bad light"
A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.
Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:
LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it. Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.
Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.
The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.
So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.
-
“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”
Like 380 pages
-
“Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.”
Indeed.
Just look at the preceding post.
-
There you go, Parky - you've just been accused of being dishonest based on the length of your posts!
I would imagine directly accusing another forum member of being dishonest is probably a breach of the rules on most forums.
How many words has Dr Lean written on this case, btw? Using this kind of logic, Dr Lean must be extremely dishonest.
-
Easy words, rather empty however as per. The wonderful thing about psychology is that infinity behind reasoning of actions. Nothing bog standard. That approach used, the use of language for manipulation and deception however is not so easy to hide behind where lies are concerned.
Good to know however Faith has been studying myself to further her knowledge on the case, a compliment indeed?! You will hopefully have found some of the answers you seek, one being of course the reason behind the length of my posts. Mentioned on more than one occasion by myself over time. Very much to do with psychology. Happy researching now.
This 380 pages of using that psychological approach of self interest of others from the police up/down, whichever way one wishes to be led at any point. CB and that advice. When every legal avenue, loophole included has been exhausted then swaying public opinion is the way to go. Show the public that other people involved in the case may have been deceptive through self interest of their own. We have this book of large text where the majority of it is that, about these others. When of course there should be page upon page first and foremost of Mitchells innocence, most of which should be coming from himself. There is of course nothing to lean on here, for there is nothing to use. And it is in these areas, those untruths tumble over themselves repeatedly.
Pages upon pages of waffle around these others, phones, aunts, lasagne, what others were doing in the days before that murder (clearly not investigated then??). Then we go into those areas of actually discussing some of the finer points that are evidence, and it is a mess of contradictions.
F&W? - In short, cut that multitude of waffle and we have. The authors statement that these two witnesses were blatantly and heavily manipulated and influenced by the police. We can skip the areas of attempting to apply intellect when talking of "police speak". Influenced so much that the author claims with her own attempts at being analytical, that the person they described was nothing like Luke Mitchell. Her words. So this heavy influence saw two people describing someone that was nothing like Mitchell. It gets better, for she introduces the jogger (as Faith does). Claims, that if they saw both almost together then that sighting was further down and not at the gate. OK, so she then states, that it is exactly everything like Mitchell and at a place he always claimed to be! That is was in fact him they saw. Then as Faith does again, claims they had a witness whom was willing to put a statement into the SCCRC (why did they not then?). That F&W actually may have saw this person at the Abbey entrance, again where LM claimed he was?
So we have this rewriting again of the evidence that tangled web of contradictory deception - LM did not claim to be at the Abbey entrance at all until much later, just prior to going in to meet with those boys. F&W always stated of this gate, of the youth at a standstill. LM was as he claimed (eventually), sitting on a wall, not standing still against anything. And this jogger, whilst the author leaves out most of her route has them coming out of that estate, directly past where LM claimed he was sitting and did not see him, saw no one. Neither of course did his brother. - so in the authors own words, what she actually says "makes no sense" - aimed at this OTT attempt of casting doubt, being so caught up in it, that they do not even realise themselves, their own blatant contradictions. Which when being economical with the truth is often the case, they simply lose track of that clear deception?
So there you have a much shorter version of the pages of large text of F&W in that book. That is exactly what is being stated, condensed down. Where I took out a small excerpt in my previous post to highlight how easily and wilfully IMO, someone can have no problem in misleading the reader. Of that area being under the shade of trees, and of course the weather. Where other than the time of year, there is nothing to back up these claims of blazing sunshine! That even with the sunshine, people not wearing heavier outer garments, there is still that shade of those trees! And we can simply switch this to that nonsense of seeing him where he stated to be, out of the shade of those trees at the entrance of his estate - it is a mess.
As we have with the search trio, when you get the most avid supported of innocence, telling the reader/member "40yards, 20ft, parallel, no one cares" - Telling people to pay no heed in the slightest to the evidence, Mitchell himself gave. Of course we know why, for it is by his very own evidence suspicion fell upon him, remained there. He just lied and kept on lying. And in that very same fashion of his original defence not putting him on the stand, we have those defending him wanting his evidence left aside, not to be noticed. And as the author aptly describes, simply "air brushed over" That "half a Mars bar situ" repeatedly?
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
A little word play nothing more. Alluding to an attack on another person where the author simplifies it. Stating that all he did was launch half a Mars bar at the person. That in general all and everything of Mitchell is played down in the exact same fashion, brushed over and simplified. Where it becomes ludicrous pushing out that he was picked upon, that there was nothing at all to warrant why suspicion fell upon him. Where we have this repetition by those who take on board the contents of the book, and make statements such as 'wafer thin case, tunnel vision' and so forth. Leaving aside that clear evidence from Mitchell himself, air brushing him over. That staunch refusal to admit to anything at all.
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.
Just a thought.
-
While you’re here, Parky ..... do you think LM was at home during the landline calls between 1605 - 1625? Do you think he went out immediately after he called Scotts Caravans (presumably it was him who made that outbound call @ 1625, as it couldn’t have possibly been someone else?)? Or do you think he went out immediately after Jodi sent that first text @ 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than normal (i.e, she had no chores to do as punishment)? When LM did go out, do you think he used his push bike or was on foot? Do you think he had Parka on, on top of the bomber? Or just the Parka? Did he have dark trainers on as he left his house? Did he change back into the white trainers when he went home between 1745 -1800? Did he, in fact, go home at any point between 1745 - 2200?
What he did not have to do was be at home from that call at 4.25pm. He was not making dinner for the family and without doubt had already planned to meet with Jodi that evening. They spent every day/evening together, even when this girl had been fully grounded, he was allowed to visit with her at home. Outwith of course those weekends he may have been at his fathers.
Again what was clearly proven was that of time. He had up to 30mins to be in Easthouse's and no one knows exactly where LM was when Jodi texted him. He most certainly did not have to wait until the exchange of that last text. (as the author infers, first text simply could be 'I'm off my punishment, meet you about 5?') Obviously heading to that place of meeting once she had let him know that her punishment was lifted, getting out earlier than whatever time had been previously arranged from school.
Of going home and we look at what was needed. That complete change, of putting story/alibi into place with help. And we look at time - Around 60mins minimum from around 5.40 then from around 6.15pm. That realism that he was mere minutes from his house at any point on that road/woods from those sightings.
Interestingly and telling of course is the author speaking for him, on behalf of him, when she claims the call to his mother coming on 7pm, asking if Jodi had been to the house yet? Nearly 90mins after claiming he left home. (eventually) Claiming to be on this stretch of road between two points of around 50yards. Not at the Abbey entrance before this yet she easily inserts "he may have popped into the Abbey entrance for a smoke and out again to phone his mum, thus may have missed Jodi?" Those grey areas outwith one's comfort zone where the answer opens up other cans of worms - The first of course, those year long claims that LM was not smoking cannabis, thus could not have been the person Jodi had a smoke with. Coming out with excuses, willfully and easily to answer that stark reality that Jodi simply could not have gotten past him.
Reality of course that the call was not about asking his mother if Jodi had been to the door, but of course around whatever aid she she may have gave him in this cover up? That this lad would not have been phoning his mother about Jodi, but would naturally be contacting Jodi's home to see where she was. That a parent would be advising their offspring to make sure all was ok? Not simply shrugging their shoulders along with him. (claimed)
Therefore this going home over the evening, he certainly had time and he needed that change of clothing. He needed that alibi set in place and help with disposal? There are no witnesses to his whereabouts for expansive amounts of time. Not only this 60mins but of course not actually arriving home until 10pm and not just after 9pm as he claimed.
This dark foot wear where one is being led along the lines of black trainers? - black boots, army type boots (cadets). Again the author opens up these claims of MB, AB's brother in law, that he was saying to people that she had seen someone in army type clothing! That green khaki coat, German badge and black boots? And of course CM's mockery of burning big boots in a small burner? - this open burner with removable base, a fire pit that did not have to be contained within that brick surround? It is not at all surprising that nothing was found some 4 days later.
A lad who was forensically aware above all else would not have two coats on, that trace/transfer contamination. But above all, what this lad did not have was the luxury of copious amounts of time on his side. Those missing areas with no sightings are all the time he had, time he desperately needed. He was the only person to be with this girl and that needed covered for. As did that knowledge of no doubt knowing he had been seen.
And from here we can step into that concocted story, that alibi from minutes after 5pm until around 5.45pm. Of having him cooking prior to his mothers arrival and not leaving until after the F&W sighting. (handed this over on a plate, instantly, the exact times needed, only the murderer could have known for) Crumbled when that call he cut off from at 5.32 had actually been enough to be logged. The CCTV footage of his mother not arriving home until at least 5.15pm - and of course the complete shambles around SM.
Whilst many, and no doubt an avenue looked at by the police and prosecution of the possibility of this murder having an element of premeditation around it. That relevant ease (outwith the time), of managing to change and have himself seen in that very short period of time. Changed from one coat to another, dark footwear to distinctive lighter coloured snow boarding boots? This lad, as stated on the whole had every ability to think on his feet. To be calm and collective at all times.
Painting this picture (as his original defence attempted), of someone who clearly appeared unfazed, that a murder would not be acting in this manner - then one assumes all the Jury had to do repeatedly was look directly at him. Completely unfazed at all times. And not oddly at all has there ever been, not once any proof of this lad being heavily medicated. Not it in his interviews, not throughout that trial - nothing.
And I agree with Faith - looking at exactly what was proven, applying those times correctly, letting people see the finer details over the obtuse fallacy of reasoning applied. Not leaving out Mitchells own evidence. - and it is the biggest give away of all, having to leave out Mitchell where it really matters.
-
Maybe when deciding on someone’s guilt or innocence it’s better to rely on what can be proved rather than speculation.
Just a thought.
Speculation is synonomous with message forums; it’s inevitable, and interesting. Besides, this was an entirely citcumstantial case, so speculation was, and is, unavoidable. As I’ve indicated many times now, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. There, I deigned to respond.
-
Naturally looking for anyone to come forward who may have been in the vicinity of that woodland on the night of the murder, from 5pm onwards. Masses of information coming in and piece by piece sifted through, extracting the wheat from the chaff. A reported scream would be looked in to, was it innocent?, did it have anything to do with the murder?, then the simple answer is, yes innocent, as it had nothing to do with the murder.
For me these areas leaned upon to deflect are simply just that, deflection.
If people (majority do), look at the stark reality of that search and find that evening then there is no doubt that it was on the basis of special knowledge. Those mere minutes of being together, those mere seconds in that woodland and this claimed discovery. Where the victim is hidden, no one is searching those woods, no dog in it and Mitchells lies heaped on top. Where there is deflection around the police, that they may have thought he had left with Jodi, that they may have thought he was on his own searching, again deflection from reality:
That report of being missing, that attendance at the house filling in that missing person report and bang, found. To arrive at the scene, to see for themselves exactly where this girl was left and you can bet they were suspicious but not for the 'maybes' applied here. And they take those statements and there is that stark contrast in details. Then we add in how LM was when they arrived at locus, then we add in they (all) were actually there due to him, then we add in his calm collectiveness whilst going over that evening.
Then we add in those time differences, of Jodi leaving around 5pm and of Mitchell claiming he left at 5.45 to meet with her. Then we add in her mother stating Jodi should not have been there on her own, then we add in Mitchell claiming he knew nothing of this, claiming that she was walking that very area alone to his.
Then we add in that alibi and that constant change of events as each piece of new evidence came to light. That CCTV, those phone logs, the brother changing to match the mothers, at times she was not even in the house. It is a mess.
Then we add in those eye witnesses, not one but three who all positively ID LM as being the male they saw at either end of that woodland. Then we add in that missing parka that multiple witnesses testified to him having. Then we add in that missing knife, the skunting knife with the brown handle.
Then we add in each and every lie that Mitchell told, not one, not two but repetitive throughout. Then we can think of this convicted murderer, his mother and the allay, that friend. - And they fit together perfectly. Quite literally 'thick as thieves' Where the best way to get to any truth is it not, is to look for the lies.
MrSwah makes statements often, of how SL may get things wrong but they do not believe they would wilfully lie, mislead or be deceptive. Here is an extract from page 127 of IB.
A simple yet damning area. A very telling area of how easily a person can be wilfully misleading, blatantly dishonest IMO, as: The 30th of June that year (2003), was one of grey sky's. Overcast and lower temperatures. Leave aside the weather, how easy it is to simply implant the vision of sunshine for this time of year. Leave aside those people in thick hoodies, parka's and padded blouson jackets. Look up that gate on Newbattle Road, the place of the sighting by F&W. From before this area, almost all the way down to the entrance of LM's housing estate, it is under shade of the canopy of trees on either side of this stretch of road. There is exactly every reason for hair appearing darker, more so when we add in those descriptions of it appearing wet/gelled/greasy even. -And that stark reality that three people ID the exact same person.
Is this a simple error by the author? Is it hell as like as one had studied every inch of every place involved with the evidence of this murder. And you can take this type of blatant manipulation and you can apply it repeatedly. Let us look at another:
LM denied ever seeing that V break in the wall, any break, previous to that search that evening. I brought this up with SL who backed LM's claim by easily and wilfully stating. 'that I too had difficulty finding that V break the first time when searching for it' reason given, the overgrowth she claimed over/around it. Fine and dandy but not at all accurate is it? As we had with that summer sunshine that day. Backing up CM's claims of enjoying the weather out on her patio, where the author too (conveniently), claims she was also enjoying the weather out on the patio when she was suddenly soaked! But this V break, two of those breaks. The first being some 7ft up from the ground that LM saw easily that night, enough to scale the wall to look over into those woods with his torch. Onto the second break, that V and saw it instantly, straight to it with his dog and into those woods this time. Both in the dark, no blazing sunshine like the numerous other times of walking that path - but we know he was lying and we know he had been over that V many times, witnesses produced for this. And one can not fail to see the break when walking that path, not hard to find at all. But those 'thick as thieves' spot the liars? Or as stated, look for the lies and one will often see the truth.
Mainly of course when one is wilfully lying by omission - Leave out LM's map, leave out his clear lies of where he claimed they were on that path. Leave out his denial of being in the woods and of never seeing those breaks in the wall before, let us instead lie along with him? Back his lies by heaping more on top. This nonsense that they were all in agreement of dogs alerting and leading to Jodi - BS and blatant dishonesty. They were not lying on oath, they were stating as they always had, that LM had went directly to the break with his dog. And every single part of their statements from the off backed this to the hilt. That dogs head level with that V, the dog pulling at that wall directly at that break, that lead being handed over to AW, seeing LM on the other side and turning to his left. Nothing like LM's in the slightest. Of being some distance passed "not even 20yards" of being "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. Of drawing that map with X marks the spot, directly at the spot where Jodi lay, some 40ft+ down from that break. This pawing up on the wall, bounding, air sniffing. - completely and literally miles apart! in distance, description - he was lying.
The exact reason for that replica wall in the Lake Hall. To place LM exactly where he claimed to be, the search trio exactly where they always claimed to be. Taking that Jury to the locus, letting them see first hand, exactly, the lay of the land. Showing them LM's lies, showing them clearly and unequivocally that LM had special knowledge.
So this 'apparent' scream at 8.30hrs, absolutely nothing to do with this girls death, she had been dead and left hidden by Mitchell some 3hrs before this time. And there has been anything other that truth shown in any attempt to cast doubt upon his guilt. There is of course good reason for this blatant misrepresentation and of course downright lies at points. For there is nothing to show at all that Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Anyone can get caught up in doubt, the capabilities of any human being carrying out such atrocities, just look at Mitchell as a whole and apply any type of 'normal' to his behaviour throughout. - The very reason his defence did not put him on that stand, IMO.
Thanks again for your input, Parky. Btw, what about the sighting of the bike that looked similar to LM’s that day? What time was this at? Did your buddy who was at the trial tell you about this? Do you think LM cycled to meet Jodi? Do you know for a fact that the scream had nothing about Jodi’s death? Was it raised in court?
It’s interesting that DF never allowed LM to take the stand. As articulate and bright as this 14-year-old at the time was, this might’ve just been out of his depth. Or, as other people have mentioned, this seemingly detatched and impervious boy might’ve incriminated himself further with his deameanour, body language and attitude. Would be interesting to know what others think about DF not putting LM on the stand.
-
Speculation is synonomous with message forums; it’s inevitable, and interesting. Besides, this was an entirely citcumstantial case, so speculation was, and is, unavoidable. As I’ve indicated many times now, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. There, I deigned to respond.
I agree…the case as presented to the jury was, if not overwhelming, certainly compelling. Overwhelming would have resulted in a unanimous verdict, of course that’s not what we got.
I do wonder what would have happened if the media had not been given free reign with the police feeding them information or if identity parades had been carried out in the proper manner or if pressure hadn’t been exerted on Shane Mitchell or if Andrina Bryson had stuck to her original statement or indeed if the searchers had stuck to theirs and so many, many more anomalies in the conduct of this case that, if known by the jury, could have without a doubt brought back a very different verdict.
-
I agree…the case as presented to the jury was, if not overwhelming, certainly compelling. Overwhelming would have resulted in a unanimous verdict, of course that’s not what we got.
I do wonder what would have happened if the media had not been given free reign with the police feeding them information or if identity parades had been carried out in the proper manner or if pressure hadn’t been exerted on Shane Mitchell or if Andrina Bryson had stuck to her original statement or indeed if the searchers had stuck to theirs and so many, many more anomalies in the conduct of this case that, if known by the jury, could have without a doubt brought back a very different verdict.
I’m sitting here in company having a few drinks, but I’ll give this a bash. This is one of those unique cases where, simultaneously, a miscarriage of justice likely had taken place, but where the defendent is still guilty. Come on, Faith, admit it — you think he’s guilty. Deep down, you think he is — regardless of the flaws in the investigation. The police had to employ those seemingly unorthodox tactics in order to go ‘to-to-toe’ with an underhand, devious and intelligent teenager — the same teenager that needed no intervention from social workers. The identity parades would’ve, imo, resulted in the same outcome — i.e., “There’s the guy with the clumps sticking up at the back! That’s him. There he is!” Maybe not, though. The problem with identity parades, in this case, is that LM was still developing and going through puberty; he might’ve been unrecognisible by the time those ID parades came around. There’s a reason why statement changes are permissible in Scottish Law: people are initially affected by stress and trauma, and not all first accounts are the most accurate. Many, many more anomalies? Why not list ‘em, instead of glib generalisations? It sounded good, eh, Faith? In summation: the police may not have banked on Luke being Luke, but he and his family sure as hell didn’t bank on the police being the police; they were one step ahead. And thank god for that!!
Ps: Would you trust Luke Mitchell around your children, nephews and nieces? I unequivocally wouldn’t!
-
I’m sitting here in company having a few drinks, but I’ll give this a bash. This is one of those unique cases where, simultaneously, a miscarriage of justice likely had taken place, but where the defendent is still guilty. Come on, Faith, admit it — you think he’s guilty. Deep down, you think he is — regardless of the flaws in the investigation. The police had to employ those seemingly unorthodox tactics in order to go ‘to-to-toe’ with an underhand, devious and intelligent teenager — the same teenager that needed no intervention from social workers. The identity parades would’ve, imo, resulted in the same outcome — i.e., “There’s the guy with the clumps sticking up at the back! That’s him. There he is!” Maybe not, though. The problem with identity parades, in this case, is that LM was still developing and going through puberty; he might’ve been unrecognisible by the time those ID parades came around. There’s a reason why statement changes are permissible in Scottish Law: people are initially affected by stress and trauma, and not all first accounts are the most accurate. Many, many more anomalies? Why not list ‘em, instead of glib generalisations? It sounded good, eh, Faith? In summation: the police may not have banked on Luke being Luke, but he and his family sure as hell didn’t bank on the police being the police; they were one step ahead. And thank god for that!!
Ps: Would you trust Luke Mitchell around your children, nephews and nieces? I unequivocally wouldn’t!
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
-
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
-
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
She would and she does
-
“That ‘half a Mars bar situ’ repeatedly?”
You’ve alluded to this half a Mars bar several times in the past . . . what does it mean? What is its significance? Is it some kind of metaphor or comparison? Or was half a Mars bar used in evidence during the trial? Never read about it other than in several of your past posts. Just curious about it.
IMO, wouldn't have mattered what was thrown. The only time I have heard of half a bar of Mars being thrown was by SL on a YouTube video. If it was mentioned in court, I haven't read it. Only half a Mars Bar, mind? Not a whole one.
-
Unorthodox tactics? Such as?
Flaws in the investigation? What do you consider those to be?
Unrecognisable by the time the ID parades came about? Are you really suggesting that Luke would have changed beyond all recognition from the beginning of July to the middle of August? Really? May I suggest that it would take a transition the like of only seen in gothic tales of werewolves for that to be believable.
Further, according to experts, the first statements of witnesses are almost always the most reliable and also Andrina Bryson had suffered no stress or trauma and was simply trying to help so why would the timings in her first statements be unreliable?
More anomalies? LK not mentioning a strangling sound in his first statements.
Neighbours who knew Jodie claiming they saw her leave her house after 5pm.
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi.
No scratches or marks of a struggle on Luke.
Why when the parka jacket was such a main component of the prosecution’s case did the witnesses who allegedly saw Luke that evening not claim that their sighting was wearing a parka…in fact quite the opposite with Andrina Bryson.
The jogger not being where RW claimed.
And on and on.
Luke Mitchell had a parka. He changed his jacket. If not, why was Kane's parka so important? Kane didn't have a bomber jacket as far as I'm aware but he did have a parka. Had Kane had a bomber jacket we would all have known a long time ago. One boy, two jackets.
-
The parts I’ve highlighted in bold are what interest me. Certainly not enough to sway my opinion to innocent, but Bryson’s words here make me feel uneasy. She honestly initially thought LM was in his early 20s?? And the boy and girl she saw didn’t look like they were coming to meet?? Yikes!
The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed.
Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen.
Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path.
She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men.
She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.'
The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record.
Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen.'
Asked whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: 'I don't know.' Cross-examined by Mr Findlay, Mrs Bryson said when she saw the two people at the path entrance, the male had his arms at his side with his palms facing out towards the female.
She continued: 'It looked very strange. They didn't seem to be coming to meet.
'The girl was stopped and she was looking and the other person stopped and was looking. I just wondered, 'What's happening there'.'
Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.
Mitchell denies murdering Jodi by striking her with a knife or similar instrument.
He has lodged defences of alibi and incrimination to the murder allegation.
Mitchell also denies carrying a knife or knives and supplying cannabis.The trial continues.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
-
Realism - The youth ID as being LM in EasthoTuse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.
The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.
Parky41, if you are still out there, I'd be grateful if you could tell me where you heard about AB & LF & RW mentioning the German army badge on LM's jacket. I've probably read every single online news article there is in counction with this case, read all replies on various forums that discuss this case, read SL's IB, and yet I've never, not once, read a single thing about any of those 3 women mentioning the German army badge on LM's parka jacket. I know they all testified about seeing LM in a longish khaki, olive green parka type jacket (a jacket that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that he had owned before 30.06.03), but I've never read a single solitary thing about any witness referencing this badge. Anyone else on the forums have a cite for this?
-
Parky41, if you are still out there, I'd be grateful if you could tell me where you heard about AB & LF & RW mentioning the German army badge on LM's jacket. I've probably read every single online news article there is in counction with this case, read all replies on various forums that discuss this case, read SL's IB, and yet I've never, not once, read a single thing about any of those 3 women mentioning the German army badge on LM's parka jacket. I know they all testified about seeing LM in a longish khaki, olive green parka type jacket (a jacket that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that he had owned before 30.06.03), but I've never read a single solitary thing about any witness referencing this badge. Anyone else on the forums have a cite for this?
Well that of course is the never ending problem with the limitation of what can be sourced. - Very much why certain people have attempted to monopolise the case, manipulate around what they know is limited. The warning of those fearing the truth, the demand for cites and so forth.
Many people testified and many more gave statements around the Germany style khaki green army type jacket. I will draw your attention to something else here. The author makes inference of the police simply making up the statements around this, not true at all. Where of course we are left with the limits of what she has had access to, the manipulation around all else. Of what the defence may have retained to do with proceedings of witnesses at court.
It is mid-June 2003 and there is a 'gig' taken place in Edinburgh, a band by the name of "Ramage Inc" were playing. Many people attended this and many did give statements, and yes at court also. Most not used of course, simply no need. There was ample enough from different times, different connections and occasions who proved without doubt that coat existed and disappeared. So Ms Lean is wrong and no doubt she knows this.
LM attended this 'gig' with Jodi Jones and he was wearing his fashion, his style, his heavier outer garment, that Army style parka complete with German badge. It is mid- June and it is summertime.
As with the other witnesses, the time of year it was simply what he liked to wear irrespective of the weather. One can take themselves now to the 30th of June in these quiet suburbs. The East end in that lane, this youth in summertime wearing his fashion, his style. Odd enough to see in a place not heavily populated by many people walking around. We move forward around 45mins, a short distance away, to an area where it is extremely odd to see pedestrians, and there is this youth, in his fashion, his dress sense wearing that heavier outer garment - That Khaki green, army style jacket, army fishing style, whatever - The army highlighted by colour and that badge. Then we add in the hair the identifications of this male who was the same person, same clothing. It was LM wearing his style, his dress sense, his fashion.
We move forward to after the murder and he buys a new coat, in his style, his fashion, his dress sense, this heavier outer garment worn still in summertime.
We revert to those little clues, those contradictions that flow in IB. When one is attempting to highlight information around MB (AB's) brother-in-law, of telling people that she had seen this male dressed in army style clothing. And of F&W. And of the other witnesses.
And it does all tie together for many reasons - least not this lad, this youth who simply wore that clothing irrespective of time of year. Seen and Identified that day by three people, not one. In quiet areas, this was no coincidence, this was no mistaken Identity, this was without a doubt LM.
-
It is mid-June 2003 and there is a 'gig' taken place in Edinburgh, a band by the name of "Ramage Inc" were playing. Many people attended this and many did give statements, and yes at court also. Most not used of course, simply no need. There was ample enough from different times, different connections and occasions who proved without doubt that coat existed and disappeared. So Ms Lean is wrong and no doubt she knows this.
This ‘Ramage Inc’ ?
https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Ramage_Inc.
Formed in 2004?
-
This ‘Ramage Inc’ ?
https://www.spirit-of-metal.com/en/band/Ramage_Inc.
Formed in 2004?
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative? of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
Therefore yes, I assume it is one and the same band, certainly called the same although my brain cottoned on to 'Ink' as opposed to 'Inc' - Most definitely "Ramage --" and certainly that the drummer was a stand in at the time and connected to Jodi Jones.
The wonderful world of the grapevine, those many people through the years talking of LM and his "magic coat" as one innocent supporter calls it. To the point being made, that many people saw LM wearing this style, his fashion irrespective of the time of year. And he was certainly wearing his style that day when seen by AB and F&W. In those quiet suburbs in Midlothian. The very reason for the desperation in trying to split these sightings, attempting to make them into different people - They were not, they were of LM in Easthouses and around 45mins later on Newbattle Road. The very reason for an author who simply pushes out disinformation in an attempt to lesson the validity of these sightings:
Those clear lies of that bright sunshine and no other outside factors to make hair appear darker. Why does one assume this type of disinformation is wilfully spread? Reaching out to the wider public who would take no time to fact check this nonsense. That lane and area of Newbattle Road, both shaded. A day of grey skies but as one supporter states 'I know there are lies but I still believe ------' Fantastic stuff, how does one even begin then to know what is actually true? from someone who wilfully lies? In the exact same fashion as Mitchell of course, the abundance of lies flowing, how did the author even begin to determine what was true and false? Taken it on board and hiding those lies one after the other - This 'Truthseeker?'
-
Thanks once again for your reply, parky41. I never doubted that the German army badge was mentioned by those 3 women . . . it's just that I'd hitherto never read a single solitary thing about it. Did you read about it on that private group you are a member of? The group which has members who were at the actual trial?
And I agree about LM's hair colour appearing darker or lighter, depending on the weather. For example, in the pics of LM at Jodi's grave with his mother & LW, his hair appears a lot lighter and radiant -- like a platinum blonde colour -- due to the very sunny weather that day. This is in stark contrast to the colour of his hair in the pic of him leaving his house in NB Abbey Crescent wearing parka jacket number 2 (the probable replacement jacket that was bought about a week after the murder). In that pic, it was a very dull day and LM's hair looked considerably darker that it did in the graveside pic -- so much so that you could definitely excuse someone for describing his hair colour as dark (and even more so when matted down with hair gel as those 2 women mentioned when they saw the suspicious-looking youth at that gate on the NB Rd that day at 1745).
And on the subject of parka jacket number 2 -- what do you all think about it being purchased? It's very strange, isn't it? Obviously LM liked it, and was coddled and indulged by his mother (i.e, what Luke wanted, Luke got). Wasn't he and his mother worried that purchasing it would come back to bite them? LM was obviously aware that there was a strong chance that people saw him wearing it that day between 1645 - 1745. He and mother Corinne were probably very confident at that point that the purchase of a new jacket wouldn't be problematic as they had (probably, imo) destroyed the first jacket completely in a fire (or got SM to dispose of it some 7 or 8 miles away; it was ascertained that SM was at a petrol station 7 miles away on 30.06.03). They knew the jacket would never be found and knew there were no photos of Luke wearing it (if there were any such photos, they were probably burned too?). Perhaps purchasing that second parka jacket was a decoy of sorts, in that the Mitchells probably assumed the police would have assumed they wouldn't be so stupid to buy an identical jacket to the one LM was wearing when he murdered his girlfriend? Who knows. At the end of the day, I think the Mitchells underestimated the police and circumstantial evidence. What are your thoughts on the purchase of this second parka jacket?
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
It doesn’t clarify things at all. It simply makes your claim murkier.
‘Around 2003’? Rather ambiguous. Sounds as if the person writing the article doesn’t really know. As to the rest, yet again you fail to provide any proof beyond your word. Concrete proof of your claims may indeed clarify things.
-
Thanks once again for your reply, parky41. I never doubted that the German army badge was mentioned by those 3 women . . . it's just that I'd hitherto never read a single solitary thing about it. Did you read about it on that private group you are a member of? The group which has members who were at the actual trial?
And I agree about LM's hair colour appearing darker or lighter, depending on the weather. For example, in the pics of LM at Jodi's grave with his mother & LW, his hair appears a lot lighter and radiant -- like a platinum blonde colour -- due to the very sunny weather that day. This is in stark contrast to the colour of his hair in the pic of him leaving his house in NB Abbey Crescent wearing parka jacket number 2 (the probable replacement jacket that was bought about a week after the murder). In that pic, it was a very dull day and LM's hair looked considerably darker that it did in the graveside pic -- so much so that you could definitely excuse someone for describing his hair colour as dark (and even more so when matted down with hair gel as those 2 women mentioned when they saw the suspicious-looking youth at that gate on the NB Rd that day at 1745).
And on the subject of parka jacket number 2 -- what do you all think about it being purchased? It's very strange, isn't it? Obviously LM liked it, and was coddled and indulged by his mother (i.e, what Luke wanted, Luke got). Wasn't he and his mother worried that purchasing it would come back to bite them? LM was obviously aware that there was a strong chance that people saw him wearing it that day between 1645 - 1745. He and mother Corinne were probably very confident at that point that the purchase of a new jacket wouldn't be problematic as they had (probably, imo) destroyed the first jacket completely in a fire (or got SM to dispose of it some 7 or 8 miles away; it was ascertained that SM was at a petrol station 7 miles away on 30.06.03). They knew the jacket would never be found and knew there were no photos of Luke wearing it (if there were any such photos, they were probably burned too?). Perhaps purchasing that second parka jacket was a decoy of sorts, in that the Mitchells probably assumed the police would have assumed they wouldn't be so stupid to buy an identical jacket to the one LM was wearing when he murdered his girlfriend? Who knows. At the end of the day, I think the Mitchells underestimated the police and circumstantial evidence. What are your thoughts on the purchase of this second parka jacket?
So beyond Parky’s reassurance you still have no concrete proof of the German claim or perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.
Could you please point out what concrete proof you see that I don’t?
I hope you don’t mind me asking you another question? Of course you don’t have to answer but it is obvious you have doubts, pertinent doubts, about the evidence in this case and you make some excellent points. However you seem to be rather easy to convince that those doubts are not justified, without being given even the merest scintilla of provable facts. Why is that? What are you more interested in, simply upholding the status quo or actually knowing the truth?
-
Therefore yes, I assume it is one and the same band, certainly called the same although my brain cottoned on to 'Ink' as opposed to 'Inc' - Most definitely "Ramage --" and certainly that the drummer was a stand in at the time and connected to Jodi Jones.
Quite a coincidence that. So who was the drummer connected to Jodi…this stand in? Was it Mat Orrock, who was the band’s drummer from it’s formation until 2007, or Casey McManus, his replacement, or perhaps some other drummer who made one, random, appearance and was, almost unbelievably, connected to the murder victim?
And not one report in any of the newspapers of any witness from this concert, not one, which is odd as the jacket played such a pivotal role in the prosecution’s case.
It would be useful if you could provide a link to this, interestingly, secret group where the ‘real’ evidence is allegedly discussed that others believe that you have access to. Odd that you haven’t done it up until now.
-
So beyond Parky’s reassurance you still have no concrete proof of the German claim or perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.
Could you please point out what concrete proof you see that I don’t?
I hope you don’t mind me asking you another question? Of course you don’t have to answer but it is obvious you have doubts, pertinent doubts, about the evidence in this case and you make some excellent points. However you seem to be rather easy to convince that those doubts are not justified, without being given even the merest scintilla of provable facts. Why is that? What are you more interested in, simply upholding the status quo or actually knowing the truth?
Firstly, the German army badge matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things. Eight separate witnesses testified in court that he owned a green parka jacket that AB, RW & LF saw him wearing on 30.06.03 (and these 3 women unequivocally & positively id'd LM on that fateful day; I am 100% convinced it was LM at both ends of that path between 1655 and 1745 -- 50 mins to murder, hide and carry out those mutilations). Secondly, I don't have doubts. You are putting words into my mouth. I've stated many times on here that the circumstantial evidence against was overwhelming and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. However, it was a purely circumstantial case, so there is still the possibility that LM, in fact, wasn't responsible (about a one in a million chance, imo, as per the circumstantial evidence).
I knew nothing of this case until the C5 doco last year. After only 2 weeks of research, I was convinced that LM was guilty. After a further 9 months, I was absolutely certain he did it. Yes, I concede that Parky41's extensive, eloquent and informative posts have been, to an extent, instrumental in shaping my opinion. But, I do not treat his posts as some kind of Bible. As you say, it would be nice if he would confirm what this private group was/is and provide cites for these seemingly obscure pieces of evidence (eg, SM being at a petrol station 7 to 8 miles away that night, LM appearing cleaner than normal that night, LM's bedroom looking as though it had been cleaned when the police swooped on it and raided it, LM's bike being spotted at a school gate, those women referencing the German army badge on the green parka jacket and, last but not least, those multiple partial profiles thought to be from LM as per the law of averages).
-
Rather than create a separate thread, can someone confirm if Luke and Jodi had had an argument in school that day (30.06.03)? I read on the blue forum that they had and that apparantely they were spotted by fellow school mates in the China Gardens, unusually, with their backs to one another and not talking. Can anyone expand on this? It's quite important as it ties in with what her best friend Kirsten Ford said of her being quieter than normal at school that day (cite below) and AB seeing them arguing at 1655 hrs at the entrance to the Easthouses end of RDP. Their argument earlier at school had continued when they met up at this point and reached its horrific climax at 1715, whereupon LM snapped and murdered Jodi in an episode of uncontrollable rage and psychosis -- rage and psychosis largely induced by excessive cannabis usage?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
Firstly, the German army badge matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things. Eight separate witnesses testified in court that he owned a green parka jacket that AB, RW & LF saw him wearing on 30.06.03 (and these 3 women unequivocally & positively id'd LM on that fateful day; I am 100% convinced it was LM at both ends of that path between 1655 and 1745 -- 50 mins to murder, hide and carry out those mutilations). Secondly, I don't have doubts. You are putting words into my mouth. I've stated many times on here that the circumstantial evidence against was overwhelming and I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. However, it was a purely circumstantial case, so there is still the possibility that LM, in fact, wasn't responsible (about a one in a million chance, imo, as per the circumstantial evidence).
I knew nothing of this case until the C5 doco last year. After only 2 weeks of research, I was convinced that LM was guilty. After a further 9 months, I was absolutely certain he did it. Yes, I concede that Parky41's extensive, eloquent and informative posts have been, to an extent, instrumental in shaping my opinion. But, I do not treat his posts as some kind of Bible. As you say, it would be nice if he would confirm what this private group was/is and provide cites for these seemingly obscure pieces of evidence (eg, SM being at a petrol station 7 to 8 miles away that night, LM appearing cleaner than normal that night, LM's bedroom looking as though it had been cleaned when the police swooped on it and raided it, LM's bike being spotted at a school gate, those women referencing the German army badge on the green parka jacket and, last but not least, those multiple partial profiles thought to be from LM as per the law of averages).
After two weeks of research you were convinced of Luke’s guilt?
After weeks of hearing ALL the evidence for and against Luke the jury still couldn’t come to a unanimous decision with regard to his guilt. Yet here you are convinced of his guilt after reading snippets of testimony in the tabloids and unverifiable ‘information’ from Parky. Can you see the problem?
-
Rather than create a separate thread, can someone confirm if Luke and Jodi had had an argument in school that day (30.06.03)? I read on the blue forum that they had and that apparantely they were spotted by fellow school mates in the China Gardens, unusually, with their backs to one another and not talking. Can anyone expand on this? It's quite important as it ties in with what her best friend Kirsten Ford said of her being quieter than normal at school that day (cite below) and AB seeing them arguing at 1655 hrs at the entrance to the Easthouses end of RDP. Their argument earlier at school had continued when they met up at this point and reached its horrific climax at 1715, whereupon LM snapped and murdered Jodi in an episode of uncontrollable rage and psychosis -- rage and psychosis largely induced by excessive cannabis usage?
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Can you provide a cite regarding your claim that AB had said the couple she saw looked like they were arguing?
-
Can you provide a cite regarding your claim that AB had said the couple she saw looked like they were arguing?
The info in this article regarding AB's eyewitness testimony is a tad ambiguous, but, as per the circumstantial evidence in its totality, I'm of the opinion that the the two people 'who didn't look like they were coming to meet' were Luke and Jodi. Yes, we know that Jodi left her home to meet Luke in a happy mood, but they had an argument to resolve that began in school earlier that day (if someone could confirm that this young couple had had an argument in school earlier that day, that would be great). I believe the argument started again almost as soon as they met up again at that path. I don't think a random stranger with murder on their mind would be standing with their hands by their side gesticulating to their potential target/victim in broad daylight at the top of a path that was facing on to a busy road; and, likewise, I don't think Jodi would be standing looking, even momentarily, at a total stranger who was inside a pathway heading into a secluded path bordered by fields and a woodland strip. Bit of a coincidence that the guy had messy, shoulder-length hair sticking up at the back, had that jacket on that numerous people testified in court that he had owned and worn prior to 30.06.03, that Jodi had arranged to specifically meet LM earlier than normal and him alone, that his very own brother said he never saw him in the house at that crucial timeframe between 1645-1715 and that his own brother admitted that he would not be looking at those images (porn downloaded from his PC) and masturbating had anyone else been in the house at that time, that, above all else, AB said she was as sure as sure as she could be that it was LM in that book of photographs the police presented, that she said she was taken aback by how much the person she saw in a pic in a newspaper looked like LM. Far too many coincidences, imo. It was LM, imo.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
-
The info in this article regarding AB's eyewitness testimony is a tad ambiguous, but, as per the circumstantial evidence in its totality, I'm of the opinion that the the two people 'who didn't look like they were coming to meet' were Luke and Jodi. Yes, we know that Jodi left her home to meet Luke in a happy mood, but they had an argument to resolve that began in school earlier that day (if someone could confirm that this young couple had had an argument in school earlier that day, that would be great). I believe the argument started again almost as soon as they met up again at that path. I don't think a random stranger with murder on their mind would be standing with their hands by their side gesticulating to their potential target/victim in broad daylight at the top of a path that was facing on to a busy road; and, likewise, I don't think Jodi would be standing looking, even momentarily, at a total stranger who was inside a pathway heading into a secluded path bordered by fields and a woodland strip. Bit of a coincidence that the guy had messy, shoulder-length hair sticking up at the back, had that jacket on that numerous people testified in court that he had owned and worn prior to 30.06.03, that Jodi had arranged to specifically meet LM earlier than normal and him alone, that his very own brother said he never saw him in the house at that crucial timeframe between 1645-1715 and that his own brother admitted that he would not be looking at those images (porn downloaded from his PC) and masturbating had anyone else been in the house at that time, that, above all else, AB said she was as sure as sure as she could be that it was LM in that book of photographs the police presented, that she said she was taken aback by how much the person she saw in a pic in a newspaper looked like LM. Far too many coincidences, imo. It was LM, imo.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+HEARD+STRANGLING+NOISE+NEAR+JODI+PATH%3b+Cyclist+tells+death+trial+of...-a0125547921
Let’s look at the actual evidence you have presented.
You have posted no evidence that AB ever claimed that the couple she saw were arguing.
You extrapolate Jodi’s friend’s comment that, with hindsight, she was quiet on the day of her murder to validate your claim that she and Luke had argued that day. Even if Jodi had been quieter on that day there are numerous reasons why this could have been the case. With the greatest respect your conclusion is simply not supported by the known facts.
As I’ve pointed out before there is multiple problems with AB’s sighting, or at least the sighting that was latterly used in court. AB never at any time claimed the youth she saw wore a parka jacket, in fact she specifically said that it wasn’t. That she also described the clothing worn by the female she saw as crucially different from Jodi’s known attire is also problematic. That she thought the male she saw was in his early 20s when all photographs of Luke at the time prove that he did not look older than his age should also give those studying this case pause for thought. I think it’s one of the most telling moments of the trial was when AB refused to identify Luke as the youth she saw.
The timings of AB’s journey to and from the supermarket that day also only make sense if the ones she gave in her first statements are correct. Of course that being the case she could not have seen the couple she saw at the time the prosecution said.
The time Jodi left the house is also disputed by at least one of her neighbours.
As to AB’s identification of Luke via the photograph presented by the police, multiple experts have said that the way this identification was carried out was against police guidelines. Further after AB had made her initial identification, even if it was heavily weighted against Luke, it is then no surprise that she identified him again in the newspaper. I’d have been surprised if she hadn’t.
-
I thought I read that Jodi was "chuffed" to be meeting Luke that afternoon. That suggests to me that either they did not fight at school or that it was trivial. The problems within the testimony of AB were also discussed at the International Skeptics Forum under the Luke Mitchell section of the Trials and Errors sub-forum.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
Your 'nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
The point is that you are spreading misinformation. I have a close relative, rather younger than me, who followed the band you mentioned. There were no gigs mid-June where a stand-in band member was needed…that’s a fact. Having asked I’m told that the band didn’t perform live until much later than you’ve claimed and that their drummer was in place from their formation until 2007 and that he played each and every live gig.
Your ‘nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
What is interesting is that almost all the information you supply appears to only have been mentioned by you. Not the newspapers, not news reports, no members of forums, in fact no one else but yourself. And are we really meant to believe that there is a secret forum that no one else interested in this case has ever had access to which, handily, has members who were actually at the trial? Really? That is manipulation of course, trouble is you’re not very good at it.
As to the khaki jacket, all these witnesses testifying about a vital plank of the prosecution’s case and it’s not reported..ANYWHERE?
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
It’s not what I or you believe but what we can provide evidence for and I’m afraid with you that is more often than not not much. Further surely if Luke had worn his beloved parka as often as suggested then his closest friend would have been in no doubt about its existence. ‘Would not and could not state that he had never seen’ surely is really just saying ‘I could have seen him but I’m not sure’?
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
How many of the original witness statements have you had access to?
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
Deflection.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
No cites, no proof, just your word. I think it is rather you who demands blind faith.
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
-
I thought I read that Jodi was "chuffed" to be meeting Luke that afternoon. That suggests to me that either they did not fight at school or that it was trivial. The problems within the testimony of AB were also discussed at the International Skeptics Forum under the Luke Mitchell section of the Trials and Errors sub-forum.
Things can change in an instant... especially if they argued about Luke's bit on the side, at their evening tryst.
-
Things can change in an instant... especially if they argued about Luke's bit on the side, at their evening tryst.
They can but there is no evidence that they did. BTW when did Jodi find out about Luke’s ‘bit on the side’? She was described as upbeat when she left the house.
-
But there you have, does it matter if you believe anything I may say - Absolutely not. The irony of course that you claim I am spreading disinformation, how could you possibly know that Faith? You don't and I am not. So this truth, this absolute fact, that LM with Jodi Jones attended a 'gig' mid-June 2003 to see that band. That and again, absolute fact, LM was wearing said coat, never to be seen again from the day of the murder.
Your 'nowhere in the media does it say -------' Exactly the point once more, that reliance for manipulation to play around what can be sourced, and banking upon that which one hopes can not be sourced. Intelligent? Over four hours of evidence each day, and isn't it just terrible that the media did not choose to report every word, deciding to put out other news too!
Absolute fact once more, that even limited intelligence can digest. Now I wonder why the defence did not retain every single word, of every statement they accessed. How much proof of that jacket would serve beneficial to trying to cast doubt about him having one!! In excess of 8 people from different occasions/connection chosen to represent each, from groups of more. One teacher, do you actually believe there was only one who gave a statement of seeing Mitchell in that coat - Of course you don't, not even you are that gullible, surely? Fact again, his closest friend, would NOT and could NOT state they had never seen Mitchell in his lovely 'magic coat'
The reliance and manipulation of media articles, tabloids included of course. They mystery man, where the author works solely from the information obtained from a newspaper report. Has NOT read any statements from the two independent people, from the time. Guesswork and one big IF of when they MAY have come forward. Statements are dated. The attempt at ripping to shreds the outstanding eye witness testimony, of three people, not one, seeing LM that day in that lovely green khaki coat. To Ms Leans manipulation of an impossible identity made upon a male from Jodi's funeral. Vague she claims this witness was towards the SCCRC, no Faith it is the author who has to be vague, in the same fashion as no bike being seen at any V break, the manipulation around an impossibility. The only thing that actually matters is what that person actually did say some 9 weeks later and why it was not credible.
The utter hypocrisy, wilful deceit put out to cause harm to other human life, that same kindred spirit, enabler riding on the back of a convicted killer, doing his bidding. NO member of Jodi's family carried that girls coffin, it was the funeral directors. At no point was there any type of identity parade like the real deal where she manipulates this into ' a group of males all dressed the same' or from 'footage where they saw males at different points' to the ultimate 'I am not sure carrying the coffin is accurate' - Dam right it is not, not that the person did not say this, simply that it was far from accurate, impossible.
To your, and again that reliance to manipulate, banking on what exactly? That people have simply remained mute over the years! That if the truth is brought to light then it must be opposed, cites demanded or some guessing game as to how they know the actual truth. Your blind faith or manipulation of the truth? A neighbour saw Jodi Jones going home one day, walking along the Easthouses road after coming off the school bus, the time was around 4:10pm. A girl who knew Jodi by sight also saw her just after 4pm, just after getting off the school bus on Easthouses road.
NO Jodi Jones identified as walking along the Easthouse's Road around 5pm on the day she died. And as the author clearly states when moving on to her next contradictory point. "There was no evidence whatsoever of the route Jodi took that day" There is good reason for this Faith, for there were NO positive, confirmed sightings of that girl. The girl with the pushchair saw NOTHING, took her time in going forward, for she was NOT there around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003. The high five guy Faith HAD been on that stretch of road, exactly where the person claimed to see them, just NOT around 5pm on the 30th of June 2003.
So a media article, a totally discredited sighting in every sense, has today those arms and legs, that attack upon human life, due to lies and manipulation, of [Name removed] and a claimed photo of him carrying his sisters coffin, a backpack carrying a "whopping big bowie knife" - The deceit, the comedy of errors born from manipulation and reaching its climax with LM's new legal rep! in the shape of Malcolm X.
This is the clear type of people/person that is needed, enablers to carry out all sorts of attacks on behalf of LM - credible! honest! Give over will you. But as you say, the press did not report on it, so it must be lies! Soaking up every word accurate or not, leading from the sensationalism of a headline to draw the reader in, and still the limited braincells fail to connect!
Conned is the word and Nicholas is spot on with innocence fraud. But please, it you keep bleating out for cites, then why the hell are you even making any type of decision upon this case, with limited resource and pure blind faith, with no proof, no cites, nothing. This case has those spearheading it for a reason, it is not going to gain some review, the only thing that will be picked up upon any support gained, is the tactics, the deception in conning people.
level of intellect and the new group slogan "A Fact a day keeps the false facts away" - I rest my case ;-)
Chris - Really? Do you actually keep up with the hypocrisy around eye witness testimony in this case? Later.
Parky, with all due respect, providing cites and links is part of the forum's rules !!!
-
They can but there is no evidence that they did. BTW when did Jodi find out about Luke’s ‘bit on the side’? She was described as upbeat when she left the house.
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
-
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1)
The link didn't work for me, so I just cut Google reference out...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1)
-
Faith, happy to have been of assistance to your young relative. The 'gig' happened and Luke with Jodi attended.
We can simply apply context of what would certainly have made her (Jodi) upbeat that day. This girl had been carrying out different forms of punishment over a course of weeks, still semi grounded until she completed daily chores. Her arrival home from school that day saw that punishment lifted in full, her time once more her own.
She had no phone, she had not been using her mothers phone nor landline daily, to arrange any meetings with Mitchell over the course of time her phone was broken, she had been making arrangements with him at school around times to meet. Chores completed by around 6pm and it is from this we can apply their recent 'normal' time of meeting being just that. Changing that day and contacting him, she did not have to wait, she was free to go out at this earlier than could have been anticipated time.
No phone logs produced (over the broken phone period) to back up Mitchells claims that there was no pre arranged meeting time, that he had to make dinner and did not go out until around 6pm. He may very well have stayed home for dinner but it was around when Jodi was allowed out, he had no restrictions as such. Again, one is being asked to believe that the older brother, normally home well before Luke would have the 14yr old making his dinner for him. If dinner was usually over by 6pm in the Mitchell home, it is indictive of the mother making it upon her arrival home. The boys perhaps helping at points with preparation, peeling the "totties" for instance.
KT and Jodi, the two girls in Mitchells life, one showering him with adoration in person, the other hanging onto his every word with that constant communication by phone. It is not about Mitchells feelings towards these girls, it is about their feelings, how they felt their place was in his life. Absolutely nothing to do with, 'he was hardly in love, not demanding to go see her, travelling those couple of hours' It is about the deceit, trying to distance himself from any involvement with KT, lying about the relationship and constant communication, of planning to meet with her once more in the school break. It has everything to do with a young girl and having her trust broken. Of adoration turning to confrontation and accusation, upset and wanting to have it out with him. Being allowed out earlier than anticipated would have been beneficial to releasing those pent up feelings, having that 'set to' sooner rather than later! - So yes, it is not at all difficult to realise why this girl was upbeat that day.
Contacting one person only and that person was LM to let him know of this change. Leaving home shortly afterwards to meet with him. LM seen with this girl at the lane tying in with her confirmed time of leaving home. She had no phone, no means of contacting anyone else. That phone plays a key part to several things;
A young girl who knew what danger was, articulate and bright. The ban on that path, of placing herself into dangerous situations. She had no phone, no security, no back, no means of reaching out for help. And again, the person she was leaving to meet knew this, her killer knew she had nothing to reach out with.
The utter nonsense, the complete bollocks - Of a boy who knew of that ban, knew the dangers of that path, knew his girlfriend had no phone, no security, no back up - Claiming to have simply hung around for the best part of 90mins, her non arrival in Newbattle and toddling off to see his pals. Instantly back on the phone to them, chasing them up, wondering where the hell they were! He was setting alibi in place, plain and simple.
And please with the repetitive bleat of pass the buck. Jodi's family were blindsided, it was early evening, around dinner time, they had no idea if Luke was simply running late, where Jodi may have been waiting for him "Up here" The grans, anywhere but that path. That is the difference, massively. That without a doubt, that no further call from Mitchell had her family believing fully they had met and were spending the night together. The first person contacted when her curfew time past by, was LM. Of meeting with LM and asking him why? Why had he not called back wondering where Jodi was? His answer and used at trial "I thought ? you had grounded her ----------" Telling others the same, of "not coming out" and "being grounded again"
So one family, her mother/father believing the two were together, absolutely nothing to alert them to any danger, no thought of going to Newbattle, of using any path alone, simply nothing. To and please - A lad knowing of the ban, the dangers, of having no phone. Claims of meeting in his end with many dangers on the way. Of claiming to simply hang about in one spot, going nowhere near that path of course (The F&W sighting), for around 90mins. Being asked to believe that not only would any other normal type of boy, simply have walked the route in reverse to meet on the way. But did not bother, thought of no dangers and on it goes. To the boys and chasing them up, phoning them back within minutes of no arrival. To that claimed call to his mother of asking if Jodi had been, the claimed jokes shared, but nothing from a parent, again aware of those dangers. To that lie of coming home around 9pm and again, that brush off from a parent, 'oh she will have got caught up gabbing' For goodness sake he was NOT even in the house again. Not arriving home until 10pm - But the point, from him, his mother, the parent, absolutely no concern. - There was none for Jodi was already dead by his hands! Winging it and making it up.
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it. that outstanding circumstantial case. Caught in their own web of deceit, continuously. Blaming others! Picking on him, singling him out - As bloody IF. Which of course the bulk of the manipulation is around, one big massive almighty IF! Starting with IF the enablers of this killer are being honest with you. Try starting from there?
-
Probably that morning in school (hence why they had their backs to one another in the China Gardens and not talking). Jodi's phone was broken that day, so one plausible theory is that she used LM's phone quite a lot that day and found communications between the two.
Here's a link re LM's bit on the side:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
I think it’s an accepted fact now that there was an overlap between Luke’s romantic tristes…I’m sure it’s not a particularly unusual occurrence in the life of a teenage boy. Have their cake and eat it…there’s very few teenage boys who wouldn’t indulge.
Still nothing by way of evidence that they had actually rowed. Jodi had used Luke’s phone that day…was that before or after they’d rowed ? Oh wait it must have been before or why would he have let her use it? Hold on, why let her use his phone at all if there was texts from another girl on it? Further if Jodi had found something incriminating on Luke’s phone at lunchtime why was she so upbeat at home and when leaving to meet Luke? Surely she would have confided in someone about a body blow like that? Her friend? Her mum?
It really doesn’t convince, does it?
-
https://www.concertarchives.org/bands/ramage-inc
Ramage Inc. Concert History
5 Concerts
Ramage Inc. is a progressive metal band from Edinburgh that formed around 2003. The band was formed by Bryan Ramage for the purpose of bringing life to his musical work on stage. Together with his faithful musical companions, the music takes on a new level of energy and elegance in a live environment. Devin Townsend, Vast, Nine Inch Nails, Deftones and Opeth are all cited as being big influences.
Actually they formed together before 2004. Here is a little further information for you that I have been supplied with. The drummer who played at the 'gig' that LM went to with Jodi Jones was a relative of Jodi's thus the reason they went to see them. The band needed a replacement drummer to help at the time.
Hope that clarifies matters for you
Don’t tell me - abuser & con artist Sandra Lean also omitted this from IB ?
-
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it.
Wonder if Shane Mitchell has ever told anyone what he knows ?
-
Faith, happy to have been of assistance to your young relative. The 'gig' happened and Luke with Jodi attended.
Parky, Parky, Parky, a ‘gig’ may have happened but not with the band claimed who weren’t even paying live at that time.
We can simply apply context of what would certainly have made her (Jodi) upbeat that day. This girl had been carrying out different forms of punishment over a course of weeks, still semi grounded until she completed daily chores. Her arrival home from school that day saw that punishment lifted in full, her time once more her own.
Absolutely. Upbeat because she was, at last, able to see her boyfriend in the way she wanted. No suggestion that she had found out about Jodi’s ‘other woman’.
She had no phone, she had not been using her mothers phone nor landline daily, to arrange any meetings with Mitchell over the course of time her phone was broken, she had been making arrangements with him at school around times to meet. Chores completed by around 6pm and it is from this we can apply their recent 'normal' time of meeting being just that. Changing that day and contacting him, she did not have to wait, she was free to go out at this earlier than could have been anticipated time.
Not what her mother said, under oath.
‘The pair would usually make arrangements to meet by text message and Jodi would sometimes visit Luke's house. Jodi was usually a good timekeeper who would observe curfews imposed by her mother, the court heard.’
There certainly doesn’t seem anything to suggest that there was any fixed time for them to meet.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html
No phone logs produced (over the broken phone period) to back up Mitchells claims that there was no pre arranged meeting time, that he had to make dinner and did not go out until around 6pm. He may very well have stayed home for dinner but it was around when Jodi was allowed out, he had no restrictions as such. Again, one is being asked to believe that the older brother, normally home well before Luke would have the 14yr old making his dinner for him. If dinner was usually over by 6pm in the Mitchell home, it is indictive of the mother making it upon her arrival home. The boys perhaps helping at points with preparation, peeling the "totties" for instance.
Rather counterproductive for Luke to wipe anything from his phone when he would have known that there would have been the corresponding messages on Jodi’s mum’s phone, don’t you think? Further strange that the corresponding texts weren’t found on Judith’s phone…why was this? The most plausible reason to me is that Jodi, having texted Luke to say that she would come to him then deleted the texts knowing her mum would not be pleased if she knew that her daughter was going to use that quiet, isolated path.
KT and Jodi, the two girls in Mitchells life, one showering him with adoration in person, the other hanging onto his every word with that constant communication by phone. It is not about Mitchells feelings towards these girls, it is about their feelings, how they felt their place was in his life. Absolutely nothing to do with, 'he was hardly in love, not demanding to go see her, travelling those couple of hours' It is about the deceit, trying to distance himself from any involvement with KT, lying about the relationship and constant communication, of planning to meet with her once more in the school break. It has everything to do with a young girl and having her trust broken. Of adoration turning to confrontation and accusation, upset and wanting to have it out with him. Being allowed out earlier than anticipated would have been beneficial to releasing those pent up feelings, having that 'set to' sooner rather than later! - So yes, it is not at all difficult to realise why this girl was upbeat that day.
There is not on scintilla of proof that Jodi knew anything about Kimberly. The rest of your post is simply nonsensical hyperbole.
Contacting one person only and that person was LM to let him know of this change. Leaving home shortly afterwards to meet with him. LM seen with this girl at the lane tying in with her confirmed time of leaving home. She had no phone, no means of contacting anyone else. That phone plays a key part to several things;
A young girl who knew what danger was, articulate and bright. The ban on that path, of placing herself into dangerous situations. She had no phone, no security, no back, no means of reaching out for help. And again, the person she was leaving to meet knew this, her killer knew she had nothing to reach out with.
The utter nonsense, the complete bollocks - Of a boy who knew of that ban, knew the dangers of that path, knew his girlfriend had no phone, no security, no back up - Claiming to have simply hung around for the best part of 90mins, her non arrival in Newbattle and toddling off to see his pals. Instantly back on the phone to them, chasing them up, wondering where the hell they were! He was setting alibi in place, plain and simple.
And please with the repetitive bleat of pass the buck. Jodi's family were blindsided, it was early evening, around dinner time, they had no idea if Luke was simply running late, where Jodi may have been waiting for him "Up here" The grans, anywhere but that path. That is the difference, massively. That without a doubt, that no further call from Mitchell had her family believing fully they had met and were spending the night together. The first person contacted when her curfew time past by, was LM. Of meeting with LM and asking him why? Why had he not called back wondering where Jodi was? His answer and used at trial "I thought ? you had grounded her ----------" Telling others the same, of "not coming out" and "being grounded again"
So one family, her mother/father believing the two were together, absolutely nothing to alert them to any danger, no thought of going to Newbattle, of using any path alone, simply nothing. To and please - A lad knowing of the ban, the dangers, of having no phone. Claims of meeting in his end with many dangers on the way. Of claiming to simply hang about in one spot, going nowhere near that path of course (The F&W sighting), for around 90mins. Being asked to believe that not only would any other normal type of boy, simply have walked the route in reverse to meet on the way. But did not bother, thought of no dangers and on it goes. To the boys and chasing them up, phoning them back within minutes of no arrival. To that claimed call to his mother of asking if Jodi had been, the claimed jokes shared, but nothing from a parent, again aware of those dangers. To that lie of coming home around 9pm and again, that brush off from a parent, 'oh she will have got caught up gabbing' For goodness sake he was NOT even in the house again. Not arriving home until 10pm - But the point, from him, his mother, the parent, absolutely no concern. - There was none for Jodi was already dead by his hands! Winging it and making it up.
And you wonder why suspicion fell instantly upon him, remained there and why he could NOT be eliminated - And that is simply a mere bloody fraction of it. that outstanding circumstantial case. Caught in their own web of deceit, continuously. Blaming others! Picking on him, singling him out - As bloody IF. Which of course the bulk of the manipulation is around, one big massive almighty IF! Starting with IF the enablers of this killer are being honest with you. Try starting from there?
-
I think it’s an accepted fact now that there was an overlap between Luke’s romantic tristes…I’m sure it’s not a particularly unusual occurrence in the life of a teenage boy. Have their cake and eat it…there’s very few teenage boys who wouldn’t indulge.
Still nothing by way of evidence that they had actually rowed. Jodi had used Luke’s phone that day…was that before or after they’d rowed ? Oh wait it must have been before or why would he have let her use it? Hold on, why let her use his phone at all if there was texts from another girl on it? Further if Jodi had found something incriminating on Luke’s phone at lunchtime why was she so upbeat at home and when leaving to meet Luke? Surely she would have confided in someone about a body blow like that? Her friend? Her mum?
It really doesn’t convince, does it?
Again, this discussion matters not a jot. It's small fry. The main planks of circumstantial evidence -- LM having guilty knowledge of the locus & leading the search party to the body in suspicious circumstances, the broken alibi, the eyewitness testimonies that placed him at both ends of that path at crucial times and the fact he owned that parka before 30.06.03 and disposed of it -- got him convicted. I was merely asking if anyone could expand on, or provide a cite for, this alleged argument Luke & Jodi had had in school that morning and the alleged sighting of them with their backs to one another in the China Gardens.
Faith, you concede that the Prosecution put forward a very compelling and robust case against LM. A quick question for you: how do you account for the expansive amounts of time LM was not seen by anyone that evening, namely between 1740 - 1800 and 1815 - 1930? A boy of 14 chose to dilly-dally for nearly 2 hours, waiting on his girlfriend? When, ordinarily, he would meet her halfway on that secluded path or go to Easthouses and meet her? The evening she was murdered, he coincidentally doesn't go to meet her and waits for nearly 2 hours on her coming to him? Furthermore, he knows she has definitely left to meet him as per AO and the landline call at 1740 -- yet he chose to wait all that time on her coming to him (do we know how often Jodi walked to Luke's house on her own?)? He then, out of the blue, calls David High and arranges to meet up with him and some other guys for over and hour-and-a-half and doesn't bother checking where his gf -- who he knows has left to met him hours ago -- is? How often did he meet up with DH? How often had he met up with DH since dating Jodi? I think we all know. Even DH was surprised that he LM had called him to meet up that evening and he was even more surprised when Jodi wasn't with Luke when they did meet up in the abbey that night (so much so that DH asked LM where Jodi was . . . to which LM replied, "Jodi won't be coming out tonight."). He then waited the full night until Judith phoned him at 2238, asking him where her daughter was? Really!
Doesn't all the above, not even taking into account the main planks of circumstantial evidence, make you feel uneasy? And let's not also forget that LM had wiped out his mobile phone's entire history (all text messages and all call logs) before it was confiscated by the police in the early hours of 01.07.03. Why? Do you think it had incriminating evidence? For example, a meeting arrangement with Jodi at 1700 in Easthouses?
-
Again, this discussion matters not a jot. It's small fry. The main planks of circumstantial evidence -- LM having guilty knowledge of the locus & leading the search party to the body in suspicious circumstances, the broken alibi, the eyewitness testimonies that placed him at both ends of that path at crucial times and the fact he owned that parka before 30.06.03 and disposed of it -- got him convicted. I was merely asking if anyone could expand on, or provide a cite for, this alleged argument Luke & Jodi had had in school that morning and the alleged sighting of them with their backs to one another in the China Gardens.
Nothing that we discuss on this forum matters one jot but still we continue the discussion. BTW did you ever get that cite or should be just chalk it down to another rumour?
Faith, you concede that the Prosecution put forward a very compelling and robust case against LM.
Not compelling enough to convince all the jurors who had heard all the evidence and not just Parky’s stream of consciousness.
A quick question for you: how do you account for the expansive amounts of time LM was not seen by anyone that evening, namely between 1740 - 1800 and 1815 - 1930?
I could answer that but seeing Parky seems to be your go to source from everything connected to this case shall we let him do the honours?
“ He is sighted from 5.55 until 6.15 - then there is nothing until his meet with DH around 7pm”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.1290.html
A boy of 14 chose to dilly-dally for nearly 2 hours, waiting on his girlfriend? When, ordinarily, he would meet her halfway on that secluded path or go to Easthouses and meet her? The evening she was murdered, he coincidentally doesn't go to meet her and waits for nearly 2 hours on her coming to him?
2 hours? In reality there are witnesses for all but 45 minutes of that time.
Furthermore, he knows she has definitely left to meet him as per AO and the landline call at 1740 -- yet he chose to wait all that time on her coming to him (do we know how often Jodi walked to Luke's house on her own?)?
We know for fact that Jodi had arranged to meet Luke but had not appeared. What did he do then? Was he constantly on the phone? Truth is we don’t know how he reacted but what we do know is that it wasn’t totally out of character for her not to show up.
He then, out of the blue, calls David High and arranges to meet up with him and some other guys for over and hour-and-a-half and doesn't bother checking where his gf -- who he knows has left to met him hours ago -- is?
How was he supposed to check where she was? She didn’t have a phone and her stepfather had already told him that she had left her house. As to phoning DH out of the blue if he felt he had been stood up is it really so strange that he’d call his friend for company?
How often did he meet up with DH? How often had he met up with DH since dating Jodi? I think we all know.
I don’t so perhaps it would be useful at this juncture to provide a cite?
Even DH was surprised that he LM had called him to meet up that evening and he was even more surprised when Jodi wasn't with Luke when they did meet up in the abbey that night (so much so that DH asked LM where Jodi was . . . to which LM replied, "Jodi won't be coming out tonight.").
I’m sure he was surprised but that doesn’t mean Luke’s actions were sinister. Of course DH’s powers of recall were questioned in court as is statements differed and also IF Luke had thought that he had been stood up do you think he’d want to admit it to his friend?
He then waited the full night until Judith phoned him at 2238, asking him where her daughter was? Really!
Yes, really.
Doesn't all the above, not even taking into account the main planks of circumstantial evidence, make you feel uneasy? And let's not also forget that LM had wiped out his mobile phone's entire history (all text messages and all call logs) before it was confiscated by the police in the early hours of 01.07.03. Why? Do you think it had incriminating evidence? For example, a meeting arrangement with Jodi at 1700 in Easthouses?
For which there would have been corresponding messages on Jodi’s mum’s phone so what would be the point of deleting them?
Of course there is a more interesting question that needs to be answered. If Luke was the calculating murderer that some believe he is why are there so many questions remaining? If he was truly trying to cover his tracks why didn’t he call Jodi’s home more? Why say to DH that Jodi wasn’t coming out when he knew that that statement would be questioned. Why not just say that he’d been stood up? That he’d been expecting her but she had ghosted him.
So many relevant questions that aren’t being asked.
-
FL, I will get back to you on your replies. Need to go to work soon.
Just quickly . . . a neighbour said that they saw LM going home at approx 2200 on 30.06.03 and some forum members on here have said that that means LM was lying and have suggested LM didn't go home at 2100 after he left the boys in the abbey as he said. So, where did he go after he left the boys and what had he been doing? I don't think he went back to see the body and nor do I think he was disposing any evidence. Doing any of those would be very risky (it would've still been light outside) and plus he would've been risking getting contaminated with incriminating DNA after getting cleaned up and changed (LM was forensically aware?). Perhaps he just went a stroll to clear his head and think about what he was going to do (he knew Judith would've inevitably been on the phone to him, enquiring about her daughter's whereabouts. What are your thoughts on the neighbour's sighting of Luke going home at 2200? Where do you think he'd been and what do you think he had been doing?
-
FL, I will get back to you on your replies. Need to go to work soon.
Just quickly . . . a neighbour said that they saw LM going home at approx 2200 on 30.06.03 and some forum members on here have said that that means LM was lying and have suggested LM didn't go home at 2100 after he left the boys in the abbey as he said. So, where did he go after he left the boys and what had he been doing? I don't think he went back to see the body and nor do I think he was disposing any evidence. Doing any of those would be very risky (it would've still been light outside) and plus he would've been risking getting contaminated with incriminating DNA after getting cleaned up and changed (LM was forensically aware?). Perhaps he just went a stroll to clear his head and think about what he was going to do (he knew Judith would've inevitably been on the phone to him, enquiring about her daughter's whereabouts. What are your thoughts on the neighbour's sighting of Luke going home at 2200? Where do you think he'd been and what do you think he had been doing?
I’ve no idea what he was doing. What was the background to the statement from the neighbour? How long after the night of Jodi’s murder did the neighbour give their statement and if it was some time why were they so precise about the time? If true it does make you wonder why, with such observant neighbours, Luke risked coming back to his house to clean up. If a neighbour saw him in the quiet semi-darkness on the 30th why did no one in the houses around his see him in the busier daytime that very same day?
Another question has occurred to me. Corrine Mitchell may be many things but stupid she is not. Why buy her son a parka jacket after their house had been searched and no parka found? Surely she would have known that that would appear suspicious, unless it was as she claimed?
-
I've no idea why faithlilly continues with this charade. What's in for him/her?. Luke Mitchell is exactly where he should be.
This far into his sentence he should/would?be well on his way to freedom and not classed as a danger to society! He's not made it past shotts prison gates to barlinnie top end never mind castle huntly. There's a reason for that.
-
I've no idea why faithlilly continues with this charade. What's in for him/her?. Luke Mitchell is exactly where he should be.
This far into his sentence he should/would?be well on his way to freedom and not classed as a danger to society! He's not made it past shotts prison gates to barlinnie top end never mind castle huntly. There's a reason for that.
Do you think that constantly maintaining his innocence no matter what the consequences may have something to do with that?
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
Or perhaps it’s because he is innocent?
Everyone in Shotts knows he’s guilty? How? What information do they have that we who believe in his innocence don’t?
-
No. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because consequences of him admitting what he done isn't good he kniws that!People supporting him have consequences they look complete fools and charlatans. He's not going any where anytime soon and everyone in shotts prison knows that! Prisoners and staff. Believe it or not vast majority of prisoners int shotts just want to get on with their hefty sentences and live quiet life. What they don't like is anyone who has comitted a crime to women or children and if they can cause them harm they they will. But luke mitchell types are heavily protected. Majority of prisoners in shotts are doing life sentence and have nothing to loose. If they thought luke mitchell was being released into society they would harm him. He's not rehabilitated, he's a danger to society and will remain in prison. Luke mitchell maintains his innocence because he knows consequences
I subscribe to all of this. In a case such as this where there will never ever be unequivocal proof that he did it -- i.e., direct evidence -- LM will never admit his guilt. The reasons for this are twofold, imo: firstly, as Mrs S said, for his own safety and survival; and, secondly, he very probably is psychopathic and narcissistic -- disorders which won't allow him to feel shame, empathy, remorse or guilt, and won't allow him to admit that he did it.
-
I subscribe to all of this. In a case such as this where there will never ever be unequivocal proof that he did it -- i.e., direct evidence -- LM will never admit his guilt. The reasons for this are twofold, imo: firstly, as Mrs S said, for his own safety and survival; and, secondly, he very probably is psychopathic and narcissistic -- disorders which won't allow him to feel shame, empathy, remorse or guilt, and won't allow him to admit that he did it.
“Probably a psychopath and narcissistic”? Was your diagnosis based on your long years of psychiatric training or simply the notion that Luke has to be because otherwise he just might be innocent?
-
I read on the blue forum that they'd had that argument in school that Monday morning/afternoon, so presumably it had been discussed previously (maybe on the old WAP forum?). There is no smoke without fire, FL; it's probably been discussed previously, but because it probably wasn't deemed a main part of the prosecution's case it gradually petered out of discussions over the years? Perhaps it's just hard luck that no cite is available to back it up (the media didn't report every single piece of evidence led at court). As I said, it would be helpful if someone could expand on it, as it ties in with their confrontation spotted by AB at the top end of that path in Easthouses (the eastern side of Roan's Dyke Path).
He was still convicted by a majority verdict (9/6, from what I heard), such was the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Besides, juries are made of people with different abilities, intelligence and personalities. People with different analytical skills, different reading and listening comprehension abilities and different concentration levels and attention spans. Yes, this could work for or against a defendant, but I believe the circumstantial evidence led against LM as very robust. Hardly surprising he was convicted, imo.
Very telling you chose to evade those questions of LM's whereabouts during those times. He met up with DH at 1930, not 1900. Big difference, especially of what one can do in such time when full of adrenalin and when time is of the essence.
Yes, nearly 2 hours. He initially said he left his house at just after 1730 (but it subsequently and, ahem, conveniently changed to 1745 when evidence came through of his calls to the Jones' landline and CM being captured on CCTV at 1710; the whole alibi debacle would be hilarious if this wasn't such a heartbreaking and tragic case) and he met up with DH and co at 1930.
I presume he didn't call, as the police would have been able to ascertain this by obtaining phone logs from the Jones' landline (as they had done with LM's calls to the Jones' landline at 1732 and 1740). I believe most mobile phone operators, unlike with text messages -- which are not retained at all -- retain call records for a certain amount
of time (varies from operator to operator) so maybe the police looked into that (probably not, though, imo). And again, LM had wiped his entire phone history before the police took it on 01.07.03. As I understand it, Jodi had only failed to meet Luke once in their time of dating, and even on that single solitary occasion she had phoned Luke to let him know. So, yes, it was out of character for her not to show up. Also, she told her mother just before she left that she'd be "mucking around up there" (meaning Easthouses), and yet LM claimed she was coming to meet him at nbattle (which was a far less frequent occurrence than LM meeting her at Easthouses).
He was religiously with Jodi since they met (most nights as their relationship went on, and certainly most nights by the 30.06.03). But, on the night she uncharacteristically fails to show up, he uncharacteristically called DH (hopefully a cite will be provided in due course, confirming meeting up with him was not what he'd normally do)? I feel uneasy.
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all. Besides, even if Judith's phone held incriminating info, LM would obviously deny it (although, info of their meeting, especially at 1700 in Easthouses, would be important for the defence). Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case; it is inevitable and could go on til the end of time. It's also important to bear in mind that there were a few coincidences (eg, that 2 known delinquents were nearby when Jodi was murdered) and LM got lucky in some instances (like Jodi deleting those texts between 1634-1639, but the main slice of luck that LM had was that he never left any incriminating DNA behind . . . any incriminating DNA was likely on that Parka, and jeans and boots that were all likely disposed of in a fire). Calling the Jones' landline more would've alarmed them and that's what he would definitely not have wanted, especially as it was the height of summer and still light outside; he needed time to cover his tracks, which he did, but there were things that went against him (AB, RW and LF sightings, most notably and the police's foresight). He was very cunning calling the Jones' landline when he did; it was just enough time to set the alibi in place, give the Jones family the impression that he cared and that nothing was wrong. And I believe he had called them at a time just after he'd murdered Jodi and hid her body. So calm and collected beyond his years. Chilling. As for saying to DH that she wasn't coming out, I guess that because they were inseparable by that point he (DH) would not have believed it and to avoid any more questions from DH that that answer would have incited (by telling him she would not be out is direct and straight to the point; a conversation stopper, if you will). LM saying he'd been stood up probably would have been better, but I suspect he had let his guard down here and had a lapse in concentration (inevitable, after what he'd recently done). He may well have been very intelligent and advanced, but he did, imo, give the police several things to use as evidence against him, which was bound to happen because of stress and pressure (he told police that Jodi borrowed clothes and the exact clothes and led them to that body far too quickly to escape suspicion, imo).
Sorry for any typos, etc. My iPhone is broken and I'm using a really substandard phone temporarily.
-
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all.
Or he simply told her too
-
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case
People like con women Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean have created questions where there are none
Had both women attended each and every day of the trial they would have had the answers to a lot of their questions
Just like con women Lynne Hall and Stephanie Bon had
‘Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Re-Writing History’ https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/08/quite-a-hall-tale-part-7%EF%B8%8F/
‘The ‘Affair’, Ghosting & Reinvention of Stephanie Bon (Part 1)’
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/12/quite-a-hall-tale-part-9%EF%B8%8F/
-
Or he simply told her too
Hi, Nicholas. Good to see you are still around. You post a lot of good stuff, imo.
A quick question for you, if you don't mind: do you think this murder by LM was premeditated?
-
Hi, Nicholas. Good to see you are still around. You post a lot of good stuff, imo.
A quick question for you, if you don't mind: do you think this murder by LM was premeditated?
I suspect Luke Mitchell did fantasise about murder
And he lured [Name removed] to that path
So yes I do
-
People like con women Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean have created questions where there are none
Had both women attended each and every day of the trial they would have had the answers to a lot of their questions
Just like con women Lynne Hall and Stephanie Bon had
‘Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Re-Writing History’ https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/08/quite-a-hall-tale-part-7%EF%B8%8F/
‘The ‘Affair’, Ghosting & Reinvention of Stephanie Bon (Part 1)’
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/12/quite-a-hall-tale-part-9%EF%B8%8F/
I don't know if SL and CM are 'con women'. There seem to be flaws in her book (maybe brought about by being emotionally attached to the Mitchells to an extent, and not as neutral as she should be?).
Regarding the trial -- I read some screenshots from a Rangers FC forum that were posted on the blue JB forum. They contained posts from S Kelly communicating with another member from the Rangers FC forum. The other guy said that he was one of the jurors at the trial, sat through and heard every single piece of evidence . . . he stated unequivocally that he was more than satisfied that the correct verdict was returned. Will upload it in due course (if it's still available).
-
I don't know if SL and CM are 'con women'
I do, as do many others 8((()*/
-
Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
He did and I agree
Have Corrine and Shane Mitchell’s telephone records from 30th June to 4th July been published?
-
I read on the blue forum that they'd had that argument in school that Monday morning/afternoon, so presumably it had been discussed previously (maybe on the old WAP forum?). There is no smoke without fire, FL; it's probably been discussed previously, but because it probably wasn't deemed a main part of the prosecution's case it gradually petered out of discussions over the years? Perhaps it's just hard luck that no cite is available to back it up (the media didn't report every single piece of evidence led at court). As I said, it would be helpful if someone could expand on it, as it ties in with their confrontation spotted by AB at the top end of that path in Easthouses (the eastern side of Roan's Dyke Path).
So in short you read something on a forum and having no idea of the provenance of that information or of it’s veracity have chosen to believe it. Further although nowhere in any of AB’s statements or her testimony in court does she mention that the couple she saw seemed to be having an altercation you still believe, and indeed perpetrate that myth. Now have I got that right?
He was still convicted by a majority verdict (9/6, from what I heard), such was the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Besides, juries are made of people with different abilities, intelligence and personalities. People with different analytical skills, different reading and listening comprehension abilities and different concentration levels and attention spans. Yes, this could work for or against a defendant, but I believe the circumstantial evidence led against LM as very robust. Hardly surprising he was convicted, imo.
9/6….I didn’t realise that so few of the jury were convinced of Luke’s guilt after Parky claimed that the judge directed the jury that he wanted a strong majority. By anyone’s standards 9/6 isn’t strong majority.
Very telling you chose to evade those questions of LM's whereabouts during those times. He met up with DH at 1930, not 1900. Big difference, especially of what one can do in such time when full of adrenalin and when time is of the essence.
‘He has got what he deserves and I'm just glad it's finished. But I suppose for Jodi's family it's just beginning.'
Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.
He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+FEEL+SICK%3b+JODI+JONES%3a+THE+AFTERMATH+EXCLUSIVE%3a+Pal+reveals...-a0127512565
Yes, nearly 2 hours. He initially said he left his house at just after 1730 (but it subsequently and, ahem, conveniently changed to 1745 when evidence came through of his calls to the Jones' landline and CM being captured on CCTV at 1710; the whole alibi debacle would be hilarious if this wasn't such a heartbreaking and tragic case) and he met up with DH and co at 1930.
Luke called the Jones’s landline to tell Jodi that he was out at 17.32 and 17.40 so not sure the point that you are trying to make. As I have shown previously Luke met up with DH, according to testimony given under oath, around 7.
I presume he didn't call, as the police would have been able to ascertain this by obtaining phone logs from the Jones' landline (as they had done with LM's calls to the Jones' landline at 1732 and 1740). I believe most mobile phone operators, unlike with text messages -- which are not retained at all -- retain call records for a certain amount
of time (varies from operator to operator) so maybe the police looked into that (probably not, though, imo). And again, LM had wiped his entire phone history before the police took it on 01.07.03.
I’m sure he didn’t call but don’t you think he would have if trying to cover his tracks, this psychopathic narcissist ?
As I understand it, Jodi had only failed to meet Luke once in their time of dating, and even on that single solitary occasion she had phoned Luke to let him know.
Again do you have a cite for that or is it something else you saw discussed on the blue forum?
So, yes, it was out of character for her not to show up. Also, she told her mother just before she left that she'd be "mucking around up there" (meaning Easthouses), and yet LM claimed she was coming to meet him at nbattle (which was a far less frequent occurrence than LM meeting her at Easthouses).
She had stood Luke up before, that’s the point and therefore it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he may have thought that he had been stood up again.
“She’d be “mucking about up there”? Doesn’t sound as if she was spoiling for a fight with Luke, does it?
Further if she intended to walk down the path to Newbattle alone do you think, knowing her mum’s feelings, that Jodi would have told her mum truth? Of course that would also explain why she may have wiped her texts to Luke that afternoon from her mum’s phone.
He was religiously with Jodi since they met (most nights as their relationship went on, and certainly most nights by the 30.06.03). But, on the night she uncharacteristically fails to show up, he uncharacteristically called DH (hopefully a cite will be provided in due course, confirming meeting up with him was not what he'd normally do)? I feel uneasy.
’Hopefully a cite will be provided in due course’….we can but hope.
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all. Besides, even if Judith's phone held incriminating info, LM would obviously deny it (although, info of their meeting, especially at 1700 in Easthouses, would be important for the defence). Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
What would be the use of denying it, if the information was available on Judith’s phone?
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case; it is inevitable and could go on til the end of time. It's also important to bear in mind that there were a few coincidences (eg, that 2 known delinquents were nearby when Jodi was murdered) and LM got lucky in some instances (like Jodi deleting those texts between 1634-1639, but the main slice of luck that LM had was that he never left any incriminating DNA behind . . . any incriminating DNA was likely on that Parka, and jeans and boots that were all likely disposed of in a fire). Calling the Jones' landline more would've alarmed them and that's what he would definitely not have wanted, especially as it was the height of summer and still light outside; he needed time to cover his tracks, which he did, but there were things that went against him (AB, RW and LF sightings, most notably and the police's foresight). He was very cunning calling the Jones' landline when he did; it was just enough time to set the alibi in place, give the Jones family the impression that he cared and that nothing was wrong. And I believe he had called them at a time just after he'd murdered Jodi and hid her body. So calm and collected beyond his years. Chilling. As for saying to DH that she wasn't coming out, I guess that because they were inseparable by that point he (DH) would not have believed it and to avoid any more questions from DH that that answer would have incited (by telling him she would not be out is direct and straight to the point; a conversation stopper, if you will). LM saying he'd been stood up probably would have been better, but I suspect he had let his guard down here and had a lapse in concentration (inevitable, after what he'd recently done). He may well have been very intelligent and advanced, but he did, imo, give the police several things to use as evidence against him, which was bound to happen because of stress and pressure (he told police that Jodi borrowed clothes and the exact clothes and led them to that body far too quickly to escape suspicion, imo).
Sorry for any typos, etc. My iPhone is broken and I'm using a really substandard phone temporarily.
No problem about the typos but you can’t simply weave a case from the fibres of rumour, myth and supposition.
-
Regarding the trial -- I read some screenshots from a Rangers FC forum that were posted on the blue JB forum. They contained posts from S Kelly communicating with another member from the Rangers FC forum. The other guy said that he was one of the jurors at the trial, sat through and heard every single piece of evidence . . . he stated unequivocally that he was more than satisfied that the correct verdict was returned. Will upload it in due course (if it's still available).
Corinne Mitchell missed a lot of her killer son Luke Mitchell’s trial because she wouldn’t have been able to listen in until after she gave her evidence
And Sandra Lean did not attend the trial and has been making it up ever since
TruthSeekers
@sl_seekers
@eastlothianmp
its taken 18 years and social media to compliment Dr
@SandraLean5
. Everyone 23k + knows the truth. Its a public enquiry for this case.
Quote Tweet
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
· Jun 13
A 14yr old, with no history of violence or cruelty to animals, nothing.But all of a sudden, out of no where, carriez out extreme violence on a scale as bad as Tobins. Didn't happen and you'll know that. But Hamilton and cops spread lie after lie to smear him,and create a murderer
Show this thread
4:44 PM · Jun 15, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/sl_seekers/status/1537098835373264897
And Sandra Lean had no idea what went on in the Mitchell household before she met them
-
TruthSeekers
@sl_seekers
@eastlothianmp
its taken 18 years and social media to compliment Dr
@SandraLean5
. Everyone 23k + knows the truth. Its a public enquiry for this case.
Quote Tweet
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
· Jun 13
A 14yr old, with no history of violence or cruelty to animals, nothing.But all of a sudden, out of no where, carriez out extreme violence on a scale as bad as Tobins. Didn't happen and you'll know that. But Hamilton and cops spread lie after lie to smear him,and create a murderer
Show this thread
4:44 PM · Jun 15, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/sl_seekers/status/1537098835373264897
Sandra Lean’s PhD thesis is nonsense and she used the nonsense of others like Philip Saunder’s killer Michael O’Brien & con man and groomer Michael Naughton, in an attempt to back up her nonsense
-
Corinne Mitchell missed a lot of her killer son Luke Mitchell’s trial because she wouldn’t have been able to listen in until after she gave her evidence.
Good point. During the 2007 BBC Frontline Scotland documentary, I was left with the distinct impression that Corinne was genuinely bamboozled that her son Luke was found guilty and looked like a woman who genuinely and sincerely believed he didn't do it. Perhaps Corinne doesn't know the full story of what happened on 30.06.03 and Shane was the one fully in the know and the one who helped Luke that fateful day? Or was she/is she in denial? Was she acting and pretending in front of the cameras? Did anyone else get this impression when watching the 2007 Frontline doco?
-
Good point. During the 2007 BBC Frontline Scotland documentary, I was left with the distinct impression that Corinne was genuinely bamboozled that her son Luke was found guilty and looked like a woman who genuinely and sincerely believed he didn't do it. Perhaps Corinne doesn't know the full story of what happened on 30.06.03 and Shane was the one fully in the know and the one who helped Luke that fateful day? Or was she/is she in denial? Was she acting and pretending in front of the cameras? Did anyone else get this impression when watching the 2007 Frontline doco?
So only Shane was in the know? Didn’t Corrine come home at 17.15? Are you saying that, if AB’s testimony in court is true, that Luke murdered Jodi, got back to his home and cleaned up completely, with not a jot of forensic transfer, in under 20 minutes?
Do you not think the Corrine was bamboozled because she knew that it was impossible for her son to have committed the crime in the time suggested? Further if you think Corrine knew nothing then you must believe that she didn’t burn Luke’s clothes or buy another parka to replace the one that was burned?
Things don’t really fit together, do they?
-
So only Shane was in the know? Didn’t Corrine come home at 17.15? Are you saying that, if AB’s testimony in court is true, that Luke murdered Jodi, got back to his home and cleaned up completely, with not a jot of forensic transfer, in under 20 minutes?
Do you not think the Corrine was bamboozled because she knew that it was impossible for her son to have committed the crime in the time suggested? Further if you think Corrine knew nothing then you must believe that she didn’t burn Luke’s clothes or buy another parka to replace the one that was burned?
Things don’t really fit together, do they?
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?
FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together?
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.
-
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening. Who knows. LM may even have got rid of his own clothing (he was intelligent, cocky and cunning, able to think on his feet, and there was robust and compelling evidence used at court that he owned that parka jacket before the 30.06.03). The main thing, thankfully, is that the circumstantial evidence in its entirety was sufficient enough to secure a guilty verdict against LM. I'm of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence that was used against LM in court between 2004 & 2005 was overwhelming and that it is no surprise at all he was convicted. Of course this does not mean that there is not a chance he did not do it -- all circumstantial cases are never completely watertight -- but given the strength of the evidence that was used against him I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't do it. 20-30 mins to do an initial quick clean-up (between his call to AO at 1732 and the positive ID sighting by the 3 cyclists at just after 1800) and out of those clothes that likely had slight splatters of Jodi's blood on them (probably only visible up very close and hence why F&W never mentioned blood). He had, in all, about 5 hours to clean up before having to do the inevitable search for Jodi after Judith phoned him. And wasn"t it just coincidental and convenient that those 3 boys whom he met up in the abbey with at 1930 all said under oath that LM was a lot cleaner and more kempt that evening (could someone provide a cite for this ....? I'm sure I read about it in a newspaper article from 2004/early 2005, in addition to reading about it many times on different forums).
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo. And wouldn't it be impossible for these two brothers not to see or hear each other in that house in nbattle abbey crescent? Yes it would, imo. Red flag, imo, especially when placed beside all of the other evidence. SM changed his story about 3 times in 1 week regarding the alibi? Messy and telling, imo. I wonder what was discussed during SM's call to LM at 1605 that day? Anyone know? I'll bet it was SM letting LM know that he would not be home at his usual time and that he was going to help a friend fix his car, and yet we're expected to believe SM could not remember fixing his friend's car that day and had to be reminded? Really! Even if he genuinely forgot, I still think it would be impossible for him not to see or hear his brother in the house that day. That is an inordinate amount of memory loss, and SM was only 21 and was actively and gainfully employed as a car mechanic since leaving school. No amount of drug or alcohol abuse could cause such an amount of damage in such a short space of time, imo. Any thoughts on this aspect of the case?
FL, hope I've clarified my stance on the case. Yes, there are small doubts as no circumstantial case is ever 100% watertight or unequivocal, but, I am thoroughly convinced LM was responsible for Jodi's murder. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, imo. Also, LM's reactions throughout the trial (or lack of) were indicative of a guilty boy, imo. His father's and brother's reticence, too, is very telling. Furthermore, JosJones's aggressive behaviour at SL's doorstep is hardly the type to suggest LM never did it? And JANJ was/is hardly going to protect SK over her own sister -- even if these two sisters didn't get on? The fact is, they did get on, despite not living in the same house, and generally were quite a close family. Tragedy (their father's suicide) causing them some set-backs, but bringing them closer together?
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point. Eh? More than enough time to murder her and cover his tracks. He was intelligent and cunning, able to think on his feet. Being full of adrenalin would have helped him get things done more quickly, too. But, things went against him, and the police's foresight helped a great deal, too. LM's naivety at times -- and his constant lying -- caught up with him as well.
You have clarified your opinion on the case and thank you, it certainly was a gargantuan effort.
Unfortunately when individuals resort to inventing scenarios to justify their uninformed opinion I tend to disengage.
-
What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.
That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.
The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.
What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.
The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.
LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.
A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.
The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.
The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.
The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.
-
What made LM stop in his tracks that day? He had as we know absolutely no choice but to cross Newbattle Road, simply a risk that had to be attempted. Crossing over whilst no cars were in sight, reaching that gate and he hears one, stops as it appears over the brow of that hill. Caught with nowhere to suddenly disappear to. Much better to be at a standstill than to be seen running in that heavy coat, to be seen running away from that area where he had just killed his girlfriend. Clocked and caught by F&W. Seen by AB in his khaki green coat and again by F&W some 45mins later.
I notice that you have stopped describing the jacket worn by Luke as a parka. I suppose it’s progress of a sort. Of course the rest of you post is, to most right thinking people, nonsense. The road you describe is a busy road, especially at between 5 and 6pm on a weekday, yet not one solitary individual except F and W, whose ‘recollections’were, let us not forget, destroyed by Findlay in court, saw Luke cross that road. Further Luke had allegedly reached the gate by the time F and W saw him so why wouldn’t he go a few steps further, past the gate and into heavy vegetation where he would definitely not be seen? Why hang about at the gate in, we are lead to believe, a heavily bloodstained jacket? A much more logical explanation for F & W’s sighting is that they saw Luke, as others who knew him had, further up towards the college and his home, at just the point that the jogger came onto Newbattle Road and where Luke said he had been standing. Why F & W changed their testimony can only be guessed at but sometimes the need to help can leave witnesses uniquely open to manipulation.
That jogger heading south, coming from where LM should have been, he wasn't, of course LM still had himself at home, only just leaving, unaware that first call had been logged. Not simply to cover that sighting by F&W but knowing there would be no reports of seeing two of him that day, he simply could not place himself somewhere else on that road at the same time, it had to be after F&W had drove down it.
I’m not sure why you are claiming that Luke still had himself at home. That is simply nonsense. The jogger who F & W claim seeing, had herself leaving Newbattle Abbey Cresent at around 5.45pm, at a time when Luke had certainly left home. Therefore it’s only logical to extrapolate that F &W did see Luke and the jogger but further up Newbattle Road than they recollected. Why their recollection was at odds with my hypothesis I have dealt with in my last paragraph. Of course it is also worth remembering that LF couldn’t positively identify Luke in court either. Further RW described her sighting’s jacket as ‘hip length’, more the length of a bomber jacket. When asked what type of jacket it was she said ‘parka but only because of the length’….of course we all know that parkas are almost exclusively mid thigh length, as can be seen in the now famous photo of Luke in his .
The first call had logged however, LM already having committed himself to phoning Jodi's house from the wall at the entrance to his estate. He had told the police that he had left at a certain time to meet with Jodi coming to Newbattle for 6pm, tying in nicely with his time of leaving. More details of only being out around 10mins when he says he saw boys he knew. All blown apart by the logging of that first call.
What made LM hang up on that call instantly the moment he had attempted to call? The time is 5:32pm and there is a noisy bike which had been fading into the distance when he went to make that call, but it came back again, those boys riding back down that path. LM could not afford for the noise of that bike to be heard in any call, knowing that the noise alone if heard by Jodi's family would place LM firmly in the RDW.
Was that before or after the mobile shampooing unit came to give him a wash and blow dry? Of course it’s easy to simply make things up to substantiate your beliefs and that might be enough for some but there simply is no evidence of the above, not one jot. Further your claim makes no sense. Why wouldn’t there be a noisy motorbike in the vicinity of where Luke claims he made the call from? Was the street where he was waiting inaccessible to motorbikes? When time, you would have thought, was of the essence why wait 8 minutes to call Jodi’s house again?
The second call made when they were without a doubt away, riding that bike back up again along Lady Path and back to GD's, then LM makes a call that connects, when all is silent. The briefest of calls that had only one purpose, to make it appear as if no meeting had taken place by that point.
Again are there no motorbikes on Luke’s road?
LM had to carry out certain actions that he had absolutley no choice but to do, one being that only call, next to get cleaned and out of that clothing, to be seen again to appear to be waiting, in different clothing. There is no LM had no time to do this, there is only that LM had absolutely no time to be faffing around. Now for choices he did make, that he did NOT have to do, an option they chose, which was to have that fire.
A fire as with any fire can be extinguished rapidly, it does however take time to burn stuff down. They had set out on that course of action. LM knew that should there have been a discovery it would be a time consuming task of identity, no one, no police were suddenly going to arrive at the Mitchell home. Should Jodi's parents wanted to contact him, for any reason, he knew it would be by phone, and without a doubt prepared for such an eventuality. Keeping himself away from home and into the company of others. What LM could NOT afford to do was to speed any process up, that fire, that choice, that option had already gotten off the ground. Winging and waiting, prepared for what could have happened, which was him being contacted first and foremost.
The fire that was then wasn't, there WAS a fire going on in the Mitchell garden that evening, there is no 'around 30 neighbours' who said no fire took place. 6 houses (3 back to back), with the Mitchell home joint centre, co joined along its width by their back gardens. 5 did NOT have a fire, 5 did NOT have a BBQ (horrible night), and 5 were NOT burning some GIGANTIC citronella candle. One garden with smoke belching from it, the Mitchell garden, from a fire. At different points over the course of that evening.
The burner, that tiny little thing that one keeps harping on about. Nothing found in those bricks. There were fibres found in something that could not be identifed from source. So many variables here, a removable base, a fire that did NOT have to be contained to within thar brick surround, there could have been something else in that garden, such as the metal bin that the lid on top of that brick stand belonged to? The whole lot taken away and dumped somewhere. The only thing that matters is that there was a fire, winging it as best they could, waiting, as with everything to see what would transpire.
The further illogical nonsense, of having no time to dispose of anything, really? CM, NOT in the company of anyone until the early hours of July the 1st, SM who we know was out and about later that evening. Logic is that anything to do with that murder would have been disposed of that evening, preparing themselves for after Jodi's curfew time. Winging and waiting as with LM, should anyone have contacted him. Until then it was aiming to get that done as quickly as was possible.
Such clever criminals yet when the police took almost every stitch of clothing Luke had directly after the murder his mother is stupid enough to buy him a parka exactly like the one he had used during the murder, supposedly not realising the stupidity of flagging up the fact that the parka Luke had regularly been seen wearing, and that they didn’t find in the search, had been replaced. Rookie error eh !
-
BTW Parky Mr Apples mentioned a forum you were a member of which had members who attended the trial. I’ve never heard in all the time I’ve been studying the case of such a forum. I’m sure it would be especially helpful for all the members here if you could post a link to this forum.
-
AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings, LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely). He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo. But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling. His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe. So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi), is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home, and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . . LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!), but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily. Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy? Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!), those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi, and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court), he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours, coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show? She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting? He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him? Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose, LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded (his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew), giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).
As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03). That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point). Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps? Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid? Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously? One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.
Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming. It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.
-
AB, LF & RW all saw LM fleetingly and yet still positively id'd him at the time (AB was taken aback by how much the photo of LM in a newspaper looked like the person she saw on the RDP at the Easthouses end; likewise, LF & RW were also taken aback by how much the person in the newspaper looked like the boy they saw at the gate on N'battle Rd, even exclaiming, "Oh my God . . . it's him!" Unequivocally convinced it was the person they saw, and unequivocal was rare in this investigation). Despite only seeing him momentarily, these 3 women took in quite a lot in terms of clothing, physical features and demeanour; more importantly, they were unequivocally convinced it was him once that newspaper photo jogged their memory, despite only seeing him for the briefest of time as they were driving by not looking for anyone. . . very important evidence. It was also important that these 3 women were drawn to the strange behaviour of this boy. Telling. Positively id'd at both ends of that path, 45 mins between the two sightings,
Doesn’t it concern you that neither Bryson or Fleming could positively identify Luke in court? That the timings in Bryson’s initial statements were completely at odds with the prosecution’s timescale? That Bryson stated in court that the jacket worn by her sighting was, categorically, not a parka but simply of the photos she was shown the parka was closest? That proper police procedures hadn’t been followed regarding an identification parade? That Fleming and Walsh directly contradicted each other in court when Walsh was asked about showing her sil the 15th of August newspaper photo of Luke? Further you mention that the three eyewitnesses were drawn to their sighting’s ‘strange behaviour’ yet nowhere in any of those witness’s statements do they mention any kind of strange behaviour….although it was added by both Fleming and Walsh in court.
Eyewitness identification can be problematic especially in a circumstantial case. That’s why in English law we have the Turnbull directions.
“ In criminal cases, the case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA) provides that whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of an identification of the accused that the defence alleges to be mistaken, the judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification. The judge should also direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification was made. When the quality of the identification evidence is good, the jury can be left to assess the value of the identifying evidence even though there is no other evidence to support it. However, when the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence that goes to support the correctness of the identification.”
By any standard the identification of the witnesses sighting as Luke were flawed under the above guidelines as, as you said, they were gleaned only after a fleeting glance and in difficult conditions ie when driving.
LK hearing the disturbing choking noises behind that wall at 1715 (the noises caused him alarm and even forced him to slow down to listen to the disturbance behind that wall more closely).
Kelly did not mention a choking sound in his first statement. This is what he said under questioning by DF “ Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.
He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'
"Why did you not describe it as a strangling noise?"
Mr Kelly replied: "I can only put it down to nerves at the time.“
Of course there is also talk that Kelly changed his testimony under duress but I was unable to verify this.
He phones AO at 1732 and 1740, in spite of hIm saying he had just left the house at just after 1730 ... why phone the Jones landline so soon, when he was, according to him, still in the house? Doesn't really make sense, imo.
It makes absolute sense. From the appeal papers
“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived.”
If we take the earliest time it makes absolute sense for Luke to call Jodi to tell her that he was out of the house and to see where she was. I’m really not sure why you find it odd.
But, he had changed his statement to say he didn't leave the house until 1745 and not 1730. Messy and telling.
And also not true, as posted before:
“He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived”..
His own brother admitted in court, without actually directly saying it, that LM wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715 (and SM only said, "He could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit
; he was being evasive and lying by omission). His brother wasn't in the house at that crucial timeframe.
I notice you failed to add context to all of Shane’s dealings with the police and the court. Why do you think that the judge said that the way in which Shane’s interrogation was carried out was unfair? Why do you think he was charged with perverting the course of justice and then the charges dropped at trial? Imagine it was one of your children being treated in this way. Would you expect their answers not to be affected by such duress and intimidation? Be honest.
“
So, let's look at it: LM id'd at both ends of that path, at 1655 initially, with Jodi, and seen having a dispute with her (hand by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to Jodi),
Bryson never claimed that she thought that the couple were having a dispute and you have never been able to provide a cite for your claim. The only time I have heard this ‘argument’ mentioned was by Parky. Is that where you got it from?
is spotted again 45 mins later at the opposite end of the path, on his own this time, near his home, and acting strangely and suspiciiously, at that gate, which, conveniently, is located just down from the locus, about a 5 minute walk away . . .
Again neither Walsh or Fleming mentioned their sighting ‘acting strangely’ in any of their statements. He was described as simply standing by a wooden gate.
LM would have been trying to get home once he hid the body just before calling AO at 1732 and would be trying to get home quickly and without being noticed; taking the route behind that gate to his house was the most logical choice and it offered quickness and concealment . . . perfect!),
Agreed if the sighting had been the murderer he would be trying to get home quickly and with the least people noticing him so wh6 do you think that he was simply standing at a gate on the edge of a busy road with no sign that he was in a hurry and, of course no sign of blood on his clothes, the reason, allegedly, for burning his clothes.
but was stopped in his tracks by LF & RW on the nbattle Rd at that gate and hence why he was looking so suspicious and cheesed off, his plan disrupted momentarily.
Why would he stop for Walsh and Fleming to get a better look at him? Surely is he knew that he’d been seen his main concern would be limiting what the witnesses saw not giving them more time to gat a better description ? Can’t you see why that would make no sense?
Just pause for a moment here . . . doesn't all of this set alarm bells ringing and make you feel uneasy?
No.
Then we can add in more circumstancial evidence, like uncharacteristically calling DH (and hurrying him up, to boot!),
Was it uncharacteristic? Why would it be unusual to phone a friend to keep you company if you thought that you’d been stood up by your girlfriend or, indeed, asking him to hurry up? Their meetings might have been infrequent but not unusual. Would you like to hang about unnecessarily waiting for a friend?
those boys thinking it strange that he'd arranged to meet-up that night, without Jodi,
I’m sure they did if he and Jodi were together most of the time but it’s not in itself suspicious.
and all noticing how tidier and cleaner his appearance was (testified in court),
Then you can provide a cite? BTW it is common knowledge that when Luke was forensically examined at the police station in the early hours of the 1st of July his hair hadn’t been washed and there was dirt around his neck and ankles. He was also wearing the same clothes that he had worn at school.
he chose to dilly-dally for almost 2 hours,
He left the house at 17.30, was seen on the Newbattle Road between 17.45 and 18.15 and then met his friends at the Abbey at 19.00.
coincidentally, on the night Jodi uncharacteristically doesn't show?
If she hadn’t shown it was all the more understandable that he waited about on the Newbattle Road. She didn’t have a phone so he couldn’t contact her.
She was coming to meet him that night? He didn't think to go to her house after 2 hours of waiting?
He knew that she wasn’t at her house, Ovens had told him that, so what would have been the point?
He simply chose to loiter about all that evening, not calling the Jones' landline again, but chose to wait until Judith called him?
On the contrary, if he was guilty surely phoning the Jones’s landline again to distance himself from the crime would exactly what he would have done?
Yeah, right! And, let's not start on the record time he discovered Jodi's body in! And using the dog to hide behind, to make himself appear less suspicious? While all hell was breaking loose,
Yes let’s not. Even the BBC has pointed out how Jodi’s families recollections changed from their initial statements to their court testimony. Shameful business.
LM was calmly on his phone, not contacting anyone to come and collect him or comfort him, calmly on his phone deleting incriminating evidence that was on his phone and even sent a 'joke text' to someone as all that horror and chaos unfolded
I have never heard about the joke text. Do you have a cite? As I have said before there was no use Luke deleting ‘incriminating’ texts as the recipients would also have a copy of the texts. Of course the phone was also in the hands of the police from very early on.
(his calmness in the circumstances was duly noted by the ambulance crew),
Do you mean the emergency services? The services whose operator who stated how upset the boy on the other end was?
giving the police the run-around on the phone, dithering and being evasive, buying himself more time, no emotion emanating from him, except when retaliating after JANJONES shouted at him (for dithering on the phone?).
Buying more time? For what reason?
As for the parka, I don't think the police would tell the Mitchells they were looking for that parka at that point (on 04.07.03).
I’m sure they didn’t because of course they weren’t as not one witness had mentioned a parka by that point ( of course Bryson never did). Further if it wasn’t there when the police searched and it ‘appeared’ several days later that would look suspicious. A rather rookie error by arch criminals Luke and his mother to buy an identical jacket to the one used in the murder when they would have known it would flag up it’s absence in the first search.
That would've been stupid of them to do so. The Mitchells knew that the parka was destroyed and the likelihood of it being traced were negligible. LM obviously liked that jacket -- so much so he got his mum to buy him an identical one on 07.07.03. Luke was spoiled and what LM wanted, LM got. CM indulged and coddled him (the jacket was on reduced price/sale, too). Besides, the first raid took place on 04.07.03 and LM got the new parka on 07.07.03. I think the Mitchells anticipated the jacket not being a problem at that point (the police would not have said they were looking for a parka at that point).
The Mitchell’s didn’t anticipate the jacket being a problem? Really? Of course, according to your good self, Luke knew he had been seen in that very same parka by Walsh and Fleming and surely that must have, in no small part, informed his decision to get rid of it. How do you square that circle?
Okay
Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?
How does that work then?
Or, as I said, it could be that the parka was a decoy of sorts, making the police doubt he ever had one in the first place, especially as buying an identical one would be stupid if LM had murdered Jodi wearing the same parka, the police would assume the Mitchells would not be so stupid?
The police never underestimate the stupidity of criminals, believe me.Maybe it was a strategic purchase? To make the police doubt he ever had one previously?
And Corrine, a mature adult, went along with this plan, knowing it could result in her son being suspected of murder, why?
One thing is for sure, they must have been confident that the old one would never be traced.
Or perhaps that it had never existed?
Anyway, as I've said numerous times previously, the circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming.
Not that overwhelming as according to your good self the jury was split 9/6.
It's no surprise he was convicted, imo. There is also a considerable amount of evidence that was never reported in the mainstream media, but which was also used to convict Mitchell in addition to the main planks which were reported and in the public domain.
Such as? If it was not reported in the MSM where did you find out about it?
-
Hi Mr. Apples,
"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"
And in another thread: "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."
As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere. There are other indications that he was fairly normal: A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example. Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime. I have substantial doubt.
-
Hi Mr. Apples,
"Also, maybe LM's cockiness and arrogance played a part in getting the identical jacket; playing mind games with the police, perhaps?"
And in another thread: "I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager."
As far as I am aware, the notion that LM was arrogant and devious comes from the police, and they have not been a reliable source of information, as I noted elsewhere. There are other indications that he was fairly normal: A dog handler was helping him with Mia, for example. Regarding LM's factual innocence or guilt, the timeline is almost impossibly tight, and his clothing was processed not long after the crime. I have substantial doubt.
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
-
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
After Janine’s and Steven’s testimony changed so did the weight that we can attach to it. So unless you were there there is absolutely no way that you can know how the finding of the body played out. Further your narrative is further compromised by the fact that you were never in the courtroom, never heard a word of direct testimony and, from what you’ve intimated, everything has been gleaned from press reports and forums like this….hardly the most authoritative of sources.
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.
Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point). This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting. I've nothing against SL whatsoever (in fact, I'm often taken aback by the amount of vitriol she, imo, unjustly receives), but this part of IB is sheer deflection. I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to? Anyway, after delving a little further into the case, the army clothing and Luke's Army Cadet membership becomes very significant indeed, imo. Yet, SL downplays it, or deliberately deflects and omits. It would be useful to read the case files to ascertain how many people mentioned LM wearing the Parka Jacket, specifically one with a German Army badge on the sleeve, prior to the murder? I wonder, too, how many of the 8 eyewitnesses called to court specifically to give evidence in relation the parka jacket sightings prior to ther murder, made reference to a german army badge on sleeve? Remember, the police had 20 witnesses in total willing to testify about LM wearing a parka before the murder, but only used 8 of those in court. AB, LF, RW and the young guy from Eskbank Trading all made reference to Army clothing/parka jacket with German Army badge on sleeve. Does anyone know who else mentions this? Oh, allegedly JudJ testified under oath that LM had worn a green parka before the murder.
Anyone care to chip in or add anything to the above?
It was John [Name removed] who said initially that it was Mark Bill Bryson who said (in Alice Walker's house on the afternoon of 01.07.03) his brother (AB's husband) had spotted the youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots at the Easthouses end of the path. Also according to [Name removed], there waa a general agreement that this sighting was Luke on the basis of his Army Cadet membership.
SL tries to make a big deal out of a photograph that was taken -- 6 weeks after the murder -- of Mark Bill Bryson & his brother (AB's husband) in the house of a close relative of Jodi's with other members of Jodi's family. Also, she tries to imply that there could have been collusion between the Brysons and the Jones & Walker families as Mark Bill Bryson's girlfriend started cutting Judith's hair at the Joneses' family home after 30.06.03. Clutching at straws, imo.
-
I am not saying anything in relation to this case is 100% irrefutable, unequivocal fact. Everything pertaining to this case was and is purely circumstantial and hence why there are still discussions in the present day. You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.
‘Everything pertaining to this case’ isn’t in the public domain
And [moderated] didn’t attend the 42 day trial so she doesn’t have a clue about the ‘everything’ to do with the case against killer Luke Mitchell
Also there wasn’t a single journo who covered the trial in its entirety
-
SL refers to a Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law) in pages 116-117 in IB. He (allegedly) said that it was his brother (AB's husband) who mentioned a male youth with long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots, spotted at the Easthouses end of the path on 30.06.03 (no mention of time, a german army badge or a girl here, though I suspect the latter was craftilly omitted by SL). SL mentions that, according to JOF, there was a general agreement that the youth seen here was LM, on the count of his Army Cadet membership (though he had left the cadets by this point).
What about the yellow framed bike?
Did grifter Sandra Lean ‘craftily’ omit details of this too. What exactly did she state in her second book about what John F (JOF) said about killer Luke Mitchell’s push bike?
-
This MBB allegedly had made these remarks initially in AW's house before lunch time on 01.07.03 and then again, on 04.07.03, spoke about his brother's (AB's husband) sighting to AO in the Jones' household. SL indicates in p117 of IB that it was not MBB's brother's sighting, but actually AB's own sighting.
How did con artist Sandra Lean form this tale?
-
SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages.
Sandra Lean
Push bikes featured with an almost ridiculous amount of significance in the early investigation, and it was literally years before I discovered why.
And there was a reason fraudster Sandra Lean omitted the ‘ridiculous amount’ of significant evidence regarding the push bikes
-
I think it's also quite telling that she omits the evidence of what it was that made this parka unique. The unique aspect of this jacket was7 discussed at the original trial -- the German army badge on the sleeve. SL, between pages p217-225 of IB, makes reference to a german army shirt that LM had owned, and mentions the young guy -- who was called as a witness in court -- who saw Luke wearing a khaki green parka before the murder, in a shop (Eskbank Trading). There is a lot of deflection and deliberate omissions within these pages. She makes out that the aforementioned young guy only said that he saw LM wearing a parka because LM was frequently pictured in the tv news and newspapers wearing a parka jacket since August 15th 2003 (the date when the very first pic of LM wearing a parka was made public); however, what SL omits from IB is that this young guy was very specific during his court testimony, crucially saying that his sighting of LM wearing the parka in Eskbank Trading shop was BEFORE the murder. The young guy was unequivocal about this. Also, this same young guy said that there was another reason for remembering his sighting -- because of the German Army badge on the sleeve, and that his own mother had the exact same jacket. Clear deflection and omission by SL, imo, as, presumably, she had read about all of this in the case files she has access to?
Did this young guys mother give evidence/make a statement ?
-
You've erroneously inferred that I think CM didn't (or doesn't) know anything about the murder; what I meant was that CM MAY have known nothing and may still no nothing, and that it is possible that it was SM who helped LM that evening.
Corinne Mitchell knew - just like she knew her killer son Luke Mitchell had owned that parka jacket before she replaced it with another one
-
Quickly reverting back to the (broken) alibi . . . SM said that he çhanged his original account that he gave on 01.07.03 because CM reminded him of seeing LM 'mashing tatties', but, under oath, SM said that he "honestly could not remember seeing his brother in the house that day but that he could have been there"? As that he openly admitted under oath to looking at porn and masturbating and also under oath said that this was something that he would not have done? Major red flag for me. SM, by virtue of this evidence, is saying his brother wasn't in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. And I don't believe that the police hassled or harrassed SM into a false admission; he simply did the right thing under oath. No amount of forceful police interrogation or intimidation would make a person give a false confession about their own brother's whereabouts, especially when what was at stake. LM wasn't there and SM simply told the truth, imo.
What did Shane Mitchell tell the police about the German shepherd dog the family had before Mia?
-
Edit: when the police did that first raid on the 04.07.03, I don't think they were necessarily looking for that parka. If they were, I don't think they let the Mitchells know they were looking for it at this point.
On what date was killer Luke Mitchell’s missing parka first mentioned to the police?
-
The only clear level of flaws is the intellect of those who live in the pages of that book and into a doc based upon it:
Where you keep mentioning the evidence presented to a Jury, yet know virtually nothing of the actual evidence presented, why? - For you live in the pages of a book, with some manipulation of cherry picked excerpts of the defence. 99% of the Crowns case is actually missing. The questioning of each witness on the stand.
90% of the book is around deflection into other areas.
How does your first statement repetition go? - CM and LM's completely wiped out by SM's first statement. So there you have it. No Luke home just as he always stated. from first to the stand. - I did not see my brother.
Don't forget Luke's first either. Listening to that music now. So never saw him never heard him.
CM I got home at my usual time. No she didn't she got home no earlier than 5.15pm. Can't have been mistaken, first account mind, always correct. LM, mum got home at her usual time. Really, so not mistaken mind, always accurate. Lying
CM. Luke left home around 5.45pm. LM. I left home around 5.45pm. "Where did you make the call from Luke?" The wall at the entrance of my estate. "This is at 5.32pm Luke?"
CM - I was in the garden enjoying the sunshine. 'It was not sunny Corinne' Lying.
We can stop there - Just highlighting parts of those first accounts.
In short, one who did not see nor hear his brother. Two in harmony of completely impossible information. Which is concocted? The lies of course.
Now we add in the author and claiming CM simply reminded her son Shane it was the day of the burnt pies:
We move onto his change - 'I remember now, we had burnt pies for dinner. Mum got in at her usual time, I went down to greet her, asked her how her day had been. The time was just after five, her usual time of getting home. Luke was mashing tatties. I went back to my room and mum shouted me for dinner around ten minutes later. So we have those two sets of concocted lies now including a third person to go along with them. A period of time that the mother was not even home. We can't fast forward it. We can't say it was really 5.15 he came to say hi to mum, ask her how her day had been, returning upstairs and all else - as LM was out the door by 5.30pm, as of course was Shane?
Will we add in more? - Luke came out back to say bye to me. He was going to see Jodi. The time was around Qtr to 6. He was wearing a manky, dirty top. Told him to change it, he told me it was Jodi's favourite top. Not for much longer it won't be laddie if you don't stop wearing it. He had on his thick, green blouson Jacket with orange lining. No idea why, I mean it was sunny and warm, I was soaking it up in the garden?! Didn't say anything of that to him though. I did however when we went shopping and he wanted that big parka jacket with the German army badge on it. 'Luke it is summer time, you don't wear jackets. I mean you literally could not get him to wear one. He told me it would be winter soon and I saw the sale sign, well I just had to buy it' - evidently no problem on this warm summers, sunny evening wearing a jacket.
Then we just simply add in the intellect of those soaking up that book. Making statements of evidence presented to a Jury. Telling people there was not enough evidence for a conviction. So 9 weeks later and a handful of cherry picked defence excerpts from a book, and one is suddenly an expert on there being no case to answer to? Where the gullibility is second to none. - Who states, 'she may get things wrong but I trust her' So you are in reality shown b....r all in the grand scheme of things, your few sandwiches short attempt is simply that - blind faith.
Where all you actually do do, is attempt to act intelligent. - you fail miserably where this case is concerned. Mimicking the author repeatedly. First statements jargon, evidence before a jury, what about AB's call to hubby. I am actually surprised you have not come out with the nonsense around the speaking clock yet.
We look at these others! And it is full of not sure's . Approximations and guesswork. The only people to be precise in anything was LM and his mother. So precise it simply crumbled and disintegrated as each piece of evidence came to light. This constant bleat, that they were the only consistent accounts, yes consistently false. Those constant bleats that their statements didn't change. What a bloody hoot! The only ones who's statements who had to consistently change due to evidence coming to light. That caused repetitive change in those lies.
But this author and her honesty. Where your repetition is the exact same. As with MrSwah. 'She may get things wrong but don't believe she would wilfully mislead/lie' Like SL and stating CM is simply mistaken, not lying just confused.
This bloody weather on the 30th of June. Where I highlighted how easily someone can insert narrative that is blatantly false, to back up her own nonsense. This F&W and the dark hair. Nothing she states to make that hair appear darker, no outside factors. No, just the lack of sunshine and of course the shade of those trees. To the present day and she is talking of people wearing hoodies and she states
"Aside from never seeing any evidence whatsoever of this "second blue hoodie," it's something of a ridiculous suggestion that, on a warm (but wet) summer evening, Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over her Black deftones hoodie"
So there you have it again, from "what was a bright sunny evening around 6pm" to "on a warm (but wet) summer evening" - where her contradictions are literally like weather, ever changeable to suit the narrative at the time.
Perhaps being more public, perhaps more people stepping forward and saying, it was a day of grey sky's, overcast with cooler temps. These thick hoodies, parka jackets and thick blousons.
And we go back to CM and those fibs! Of being out on the patio enjoying the weather ------ to fire's giving off lots of smoke, no doubt dampened by rain! To the author backing CM and stating she too was out on her patio, reading in the sunshine!
Thankfully Faith the support with this clear level of intellect and as the author rightly states, why lie to aid a dangerous person being freed? Where lies are the last thing that will gain anyone freedom. - None of it, the support of the lies and all else, matter a Jot where the safety of LM's conviction is concerned. They pose no threat, just a whole lot of gullible people who claim instantly they give this support on the basis of blind faith. We do not need to see proof under the safety net of Scots law and disclosure. We simply accept the authors word. "buy the book" it is "everything you need to know on this case" - hook. line and sinker. Soaked up, churned round and spat back out with additives.
So please, one can not keep repeating the same old nonsense, of there not being enough evidence before a Jury, when one has no bloody idea of what was before the Jury. Those recordings for a start, the phone logs of the speaking clock, those first statements read and gone over by the prosecution, you know the one's you keep harping on about. Where that search trio from the off stated, LM and his dog went directly to that break in the wall. So it is not about "40yards, 20 feet, parallel to, no one cares" It is everything about nothing to do with the dam dog, and everything to do with LM's lies.
Suzy says;
“The author has mentioned the “jury” several times here. It is important for us to remember that the verdict against Luke Mitchell was NOT unanimous. It was a majority verdict. We never find out the voting ratio but the fact of the matter is that at least 1 juror, maybe more, did not believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that Luke Mitchell committed this heinous crime.”
Admin says;
“For ‘20 years’ you have been duped by this guilty killer and his toxic enablers innocence fraud.
You have stated; “I am very much of the opinion that you read the initial statements of witnesses”.
Psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page written statement was read to the jury during his trial.
At the time of making his 22 page statement he was a witness and his mother Corinne Mitchell was sat next to him when he made this statement.
Can you tell us all what he said in those 22 pages, as was read out during open court in November 2004?”
(See foot here👇)
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-24/
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unbelievable_Story_of_Rape
A woman (pseudonym Marie) claimed that she was raped. Police repeatedly interviewed her and got her to recant; she was later charged with a gross misdemeanor. Evidence later turned up against a serial rapist in another state linked him to Marie's rape. At the NYT Emily Bazelon wrote, "An external reviewer said that if the two police officers who interrogated Marie hadn’t documented their own “bullying and coercive” behavior, he “would have been skeptical” that such conduct actually happened." There have been several articles, a book, and a podcast about these cases, and my short summary above is merely meant to introduce these cases, not as a complete summary.
Clearly the particulars of the crime are different. My point is that police can convince a witness to say (and presumably believe) things that are not true, even when it is against that person's interests to say it. As I have ruminated on the Mitchell/Jones case, I. have become increasingly troubled by the number of witnesses who made material changes between their initial statements and their courtroom. It is one of the reasons why this conviction is unsafe.
-
From Alice Walker’s court testimony.
“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”
Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+The+finest+day+I+ever+had+was+when+tomorrow...-a0126288471
The link above has this quote. One wishes that Pat Brown had dug into this sort of conflicting testimony.
-
From Alice Walker’s court testimony.
“ She says: 'The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going. Judith texted or phoned to say Luke was at the other end of the path.”
Take that in… “that was the last place Jodi was going”. Why would Alice think that? Who had told her that? Not Judith surely as she allegedly thought Jodi was ‘mucking about up here ( Easthouses)’?
You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.
10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.
10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.
11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.
10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.
After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.
Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.
And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.
So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
-
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path. /
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here. / Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
The time spent loitering on the path is very revealing of his need for control in finding the body IMO. If LM defenders claims had an ounce of truth then the tracker dog, which was so good, missed the body first time round yet found it second time on the shortest leash with all those other woodland animals and various scents abound. If your girlfriend was missing after 11pm at night why would you wait 30 mins before putting it in "tracker mode"?
Of course, if it were all an elaborate sacrificial killing as put forth by Lean & Co then surely the search party would have lead LM to the V and encouraged him to go over and turn left in the darkness?
-
You really do just keep on giving - Luke on path, no show, usual meeting place at the path, head to the area after phone checks made, because, Luke on path, where else? Last place, usual meeting place, no show, Luke on path. Now let us look at 10:59-11:18pm. But first.
10:40 - 11:34pm - LM to LM, not seen Jodi to dialling 999.
10:40 - Not seen
10:50pm, less than 10mins later he has instantly initiated an actual physical search directly to the path, nothing of that 5min walk to there, just that path.
10:59pm - Tells Jodi's mother he is on that path.
10:41 - 11:05pm - All contact/communication to AW (three), directly to her house landline, switching to mobile after 11:05pm. Calls to police, checks made by phone to others. Jodi's mother is awaiting the arrival of the police any moment. The three leave to head to the path, by that point LM had been on the path around 5mins alone.
11:18pm - Important time, last mobile contact, before the arrival of the police, before the three arrive at the path, before the 4 meet.
11:20 - 22pm - The police are in Jodi's house, the three arrive at the path, where is LM? Around 2/3 up. Take him back to 11:18pm, to cover that distance to 2/3, where is he? Around that V break area.
10:59pm enters that path, by 11:18pm he is still around the bottom area, around that V break area, around the area where that young girls body had been hidden on the other side of that wall. AW and why to the path? Really! No dear, we want to know what Luke Mitchell was doing in those 18mins, that had him not move up from that V break area until after the last mobile contact, when knowing the others were about to arrive at the path.
10:40 - 11:20-22pm - Luke Mitchell told Jodi's mother he had not seen her, instantly initiated search directly to the path, leading others to the area, held back around one given area, moving on from this around 11:18pm, meets with others, they walk down to be in his presence physically, they head off together around 11:24pm.
After going directly to the path, instantly into physical search mode, holding back, bringing others to the path, what does he do? He wades through several feet of undergrowth directly to that wall at the Gino break, up and shines his torch directly to the back of that wall, to later claim he had a "hunch". 11:25-26pm. - Initiated search directly to locus, brought others there, directly to the wall, initiating and planting that seed of his "something" being directly behind that wall. - We are 46mins in now, from not seen, directly to path, holding back, directly to that wall - Luke, Luke, Luke, and on it goes.
Position, nothing else counts for anything, 4 people, very first accounts, three directly to the V break from the east, one not quite 60ft past. Only the three can be correct in their account, those descriptions which could only have been given exactly as stated, from the east to that V break, LM was lying, and he lied because he had to try and give reason for knowing exactly where to go behind that wall, he lied about the position and the position is the very essence of LM knowing exactly where that young girls body had been hidden, some 43ft west of that V break within that woodland strip.
And he lied some more, for he attempted to claim he had walked more that his actual 10ft behind that wall, naming types of trees, that bobble, clothes etc. Sticking himself fast in his own web of deceit. 54mins Luke to Luke, every step of the way. Around 5mins together heading down that path, straight to the wall, and again straight to the next break as with the first. The lie, the change in account by those three people from Jodi's family was of who was leading who, always directly to those breaks, position, position, position.
So, why instantly into physical search mode, why directly to the path and nothing of those 5mins, why holding back about around that V break? why directly to that wall at the Gino break then the V break? Police? Control? Kicks? cocksure? And why the incessant lies from Lean and co, those enablers who are in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the truth here?
So, instead of harping on about absolute nonsense here - Get the lot up and out there, let us see those changes in accounts you speak of, let us see what was still adopted at trial from those very first accounts - Oh wait, that is correct, it will be, we can't possibly do any of this, of course you can't - Far better to live in a world of fallacy and constant deception to place irrelevant focus elsewhere away from LM. Dog? Nothing to do with that dog and that is exactly why suspicion fell upon him, four accounts, three singing from the same hymn sheet whilst the 4th just lied and lied - Position. Context and NOT just dog and wall whilst ignoring and avoiding like the plague the rest.
“ The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
Except Jodi wasn’t going to the path, was she? According to Judith Jodi was ‘mucking about up here’ so why did Alice Walker think that the path is where she should look? What did Judith say to Alice in that first phone call? A logical question from Alice would obviously be “where was Jodi going” and from Alice’s testimony in court it doesn’t appear that the answer was ‘mucking about in Easthouses’.
-
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12799221.police-tore-up-the-guidelines-claim-lukes-defence-team/
"Mr Findlay maintains that if a proper ID parade had been held - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the 'stand-ins'. 'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,'" he [Donald Findlay] said.
-
"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389
-
"Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.
Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+%27We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465
Another site indicated that there was "concern in his voice," according to Janine.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Witness+flees+as+Jodi+pics+shown%3B+MURDER+TRIAL+HALTED+AFTER+ACCUSED...-a0126028389
There was talk that Luke showed no emotion when photographs of Jodi’s body was shown to the court. Your second link seems to suggest otherwise.
-
There was talk that Luke showed no emotion when photographs of Jodi’s body was shown to the court. Your second link seems to suggest otherwise.
Your inference seems quite likely.
-
“ The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
Except Jodi wasn’t going to the path, was she? According to Judith Jodi was ‘mucking about up here’ so why did Alice Walker think that the path is where she should look? What did Judith say to Alice in that first phone call? A logical question from Alice would obviously be “where was Jodi going” and from Alice’s testimony in court it doesn’t appear that the answer was ‘mucking about in Easthouses’.
They, they, they, not Jodi but they -- Do get it correct at least.
I will give you two clues here, one is "they" and the other is time - What was related to AW via her daughter? That LM had said he had not seen Jodi, now we add in time here, where would the time factor and relevance be of saying to her mother, Luke said he had not seen her and that "they" did not happen, so there would be no "up here" as there was no "they" - Pretty sure the worry and panic that set in around someone being wrong took priority, without the slightest thought process being applicable in that time frame - As in, barely time to sit, think, digest anything at all before LM is dialling 999. - So we are still at, no they, something wrong, checks made, Luke path, search, area where the couple would meet regularly, a place when met, if met, where there would then be this "they" to head off wherever "they" were supposed to be going together. - Get my drift?
Now for time and realism around those 54mins - Now we can cut that right down to what? Around 20mins of communication to several bodies from these people, each other, police, friends, before AW headed out of her house, after leaving her house, take off the travel distance, and we had around 8min from setting off together before LM is dialling 999. - So you see, there was no up here, no they, no chance of any thought process of moving off anywhere else from that path, BECAUSE LM is dialling 999. Very much why there was also nothing from JaJ's, of we did not get a chance to think of searching anywhere else, for there was NO need to be searching anywhere else, because LM went straight to the wall once, then again, over it and - bang. And to not and never forget that these were DF's attempts at trying to say, well they went to the path too without anywhere else, and that clincher, of "If it hadn't been for Luke then Jodi would still have been lying there?" Oops, he was the very reason why she was not because he knew exactly where to go in record breaking time, because of his special knowledge! Because, and let's face us, that poor girl would not have been lying there at all, if it had not been for LM?
It was dark then it was light, it was searching to not searching, to racing up a path because it was dark, no it was light, to dog doing nothing because one was racing up a path and did not pay any attention to anything his dog may have been doing - No wait, that cannot possibly be correct, for, from 10:59pm - 11:18pm he had only gotten as far as the area of the V break in that wall - Oh dear, do you see a problem with this utter nonsense of constant conflicting accounts, to try and excuse, explain and evade the stark reality of LM's special knowledge.
Will we deflect now into why on earth did they not have their torches on in the complex? That open playing field where again, that ludicrous notion of putting any torch on to shine around that open playing field, where darkness had just fell, where many and multiple people had been all over that open field over the course of that evening - Realistic at all to be doing that, when there had been no they anyway? No up here, just nothing but something wrong, caught up in a rapid series of events - Bang.
The police, the calls, something wrong, going to attend any minute, they arrive at Jodi's house to take further details to help around something being wrong, a young girl missing and bang. Barely 15mins later from knocking the door and that call comes through that a body has been found.
And all because of AW wanting to check the path, the verges properly - Gave cause to LM going to the wall directly and firstly, then to the next break, up and over, around 10steps and bang - Did you see anything of any cattle prod in the statements, from LM? No of course not, these were LM's actions, no one else's.
10:40pm to 11:34pm with only around 5mins of actually searching, what was supposed to be a path and verges together -
-
They, they, they, not Jodi but they -- Do get it correct at least.
I will give you two clues here, one is "they" and the other is time - What was related to AW via her daughter? That LM had said he had not seen Jodi, now we add in time here, where would the time factor and relevance be of saying to her mother, Luke said he had not seen her and that "they" did not happen, so there would be no "up here" as there was no "they" - Pretty sure the worry and panic that set in around someone being wrong took priority, without the slightest thought process being applicable in that time frame - As in, barely time to sit, think, digest anything at all before LM is dialling 999. - So we are still at, no they, something wrong, checks made, Luke path, search, area where the couple would meet regularly, a place when met, if met, where there would then be this "they" to head off wherever "they" were supposed to be going together. - Get my drift?
Now for time and realism around those 54mins - Now we can cut that right down to what? Around 20mins of communication to several bodies from these people, each other, police, friends, before AW headed out of her house, after leaving her house, take off the travel distance, and we had around 8min from setting off together before LM is dialling 999. - So you see, there was no up here, no they, no chance of any thought process of moving off anywhere else from that path, BECAUSE LM is dialling 999. Very much why there was also nothing from JaJ's, of we did not get a chance to think of searching anywhere else, for there was NO need to be searching anywhere else, because LM went straight to the wall once, then again, over it and - bang. And to not and never forget that these were DF's attempts at trying to say, well they went to the path too without anywhere else, and that clincher, of "If it hadn't been for Luke then Jodi would still have been lying there?" Oops, he was the very reason why she was not because he knew exactly where to go in record breaking time, because of his special knowledge! Because, and let's face us, that poor girl would not have been lying there at all, if it had not been for LM?
It was dark then it was light, it was searching to not searching, to racing up a path because it was dark, no it was light, to dog doing nothing because one was racing up a path and did not pay any attention to anything his dog may have been doing - No wait, that cannot possibly be correct, for, from 10:59pm - 11:18pm he had only gotten as far as the area of the V break in that wall - Oh dear, do you see a problem with this utter nonsense of constant conflicting accounts, to try and excuse, explain and evade the stark reality of LM's special knowledge.
Will we deflect now into why on earth did they not have their torches on in the complex? That open playing field where again, that ludicrous notion of putting any torch on to shine around that open playing field, where darkness had just fell, where many and multiple people had been all over that open field over the course of that evening - Realistic at all to be doing that, when there had been no they anyway? No up here, just nothing but something wrong, caught up in a rapid series of events - Bang.
The police, the calls, something wrong, going to attend any minute, they arrive at Jodi's house to take further details to help around something being wrong, a young girl missing and bang. Barely 15mins later from knocking the door and that call comes through that a body has been found.
And all because of AW wanting to check the path, the verges properly - Gave cause to LM going to the wall directly and firstly, then to the next break, up and over, around 10steps and bang - Did you see anything of any cattle prod in the statements, from LM? No of course not, these were LM's actions, no one else's.
10:40pm to 11:34pm with only around 5mins of actually searching, what was supposed to be a path and verges together -
I’m not getting caught in the weeds.
“The only place I could think to go was the path because that was the last place Jodi was going”
There was no reason for Alice to go to the path unless she had been told that that Jodi had walked that way to Luke’s. No reason to look if she thought that Luke, as was alleged, always walked her granddaughter down the path. Who told her that Jodi was walking the path….Judith, Janine, who knows? No need to walk the length of the path if Jodi was simply going to meet Luke at the beginning to ‘muck about up here.
We are told that Judith asked Luke why he hadn’t phoned her back when Jodi didn’t turn up. Think about that. Doesn’t that suggest that Jodi was going to Luke and not Luke to Jodi and that Judith knew that.
-
Gary L. Wells, Brian L. Cutler, and Lisa Hasel wrote a chapter on eyewitness identification for the book "Race to Injustice." On pages 313-314 they listed the characteristics of a good lineup, which included:
"Fillers should match the general description that the eyewitness gave of the culprit, and the administrators should take any other measures that will ensure the suspect will not stand out.
Witnesses should be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, and told not to guess."
[My paraphrase] The lineup should be double-blind.
"The lineup administrator should record a clear statement of the witness' certainty at the time of the identification."
The authors also point out that showing a witness a suspect's photo repeatedly can lead to "memory source error," which is when the witness remembers the face from the photo, not the crime scene.
-
I would like to return to the subject of two witnesses in the Newbattle area, Mrs. Walsh and Ms. Fleming. "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." Murderpedia
Sandra Lean wrote, On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture [which had appeared on the 15th]. The following day Ms Fleming said in a statement that Ms. Walsh came to her house around 6:25pm the previous evening and said, "I know I'm not supposed to talk to you, but take a look at this" and handed her the Daily Record..."
"Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006)."
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
The prosecution's case is almost nothing but eyewitness testimony. It is remarkable how poor in quality this testimony was.
-
I would like to return to the subject of two witnesses in the Newbattle area, Mrs. Walsh and Ms. Fleming. "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." Murderpedia
Sandra Lean wrote, On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture [which had appeared on the 15th]. The following day Ms Fleming said in a statement that Ms. Walsh came to her house around 6:25pm the previous evening and said, "I know I'm not supposed to talk to you, but take a look at this" and handed her the Daily Record..."
"Other studies have shown that misinformation can corrupt memory even more easily when it is encountered in social situations (Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004). This is a problem particularly in cases where more than one person witnesses a crime. In these cases, witnesses tend to talk to one another in the immediate aftermath of the crime, including as they wait for police to arrive. But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they are likely to see or notice different things, and thus remember different things, even when they witness the same event. So when they communicate about the crime later, they not only reinforce common memories for the event, they also contaminate each other’s memories for the event (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Paterson & Kemp, 2006; Takarangi, Parker, & Garry, 2006)."
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases
The prosecution's case is almost nothing but eyewitness testimony. It is remarkable how poor in quality this testimony was.
“ On August 21st, police approached Mrs. Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke”
The police had to approach Mrs Walsh because neither she nor Mrs Fleming appear to have thought that recognising a suspected murderer warranted them informing the police themselves. In fact it was a colleague of Walsh who eventually informed the police of her ‘identification’.
-
If the police had constructed a proper photo ID to show Ms. Walsh, that would be one thing. However, showing her the photo that appeared in the paper could have contaminated her memory, and she later did the same thing regarding Ms. Fleming.
"For instance, simply seeing an innocent suspect in a lineup can lead a witness to later misidentify that now-familiar suspect as the perpetrator. Because human memory is inherently malleable, an eyewitness’s memory will be contaminated after a first test, even if it and subsequent tests use pristine procedures."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/may-2022-pspilive-eyewitness-testimony.html
-
If the police had constructed a proper photo ID to show Ms. Walsh, that would be one thing. However, showing her the photo that appeared in the paper could have contaminated her memory, and she later did the same thing regarding Ms. Fleming.
"For instance, simply seeing an innocent suspect in a lineup can lead a witness to later misidentify that now-familiar suspect as the perpetrator. Because human memory is inherently malleable, an eyewitness’s memory will be contaminated after a first test, even if it and subsequent tests use pristine procedures."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/may-2022-pspilive-eyewitness-testimony.html
I don’t know how showing the witness an article describing the arrest of Luke with a photograph of him and asking was that the youth she saw can be described as anything but prejudicial.
-
I don’t know how showing the witness an article describing the arrest of Luke with a photograph of him and asking was that the youth she saw can be described as anything but prejudicial.
I agree. Defenders of the police/prosecution here said words to the effect, "They are just guidelines." This kind of thinking ignores the obvious question. What good reason was there for ignoring them? If no answer can be given, then the conclusion must be that they were deliberately flouted in order to obtain a conviction.
The author of a 2022 article at The Economist newsmagazine wrote, "The answer, as he and Dr Loftus argue in a recently published paper, is to test a witness’s memory as fairly as possible, and—crucially—to do so only once...Dr Wixted cited the case of Charles Don Flores, a prisoner awaiting execution for a murder committed in 1998. Initially, when shown a line-up that included Mr Flores, a crucial witness said none of the people matched her recollection. (She had recalled a white man with long hair. Mr Flores is of Latin American extraction, and had short hair then.) By the time the case came to trial a year later, she had changed her mind, and Mr Flores was convicted. His appeal on the basis of the witness’s change of mind has been denied. Dr Wixted, however, suggests she was likely to have been right the first time and wrong the second."
It is regrettable that the appeals process in the case of Mr. Flores did not recognize the discrepancy, and it helps explain why the highly problematic eyewitness testimony in the Mitchell case was not enough to generate a successful appeal. Another take-home message is that the appearance of Luke Mitchell's photograph in the press on 15 August was a major element in the Fleming/Walsh apparent sighting (Innocents Betrayed, pp. 130-131). The newspaper photograph also had some influence on Andrina Bryson, according to the appeal as found at Murderpedia: "The witness had seen a picture of the appellant in a newspaper the following day and had confirmed in evidence that this had added some weight to her identification." Mrs. Bryson had viewed a photo lineup on 14 August, if I am not mistaken.
-
Chris: do you believe LM is not guilty or are you just not convinced about the evidence that convicted him? I have now met 2 people who attended the trial, one who attended every day, and they have no doubt about the verdict.
It would seem the pro-LM camp consider that every single witness (apart from LM & CM) has lied, and that police corruption and media input were to blame without considering the totality of evidence that convicted him.
-
KenMore,
Let's take the second paragraph first. No, I do not believe that every witness lied, and the examples that I provided suggests that the witnesses' changing their stories has other explanations. The two primary causes are contamination of memories (for which I have given examples and discussion) and the police cajoling/persuading witnesses to change their stories over time. The latter is plausibly inferred from other cases (two of which I discussed upthread). One cannot simply look at the final result (however strong or weak) without digging into how it was obtained. Putting it another way, guidelines regarding identifications were adopted for a reason, that reason being to obtain the most reliable information possible.
Regarding the media, I would say that publishing Luke Mitchell's picture created profound problems for the investigation, and the investigators made things worse by using the photograph. Regarding the question of possible police corruption, there is no bright line between an incompetent investigation and a corrupt one. The evidence that this was at least a sloppy, biased investigation begins but does not end with the events of 1 July.
Even apart from the changing stories (itself a red flag), these were poor identifications. For example, Ms. Bryson's descriptions of a man and a woman do not resemble Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones. IIRC only with time did Ms. Fleming or Ms. Walsh claim even to have glimpsed Luke's face. Eyewitness identifications without one's getting a good look at someone's face should have been seen as non-probative. The fact that both identifications were done by people traveling in cars is another problem, one that was particularly severe in the case of Ms. Bryson, who was traveling around a bend in the road.
On the side of guilt we have utterly untrustworthy identifications and the testimony of the search party. There is no motive, apart from pure conjecture. There is no reasonable murder weapon (who holds a knife using just one's thumb and forefinger?). There is no confession. On the side of innocence we have plausible alternative suspects. There is no forensic evidence against Luke Mitchell. There is a timeline that is dubiously short, one that becomes even tighter if you allow for the possibility that Jodi Jones' body was moved. There is an alibi from Corinne Mitchell. I trust that this answers the question from your first paragraph.
-
On the side of innocence we have plausible alternative suspects. There is no forensic evidence against Luke Mitchell. There is a timeline that is dubiously short, one that becomes even tighter if you allow for the possibility that Jodi Jones' body was moved. There is an alibi from Corinne Mitchell. I trust that this answers the question from your first paragraph.
I'm still not sure if you say LM is guilty? A few points: if the search party changed their statements to incriminate LM, would they not have all agreed to the same statement fro the start? As regards witnesses - I couldn't recall exactly what clothing someone was wearing yesterday when I drove past them. As regards Corinne, unfortunately she has lied many times on podcasts and forums so can't be seen to be reliable source. She even changed her her initial police statement after being seen on CCTV. Even the great detective Forbes claims that more than half of mothers he spoke to claim they would lie to protect their son from murder.
I have walked the crime scene area many times - it is easy to cover this distance with time to spare, plus the time between 9-11pm to dispose of evidence and clean up. There is also no forensic evidence against any other person. There are no plausible alternative suspects - they were all interviewed and eliminated at the time despite Lean & Co's protestations. The totality of evidence firmly places LM as the only possible suspect, 3000+ police statements, 100 court witness statements, only one alibi from his mother and his brother unable to alibi him etc.
-
There are other DNA profiles, including Steven Kelly's DNA profile; the official explanation for that is implausible on the grounds that Jodi and Janine were not living in the same house. If the police or prosecution claim to have investigated other suspects, this claim must be weighed against the misleading or untrue things that they have said.
Your reconstruction has Luke Mitchell cleaning up between 9 and 11. Yet none of the people who may have seen him said anything about seeing blood. Nor is there any evidence of a cleanup/disposal.
You keep talking about the totality of the evidence without addressing the multitude of problems associated with it. To take just one example, you said that you cannot remember what someone was wearing when you drove past them. Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh did not get a good look at Mr. Mitchell's face, and they did not describe his hair color or color of footwear correctly. Upon what information, then, is their identification based? Ms Fleming claimed to remember seeing a photograph of Mitchell that never existed. "Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'" (from a story by Gordon McIlwraith found at TheFreeLibrary.com). I agree with Mr. Findlay.
-
There are other DNA profiles, including Steven Kelly's DNA profile; the official explanation for that is implausible on the grounds that Jodi and Janine were not living in the same house. If the police or prosecution claim to have investigated other suspects, this claim must be weighed against the misleading or untrue things that they have said.
Your reconstruction has Luke Mitchell cleaning up between 9 and 11. Yet none of the people who may have seen him said anything about seeing blood. Nor is there any evidence of a cleanup/disposal.
You keep talking about the totality of the evidence without addressing the multitude of problems associated with it. To take just one example, you said that you cannot remember what someone was wearing when you drove past them. Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh did not get a good look at Mr. Mitchell's face, and they did not describe his hair color or color of footwear correctly. Upon what information, then, is their identification based? Ms Fleming claimed to remember seeing a photograph of Mitchell that never existed. "Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'" (from a story by Gordon McIlwraith found at TheFreeLibrary.com). I agree with Mr. Findlay.
No disprespect, but if you knew the local area you might see things differently. Of course there were many witness inconsistencies on botrh sides, but neither of us were at the trial to witness the full presented evidence where the jury gave a majority guilty verdict. I have not met anyone that was at court that doubted the verdict and have spoken to associates of SM who verify this. You/we can grasp at straws that may shed a tiny speck of doubt on the verdict, but no appeal has been anywhere near gaining ground in altering the original decision. If SL was to publish even parts of the 200 page statement of reasons from the SCCRC then the whole sorry affair would soon collapse.
No credible Scottish lawyer will touch this case which is why it falls to Lean & Forbes to whip up those who are easily lead.
PS: If I was guilty of any crime I would have Findlay KC on my side - one of the sharpest legal minds around - but LM prefers Forbes and a small town local criminal defence lawyer.
-
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5182
I would like to focus on eyewitness testimony a little more before moving on to other matters. In the Dean Gillispie wrongful conviction, Mr. Gillispie's photograph stood out from the others. "The detective created a photo lineup in which Gillispie’s photo “was closer and larger than the other photos in the spread and, unlike the other photos, had a matte finish,” Judge Merz wrote." Also, "The defense challenged the lineup as being unfairly suggestive because the photo of Gillispie had a yellow background while the other photos had blue backgrounds." For more on the problems of memory with respect to eyewitness identifications, Chapter 5 in Mark Godsey's book Blind Injustice is a good read. Mr. Godsey is a former prosecutor. In the present case there was one badly flawed photo lineup, and one identification that had no lineup at all. Astonishing.
Juries are indeed present for the whole trial, yet there are still wrongful convictions; therefore, being present is not sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jim and Nancy Petro's book "False Justice" gives some reasons. One is that not all jurors understand finality in the criminal justice system, believing that if they make a mistake, that the appeals system will correct it. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only dumb luck led to her freedom. Todd Willingham lost all of his appeals an was executed, yet several top arson investigators have found no evidence of arson. Anyone pinning his or her hopes on being exonerated by the appeals system is naive.
BTW portions of the denial of the 2008 appeal can be found at Murderpedia.org, and the passages that I have read are predictable in their defense of the police and prosecution. I do not recall seeing the SCCRC's decision, and until I do, I will withhold judgment on it. But while looking for more information on it, I did find this piece of information in another thread here: "The results indicated that although it was likely the DNA was attributable to semen, it was not possible to say conclusively that other body fluids were not also included." Hmmm...
-
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5182
I would like to focus on eyewitness testimony a little more before moving on to other matters. In the Dean Gillispie wrongful conviction, Mr. Gillispie's photograph stood out from the others. "The detective created a photo lineup in which Gillispie’s photo “was closer and larger than the other photos in the spread and, unlike the other photos, had a matte finish,” Judge Merz wrote." Also, "The defense challenged the lineup as being unfairly suggestive because the photo of Gillispie had a yellow background while the other photos had blue backgrounds." For more on the problems of memory with respect to eyewitness identifications, Chapter 5 in Mark Godsey's book Blind Injustice is a good read. Mr. Godsey is a former prosecutor. In the present case there was one badly flawed photo lineup, and one identification that had no lineup at all. Astonishing.
Juries are indeed present for the whole trial, yet there are still wrongful convictions; therefore, being present is not sufficient to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jim and Nancy Petro's book "False Justice" gives some reasons. One is that not all jurors understand finality in the criminal justice system, believing that if they make a mistake, that the appeals system will correct it. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only dumb luck led to her freedom. Todd Willingham lost all of his appeals an was executed, yet several top arson investigators have found no evidence of arson. Anyone pinning his or her hopes on being exonerated by the appeals system is naive.
BTW portions of the denial of the 2008 appeal can be found at Murderpedia.org, and the passages that I have read are predictable in their defense of the police and prosecution. I do not recall seeing the SCCRC's decision, and until I do, I will withhold judgment on it. But while looking for more information on it, I did find this piece of information in another thread here: "The results indicated that although it was likely the DNA was attributable to semen, it was not possible to say conclusively that other body fluids were not also included." Hmmm...
Further if a family member had been the perpetrator of this crime then it would not be odd to find their DNA on the victim. Indeed it would be odd not to. There was no forensic examination of Jodi’s family’s home or any site connected to the family so who knows what that would have thrown up.
Jodi’s brother was identified by a witness as a man seen following her yet it appears he was never questioned about this let alone being asked to attend an identification parade, after all there were two witnesses who saw Jodi being followed. He was also never put on the witness stand by the defence. This I find odd. His only alibi was his mother and while his mother was indeed a victim of this horrendous crime it does not rule out the fact that she may have lied to save her son.
-
Mark Godsey (p. 113 of Blind Injustice) wrote, “In 1979 in Georgia, a woman was raped by an intruder in her home. She told police that her attacker had a round face and a stocky build.1 Several weeks after the rape, the police had her look at suspects in a live lineup (see fig. 3).
“All five suspects in the lineup are quite thin with narrow faces, except the man on the far right. The man on the right seems to be the only one who fit the physical characteristics of the rapist described by the victim. Nevertheless, the victim selected the man in the middle, John Jerome White. After she identified him again at trial, White was convicted and spent more than twenty-two years in prison before DNA testing exonerated him.2 The testing further proved , however, that the man on the far right, James Parham, was the actual rapist.
“Why did the victim erroneously choose White when the real rapist was right in front of her? Because a few days before the live lineup, the police had her look at a photo spread, which included a photo of White but not of Parham…As I will explain, memory experts now understand that when a rape victim incorrectly selects the photo of an innocent person, the face in that photo often transplants the face of the real perpetrator, and the victim may no longer even recognize the actual rapist.”
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
-
Mark Godsey (p. 113 of Blind Injustice) wrote, “In 1979 in Georgia, a woman was raped by an intruder in her home. She told police that her attacker had a round face and a stocky build.1 Several weeks after the rape, the police had her look at suspects in a live lineup (see fig. 3).
“All five suspects in the lineup are quite thin with narrow faces, except the man on the far right. The man on the right seems to be the only one who fit the physical characteristics of the rapist described by the victim. Nevertheless, the victim selected the man in the middle, John Jerome White. After she identified him again at trial, White was convicted and spent more than twenty-two years in prison before DNA testing exonerated him.2 The testing further proved , however, that the man on the far right, James Parham, was the actual rapist.
“Why did the victim erroneously choose White when the real rapist was right in front of her? Because a few days before the live lineup, the police had her look at a photo spread, which included a photo of White but not of Parham…As I will explain, memory experts now understand that when a rape victim incorrectly selects the photo of an innocent person, the face in that photo often transplants the face of the real perpetrator, and the victim may no longer even recognize the actual rapist.”
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
Absolutely and further if Bryson in her first statements claimed the sighting was an hour later than it actually was how can she ever be described as a credible witness.
-
I would like to return to Rosemary Walsh and the photograph of Luke Mitchell. Sandra Lean wrote (p. 130), "After Luke's picture appeared in the media for the first time on August 15th, Rosemary Walsh began telling colleagues that Luke was the persons she and her sister-in-law saw on the evening of June 30th...On August 21st, police approached Mrs Walsh again to confirm her "recognition" of Luke, taking with them the newspaper picture."
The BBC reported, "Recalling the newspaper when speaking to police last September, Ms Walsh told them: 'As soon as I saw the photo, he jumped out at me as the male I saw on the path at the gate that night.' She told the court that she had seen the newspaper story at her work. She said the delay in speaking to police was because she wanted to check with her sister-in-law [Ms. Fleming] first."
The report from the BBC is a little ambiguous in one respect, namely that "as soon as I saw the photo" could refer to when she saw the photo in the paper (on or after 15 August) or when the police showed it to her (I favor the former interpretation). Some commenters say that Ms. Walsh exclaimed words to the effect, "Oh my God, it's him" when she saw the photograph, but I cannot find a citation for this.
If Ms. Walsh saw Luke Mitchell's photo before 21 August, then the identification process was already compromised. That does not excuse the police, however, for not showing her a photo or live lineup. Even if Ms. Walsh said those words to the police on 21 August, it may only reflect her transplanting the photographic image onto the events of the late afternoon of 30 June. The more I look into the eyewitness evidence in this case, the more I think that it was a Potemkin village.
-
Chapter 3 of Brandon L. Garrett's book Convicting the Innocent covers eyewitness identification errors. He wrote on page 57, "Additional eyewitness misidentifications, other than from showups, occurred after witnesses were exposed to single images of the exoneree. Some witnesses also saw wanted posters or media coverage displaying a composite drawing of the subject. In Michael Blair's case, for example all three eyewitnesses had already seen photos of him in the local newspaper or on television before picking his photo from a lineup.40"
This passage is relevant to the present case because from the sources I have consulted, both Rosemary Walsh and Andrina Bryson saw Luke Mitchell's photograph in the newspaper (see comments upthread).
-
In Convicting the Innocent, a retrospective analysis of wrongful convictions, Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory.41
This passage is relevant to the photo lineup that was shown to Andrina Bryson. Mr. Mitchell's photo stood out, and he was the only one with long hair. The fact that it was a photo lineup is also problematic. "If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]. https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/)
Some of the specifics of this identification are open to question. "She never identified the girl as Jodi but described a male with lots of messy hair making a strange gesture towards the girl." Her initial description was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and his hair pretty much hangs down. Ms. Bryson was going around a turn, and to see the two people, she would have had to look left while turning right if northbound or right while turning left if southbound. How she would have had time to observe strange gestures is not clear.
-
No disprespect, but if you knew the local area you might see things differently. Of course there were many witness inconsistencies on botrh sides, but neither of us were at the trial to witness the full presented evidence where the jury gave a majority guilty verdict. I have not met anyone that was at court that doubted the verdict and have spoken to associates of SM who verify this. You/we can grasp at straws that may shed a tiny speck of doubt on the verdict, but no appeal has been anywhere near gaining ground in altering the original decision. If SL was to publish even parts of the 200 page statement of reasons from the SCCRC then the whole sorry affair would soon collapse.
No credible Scottish lawyer will touch this case which is why it falls to Lean & Forbes to whip up those who are easily lead.
PS: If I was guilty of any crime I would have Findlay KC on my side - one of the sharpest legal minds around - but LM prefers Forbes and a small town local criminal defence lawyer.
KenMore,
I doubt that the average local resident has spent time pondering the right and wrong ways to elicit an eyewitness identification: why should they? It is a subject that abuts one of my professional interests, and reading up on it has been both interesting and informative. The present case has many points of similarity with other problematic eyewitness identifications, as I have touched upon in my recent comments.
The case took over forty days, yet the jury took just five hours to reach a verdict. It is difficult for me to see how they had time to deliberate about each witness and every forensic question. I also think that the defense should have called an expert in eyewitness testimony to walk the jury through the...shortcuts...that the police employed. The comments of Tim Valentine in the BBC Frontline documentary were enlightening.
-
The BBC Frontline documentary apparently had access to the original police statements from Janine Jones and her boyfriend Steven Kelly, who along with Alice Walker and Luke Mitchell, formed the search party on the night of 30 June 2023. Starting at about 21 minutes into this documentary, the statements are compared and contrasted to the testimonies. These discrepancies are consistent with my recollection the discussion of this topic within Dr. Lean's book, and their existence undermines a major plank of the prosecution's case. Professor Tim Valentine (https://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/valentine/) is quoted at several points in the documentary including this one. One wishes that an expert in eyewitness identifications had given evidence at the trial, but I am unaware of any such testimony.
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted. Instead (and assuming that he wished to participate in finding the body for some reason), he should have insisted on obtaining a piece of Jodi's clothing to present to Mia, his Alsatian dog who was being trained to track.
-
The BBC Frontline documentary apparently had access to the original police statements from Janine Jones and her boyfriend Steven Kelly, who along with Alice Walker and Luke Mitchell, formed the search party on the night of 30 June 2023. Starting at about 21 minutes into this documentary, the statements are compared and contrasted to the testimonies. These discrepancies are consistent with my recollection the discussion of this topic within Dr. Lean's book, and their existence undermines a major plank of the prosecution's case. Professor Tim Valentine (https://www.gold.ac.uk/psychology/staff/valentine/) is quoted at several points in the documentary including this one. One wishes that an expert in eyewitness identifications had given evidence at the trial, but I am unaware of any such testimony.
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted. Instead (and assuming that he wished to participate in finding the body for some reason), he should have insisted on obtaining a piece of Jodi's clothing to present to Mia, his Alsatian dog who was being trained to track.
Is this the same as what you posted here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14093916
Roberta Glass has a playlist on Innocence fraudsters Knox & Sollecito
👇
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZCroaJ4oThAQ908NkEzftgURqs7CEqBo
-
One point that came up in the Knox/Sollecito case was that the prosecution's theory required that the two accused be criminal masterminds at some points and complete idiots at others. That is true in the present case as well. A hypothetically guilty Luke Mitchell would be very foolish to go up to the body unprompted.
That’s what he did do
One month shy of his 15th birthday and he wasn’t at all phased and stayed over that side of the wall, even when he eventually dialled 999
Amanda Knox Explains it All to You
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/OtTnNR_eHpI?feature=share
-
Nicholas,
Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent or guilty? I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass, and it had the usual nonsensical arguments. After I heard her make an obvious forensic chemistry error, I gave up.
EDT
These are more general questions: Do you know of any wrongfully convicted individuals? Do you know of any false confessions?
-
Roberta Glass has a playlist on Innocence fraudsters Knox & Sollecito
👇
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZCroaJ4oThAQ908NkEzftgURqs7CEqBo
Roberta Glass is another guilt grifter. She makes Pat Brown look fair and balanced by comparison.
-
I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass
Amanda Knox Changes Her Story Again!
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/HsPxozrB6os?feature=share
-
Roberta Glass claimed that the rock that broke Filomena's window was thrown from the inside.
"To establish whether the window was broken from inside or out, the investigation lawyers recruited forensic glass specialist Greg Waite. Returning to the scale set, Mr Waite set about throwing a similar rock through a window from the outside-in and then repeated it from the inside-out. After consulting the limited crime scene photographs, he concluded that it was 'more likely' that the rock had come from the outside."
This is far from the only forensic mistake Roberta Glass made. Yet she speaks in such derogatory tones about other people who do not share her views. I hope that she does not take on the Luke Mitchell case; the results would inevitably be a pathetic mess of a podcast.
-
Roberta Glass claimed that the rock that broke Filomena's window was thrown from the inside.
"To establish whether the window was broken from inside or out, the investigation lawyers recruited forensic glass specialist Greg Waite. Returning to the scale set, Mr Waite set about throwing a similar rock through a window from the outside-in and then repeated it from the inside-out. After consulting the limited crime scene photographs, he concluded that it was 'more likely' that the rock had come from the outside."
Do you mean like Peter Bull in actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall case?
-
I hope that she does not take on the Luke Mitchell case
Is this you (about 3/4 of the way down)
👇
“Chris Halkides is one of Amanda Knox’s most effusive supporters. He has pontificated extensively about the case on his blog View from Wilimington and on other Internet websites.
On 30 July, he was finally prompted to post an interview with Professor Balding done some months previously. I suspect Halkides had been very keen to interview Professor Balding after reading Colin Barras’ article on the New Scientist website; but was holding back on posting it because it went against his own claims.
Indeed, his interview has turned out to be quite a slap in the face for the Friends of Amanda and Colin Barras, because Professor Balding categorically described the DNA evidence against Sollecito to Halkidis as “strong”.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
In Convicting the Innocent, a retrospective analysis of wrongful convictions, Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory.41
This passage is relevant to the photo lineup that was shown to Andrina Bryson. Mr. Mitchell's photo stood out, and he was the only one with long hair. The fact that it was a photo lineup is also problematic. "If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]. https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/ (https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/)
Some of the specifics of this identification are open to question. "She never identified the girl as Jodi but described a male with lots of messy hair making a strange gesture towards the girl." Her initial description was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and his hair pretty much hangs down. Ms. Bryson was going around a turn, and to see the two people, she would have had to look left while turning right if northbound or right while turning left if southbound. How she would have had time to observe strange gestures is not clear.
👇
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14093916
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case. The Knox/Sollecito prosecution did not call a witness to test its hypothesis that the window was broken with a rock thrown from the inside. Raffaele Sollecito's team called a witness who demonstrated what throwing a rock through a window would do. "Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, presented a video in court that included three different scenarios showing how the rock could have been thrown from the outside to break the window, located 13 feet off the ground...'By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could 'exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside.'"
https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
Ms. Glass was talking nonsense here and elsewhere in her podcasts.
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case.
Raffaele Sollecito's team called a witness who demonstrated what throwing a rock through a window would do
The 2007 BBC Rough Justice innocence fraud TV show “The Innocents’ Brief” on actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall has footage of Prof. Peter Bull using a rock like ornament to demonstrate what using/throwing a rock like ornament at a window would do
‘It will reveal how tests undertaken on Mrs Albert's original window frame show her murderer's clothes would have been ingrained with tiny fragments of glass. Her killer is believed to have broken in to her Capel St Mary home through the window
The programme goes on to point out the clothing fibres which led to Hall's conviction for murder bore no traces of glass.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21302057.documentary-highlight-murder-case/
-
There is a minor profile on the autosomal DNA of the bra clasp that is likely to be Mr. Sollecito's DNA; there is also a Y-Chromosomal profile that is likely to be his. One problem for the prosecution is that there are additional alleles in the autosomal profile and probably a total of three donors to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. If some of the YSTR DNA was deposited in ways that were unrelated to the crime, then there is no reason to think differently with respect to Mr. Sollecito's DNA. The second major problem for the prosecution is that the bra clasp was collected about six weeks after the rest of the evidence, enhancing the possibility of transfers unrelated to the crime. The third problem is that the forensic workers stored the clasp improperly, making it impossible to retest. Why should one trust a lab that does not store evidence in a way to prevent microbial degradation? The fourth problem for the prosecution is that Raffaele was known to have been in contact with Meredith's door. If a forensic worker touched Mr. Sollecito's DNA then collected the bra clasp, this would be tertiary transfer. In the last fifteen years, the evidence for tertiary and higher order transfers of DNA has accumulated.
I don't have a fundamental objection to what Professor Balding and others have done, which is to create software to analyze complex autosomal mixtures, but there are specific issues that must be properly addressed in each case (I suggest reading some of Professor Dan Krane's writings on this subject if one is interested). Nor do I believe that his conclusion regarding the bra clasp was flawed, as I indicated above. But this sort of mixture analysis cannot make the problems that I discussed somehow disappear.
Now let us talk about one aspect of the DNA from the Mitchell case that relates to the issue of DNA mixtures. Dr. Balding was doing his work during the Knox/Sollecito case (a paper of his appeared circa 2013). TruAllele made its courtroom debut in 2009, although it is older. The DNA from Jodi's bra had at least three contributors and these were partial profiles. Given the state of art circa 2005, how was it possible to deconvolute a three-person (or more) mixture that was not even of full profiles? Without a specific and credible answer to this question, the claim that Luke's DNA was present is unsustainable.
-
profile
Is this you or are You someone else ?
👇
Is this you (about 3/4 of the way down)
👇
“Chris Halkides is one of Amanda Knox’s most effusive supporters. He has pontificated extensively about the case on his blog View from Wilimington and on other Internet websites.
On 30 July, he was finally prompted to post an interview with Professor Balding done some months previously. I suspect Halkides had been very keen to interview Professor Balding after reading Colin Barras’ article on the New Scientist website; but was holding back on posting it because it went against his own claims.
Indeed, his interview has turned out to be quite a slap in the face for the Friends of Amanda and Colin Barras, because Professor Balding categorically described the DNA evidence against Sollecito to Halkidis as “strong”.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
I am not familiar with the Simon Hall case.
You sure?
👇
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.msg584655#msg584655
-
Un-Convicted baby killer and scammer Billy Middleton published the following after scammer Sandra Lean shared with him material from the case files back in 2010
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/06/20/killer-luke-mitchell-more-on-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-their-regurgitated-2010-nonsense-from-the-wap-website-on-the-undated-circumstantial-dna-part/
This was in response to your post in 2021
👇
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12062.msg649899#msg649899
-
I just listened to a few minutes of one of the podcasts by Roberta Glass, and it had the usual nonsensical arguments. After I heard her make an obvious forensic chemistry error, I gave up.
‘Some credit must go to Chris Halkides for finally posting the interview with Professor Balding even though it categorically said the DNA evidence against Sollecito is strong. I’m not sure he’ll be invited to any FOA events in the future.
Shame though on Colin Barras, for writing such a misleading article, and for using a straw man argument to highly misrepresent the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox which was then deliberately fed to the Italian media.
He completely ignored the six pieces of evidence that place her at the crime scene on the night of the murder. He also completely ignored the most important of Professor Balding’s findings. ie that the DNA evidence against Sollecito is strong.
This finding implicates Knox and places her at the crime scene when Meredith was killed, and makes a mockery of Barras’s headline that suggested otherwise.
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
-
There is a minor profile on the autosomal DNA of the bra clasp that is likely to be Mr. Sollecito's DNA; there is also a Y-Chromosomal profile that is likely to be his. One problem for the prosecution is that there are additional alleles in the autosomal profile and probably a total of three donors to the Y-chromosomal DNA profile. If some of the YSTR DNA was deposited in ways that were unrelated to the crime, then there is no reason to think differently with respect to Mr. Sollecito's DNA. The second major problem for the prosecution is that the bra clasp was collected about six weeks after the rest of the evidence, enhancing the possibility of transfers unrelated to the crime. The third problem is that the forensic workers stored the clasp improperly, making it impossible to retest. Why should one trust a lab that does not store evidence in a way to prevent microbial degradation? The fourth problem for the prosecution is that Raffaele was known to have been in contact with Meredith's door. If a forensic worker touched Mr. Sollecito's DNA then collected the bra clasp, this would be tertiary transfer. In the last fifteen years, the evidence for tertiary and higher order transfers of DNA has accumulated.
I don't have a fundamental objection to what Professor Balding and others have done, which is to create software to analyze complex autosomal mixtures, but there are specific issues that must be properly addressed in each case (I suggest reading some of Professor Dan Krane's writings on this subject if one is interested). Nor do I believe that his conclusion regarding the bra clasp was flawed, as I indicated above. But this sort of mixture analysis cannot make the problems that I discussed somehow disappear.
Now let us talk about one aspect of the DNA from the Mitchell case that relates to the issue of DNA mixtures. Dr. Balding was doing his work during the Knox/Sollecito case (a paper of his appeared circa 2013). TruAllele made its courtroom debut in 2009, although it is older. The DNA from Jodi's bra had at least three contributors and these were partial profiles. Given the state of art circa 2005, how was it possible to deconvolute a three-person (or more) mixture that was not even of full profiles? Without a specific and credible answer to this question, the claim that Luke's DNA was present is unsustainable.
’Ominous Development For Sollecito And Knox: A DNA Conviction Based On A Tiny Sample Of DNA’ ie; serial killer and innocence fraudster David Burgess
👇
https://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/C992
Do you recall the innocence fraud of serial killer David Burgess and his enablers
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/05/quite-a-hall-tale-part-19k%ef%b8%8f/
-
Do you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent or guilty?
Neither Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito have proved their innocence!
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/30/killer-luke-mitchell-naive-cult-like-follower-sharon-indy-sunshines-projections-part-104/
-
Amanda Knox Explains it All to You
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/OtTnNR_eHpI?feature=share
Amanda Knox - Persecuted By Facts
👇
https://www.youtube.com/live/M_i7bwnYXh8?feature=share
-
You mentioned the Simon Hall case once in a thread about Billy Middleton, but that does not mean that I ever looked into it. With respect the Knox/Sollecito case, Ms. Glass has proved herself to be lacking in knowledge of the forensics of the case. She is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and she is condescending on top of everything else.
Over the last couple of pages I have contrasted good practice in eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.
-
Now consider the evidence of Mrs. Andrina Bryson:
Gordon McIlwraith wrote, "The trial also heard evidence yesterday from a woman who said she noticed a man and a girl at the head of the path on the day Jodi was killed. Andrina Bryson said she later saw a picture of Luke Mitchell in the Daily Record and she was taken aback because he looked like the person she had seen. Mrs Bryson, 26, said she was driving home shortly before 5pm when she spotted the girl and the young man at the Easthouses entrance to the path. She reported what she had seen to the police and they came to her house on August 14 with a sheet of photos of 12 young men. She picked out one and told the court: 'In relation to the person I had seen, he looked like that person.' The next day she saw a photo of Mitchell in the Record. Mrs Bryson said: 'I just couldn't believe it. It looked like the same person I had seen...Mrs Bryson admitted that when quizzed by the police about the sighting, she had estimated the girl was 14 or 15 but the man was in his early 20s.'" (found at TheFreeLibrary and upthread)
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
Are you claiming Gordon McIIwrath had a “transplanted memory” ?
[119]….Mrs Bryson returned to the witness box. In further examination in chief she described how police officers had come to her home and shown her a booklet of photographs which she had looked at carefully, taking her time. When asked whether at that time she recognised anyone, she responded "I seen someone there, yes". That person she had been asked to point out. She had pointed to photograph No. 4 (that of the appellant). She later explained the features which were the basis of her recognition - his hair and his small face. She confirmed that at the time she had said to the police officers - "Image 4 is very very like the male I saw at the top of the path", "He has the same shape of face, same colouring and same colour and style of hair" and "I am sure as I can be that is the same male". That was what she had felt on that day. The next day she had seen a photograph of the appellant in a newspaper, which had identified him by name. She had been totally taken aback by it. She testified "I just remember seeing it and I couldn't believe it ... because it looked to me like the same person".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Both instances strike me as transplanted memories.
She is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
Okay Elizabeth Loftus 🙄
-
Over the last couple of pages I have contrasted good practice in eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.
You think? @)(++(*
-
If I were giving a class in investigations, I might use the Mitchell case as an object lesson in how not to elicit eyewitness testimony. I briefly discuss the Knox/Sollecito case in this way in forensic chemistry, but there are so many instances of slipshod work and faulty inferences in DNA and body fluid forensics, that it is hard to choose which one to use.
-
Are you claiming Gordon McIIwrath had a “transplanted memory” ?
[119]….Mrs Bryson returned to the witness box. In further examination in chief she described how police officers had come to her home and shown her a booklet of photographs which she had looked at carefully, taking her time. When asked whether at that time she recognised anyone, she responded "I seen someone there, yes". That person she had been asked to point out. She had pointed to photograph No. 4 (that of the appellant). She later explained the features which were the basis of her recognition - his hair and his small face. She confirmed that at the time she had said to the police officers - "Image 4 is very very like the male I saw at the top of the path", "He has the same shape of face, same colouring and same colour and style of hair" and "I am sure as I can be that is the same male". That was what she had felt on that day. The next day she had seen a photograph of the appellant in a newspaper, which had identified him by name. She had been totally taken aback by it. She testified "I just remember seeing it and I couldn't believe it ... because it looked to me like the same person".
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
I don't have a positive or negative opinion of Gordon McIlwraith as a reporter, but I will take as a given for now that he reported accurately in this instance. Let's briefly go through what is wrong with Ms. Bryson's evidence in light of good practice. A photo lineup should not make a suspect stand out (I gave a citations that bears on this question upthread). Luke Mitchell's photograph was the only one showing a person with long hair and the only one with a white background (the latter is similar to the Dean Gillispie case in Ohio discussed upthread). If a solicitor had been present, he or she could have raised an objection to a biased photo lineup. Ms. Bryson's seeing Luke Mitchell's photograph in the paper increased her certainty, but this is separate from the question of accuracy. As I discussed upthread, once you see a photograph more than once, you remember the previous viewings.
In brief other problems with Ms. Bryson's testimony include but are not limited to the following: Her description of the man was of someone older than Luke Mitchell, and described his hair in a way that does not resemble Mr. Mitchell's hair. Her initial estimate of the time of the sighting was about 50 minutes later than her testimony. She had to be looking one way while turning the car the other way, and she did not have much time to identify anyone.
-
Chris you make a good arguement without hyperbole or overt sentiment or sanctimony. I think your efforts shpuld be applauded. It’s a shame (for Mitchell) that you aren’t handling his case instead of the squabbling rabble he’s currently got behind him.
-
Luke Mitchell's photograph was the only one showing a person with long hair
Where’s your evidence for this
And why do you claim he had “long hair” in 2003?
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell had long hair by the time of his trial
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
-
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
That is your claim; therefore, the burden of proof falls on you.
-
That is your claim; therefore, the burden of proof falls on you.
Lol
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12456504.police-cast-fairness-aside-pin-murder-mitchell/
"Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger than Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut. The background in the Mitchell photo was very much lighter than the others. Mr Findlay said it threw Mrs Bryson's claim that Mitchell was the youth she saw into question. She also failed to pick him out in court." This was reported in the Herald on the 6th of February 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4105365.stm
"The court heard a book containing 12 mugshots of youths was shown to a witness and Luke Mitchell was the only youth in it with long hair and the only one pictured against a white background...Mr Findlay pointed out that Mitchell was the only person in the book with long hair and that his picture was also the only one taken against a white background...He [Det Con Livingston] agreed that official guidelines said police should put a suspect on an identity parade wherever possible." As reported by the BBC in a 2004 story: "Boyfriend arranged to meet Jodi."
I seem to recall that the Glasgow Times also reported this.
I’ve often wondered what length Luke’s hair was at the actual time of the murder. 6 weeks had passed between the murder and the Polaroid of Luke being taken. I can’t imagine his hair would have been the same length after 6 weeks which is the usual time people wait between haircuts. Had it been cut? Was the question even asked?
-
There are photos of Luke at Jodi's grave, and his hair looks longish. It is difficult to tell, however.
-
There are photos of Luke at Jodi's grave, and his hair looks longish. It is difficult to tell, however.
3 months growth
-
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
"'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." As reported by in the Glasgow Times. There is also some discussion in the appeal, which is posted at Murderpedia: "The senior police officer involved in the investigation was never able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why an identification parade had not been held."
-
"'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." As reported by in the Glasgow Times. There is also some discussion in the appeal, which is posted at Murderpedia: "The senior police officer involved in the investigation was never able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why an identification parade had not been held."
👇
Psycho killer Luke Mitchell did not have “long” hair in 2003! He had long hair by the time he stood trial
Do you have a quote of what Donald Findlay actually stated
And where can we view these other 11 photos?
-
Luke's hair could have been no more than 3/4 of an inch shorter on 30 June than it was on 15 August, even if he did not have a haircut in the interim (which I don't think that we know). To the best of my knowledge the prosecution did not challenge the defense regarding the difference between Luke and the other people in the photo lineup.
A good lineup should conform to the following: A person who is not a witness but who reads the description of the perpetrator should only pick the perpetrator out of a lineup with the frequency that chance would predict. In other words, the rest of the people in the lineup should be plausible on the basis of their general appearance.
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder at the trial. In a portion of the documents relating to the 2008 appeal (at Murderpedia), it stated, "She had had only a fleeting glance of the male and, while she had picked out the appellant's photograph from a number of others, there were serious questions about the reliability of the procedures which had been adopted by the police - by the use of photographs at all, by the nature of the particular photographs used and by the failure to hold an identification parade." I infer that the 2008 appeal panel did not dispute the multiple problems with Ms. Bryson's identification that Donald Findlay highlighted; rather, they believed that the instructions to the jury on this point were sufficient. Obviously I disagree.
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder
Did the jury see photographs of killer Luke Mitchell taken on the 1st July 2003 whilst at Dalkeith police station?
-
I’ve often wondered what length Luke’s hair was at the actual time of the murder
Why haven’t f........s Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean published a photo of psycho killer Luke Mitchell in the paper suit Corinne Mitchell referred to seeing him wearing when she arrived at Dalkeith police station on 1st July 2003?
-
Concerning the photographic lineup, if Donald Findlay had been in error about the length of Luke's hair, his claim could have easily been disproved using a photograph of Luke at the time of the murder
Psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell was taken to Dalkeith police station sometime after 01:00hrs
Apparently he was photographed sometime during the morning of the 1st July 2003
By whom and at what time has not been published - nor have any photographs
According to Scott Forbes;
“…at 01:00 a.m. was taken to Dalkeith Police Station where he was stripped, photographed, and forensically examined
The series of photographs taken at Dalkeith police station have been hidden by the killer and his enablers for almost 20 years!
-
Roberta Glass is another guilt grifter
Roberta Glass exposes innocence fraud
Someone like Andrew Hammel is a “guilt grifter”
-
If I were giving a class in investigations.
You wrote
👇
Pasquali and the rock
"Pasquali said that he had re-created the same conditions that were found in Romanelli's room at the time of the break-in. Pasquali said he constructed a window of the same size, with the same paint and the same type of glass, and threw the rock through it into a room with the same characteristics as Romanelli's room. Two video cameras -- one inside and one outside -- filmed the rock being thrown through the glass.
By analyzing the trajectory of the rock and the projection of the glass shards, Pasquali said he could "exclude that the glass could have been broken from the inside."" ABC News.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363048&page=20
Did you see Peter Bull in 2007 on the BBC rough justice TV show on psycho killer Simon Hall?
-
On page 129 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “The jogger was traced. She said that she ran her “usual route” through Newbattle Abbey Crescent, turning left onto Newbattle Road…This is almost certainly the jogger of whom Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh spoke…But they were clearly mistaken about seeing her running over the bridge, towards the Abbey, or having run past the youth…It’s important to note that , if the jogger was correct about the time (between twenty and a quarter to six) the time scale for Luke to be the murderer is impossible, at between 25 and 30 minutes.”
On page 131 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “Seven years later, a witness offered to provide a statement for the SCCRC application, stating that Mrs Walsh, in the week leading up to her first police statement was telling people that she and her sister-in-law had seen a youth on the Newbattle Road that night “at the entrance to the Abbey”—directly opposite where Luke was positively identified by others who knew him that evening and the evidence about the jogger placed the Fleming/Walsh sighting.”
In summary, there are two reasons for believing that whomever Ms. Fleming and Mrs. Walsh saw, it took place by Newbattle Abbey.
-
Knox/Sollecito
Self Confessed Train Robber Bert Kreischer & Innocence Fraudster & Psychopath Amanda Knox On Rudy Guede & Their Meeting On The Bottom Floor Downstairs In The Four Guys Apartment, The Weekend Of 20th/21st October 2007, Shamrocks Bar, Red Zone Nightclub, DJ Quentin Harris & The 5 Cannabis Plants
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/06/28/self-confessed-train-robber-bert-kreischer-innocence-fraudster-psychopath-amanda-knox-on-rudy-guede-their-meeting-on-the-bottom-floor-downstairs-in-the-four-guys-apartment-shamrocks/
-
Roberta Glass exposes innocence fraud
Someone like Andrew Hammel is a “guilt grifter”
PART 1: Innocence Fraud Watch On Andrew Hammel & His II Part Quillette Article Headed “The Wrongful Exoneration of Adnan Syed”
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/26/andrew-hammel-on-the-wrongful-exoneration-of-adnan-syed/
-
On page 129 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “The jogger was traced. She said that she ran her “usual route” through Newbattle Abbey Crescent, turning left onto Newbattle Road…This is almost certainly the jogger of whom Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh spoke…But they were clearly mistaken about seeing her running over the bridge, towards the Abbey, or having run past the youth…It’s important to note that , if the jogger was correct about the time (between twenty and a quarter to six) the time scale for Luke to be the murderer is impossible, at between 25 and 30 minutes.”
On page 131 of Innocents Betrayed Sandra Lean wrote, “Seven years later, a witness offered to provide a statement for the SCCRC application, stating that Mrs Walsh, in the week leading up to her first police statement was telling people that she and her sister-in-law had seen a youth on the Newbattle Road that night “at the entrance to the Abbey”—directly opposite where Luke was positively identified by others who knew him that evening and the evidence about the jogger placed the Fleming/Walsh sighting.”
In summary, there are two reasons for believing that whomever Ms. Fleming and Mrs. Walsh saw, it took place by Newbattle Abbey.
It’s pointless cherry picking tip-bits from Sandra Lean’s tip-bits, especially without seeing all of psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence
-
From the 2008 appeal “Once that inference [that Andrina Bryson saw Luke and Jodi] was drawn there was ample evidence, among the adminicles discussed in relation to sufficiency, to allow the jury reasonably to conclude that the deceased's killer was the appellant. We highlight only a few of these. There was evidence that he was next seen at the west end of the path about 50 minutes after having been seen by Mrs Bryson.”
Perhaps thinking of this passage, Sandra Lean wrote on page 133, “It would be stated at trial and in the appeal decision, that the acoounts of Ms Fleming and Mrs Walsh corroborated each other and were part of the basis upon which jurors were entitled to conclude that Andrina Bryson’s sighting was of Luke. It was never explained how two sightings, 55-70 minutes apart, of two completely different individuals, neither of whom matched known descriptions of Luke that night, corroborated anything.”
Given that Mrs. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming’s memory by showing her the newspaper photograph (as discussed upthread), no corroboration between them is possible. Nor is there any linkage between their evidence and the evidence of Ms. Bryson, as Sandra Lean pointed out. For one thing their descriptions do not match Luke; for another, they don't match each other.
__________________
-
Rolfe wrote, "So the two women must have seen the jogger north of the road junction, which is 150 yards north of the bridge, not 200 yards past the end of the path, which would be about 200 yards south of the bridge.
This introduces an intriguing possibility. If the two women were mistaken about the position of the jogger, as they were, putting her at least 350 yards further back (south) along Newbattle Road than she actually was - and possibly more than that - could they equally well have been mistaken about where they saw the youth loitering on the left-hand side of the road? Could they have driven past the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, seen Luke there, then passed the jogger some little way further up Newbattle Road, but in retrospect moved the whole thing back some 500 yards? (And simply got the hair colour and the jacket and the footwear flat wrong.)
If that was Luke, at the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, at about 5.45, he couldn't have been the murderer, as there simply isn't enough time for everything to happen and for him to get back to that spot only 30 minutes after the killing. Of course the police didn't want that to be the case, they wanted Luke that 500 yards closer to the scene of the crime and somewhere other than where his own statement placed him, so they weren't going to pursue that one."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12760325#post12760325
-
Rolfe wrote, "So the two women must have seen the jogger north of the road junction, which is 150 yards north of the bridge, not 200 yards past the end of the path, which would be about 200 yards south of the bridge.
This introduces an intriguing possibility. If the two women were mistaken about the position of the jogger, as they were, putting her at least 350 yards further back (south) along Newbattle Road than she actually was - and possibly more than that - could they equally well have been mistaken about where they saw the youth loitering on the left-hand side of the road? Could they have driven past the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, seen Luke there, then passed the jogger some little way further up Newbattle Road, but in retrospect moved the whole thing back some 500 yards? (And simply got the hair colour and the jacket and the footwear flat wrong.)
If that was Luke, at the end of Newbattle Abbey Crescent, at about 5.45, he couldn't have been the murderer, as there simply isn't enough time for everything to happen and for him to get back to that spot only 30 minutes after the killing. Of course the police didn't want that to be the case, they wanted Luke that 500 yards closer to the scene of the crime and somewhere other than where his own statement placed him, so they weren't going to pursue that one."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12760325#post12760325
I’ve made this point several times. The evidence suggests that the youth they saw was Luke but nearer to Newbattle College than they claimed in court. The jacket in the sil’s first statements certainly sounds more like the silky bomber jacket Luke was known to have been wearing than a parka jacket.
-
They did not get the color of Luke's boots or hair correct; that is one reason that I am of two minds on the question of whether or not they even saw him. Yet it is strange how something of so little probative value is thought to be a major plank in the case.
One of my reasons for looking into this incident was to understand more clearly how the eyewitness testimony in the case went sideways. Another was to compare and contrast with other cases in which there have been problematic identifications. Mark Godsey wrote on pp. 124-125 of the book Blind Justice, "Of the first 325 DNA exonerations in the United States, 235, or 72 percent, involved mistaken eyewitness identification testimony." On pp. 129-130 he continued, "Any lawyer like myself who specializes in wrongful conviction cases can provide dozens of examples where the witnesses changed their stories--their memories--over time to keep the train moving toward conviction. I frequently saw this process at work when I was a prosecutor as well." On p. 145 he wrote, “When I look back on the cases of the individuals the Ohio Innocence Project has exonerated and freed, I am struck by my first meetings with my clients in prison—before we had evidence proving them innocent. A common comment I heard from them in these initial meetings was, ‘How did the prosecution get the witnesses to say all those things that weren’t true?’” The whole chapter is enlightening with respect to this case.
-
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/18/dominant-witness-theory-how-eyewitness-identification-becomes-flawed/
"In a multi-witness crime scene, police generally interview witnesses separately, asking each for their version of events. Most witnesses, who are eager to cooperate with police, will provide this."
The police should have separated Steven Kelly, Janine Jones, and Alice Walker from each other immediately and taken their statements separately.
-
[quote author=KenMore link=topic=12241.msg705951#msg705951 date=1686248228
It would seem the pro-LM camp consider that every single witness (apart from LM & CM) has lied, and that police corruption and media input were to blame without considering the totality of evidence that convicted him.
[/quote]
Donald Findlay made it clear that he did not think that Andrina Bryson was lying, and I agree. I think that Mrs. Walsh might have lied about not showing Ms. Fleming the newspaper with Luke's photograph, but she may simply have misremembered the incident.
-
On . 367 of the book Witness for the Defense, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham wrote:
"In a classic text on the subject, Convicting the Innocent, legal scholar Edwin M. Borchard presents sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In twenty-nine of these cases, or approximately 45 percent, mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the conviction. Borchard concludes: "These cases illustrate the fact that the emotional balance of the victim or eyewitness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy"
"Misidentifications are often blamed on the fact that the real criminal bears a close resemblance to the wrongly identified person. But in the twenty-nine cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the wrongful conviction, Borchard reports these facts:"...in eight of these cases the wrongfully accused person and the really guilty criminal bore not the slightest resemblance to each other, whereas in twelve other cases, the resemblance, while fair, was still not at all close. In only two cases can the resemblance be called striking."
I was initially under the impression that erroneous eyewitness acccusations are frequently made against people who look similar to the actual perpetrator. The Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton case comes to mind as a good example. This turns out to be true only infrequently.
-
On . 367 of the book Witness for the Defense, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham wrote:
"In a classic text on the subject, Convicting the Innocent, legal scholar Edwin M. Borchard presents sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In twenty-nine of these cases, or approximately 45 percent, mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the conviction. Borchard concludes: "These cases illustrate the fact that the emotional balance of the victim or eyewitness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy"
"Misidentifications are often blamed on the fact that the real criminal bears a close resemblance to the wrongly identified person. But in the twenty-nine cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the wrongful conviction, Borchard reports these facts:"...in eight of these cases the wrongfully accused person and the really guilty criminal bore not the slightest resemblance to each other, whereas in twelve other cases, the resemblance, while fair, was still not at all close. In only two cases can the resemblance be called striking."
I was initially under the impression that erroneous eyewitness acccusations are frequently made against people who look similar to the actual perpetrator. The Jennifer Thompson/Ronald Cotton case comes to mind as a good example. This turns out to be true only infrequently.
What are the names of the 65 cases?
Loftus called Tim Hennis’s eye witnesses two of the worst eye witness iDs she had ever seen.
How did that turn out for her?
Tim Hennis currently sits on military death row
While Elizabeth “I don’t know how I let that line slip by’ Loftus still teaches Hennis’s case like the DNA never happened and he didn’t get convicted via a miltary court
-
What are the names of the 65 cases?
Why not read Mr. Borchard's book for yourself?
The Hennis case is unusual in that Mr. Raupach could pass for Mr. Hennis's younger brother. It may be the other eyewitness that Dr. Loftus thought was bad. The forensic evidence in the Hennis case could not have been stored in accordance with DNA protocols because DNA profiling was just in its infancy at the time of the trial.
-
https://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf
Here are two quotes that come from a document on wrongful convictions in Canada.
"When interviewing alibi witnesses, they should not be cross-examined, it should not be suggested to them that they are mistaken, and they should not be influenced to change their position although it is appropriate for police to instruct them that it is essential they tell the truth and the consequences of failing to do so (Sophonow)."
A judge had this to say: "I am disturbed that [the witness] is asked to close her eyes and imagine she’s watching a movie. The interrogation encourages her to engage in speculation and imagine herself in various places. I find the nature of the questions and the circumstances under which they were made, shocking...[the investigator] encourages her to imagine a story. It is an atmosphere ideal for implanting false memories.72"
This sounds similar to what Shane was asked to do by the FLO. Eyewitness identifications are treated in several places in this document, including a section that starts on page 44. On page 47 the report states, "The Crown should never show the witness an isolated photograph or image of the accused during the interview."
-
This sounds similar to what Shane was asked to do by the FLO
Publish Shane Mitchell’s witness statements
-
Why not read Mr. Borchard's book for yourself?
Again what are the names of the 65 cases?
List them
-
Nicholas,
I will not do your homework for you. Instead, I will refer you to a couple of examples of erroneous eyewitness testimony upthread, cases in which the suspect did not resemble the actual perpetrator. One is the Charles Flores case, and the other is the Jerome White case.
-
https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/thomas-sophonow/
"Moreover, when Mr. Doerksen first attended a line-up that included Thomas [Sophonow], he did not identify anyone – including Thomas – as the killer whom he had pursued. Two days later, however, Mr. Doerksen coincidentally saw Thomas while they were both in the Public Safety Building. By that time, Mr. Doerksen had read a newspaper that contained Thomas’ picture. He came to believe that Thomas actually was the person he had seen fleeing the donut shop, even though his appearance was essentially the same as it had been during the line-up. At the Inquiry, Dr. Loftus explained that as time passes, people not only forget information – they also become more susceptible to forming false recollections as a result of new information that they learned after the event. Furthermore, we now know that in 1982, Mr. Doerksen was not able to see well at night or in poor lighting conditions.[21]
"Furthermore, two of the Crown’s witnesses identified Thomas after being shown a photo line-up in which his picture stood out dramatically from the others. As Justice Cory put it in the Inquiry report, “The differences in Thomas Sophonow’s pictures are such that it might just as well have carried a notation saying, ‘here I am.’” As a result, this photo line-up was “startlingly unfair.” And finally, two of the witnesses who testified at trial that Thomas was the killer had not in fact been able to identify him during the live line-up that they observed. Rather, both witnesses merely thought that he was the best match as compared to the other people in the line-up. The officer conducting one of these line-ups made the situation worse by informing the witness that he had indeed picked out the current suspect, thereby strengthening his confidence in his incorrect identification. Given this incredible range of problems with the eyewitness testimony used to convict Thomas on two occasions, it is perhaps not surprising that a miscarriage of justice occurred.[22]" Link
Two points of comparison between Canada's Thomas Sophonow and Scotland's Luke Mitchell are worth emphasizing. One is that seeing a suspect in a newspaper photo increases the chances that the eyewitness will transplant his or her image on the memory of the crime. Two is that photo lineups are not infrequently constructed in such a way as to point to the suspect.
https://www.millerthomson.com/assets/files/article_attachments/Wrongful_Convictions_in_Canada.pdf
"The alibi witnesses should not be subjected to cross-examination or suggestions by the police that they are mistaken. The alibi witnesses should be treated with respect and courtesy. They should not be threatened or intimidated or influenced to change their position. However, I agree that it is appropriate for the police to instruct the witnesses that it is essential that they tell the truth and that a statement can be used as proof of its contents. The witnesses should be advised that they should be careful to tell the truth and of the consequences of a failure to do so."
This is one of the recommendations of the commission which reviewed the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow in Canada. The contrast between this recommendation and how Shane and Corinne Mitchell were treated is stark.
-
On p. 68 of the book Convicting the Innocent, Professor Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “I was surprised at how often it emerged at trial that exonerees did not resemble the initial descriptions of the culprit. In unusual cases like Willie Jackson’s, a misidentification was understandable: the true culprit was his brother, who looked like him. However, in 62% (100 of 161 cases), the exonerees looked very different from the initial description. Witnesses had descried culprits with major differences from the exonerees in hair, facial hair, height, weight, scars, tattoos, piercings, teeth, and eyes.”
-
I previously brought up wrongful convictions in Canada. From what I understand both the commissioner who wrote the report on Guy Morin and the commissioner who wrote the report on Thomas Sophonow made recommendations. Among the seven recommendations concerning alibi defenses is this:
7. It is essential that any further interviews of Crown witnesses following the disclosure of the alibi evidence should as well be videotaped or, if that is impossible, audiotaped. Every portion of the interview should be transcribed. Any statement alleged to have been made by the witness and which does not appear on the tape recording should be deemed to be inadmissible.
I wish that I could hear how FLO Michelle Lindsey interviewed Shane Mitchell because Sandra Lean described this interview in a way that leaves me with grave doubts about Ms. Lindsey's competence and objectivity.
-
I wish that I could hear how FLO Michelle Lindsey interviewed Shane Mitchell because Sandra Lean described this interview in a way that leaves me with grave doubts about Ms. Lindsey's competence and objectivity.
Shane Mitchell has never raised any concerns!
-
Shane Mitchell has never raised any concerns!
The judge at trial did.
-
The judge at trial did.
Can you elaborate on this? On page 305 Sandra Lean wrote, "In court Shane tried very hard to explain that it was she [FLO Lindsay] who was the single most influential factor in interfering with his recall--she would not accept any of his answers to her initial questioning, telling him that they were 'not good enough' or that she 'couldn't accept that.'...She then went on to literally plant pictures in Shane's mind--'See it in your mind's eye, Shane, picture this...' right at the beginning of the investigation."
EDT
I came across additional passages from Sandra Lean's book that bear on the general topic of Shane's statements (pp. 318 and 319).
"Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites-the computer records demonstrated that the links to pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop-ups."
"Prior to the introduction of the photographs, Shane argued repeatedly that investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses that he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because his had not said so in his first statement...His first statements said that he came through the front door, yelled "Hello" to someone." (underlining in original)
-
Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211026259
"Recommendation 1 from Wells et al. (2020) is relevant. The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."
In my opinion this is pertinent both to Ms. Walsh and to Ms. Fleming. I do not question that Ms. Walsh was trying to help the investigation by showing the newspaper to Ms. Fleming, but it was poor judgement at the time, and it looks worse in retrospect.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020. At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence, which courts have long recognised can be unreliable. Safeguards include capture of all first descriptions provided by witnesses, scrutiny of the duration of observation, quality of lighting and view and any factors that may have influenced a witness’s recollection as well as strict adherence to authorised forms of identification procedure. However awful the crime, justice can never be served by a less than rigorous approach to such evidence during investigation and trial." highlighting mine
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-66310919
"Mr Malkinson previously applied twice for his case to be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) but he was turned down, eventually being released from prison in December 2020. At the time of his trial, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime and the prosecution's case against him was based solely on identification evidence."
Ah so Mr Malkinson didn’t even get as far as the Court of Appeal yet. Food for thought.
-
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned. Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."
It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative. The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.
-
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/dna-evidence-dna-cps-greater-manchester-court-of-appeal-b2382235.html
"Mr Henry told the court that samples of DNA which were “rigorously tested” had been preserved over many years but that “most regrettably” items of the victim’s clothing had been “destroyed by Greater Manchester Police”."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/24/manchester-rape-suspect-dna-appeal
"The prosecution’s case relied entirely on eyewitness identification, and the lack of DNA evidence was explained away by saying Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had deliberately not left any trace. Malkinson did not match key parts of the victim’s original description of the attacker. She said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day. He was also 3in taller, had chest hair, when her attacker’s chest was described as hairless and shiny, and had prominent tattoos on his forearms when no tattoos were mentioned. Testing using new forensic techniques in 2020 showed traces of male DNA on fingernail scrapings, as well as on fragments of her clothing, that did not match Malkinson."
It is the fingernail DNA that I find most probative. The argument about someone's being forensically aware is dubious.
There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.
-
There wasn’t only traces of another male’s DNA on Jodi but a full profile. I’ll never understand why this wasn’t treated more seriously by the investigation.
I am of exactly the same opinion, but I wonder why the jury did not give it more weight.
-
https://www.the-sun.com/news/8706467/innocent-andrew-malkinson-released-jail-police-corruption/
"He bedded down on a pal’s sofa in Grimbsy on the night a 33-year-old woman was raped, choked and left for dead on a motorway embankment. The friend would later say they were confused about the exact night he stayed over"
And "It later emerged that another *witness had initially *chosen a *different man at the line-up but changed it to Andrew after *leaving the room with cops."
And "The victim and one of the witnesses were driven together to the line-up in a breach of identity parade guidelines. Why was this allowed to happen?" (quotes from The US Sun)
A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.
-
A number of my comments have discussed the special problem of alibi eyewitnesses. I would like to know more about how this alibi witness was interviewed. I would also like to know why the change in who was selected regarding the other witness. Regarding the final point above, allowing witnesses to talk to one another is a good way to contaminate memory.
Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands
She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!
She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker
-
Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223. Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California. The article (http://"https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol64/iss1/3/") covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case. I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.
"One study found that eyewitness confidence was a stronger predictor of jurors' decisions than the actual accuracy of the identifications.48...Witness confidence has also been found to wipe out jurors' sensitivity to witnessing factors.52. The reliance on witness confidence as a proxy for accuracy would be helpful if it were a good marker of accuracy. The experimental findings cast some doubt over this proposition. Studies show that the statistical relationship between identification accuracy and witness confidence is about 0.4.53 While positive, this correlation by itself is not strongly diagnostic. To illustrate, where the base rate of accuracy is fifty percent, a coefficient of 0.4 means that only seventy percent of witnesses who claim to be absolutely confident are in fact correct.54 (p. 158; edited to remove one paragraph break)
Professor Simon continued, "Confidence has also been found to be inflated by communication with co-witnesses,64 exposure to identifications by co-witnesses,65 and by exposure to other inculpatory evidence against the suspect.66 By the time witnesses testify in court, they are generally less accurate and more confident than warranted, thus making the identifications appear more reliable than they really are." (p. 160)
-
Dan Simon “The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials” Vanderbilt Law Review 64(1):143-223. Dan Simon teaches criminal law at the University of Southern California. The article (http://"https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol64/iss1/3/") covers several areas that are of interest in the Mitchell case. I want to focus on one question, namely how the claimed certainty of a witness affects the jury.
Where’s the evidence any of the jury members who reached a guilty verdict were influenced by any witness sighting?
-
Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.67"
The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies. Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking. Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.
-
Professor Simon also wrote, "Finally, jurors' ability to decipher identification testimony is hampered also by the practice of in-court identifications. As discussed elsewhere, identifications performed in open court provide no meaningful test of witnesses' memory, and all but guarantee the identification of the person sitting in the defendant's seat. As such, these procedures are uninformative at best and highly prejudicial at worst.67"
The case against Mitchell is almost entirely made up of witness testimonies. Some commenters here have said that the certainty that RW, for example, expressed is a factor in their thinking. Nicholas has indicated a belief that victim correctly identified Malkinson based on her certainty.
@)(++(*
Hypocrite & Gaslighter Neal Keeling Of Manchester Evening News & His Memory Verses The Memory Of Violent Rapist, Former Amateur Boxer & Convicted Fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s VICTIM (Part 12)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/19/hypocrite-neal-keeling-his-memory-verses-the-memory-of-violent-rapist-andrew-malkinsons-victim-part-12/
-
In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim. According to Wikipedia, "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"
-
In the Kirk Bloodsworth case five witnesses placed Mr. Bloodsworth with the victim. According to Wikipedia, "Two of the witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during the lineup but in fact saw him on television after the crime was committed.[3][4]"
We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.
A case in point.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law
“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.
However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.
Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.
The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.
Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“
Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.
-
We must also never underestimate the effect of duress in the identification of individuals by witnesses.
A case in point.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/22/cardiff-three-perjury-law
“The flawed conviction of the Cardiff Three revealed police techniques described by then lord chief justice, Lord Taylor, as "almost passing belief". It emerged police had used oppressive and bullying techniques in interviewing the suspects. "It is hard to conceive of a more hostile or intimidating approach by officers to a suspect," Lord Taylor said.
However, while the Cardiff Three were released after more than four years in prison, last week the witnesses whose false evidence helped to convict them each began 18-month prison sentences, despite the fact that it was not disputed that similar police tactics had been used against them.
Two of the witnesses, Vilday and Psaila, who at the time had also been prostitutes and who have been acknowledged as having been vulnerable, pleaded guilty to perjury. There was evidence that Vilday had been subject to particular pressure from police who convinced her to give evidence against the Cardiff Three, and that she was threatened with jail, losing custody of her young child, should she fail to give the evidence they sought.
The third witness, Grommek, contested the charge of perjury, pleading the defence of duress.
Despite the undisputed role of police bullying and intimidation - Gaon Hart, prosecuting, stating in court that "it is clear that the defendants were harassed into lying" - all three witnesses were convicted on the basis that duress was not available as a defence.“
Perhaps this is why Bryson, Fleming, Walsh, Janine Jones, Steven Kelly et al have never attempted to change their testimony? That they knew that a lengthy prison sentence may await them if they did? And explains Shane Mitchell’s reticence in court to testify to the truth.
Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.
Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.
-
Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims eyewitness evidence still stands
She told the jury that before Malkinson rendered her unconscious she had told him she would “never forget” his face!
She also said she was “more than 100% certain” Andrew Malkinson was her attacker
She also said that she scratched her attacker's face, and yet the Appeal document said that Mr. Malkinson had no scratch. The existence of fingernail DNA is highly probative (Peter Gill's book is a good source of information) and consistent with contact with her attacker. The existence of DNA from a source (saliva) is generally more probative than subsource DNA.
-
Doubtless an abject state of affairs. However, as I've already stated, it sets a dangerous precedent drawing parallels between cases; more importantly, our legal system is considerably more efficient and admittedly superior than English law (used in the Cardiff 3 case, I believe). Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence used in the LM case is far more robust and compelling than that of the C 3 case -- and there's not a chance in hell that JANJ was lying about SK's whereabouts on the evening of 30.06.03, and nor is there a chance in hell that JOSJ had anything to do with it as he was eliminated forensically and circumstantially.
Yet more glib and obtuse reasoning from you, FL. It won't do.
On the contrary, it is a mistake to keep one's field of vision narrowly on this case alone, when so many other cases around the world illustrate the need to follow correct procedures regarding eyewitnesses. It is even more misguided to handwave away the many irregularities in eyewitness protocols that plagued this case. The notion that Scotland has a better justice system that Wales (or England?) is an assertion without support. Who eliminated [Name removed], the same police force that failed to process the crime scene remotely correctly? The same police force that (without disput) violated LM's rights?
As to the robustness of the evidence, let us briefly examine a portion of the Fleming/Walsh evidence as an example. One, against police instruction Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil, and Ms. Fleming's memory was rendered unreliable. Moreover, Ms. Fleming was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further damaging her credibility. On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted (and may have cited upthread in some instances) states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable. Then there is the questionable agreement between their description of LM vs. the description of people who actually knew him and saw him in Newbattle. Furthermore, this was a sighting of a stranger from a car, hardly an ideal set of circumstances. Finally, even if both Fleming and Walsh were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was.
EDT
I left out the jogger, which suggests that the sighting did not take place where Fleming/Walsh said it did.
-
Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil
@)(++(*
-
Recorded footage it the absolute proof of LM's arrogance and so forth. His defence were right to attempt to try and stop them being played, and we are not simply talking the 'bullying tactics' of the police here. As we had with the recordings of those calls to the emergency services, wiping out any attempt at scraping to show there was some form of normal reactions from this lad touching 15-yrs old.
What happened in those 8mins of a search had absolutely nothing to do with some super powers of a dog, it was a prop nothing more. There is good reason why his defence, did not attempt in the slightest to bring any claimed expert in as a witness, with NO certificates of any proper training. The evidence led around this was of showing that LM with his dog were not where he claimed to have been. You wipe out the claimed area, show without a doubt his dog was nowhere near this, dissolves any chance then of trying to claim his dog had alerted to something on the other side of that wall, for to even begin to scrape at any ability of tracking, it had to proved the dog was where he claimed it was - It wasn't. Therefore, what exactly was any family friend, who had a couple of hours with a dog playing fetch, going to do? Going to back up?
Two point A & B, they are 43ft apart. A is where there is a break in the wall, B is "parallel to" where the body of Jodi Jones lay in the woods. A is where the search trio, from the very first statement said they went directly to that break and not past it. A dog "pulling below" directly under the V shape, to then stand up against the break and "It's head was level" with it. To "scurrying" with its paws in the undergrowth of the V break. Nothing like the following:
A dog 'bounding, jumping up on a wall, pawing and "air sniffing" It happened "some distance, no more than 20 yards past the break" To drawing that map, to going over it with the police in fine detail. To then having them directly "parallel" to where Jodi lay in the woods. To state JaJ's and SK continued walking down whilst he had to go back to where he had noticed a break in the wall, to have access to that woodland. - Did not happen.
There is no "They all agreed the dog found Jodi then changed their minds" Not ever, it was always the following. In that 8mins approx:
Directly with his dog to the first break, he scales up the side of the wall, shines his torch quickly around the woodland beyond, down and hastes back in front. Wanders a few feet into the field and again hastes back in front, to again go directly (in the exact same fashion as the first break) to the next break in the wall, this time he went over into the woods.
This dog on a harness with a short rope (makeshift lead) attached to it. Directed and controlled by LM at all times. That was the change in the statements. That when they went directly to those break, that "pulling" on the short lead was by way of LM directing his dog which way to go and the dog pulling in that direction.
Not and never any dog let off on it's own with commands to 'find, seek' Not in any woodland, some 50ft away from any body. So no, there was no dog alerting to anything from that V break. And we can not scrub out LM's own evidence.
Put a toy up a tree? Let the dog loose, and tell it to find the toy. Off it runs scenting about and trying to find it - Not what was taken place here.
This JaJ and SK continuing, yes they did after he entered those woods, after watching him turn left. They (SK and JaJ's) walked no more than 15ft and LM shouted from behind them. They hasted back to the break and there he was again. LM had walked no more than 10ft and about turned, shouting out. His voice close still to AW also.
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing. The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes). 10:59pm and his on that path. 11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready. 11:20pm they catch sight of each other. 11:22 head down together. By 11:30pm he is in those woods and by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
So yes, dam right those time lines are neat. Around a 6-7 min walk from the start of that path to the V break, they headed off together near the first break in the wall. Bang, bang, bang. The police barely arrived and barely filling in that missing persons report and that call comes through that a body had been found.
LM knew exactly where he was going. Absolutely nothing to do with any dog, a prop.
It doesn’t appear sadistic killer Luke Mitchell ever bothered to phone 999
11:39pm - Police control room telephoned killer Luke Mitchell whilst he was still on the other side of the V - woodland side - to find out where he was
Janine Jones Stated “The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone talking to the police and we were shouting at him. He then started to raise his voice”
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+%27Only+time+that+Luke+showed+emotion+after...-a0125974641
-
Why the rush, why not simply take it easy? - The police were involved, ready to arrive at that path at any moment. 10:40pm known to be missing.
The police are called. 10:50pm and LM is offering to go to that path, to search (the initiator of any physical search, within minutes).
10:59pm and his on that path.
11:03pm and JuJ's is speaking with her mother on her landline, the search trio leave Mayfield after this call, it had taken them no less than 15mins to get ready.
11:20pm they catch sight of each other.
11:22 head down together.
By 11:30pm he is in those woods and
by 11:34pm he is calling 999 whilst AW is screaming by her grandchild's body.
Where did the idea that killer Luke Mitchell phoned 999 come from?
-
https://www.thejusticegap.com/case-victor-nealon-17-wasted-years/
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/victor-nealon/
Victor Nealon was wrongfully convicted of rape primarily on the strength of eyewitness testimony. The Justice Gap wrote, "in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the same officer was present at the ID parade and spoke to at least one of the witnesses." Another witness only identified Mr. Nealon after the witness saw him confer with his solicitor. Much as in the Andrew Malkinson case, the case of Victor Nealon indicates the folly of failing to follow proper identification procedures. Guidelines regarding ID parades and eyewitnesses were written in response to failures in the criminal justice system. There are other problems with the eyewitness evidence in the Nealon case, which each person can explore at his or her leisure.
If the LM case were a contest between the lack of forensic and electronic evidence vs. strong, clear eyewitness evidence, it would be a horse race. Yet as David Wilson noted, the eyewitness evidence in the LM case is weak and inconsistent.
-
I was surprised that AB's transcript never mentioned anything about her saying a youth with 'long messy hair' was spotted at the EH end of the path on the afternoon of 30.06.03 wearing 'army clothes & big boots'. This was mentioned on pages 116-117 of IB. The inference from IB is that AB described the youth as above when talking to her husband some time on the morning/early afternoon of 01.07.03. Her husband's brother, Mark Bill Bryson, was supposedly in AW's house before lunchtime on 01.07.03, telling everybody about his brother's sighting (according to SL, as per what MBB was saying in AW's house, AB's first two initial statements never mentioned a female) and there was a general agreement, according to John [Name removed] (nickname 'Fung'), that the sighting was LM on the basis of his Army Cadet membership. However, it emerged, according to SL, that it wasn't AB's husband that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing, but it was AB herself (though her testimony at court said it was 'fishing clothes' and not army clothing as she initially said). Messy.
-
Quote from: Chris_Halkides on September 13, 2023, 03:43:17 PM
Ms. Walsh contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory then probably lied about it. Her credibility is therefore nil
[/color][/b]
@)(++(*
Do you mean that CM contaminated SM's memory by inventing one for him? Rendering her credibility as nil? That SM's credibility when giving statements was bad enough with his claimed amnesia, to suddenly claiming to remember seeing his brother "mashing tatties," because his mother had coached him in what to say? Is that what you mean by loss of credibility?
-
I was surprised that AB's transcript never mentioned anything about her saying a youth with 'long messy hair' was spotted at the EH end of the path on the afternoon of 30.06.03 wearing 'army clothes & big boots'. This was mentioned on pages 116-117 of IB. The inference from IB is that AB described the youth as above when talking to her husband some time on the morning/early afternoon of 01.07.03. Her husband's brother, Mark Bill Bryson, was supposedly in AW's house before lunchtime on 01.07.03, telling everybody about his brother's sighting (according to SL, as per what MBB was saying in AW's house, AB's first two initial statements never mentioned a female) and there was a general agreement, according to John [Name removed] (nickname 'Fung'), that the sighting was LM on the basis of his Army Cadet membership. However, it emerged, according to SL, that it wasn't AB's husband that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing, but it was AB herself (though her testimony at court said it was 'fishing clothes' and not army clothing as she initially said). Messy.
It is indeed messy MA - Perhaps if MBB had giving testimony (did he?) we may have heard more in respect of this if true? But seriously, the notion that it was the brother and not his wife who made the sighting. I doubt very much that AB's 1st account only mentioned a male, does that sound at all feasible? When Ms Lean has also said that in AB's 1st account it was of the girl wearing light denim jeans? I think we have all been burnt/misled by this farce of narrative?
-
It is indeed messy MA - Perhaps if MBB had giving testimony (did he?) we may have heard more in respect of this if true? But seriously, the notion that it was the brother and not his wife who made the sighting. I doubt very much that AB's 1st account only mentioned a male, does that sound at all feasible? When Ms Lean has also said that in AB's 1st account it was of the girl wearing light denim jeans? I think we have all been burnt/misled by this farce of narrative?
Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)
Oh, while you're still around, Parky ...... I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?
-
Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)
Oh, while you're still around, Parky ...... I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?
Of course he has MA. The information is in a file along with the photo of Luke in that parka at a concert and the judge’s directions.
-
Do you mean that CM contaminated SM's memory by inventing one for him? Rendering her credibility as nil? That SM's credibility when giving statements was bad enough with his claimed amnesia, to suddenly claiming to remember seeing his brother "mashing tatties," because his mother had coached him in what to say? Is that what you mean by loss of credibility?
Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.
-
Ey up, Parky! Good to see you still around these parts. What happened to Nicholas? Anyway, would be interesting if either he (MBB) or his brother (AB's husband) gave testimony; I wouldn't imagine so, but you just never know with this case. Re the AB evidence, whether it be her initial recall, what she said in between, or what she eventually said in court, you and I both know that SL would've likely pounced all over it and manipulated it accordingly. (Would SL really stoop so low as to manipulate this case and at times engineer false narratives in order to sell books? Or does she genuinely believe LM is innocent? Sometimes I just can't tell. Alas, I think it's probably the former - greed being one of the biggest of the seven deadly sins, and all. With it being a purely circumstantial case -- and a long and complex one at that -- there was, and is, much scope to manipulate.)
Oh, while you're still around, Parky ...... I heard an interesting story about a week ago about the Mitchell family car (presumably the maroon Frontera) being caught on cctv in Bonnyrigg on the night of the murder. You heard anything about this before?
It's all so transparent MA, isn't it?
-
Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.
Excellent. Well done for spotting that. This "laughable eyewitness testimony" - In line with someone making up a sighting that had not taken place at all? But here you are playing mental gymnastics with other sightings.
-
Of course he has MA. The information is in a file along with the photo of Luke in that parka at a concert and the judge’s directions.
As I said, we'll just have to wait & see. If said evidence does eventually appear on the blog, does that mean that your participation on here will become even more sporadic??
-
Your argument is nothing more than Whataboutism.
It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.
-
As I said, we'll just have to wait & see. If said evidence does eventually appear on the blog, does that mean that your participation on here will become even more sporadic??
No need to wait MA….Parky….allegedly has the evidence to hand. What’s he waiting for? Surely this would be the perfect opportunity to make all those who believe in Luke’s innocence look absolutely stupid? And yet he doesn’t present it.
Why do you think that is?
BTW I don’t know if you noticed but he didn’t answer your question. Maybe you should try again?
-
It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.
Conversely perhaps it’s because he is so clear thinking that he sees the holes in the prosecution’s case?
-
It really isn't, CH. It baffles me that someone of your calibre can't see through this - especially SL's or Faith's flawed reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL. Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents. I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony. Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.
The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue. Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL. Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents. I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony. Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.
The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue. Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.
If eyewitness testimony is unreliable (and I agree that it sometimes can be) then basically you could argue that every single case that has ever entered eyewitness testimony into a trial should be overturned and re-tried, and that in future all eye witness testimony should be banned from court proceedings. You simply can’t pick and choose when to believe it and when not to and I’m pretty sure Mitchell’s supporters depend on some eyewitness testimony to support their poor hard done-by hero.
-
The very reason for guidelines that govern identifications is provide the criminal justice system with the best possible eyewitness evidence. Yet with respect to AB that was not what happened in this case: The Glasgow Times reported, "'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." In my opinion a similar statement can be made about RF/LW. A second problem with AB and RF/LW is that both identifications were made by strangers while traveling in automobiles. Exploring the issue about eyewitnesses and the pro-innocence posters is a reasonable thing to do, but it will have to wait for another day on my end.
-
The very reason for guidelines that govern identifications is provide the criminal justice system with the best possible eyewitness evidence. Yet with respect to AB that was not what happened in this case: The Glasgow Times reported, "'It is difficult looking at this to see how police could have more ignored, contravened, torn up and thrown away those guidelines,' he [Donald Findlay] said." In my opinion a similar statement can be made about RF/LW. A second problem with AB and RF/LW is that both identifications were made by strangers while traveling in automobiles. Exploring the issue about eyewitnesses and the pro-innocence posters is a reasonable thing to do, but it will have to wait for another day on my end.
Donald Finlay was the defence barrister wasn’t he? So of course he would say that wouldn’t he?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL. Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents. I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony. Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.
The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue. Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.
Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.
The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.
Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.
Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.
Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.
-
Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.
The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.
Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.
Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.
Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.
“ We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own.”
From Janine Jones’s first statement :
“This is the route that Jodi took to Luke’s house (RDP), even though she has been told not to, the alternative route is much longer”
And from her court testimony :
“ Being fair to yourself, please, are you now saying that by the time you made
that comment to the police you had received
information from your mother to the effect
that she knew Jodi used this route as a short
cut? - Yes.
Really. Is that right ?
Yes:
So it couldn't be the case then, if your mum told you that in the early
hours of this morning, that she was pretty clear in her own mind that Jodi didn't use that
route? - She was told not to .
But your mum seems to have
told you in the early hours of the morning that
she knew perfectly well Jodi did use the route as a short cut. That seems to be the position,
yes ?
- She used (incomprehensible) told
not to.
You must please try and answer my question. It does seem pretty clear
then that in the early hours of the morning of the Ist July your mother knew that Jodi used
that route as a short cut? - Yes.
Why do you post such easily debunked nonsense?
Now here’s the thing, [Name removed] claimed in her court testimony that she, Steven Kelly and her gran headed to RDP after a conversation between her mum and her gran. However according to JuJ’s court testimony Jodi had told her that she’d be ‘mucking about up here’ ie Easthouses so surely that’s what she told AW which makes it all the more puzzling why AW headed for RDP after her conversation with her.
-
Let me help you Chris - That clear lack of credibility in most everything LM claimed, gives support to other evidence, such as those sightings. It's not all about fallibility, it's what else supported those sightings.
The less talked about supporting evidence in relation to the AB sighting. The fallacy that [Name removed] had made contact with LM to arrange a meeting at no fixed time, no fixed place, just anywhere, anytime type thing? Those ever changing accounts from him, avoiding what he never said, nor could.
Restricted times - Nothing to support the couple making arrangements after school to meet in the evenings. No phone records whilst [Name removed]'s phone was broken We know they spent most evenings together, and we know the times for meeting were set around her curfew/restrictions. We know she had been banned from walking to Newbattle on her own. We know she had told her mother they would be "mucking around up here" We are giving clear reason for having to make contact with him that day after school. We know her punishment had been lifted in full, no curfew. We know she made contact with no one else, therefore no one else could know of those changes. We know the earlier meeting time is supported by [Name removed]'s time of leaving home. We know she was held back by her mother by several minutes after the new meeting time had been arranged, we know this coincided with LM calling the speaking clock.
Credibility - An alibi shot to pieces. As I mentioned, reason why. Because that clear lack of credibility, lack of alibi, placed LM away from home. Placed him in other places where he was seen. Adding weight to the problematic fallibility that arises from eye witness testimony. Where clearly he didn't have a doppelganger. And no, I really am not interested in the mental gymnastics taken place with F&W. We only need look to what DF attempted later, such as that appeal with MK. Doing this because he knew that the sighting had taken place at that wooden gate, several hundred yards away from where LM claimed to be. Near to where the murder had taken place.
Alas and again - Chalk and cheese. His obtuse tale, exposed by the truth. Which gives us clear reason as to why LM deleted the data from his phone, not the fable he applied. The reasons as to why the meeting was brought forward, the time of the meeting and where. "Agreed facts" Indeed. Both sides did agree it was around meeting, just not LM's obtuse version of events.
Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:
Re-examination by the AD:
"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.
Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes
It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.
You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.
But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"
Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.
-
Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:
Re-examination by the AD:
"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.
Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes
It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.
You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.
But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"
Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.
Very weak from you Parky. We all know that Turnbull could see what was happening and tried desperately to claw things back during his re-examination. Unfortunately for him it didn’t quite work. You simply can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It’s obvious from her testimony that JaJ meant that Jodi used the shorter route alone even though she was warned not to. JaJ also accepted that her mother knew that Jodi walked the path alone.
Did Jodi tell her mum a white lie by saying they were ‘messing about up here’ knowing she was going to walk the path alone? Was that why the texts between her and Luke were wiped from her mum’s phone, so her mum didn’t find out that she was going to Newbattle?
Of course all this may become clearer when JuJ’s testimony is transcribed.
-
Thanks for confirming what I said to be true Faith. This stance you have, indicative yet again of someone personally involved, who clearly has a bruised alter ego just now. One can't use the same manipulative tricks of selective nonsense to paint a false picture. Also from JaJ's transcripts:
Re-examination by the AD:
"Miss Jones, before Jodi was killed did you know where Luke lived? - Yes.
Did you know his address? - I only knew he was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
Alright. The route which you've been is a route which can be taken as a shortcut between Easthouses and Newbattle Road? - Yes
It's obvious, from what you were discussing with Mr Finlay at least, that your mother knew that Jodi sometimes used the route? - Yes.
You have explained she was told not to, so you understood - Yes.
But is it your understanding that she was told not to use it at all or told not to use it on her own? - On her own"
Back to the point. those omissions by LM, the boy who not only openly lied but had in place many lies by omission. Nothing of his girlfriend being banned from using the path alone, or as we heard from other witnesses, of having to meet half way - Which would take the girl into that secluded area, the sheltered area, canopied by trees, which we also hear about in testimony.
Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.
Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.
There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.
-
Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.
Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.
There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.
Dr Lean credibility may have been dented by several aspects of the transcribed transcripts but it’s undeniable that she has access to much more of the case material than yourself and as to claims that you have produced no evidence of I think you and her are even Steven’s. Lest we forget there’s the judge’s directions, the concert parka et al.
Avoidance tactics? Is that why you’re answering your own posts? Are you that desperate not to directly answer my points?
You claim that Luke lied in his July the 1st statement. Okay, where? What were the lies?
-
Excellent as we move on again with this lack of credibility from proven liars. The discovery that, far from the claims of having "all" the transcripts, the enablers had very little of them. JuJ's transcripts but one of many more, still not transcribed. As Ms Lean pointed out before when faced with the recordings, that one has never had any in her possession. Claiming however to have the transcripts - Messy.
Transparency goes hand in hand with innocence. Yet we see now why LM kept his data "hidden" from the public eye, such as his statement from July 1st. Praising IB, praising ALWTJ. Praising the blatant lies from those acting on his behalf. One such example, the deletion of his data by himself and not the police. Another, their attempt at an alibi, showing Nicholas to be correct. Of LM asking his mother if his elder brother had been home? Or the claim that the only people consistent in what they said was LM, his mother? Demonstrably false. - All of this given weight to those "laughable eyewitnesses" And still barely scratching the surface of that deception. Not home, seen elsewhere. A clear sequence of events which were backed up. Not just by other people, from that young girl and from the horses mouth.
There is no credibility in constant deflection, avoidance tactics away from those proven to have lied, repeatedly. Excusing, erasing, re-writing from and on their behalf.
Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.
His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.
Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?
The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.
Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.
'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.
Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Wells
Your premise is flawed; my assessment that the witness testimony was improperly gathered depends very little upon SL. Many of the facts that show that Fleming and Walsh's testimony was problematic came from Donald Findlay's cross examination and one of the appeal documents. I discussed the procedural problems in this and other eyewitness testimony in the spring and summer of 2023, and I cited the writings of Gary L Wells, Brandon Garrett, and others who have spent years studying eyewitness testimony. Any claim that this case alone is immune from the problems of poorly gathered witness testimony is an informal fallacy known as special pleading.
The argument parky41 put forward is whataboutism because it deflects from the issue raised, which is the serial contamination of the Fleming/Walsh eyewitness testimony, by bringing up another issue. Either the pro-guilt commenters should explain why their testimony was not contaminated, or they should concede that the testimony is indeed problematic.
Just quickly ...... those two women only saw this guy fleetingly at a gate from a car and yet positively Id'd him. The photo on the newspaper 'jumped out at them' as being LM (one of the women even said, "Oh my God, it's him!").They were unequivocal that it it was him; no doubt whatsoever. Standing at a gate clearly looking suspicious and angry (5 witnesses who didn't even know him described this and said he looked strange - LF, RW, CH, MO & DH) . Spotted at the other end of path by AB (who was 'as sure as she could be', that it was him, arguing with JODJ @ 1655). In between 1655 and 1745, a guy (Leonard Kelly) hears disturbing strangling sounds from behind the wall at 1710, so disturbing that they made this grown man slow right down so he could listen properly and yet was so frightened he didn't go over the wall to investigate fully like he wished he had have. Boyo was then spotted (by 3 who knew him personally) 8 times between 1755-1820 (LF, RW, DH, GE, AH, CH, MO & DH) and the 5 who didn't know him not only positively id'd him but said he looked 'suspicious'. 45 mins later from being spotted arguing with his MRS, he is then spotted at a gate just conveniently down from the murder site looking shady as feck. Yeah, right! Far too many coincidences. This is the same guy who, despite being locked up for the last 20 years, has never explained once why he is innocent; nor has he ever made any attempts to escape like an innocent person would naturally do (eg, Joe Steele). Guilty as all hell. Sorry for my rather incoherent post, but I'm out and about today, just about to enjoy the September weekend with some relatives and their kids (all now drinking age ... my wallet will doubtless take some severe damage in the next few days!!!).
-
Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.
His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.
Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?
The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.
Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.
'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.
Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.
It was odd that he said he called the caravan sales office at approx 1625, but was a lie (call logs produced in court prove this). He was likely out and about on his bike by this point, wearing various layers of clothing (anticipating rain?) Including parka and shirt with t-shirt underneath. The more I think about it, he likely had the murder planned that afternoon in school (the argument and his planned visit to Kenmore being triggers somewhat). Wouldn't even surprise me of he'd stashed some jackets/clothing away in that NB woodland area before he cycled over to EH to be seen at 1655.
-
Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.
His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.
Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?
The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.
Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.
'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.
Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.
Except that Jodi was still grounded, or so Luke believed, so what would have been the point of leaving the house? The earliest that Luke would have known about the alleged lifting of Jodi’s grounding would have been at 1635 and the earliest he could have left the house was 1638. Is it really possible that he got to the Easthouses entrance to RDP in a scant 16 minutes?
Of course he could have taken any number of shortcuts to the Newbattle road which would have hidden him from prying eyes but he would have to have broken cover at some point to cross it. Was there any witnesses who claimed to see a youth running across Newbattle road or indeed up RDP between 1638 and 1654. Any at all?
BTW for clarity Shane called his home at 1604.
-
Credibility and back to the point - LM claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop, at the entrance of his estate, claimed he sat there for around half an hr before moving over the road to the Abbey entrance. Claiming he then called his friend to meet up. He claimed that there was no time set for seeing Jodi, felt like she was a "missing space", that he believed (1st July) she had 'changed her mind'.
His 1st call to DH was inviting him to come to his house. That call was made an hour after he left home (claimed), and not his half an hr. He then changed the meeting place, calling him back to arrange meeting in the Abbey instead. And as we know, the 1st fire in the Mitchell garden was reported from that time frame. Leading up to 7pm.
Nothing of the call to the Jones house, which of course contradicted the claim of "changing her mind" along with "grounded again" or that she was "not coming out" Nothing of course of further claims of walking to and from BC's to see if she were in sight. Which again, at that point, would contradict this no set meeting. We should take into account, this is a lad who was not some criminal mastermind. Clearly winging it as best he could in the first flushes of that investigation. Main focus upon alibi, and the pretence of there not been a fixed meeting?
The transcript makes for an interesting read - The AD highlighting the ludicrous notion of that wait, the claims he made around this 'maybe' meeting.
Evidence - There is no evidence of LM sitting on that wall, hanging around the bus stop, nor standing just inside the Abbey entrance. And we know that is not where the meeting took place with the boys. That is an approx time frame of 80mins as mentioned several times. I'm not looking for excuses here, I am stating what did not happen in respect of not being seen where he claimed to be idling about, for the bulk of that time frame. Nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics of re-writing the evidence on his behalf, erasing at will to make things fit, somehow.
'Checking the kitchen clock occasionally' - Seen in Easthouses, time of calling the speaking clock coinciding with [Name removed] running late. 4:53pm. Clearly not checking the kitchen clock when using his phone to do so. It was the only call to the service for that month.
Further disinformation and lack of credibility from LM and his enablers. The former having no problem with disinformation being handed out to gain support, that latter putting that disinformation out on his behalf. 4:25pm it was claimed that LM called his mothers work, that he had to have been home until at least that point. The call took place I believe at 4:01pm upon his arrival home. There was nothing keeping LM home from that point.
Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same. We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.
That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,
-
Except that Jodi was still grounded, or so Luke believed, so what would have been the point of leaving the house? The earliest that Luke would have known about the alleged lifting of Jodi’s grounding would have been at 1635 and the earliest he could have left the house was 1638. Is it really possible that he got to the Easthouses entrance to RDP in a scant 16 minutes?
Of course he could have taken any number of shortcuts to the Newbattle road which would have hidden him from prying eyes but he would have to have broken cover at some point to cross it. Was there any witnesses who claimed to see a youth running across Newbattle road or indeed up RDP between 1638 and 1654. Any at all?
BTW for clarity Shane called his home at 1604.
He was on his bike.... literally. Could have been mere coincidence that he was out on his bike when Jodi contacted him from Judith's phone at 1634. Maybe boyo had planned the murder after arguing with Jodi in school that afternoon (newspaper articles state she was crying in class with her head down on desk and they had their backs uncharacteristically towards each other that afternoon in China Gardens). As Parky says, there was nothing to keep him home after Shane's call at 1604. He knew she had no phone and was already angry with her as per all the aforementioned. Then we factor in just how advanced he was for his age (forensically, for example) and his local geographical knowledge, his previous (pseudo?) attacks on females, his temper, his freedom to do as he pleased (no restrictions placed on him like many of his peers would have as per a normal family) and it really does all add up, does it not? And then those fires in his garden, phoning people he wasn't in the habit of meeting up with, right whe was normally with her, looking cleaner than normal and spent the next 5+ hours not enquiring about the girl who he'd normally be with?? Yeah, right! Guilty as hell!! And this is before you read his brother and mother's court testimony! Pull another leg! Sheesh!
-
Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same. We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.
That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,
Leave his house at 1601 and hang around until her chores were done? Wasn’t that usually around 1800? You claim that he knew this so why would he leave his house at 1601 or indeed any time before the first text?
Think of the scenario:
Jodi…..Shall we meet tonight? You can come to mine but I won’t be able to come out before my chores are done.
Luke…..Okay but I’ll come between 1601 and 1635, ages before you can actually come out and hang around Easthouses. Why you ask? Mmmm…good question.
From a report on JuJ testimony:
“ Jodi quickly arranged to visit Mr Mitchell, texting him, and receiving a reply, as she sat with her mother on the sofa at around 4.35pm. Mrs Jones said she played a Rod Stewart song for Jodi, as it was a ''hopeful song'' which held special meaning for her, before the teenager got ready to go out.”
The timings don’t work…you know it and I know it and the more that you try to shoehorn what needs to have happened into the time the reader knows it too.
The transcripts were a really unwanted gift, weren’t they Parky?
-
He was on his bike.... literally. Could have been mere coincidence that he was out on his bike when Jodi contacted him from Judith's phone at 1634. Maybe boyo had planned the murder after arguing with Jodi in school that afternoon (newspaper articles state she was crying in class with her head down on desk and they had their backs uncharacteristically towards each other that afternoon in China Gardens). As Parky says, there was nothing to keep him home after Shane's call at 1604. He knew she had no phone and was already angry with her as per all the aforementioned. Then we factor in just how advanced he was for his age (forensically, for example) and his local geographical knowledge, his previous (pseudo?) attacks on females, his temper, his freedom to do as he pleased (no restrictions placed on him like many of his peers would have as per a normal family) and it really does all add up, does it not? And then those fires in his garden, phoning people he wasn't in the habit of meeting up with, right whe was normally with her, looking cleaner than normal and spent the next 5+ hours not enquiring about the girl who he'd normally be with?? Yeah, right! Guilty as hell!! And this is before you read his brother and mother's court testimony! Pull another leg! Sheesh!
Literally not one word of your post, apart from Shane’s 1601 telephone call, is evidenced in any of the transcripts.
Of course if you get your information from the tabloids….
-
Credible? Incredulous, nonsense applications by the enablers. Obtuse statements, such as having to be home until after the last text. Once again brushing over those lies, deflecting away from them. Clarifying again what LM omitted. That his girlfriend had been on punishment, her times restricted. Until that punishment was lifted and she made contact, clearly to let her boyfriend know the good news. Let's reverse things a little here - That their meeting had been arranged, as usual, from school that day. That it was in fact LM who was to head up her house, whenever, wait around until her chores were complete. Which he could have set out to do, at any time. He wasn't waiting on any call/text from her, he knew roughly when those chores would be done. In line no doubt with other days the same. We know this claimed meeting down his way, was not the norm. Again, we know of that ban, the conditions set around the girl using that path. Omitted by LM. We also hear in evidence that this was to be the 1st time that his girlfriend had failed to keep their date. Which brings us to another lie from the enablers, that she made a habit of it, had failed to turn up before - Those lies piling up, one on top of the other.
That is what fits in line with the evidence. That the arrangement made from school that day was of meeting up there and not down at Newbattle. Which is why she had told her mother, that they would be "mucking around up here" That there is no application of LM having to have rushed anywhere. Clearly he could already have been out, heading in that direction. Then the contact came, to let him know she was allowed out earlier than anticipated, new meeting arranged for the lane. Held back by her mother to listen to a track. LM calls the speaking clock at 4:53pm. Irked somewhat, beckoning her to him. Clocked by AB,
Credible or clear lack of it, again. - The boy who had no restrictions. Nothing tying him to the house. Who again, could have left home at anytime, easily already on route to EH, the caravan park, his mothers work, meeting places they used. Possibly heading to get some money off her to buy his supper because he certainly wasn't home having dinner. When he is texted by his girlfriend, bringing that meeting forward. So many variables, when one was not stuck at home, with that ridiculous, incredulous application, that he had to have been there until 4:38pm. Whilst the lies are still being brushed over.
The transcripts - backing the two things I studied this case upon. The deception and reason as to why LM became prime suspect. Guilt or innocence was not a factor in it. Where people continuously forget, that no one has to prove LM guilty. The burden of proof lies with LM to prove his innocence. Erasing, re-writing, full on lies, is not going to achieve that. And as has been exposed, that loss of credibility with his farce of campaign, shows why this fight has gotten nowhere to date.
It is claimed he actually has a legal team now, something he has never had for many years. Even though many lies were in place, claiming such. The new leaders (claimed) are stating this, but this is the same people who have wilfully spread so many lies before - Who or what to trust?
-
The transcripts were a really unwanted gift, weren’t they Parky?
I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
fascinating stuff. No wonder Sanda Lean’s biggest supporter on here seems a bit embarrassed by these transcript revelations, it just goes to show what a charlatan the woman is.
-
I'm not sure how anyone could argue in favour of LM after reading the transcripts. Further reading shows LM/CM/SM all had different versions of whereabouts between 5-7pm, and LM was not witnessed by his brother at the time of the murder. Also, how did LM then know the exact time he needed an alibi for TOD.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
I think the last comment on this subject should be left to Shane Mitchell himself, in his own words.
‘ I think the final question I have to ask you is this, Mr Mitchell. As at 14th April 2003, did you believe that Luke had been in the house and had been making the tea that
night? - As at 14th April.
Yes,prior to being interviewed by the police. Was that your best recollection, that he had been in the house
and had been doing something with the tea?
- (incomprehensible).
Or by then didn't you know
I DIDN’T KNOW.
-
I think the last comment on this subject should be left to Shane Mitchell himself, in his own words.
‘ I think the final question I have to ask you is this, Mr Mitchell. As at 14th April 2003, did you believe that Luke had been in the house and had been making the tea that
night? - As at 14th April.
Yes,prior to being interviewed by the police. Was that your best recollection, that he had been in the house
and had been doing something with the tea?
- (incomprehensible).
Or by then didn't you know
I DIDN’T KNOW.
Where did you get that cite/quote? No wonder you're confused if you're using dates from several months before the murder took place.
From the transcripts: Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.
Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement)
Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..." Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties". Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"
Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes
He's never spoken since to support his brother.
-
Where did you get that cite/quote? No wonder you're confused if you're using dates from several months before the murder took place.
From the transcripts: Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.
Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement)
Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..." Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties". Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"
Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes
He's never spoken since to support his brother.
Page 2243…14 of the transcripts.
Thank you for your quote from page 2238 which is basically what I’ve already posted.
Can you imagine the pressure put upon Shane in his interview on the 14th of April when the police tell him that he may be looking at 3 years in prison if convicted of perverting the course of justice and still he will not admit to remembering something that he doesn’t? Further he repeats his lack of recall in court under oath.
Shane never, ever….and this is worth remembering….said that Luke wasn’t in the house when he came home. He simply couldn’t recall if he was and that’s a very different thing.
-
Can you explain your quote from April 2003?
He also never said he saw him. It's not a matter of winning an argument. Both CM & LM said they saw SM but SM claims he never saw LM and has never spoken up since. He had a selective memory and only changed his recall when shown murder scene photos in court and was noticeably upset during questioning. Why did he give two different versions of what happened then change his mind in court, and has never spoken up since? Not even "ok I might not have seen my brother but I don't believe he would have done this"? Not a peep.
You're whole Lean-esque argument is based on what if's/maybe's/unverified sightings etc. There's a reason LM is in jail and been refused parole.
-
Can you explain your quote from April 2003?
He also never said he saw him. It's not a matter of winning an argument. Both CM & LM said they saw SM but SM claims he never saw LM and has never spoken up since. He had a selective memory and only changed his recall when shown murder scene photos in court and was noticeably upset during questioning. Why did he give two different versions of what happened then change his mind in court, and has never spoken up since? Not even "ok I might not have seen my brother but I don't believe he would have done this"? Not a peep.
You're whole Lean-esque argument is based on what if's/maybe's/unverified sightings etc. There's a reason LM is in jail and been refused parole.
I have given you the details of where you will find the quote from Shane’s testimony and he was talking about his April 2004 not 2003 interview I believe.
And yes he absolutely didn’t say he saw Luke, he said he didn’t know if he’d seen him. A brave stance when you have the whole force of the law bearing down on you.
Another interesting snippet from Shane’s April 2004 interview.
And that is pursued. For example when he keeps saying no, towards the foot of 5 the policeman says, "Well hundreds of murderers
throughout time have also had brothers and
sisters (incomprehensible)". And Shane says,
"Because I've never seen him hurt a fly". The policeman says, "You never seen him hit a
fly". "Hurt a fly". "Hurt a fly". "Hurt anybody".
-
I have given you the details of where you will find the quote from Shane’s testimony and he was talking about his April 2004 not 2003 interview I believe.
And yes he absolutely didn’t say he saw Luke, he said he didn’t know if he’d seen him. A brave stance when you have the whole force of the law bearing down on you.
If he's so brave why has he never spoken up in 20 years. Even a written statement if he didn't want to get involved with Lean's rabble. Nor a word from his dad in 20 years. As I said earlier, it's not about winning an argument, but when the killer's family don't support him it's rather obvious.
-
If he's so brave why has he never spoken up in 20 years. Even a written statement if he didn't want to get involved with Lean's rabble. Nor a word from his dad in 20 years. As I said earlier, it's not about winning an argument, but when the killer's family don't support him it's rather obvious.
If he spoke up would you believe him that Luke wasn’t Jodi’s killer?
-
If he spoke up would you believe him that Luke wasn’t Jodi’s killer?
Not sure, however I'm sure I've mentioned previously I've been in his company when he said he was guilty and was rather uncomplimentary, let's leave it at that. If he'd spoken in his defence, I would have questioned why he's stayed silent - wouldn't you?
You seem to think that because there's no concert photo of LM in a parka that he never had one, despite 8+ court witnesses testifying he had?
-
Not sure, however I'm sure I've mentioned previously I've been in his company when he said he was guilty and was rather uncomplimentary, let's leave it at that. If he'd spoken in his defence, I would have questioned why he's stayed silent - wouldn't you?
You seem to think that because there's no concert photo of LM in a parka that he never had one, despite 8+ court witnesses testifying he had?
You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?
“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?
I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”
Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?
-
You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?
“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?
I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”
Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?
Good to see you put such effort in trying to disprove me. As I've said, I've been in his company when he said not to mention his brother who he referred to as a "that f***** wee c***".
Now, back to why he hasn't spoken up for him in 20 years?
-
Good to see you put such effort in trying to disprove me. As I've said, I've been in his company when he said not to mention his brother who he referred to as a "that f***** wee c***".
Now, back to why he hasn't spoken up for him in 20 years?
A little bit of advice. If you want people to give any credibility to your claims perhaps you should start by being consistent?
-
Why are you in the position to give me advice in a closed convicted murder case? I've been consistent (in my opinion). I stand by the courts decisions/appeal and transcripts. The fact you can't respond to why SM & PM haven't spoken in 20 years over winning an internet argument says enough.
I've witnessed SM saying his brother was guilty.,
You've asked if SM told me he thought his brother was innocent, would I believe him?
Regardless of what he said/she said, I'll stand with court verdict unless further evidence is provided - not local gossip.
-
You have mentioned it…numerous times but was it any his company or you learned from a friend of a friend…you don’t appear to be able to make your mind up?
“Quote from: Mr Apples on April 06, 2023, 11:20:35 PM
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?
I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, it’s not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.”
Don’t you just hate how the internet remembers things?
I hate how people can’t read and understand plain English. Ken has been consistent and the quote you dug up proves it. Oops.
-
Why are you in the position to give me advice in a closed convicted murder case? I've been consistent (in my opinion). I stand by the courts decisions/appeal and transcripts. The fact you can't respond to why SM & PM haven't spoken in 20 years over winning an internet argument says enough.
I've witnessed SM saying his brother was guilty.,
You've asked if SM told me he thought his brother was innocent, would I believe him?
Regardless of what he said/she said, I'll stand with court verdict unless further evidence is provided - not local gossip.
He had placed a lock on his door, prior to leaving the family home. The latter taken place shortly after being released from custody, whilst under charge. Had not visited his brother in prison for months prior to giving testimony. MIAST, where his mother publicly declared she had been abandoned, left to rot with failing health. LM only ever relates to his mother. Nothing of the father and brother ever. Factors that don't point to a belief in innocence. It's one thing not publicly supporting this innocence cry, it's something else entirely when the mother has been abandoned also?
The united front has come in the shape of that duo - SL & CM. With those obtuse claims of only meeting in September 2003. Who believes that story now after all that has been exposed? That a stranger contacted another for help with her sons case? There was no case. No arrest and at a time just short of 'celebrating the end of a difficult time' That far too close collaboration, conflict of interest, from two people who clearly knew each other.
-
He had placed a lock on his door, prior to leaving the family home. The latter taken place shortly after being released from custody, whilst under charge. Had not visited his brother in prison for months prior to giving testimony. MIAST, where his mother publicly declared she had been abandoned, left to rot with failing health. LM only ever relates to his mother. Nothing of the father and brother ever. Factors that don't point to a belief in innocence. It's one thing not publicly supporting this innocence cry, it's something else entirely when the mother has been abandoned also?
The united front has come in the shape of that duo - SL & CM. With those obtuse claims of only meeting in September 2003. Who believes that story now after all that has been exposed? That a stranger contacted another for help with her sons case? There was no case. No arrest and at a time just short of 'celebrating the end of a difficult time' That far too close collaboration, conflict of interest, from two people who clearly knew each other.
Isn’t it about time we moved on? The transcripts are opening the case up more and more every time one is posted. There is now no need to rely on Dr Lean’s tome for information on the case….the transcripts are revealing a whole new world of information. Much of it was indeed contained in Dr Lean’s book, some is absolutely new and does contradict what we thought we already knew.
No one cares whether Dr Lean and Corrine Mitchell knew each other, it’s old news…it doesn’t matter. No one cares whether Shane supports his brother…it really is immaterial. Have we not heard from Andrew Malkinson’s sister who thought he was a murderer right up to he was exonerated?
Shane has testified under oath that he can’t remember if Luke was home the night of Jodie’s murder so, while on the 14th of April 2004 he didn’t believe that Luke could kill Jodi as he ‘couldn’t hurt a fly, hurt anyone’ perhaps that’s changed? Who knows…families are fickle and his feelings now towards Luke matter not a jot. What does matter is that we now have indisputable records of much of the trial testimony.
Come on Parky, it’s a brave new world out there. Throw down the shackles of old enmities and embrace what’s really important, that we now have a clean, untainted record of the real evidence in this case.
-
Isn’t it about time we moved on? The transcripts are opening the case up more and more every time one is posted. There is now no need to rely on Dr Lean’s tome for information on the case….the transcripts are revealing a whole new world of information. Much of it was indeed contained in Dr Lean’s book, some is absolutely new and does contradict what we thought we already knew.
No one cares whether Dr Lean and Corrine Mitchell knew each other, it’s old news…it doesn’t matter. No one cares whether Shane supports his brother…it really is immaterial. Have we not heard from Andrew Malkinson’s sister who thought he was a murderer right up to he was exonerated?
Shane has testified under oath that he can’t remember if Luke was home the night of Jodie’s murder so, while on the 14th of April 2004 he didn’t believe that Luke could kill Jodi as he ‘couldn’t hurt a fly, hurt anyone’ perhaps that’s changed? Who knows…families are fickle and his feelings now towards Luke matter not a jot. What does matter is that we now have indisputable records of much of the trial testimony.
Come on Parky, it’s a brave new world out there. Throw down the shackles of old enmities and embrace what’s really important, that we now have a clean, untainted record of the real evidence in this case.
And what have we learned from the transcripts that definitively exculpates Mitchell? What we have learned is that SL, his Number One ambassador had to misrepresent the truth of some of the court proceedings in order to strengthen her case but what did she fail to mention in them that now shows Mitchell in a better light than before? Nothing, I'll wager...
-
Just quickly ...... those two women only saw this guy fleetingly at a gate from a car and yet positively Id'd him. The photo on the newspaper 'jumped out at them' as being LM (one of the women even said, "Oh my God, it's him!").They were unequivocal that it it was him; no doubt whatsoever.
The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case. As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy. IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.
-
The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case. As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy. IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.
Different case, different set of circumstances, not comparable clearly.
-
And what have we learned from the transcripts that definitively exculpates Mitchell? What we have learned is that SL, his Number One ambassador had to misrepresent the truth of some of the court proceedings in order to strengthen her case but what did she fail to mention in them that now shows Mitchell in a better light than before? Nothing, I'll wager...
Exactly. And nothing. Which is why we have this continuous attempt at pulling up all and sundry around 'what can happen' without showing that it did happen in this case.
The lies matter. Every lie, every attack on the basis of lies, matter. Every lie was promoted and backed fully by the convicted. All three books are for and from LM. The 3rd was co written and fact checked by the self published author of the 1st two. The 3rd as with the other two, proudly welcomed by CM also. There is no, and never has there been this feeble 'The lies don't matter, all that matters is the point' - The exposure, the continuous reminder of those lies will always be applicable for as long those books are on sale. Why doesn't the alter ego/clone work to have those books taken down if they don't want the lies to be continuously exposed? That will be for the same reason, that no proof was ever required to back up the narrative in the 1st instance. - They are not and never have been interested in the truth. All charlatans.
Which again brings us back full circle, credibility or lack of it. A convicted killer who has promoted/backed every lie put out from and for him. Is claiming to be innocent. Who was exposed repeatedly to have lied in the investigation into the death of his girlfriend. Who's abundance of lies played a major factor in his own conviction. The chopping and changing of accounts, from him, his mother, his brother, all aided in his conviction. Which the transcripts expose. The clear lack of support from family/friends, not just of LM but also the mother is relevant, of course it is. The lying since his conviction to gain public support is relevant all the way back to the 30th of June. Compulsive liars don't hold credibility. The transcripts give us clear reason, back fully, why LM was taken to trial for this murder. Not the feeble, false, made up narrative of - 'It was because a policeman 'may' have written something down wrong!
Ms Lean has never held much of any of the transcripts, did not attend the trial - Utter fallacy that most of what transpired at court is held within her book. - Utter tosh. Intentionally misled the reader into believing she had. Mainly using media reports, manipulating around them, to make it appear as if it was from transcripts and her attendance. Much like her 1st book, now withdrawn - A psychological scam of inference. An opinion long held prior to the release of the transcrips.
-
The Innocence Project wrote, "At trial, five witnesses testified that they had seen [Kirk] Bloodsworth with the victim. However, two of these witnesses had not been able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup, but had seen him after the crime was committed on television." What you are describing is not a proper identification; the obvious problem is that LM's photograph may have created a false memory, as it might also have done in the Bloodsworth case. As an aside, witness certainty is a poor gauge of witness accuracy. IIRC I have given citations on the latter point previously.
As I've said many times previously, and also said many times by Venturi Swirl, this is a very different case with very different circumstances - and different circumstantial evidence that was categorically overwhelming. Chris, in addition to the eyewitness evidence (which was, on its own, damaging for the defence), there were an additional 19 other points/adminicles of circumstanstial evidence used to convict LM. So, while the eyewitness testimony per se was convincing, it was even more convincing and robust when those other 19 strands of circumstantial evidence were pulled together; it exposed LM extremely convincingly. As people have been saying on here for years now, the evidence against LM was overwhelming and watertight. Most folk who have analysed this case objectively would be utterly astonished if he never did it - that's why he is where he is, has had his numerous appeals rejected and why he'll most likely remain where he is indefinitely.
-
As I've said many times previously, and also said many times by Venturi Swirl, this is a very different case with very different circumstances - and different circumstantial evidence that was categorically overwhelming. Chris, in addition to the eyewitness evidence (which was, on its own, damaging for the defence), there were an additional 19 other points/adminicles of circumstanstial evidence used to convict LM. So, while the eyewitness testimony per se was convincing, it was even more convincing and robust when those other 19 strands of circumstantial evidence were pulled together; it exposed LM extremely convincingly. As people have been saying on here for years now, the evidence against LM was overwhelming and watertight. Most folk who have analysed this case objectively would be utterly astonished if he never did it - that's why he is where he is, has had his numerous appeals rejected and why he'll most likely remain where he is indefinitely.
If it was as compelling a case as you suggest then it would have brought back a unanimous verdict. They jury could have been split 8 to 7, because as I’ve already pointed out, the judge would only need 8 of the jury to agree on Luke’s guilty for a guilty verdict to be brought forward.
-
If it was as compelling a case as you suggest then it would have brought back a unanimous verdict. They jury could have been split 8 to 7, because as I’ve already pointed out, the judge would only need 8 of the jury to agree on Luke’s guilty for a guilty verdict to be brought forward.
Could’ve been 9 to 6, 10 to 5, 11 to 4, 12 to 3, 13 to 2, 14 to 1 too.
-
Could’ve been 9 to 6, 10 to 5, 11 to 4, 12 to 3, 13 to 2, 14 to 1 too.
I would imagine it was a strong majority, at least 10-5 if not more, but the LM/SL supporters will cling to an 8-7. There's a reason his appeals (only on technical points not new evidence) and parole failed and his spokespersons have been amateurs Lean & Forbes and no qualified solicitor has appealed on his behalf.
-
I would imagine it was a strong majority, at least 10-5 if not more and beyond reasonable doubt (see Nimmo below), but the LM/SL supporters will cling to an 8-7. There's a reason his appeals (only on technical points not new evidence) and parole failed and his spokespersons have been amateurs Lean & Forbes and no qualified solicitor has appealed on his behalf.
-
If it was as compelling a case as you suggest then it would have brought back a unanimous verdict. They jury could have been split 8 to 7, because as I’ve already pointed out, the judge would only need 8 of the jury to agree on Luke’s guilty for a guilty verdict to be brought forward.
Ian Huntley wasn't an unanimous verdict either - are you campaigning for a MOJ for him too or do you just pick and choose?
-
Ian Huntley wasn't an unanimous verdict either - are you campaigning for a MOJ for him too or do you just pick and choose?
Unbelievably there are people convinced of his innocence too, there are some right nutters in the world.
-
I would imagine it was a strong majority, at least 10-5 if not more, but the LM/SL supporters will cling to an 8-7. There's a reason his appeals (only on technical points not new evidence) and parole failed and his spokespersons have been amateurs Lean & Forbes and no qualified solicitor has appealed on his behalf.
You would imagine? That’s comforting but doesn’t constitute proof.
As to Luke’s appeals failing would it be churlish of me to point out again that before virtually every conviction that was quashed there was several appeals?
-
Ian Huntley wasn't an unanimous verdict either - are you campaigning for a MOJ for him too or do you just pick and choose?
The difference is that we know categorically that the judge in the Huntley trial directed that he would accept a majority of 10 jurors voting for guilt.
Do we have that in the Mitchell case?
-
And what have we learned from the transcripts that definitively exculpates Mitchell?
"Definitive" sets a very high bar. Steven Kelly's testimony is probative in that it damaged a major plank of the prosecution's case, as I have noted before.
-
"Definitive" sets a very high bar. Steven Kelly's testimony is probative in that it damaged a major plank of the prosecution's case, as I have noted before.
You didn't. Thinking you did is not the same as actually doing. Erasing most of what LM claimed doesn't work, have you learnt nothing Chris?
His testimony demonstrated that LM was lying. His dog had never alerted to anything because his dog was not and never where he claimed. He had no guidance from any dog leading him yada yada yada. Kelly's testimony, those clear descriptions of where the dog was on the wall, exposed LM's lies. Have you worked out yet what LM was doing for that missing time frame? You know, his claims of "rushing" up that path?
-
You didn't. Thinking you did is not the same as actually doing. Erasing most of what LM claimed doesn't work, have you learnt nothing Chris?
His testimony demonstrated that LM was lying. His dog had never alerted to anything because his dog was not and never where he claimed. He had no guidance from any dog leading him yada yada yada. Kelly's testimony, those clear descriptions of where the dog was on the wall, exposed LM's lies. Have you worked out yet what LM was doing for that missing time frame? You know, his claims of "rushing" up that path?
The crowns case was that LM knew where his girlfriends body was. That he had went directly to the V break in that wall. Which was proven to be true. SK's testimony gave a clear description of of the dog directly at that V break. How it's head was level with the base shape of the break, of it standing directly up against it. It is 'not' what LM claimed took place. All three gave descriptions of LM heading to the V break with his dog on their way 'down' the path. What was also demonstrated was the dog pulling at that wall prior to that point also. From the 'Gino' break and so forth.
LM, again. His account had them all passed that break. "some distance past" Not and never at the V break. Of him having to make his way back to the break 'after' his claimed alert. Of him turning directly to the left once entering that woodland. Of following in the direction of his claimed alert. And on it goes. Did not happen. Always directly the V break.
Give the lad a break (cough). Caught up in, well my dog did this, the others could not have failed to see it doing that. But, but, but how do I explain knowing where to go? That's correct, I'll just move the dog to another spot, around 40 - 60ft from where the others saw the dog. Fingers crossed behind his back, hopefully that will do the trick?
-
You didn't. Thinking you did is not the same as actually doing. Erasing most of what LM claimed doesn't work, have you learnt nothing Chris?
His testimony demonstrated that LM was lying. His dog had never alerted to anything because his dog was not and never where he claimed. He had no guidance from any dog leading him yada yada yada. Kelly's testimony, those clear descriptions of where the dog was on the wall, exposed LM's lies. Have you worked out yet what LM was doing for that missing time frame? You know, his claims of "rushing" up that path?
What we do know is almost every word of Luke’s statements before he came to court. What we also know is that Kelly, Jones and Walker’s statements had changed substantially, and all in the same way, by the time they had come to court. They were challenged on this in court and the changes have been questioned by subsequent investigative journalists.
To believe that Luke lied we’d have to accept that every other member of the search party was telling the truth and we know that they weren’t.
-
Have you worked out yet what LM was doing for that missing time frame? You know, his claims of "rushing" up that path?
From Lukemitchelltrialblog
“ THE SEARCH PARTY TIMELINE & SANDRA LEAN'S FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
August 14, 2024
The source referenced is Sandra Lean's book, 'Innocence Betrayed' (2018), extracts regarded as 'fair use' under copyright and author's remarks in italics.
Sandra Lean writes:
Another ten minutes later, at 10.59, Judith called Luke again.
He told her he had just arrived at the Newbattle entrance to Roan’s Dyke Path with his dog and was about to make his way up to Easthouses, looking for Jodi on the way.
Did Luke actually say that he had just arrived...
The only related quote from Judith Jones, Jodi's mother, seems to be:
In Judith’s first recorded statement to police, at 2.45am on July 1st, she said Luke told her, in the 10.59pm phone call, he was coming up the path “on his bike.”
Continuing:
The explanation seems obvious, at first glance. Luke’s timings must be wrong. The 10.59pm call placed Luke at the Newbattle entrance to the path at that point, so it is worth noting at this stage that police timed the walk from Luke’s house to the entrance to the path at seven minutes at a “brisk pace.”
Luke arrived at the Newbattle entrance exactly 10 minutes after picking up Judith’s 10.49 call, leaving him just 3 minutes to have the phone conversation with Judith and the short conversation with his mother, get the torch from his brother, put the dog back on the lead and set off.
The timing for this part of Luke’s journey to the path, therefore, is confirmed".
Except that Sandra Lean would appear to make a significant error here - Luke was not at home, when he received the 10:49 p.m. phone call.
Luke was outdoors, taking Mia for a walk.
Quoting from Luke Mitchell's interview with DC Alan Towers, in the early hours of 1 July, at Dalkeith police station, directly after the horrific events, of 30 June:
I got home about twenty five to ten. David High phoned me part of the way home. When I was in my room about twenty past, half past ten", in brackets, 2220, 2230 hours, "and got a text message from her mum's phone saying, 'Right, Jodi, you're in big trouble for being late.'
Her mum (inaudible). I phoned Jodi's mum right back and told her Jodi wasn't with me. Her mum sounded shocked and I said, 'Where is she?' As far as she knew, she was on her way to see me.
Her mum said she would phone her gran and her sister to check up. She hung up.
I took Mia, my Alsatian dog, out for walk round the field. When I was out, I got another call from Jodi's mum. She was crying and saying that Jodi hadn't been seen since she left the house about six o'clock. She said that she was going to phone the police to report her missing. I went back to the house.
I'd only been out ten minutes.
When I got in, I told my mum what was happening and that Jodi was missing.
She said that I better go out and look for her.
The evident mistake, originates here:
At 10:38pm, while he was taking his dog, Mia, out for her last walk of the evening, Luke received a text from Judith’s phone, clearly intended for Jodi - “Right Toad, 2 weeks grounding, say bye to Luke”.
Luke immediately called Judith to tell her he had not seen Jodi all evening.
Luke was at home, when Judith's text was received and his return call made.
Seven minutes later, at 10.49, Judith called back in tears to say Jodi was nowhere to be found and she was calling the police.
This is the call received, when he was in the fields, walking Mia.
Sandra Lean has this the wrong way around and that has a catastrophic, knock-on effect.
Note that Luke says, "I went back to the house", possibly indicating he was not already heading back from his walk with Mia, when Judith's call came through.
If Luke came back home, straight after the 10:49 p.m. phone call and had been out for a total of 10 minutes, then did he receive the call after being out walking for a 5 minutes distance and it therefore took him 5 minutes to return?
If so, he would have arrived back at the house, around 10:54 p.m.
As Sandra Lean notes, we also have to account for the time taken discussing the situation with Corinne and deciding how they should proceed.
Accepting Sandra Lean's suggested 3 minutes and if Luke was at the Newbatttle path entrance for 10:59 p.m., he made that 7 minutes journey in 2 minutes, a patently untenable scenario.
What this does now allow for, is a situation whereby, if Luke simply advised that he was 'coming up the path', it could be misconstrued as meaning either:
I am coming up the path, right now.
or..
I am coming up the path, soon as.
There would seemingly be no timeline anomaly, if Luke did not leave home until, say, 11:09 p.m.
He would reach the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path, 7 minutes later at 11:16 p.m.
A further 7 minutes and Luke would meet up with the search party, at approximately 11:23 p.m., which equates with the approximate duration, their journey would have taken.
It was a later timed by a police reconstruction, that it was a 5 minutes walk back down the path, with Luke, to our 'V-shaped' wall, so arriving around 11:28 p.m.
This permits sufficient time for all encompassed therein, to have occurred, prior to the police being called.
However, this is entirely speculation and we can only evidence that Sandra Lean's timeline is factually compromised and now rendered inadmissible by her own elemental 'faux pas'.
-
What we do know is almost every word of Luke’s statements before he came to court. What we also know is that Kelly, Jones and Walker’s statements had changed substantially, and all in the same way, by the time they had come to court. They were challenged on this in court and the changes have been questioned by subsequent investigative journalists.
To believe that Luke lied we’d have to accept that every other member of the search party was telling the truth and we know that they weren’t.
Who was lying and what is your proof? Remember a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
-
Who was lying and what is your proof? Remember a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
Isn't it just. Liars, backing liars, having to constantly misrepresent the truth. Weak and feeble attempts. As the clone yet again desperately attempts to make it fit, somehow, anyhow. With the feeble application of poor Sandra, making mistakes!
Once again she confirms the very point. LM was lying. Let's just pick something out, such as claiming to be home at a certain time, witnessed going home at 10pm. SM stated he knew nothing was amiss until the early hours of July 1st. Nothing of any torch. SL claiming LM agreed with the victims mother, accepted all round that the call at 10:59pm had LM claim to be at the path. He had rushed up nowhere. His mother feigned surprise at seeing her son home so early, he wasn't home. Came home at his usual time! So many lies. And never ending excuses for them.
Another lie? That the Jury did not get to hear of what was in 1st statements. Oh dear, they not only got to hear them, they had the witnesses adopt them as true. All before that Jury. LM was not past that V break, not from their 1st accounts to their testimony in court. His dog had not given off an alert where he claimed, there was nothing but clear special knowledge as to where the victims body lay. We could go on? The timings, the descriptions he gave of what he could not possibly have seen. Claiming never to have been over that break before, in that woodland, - Yada yada yada.
That guff, 'if' we do this or that and whatever, there may have been no anomally - Hilarious.
-
You didn't.
I did, when I previously wrote, "It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline." (05 September 2024 at 03:16:34 AM)
Here is the passage from the transcript that was in my mind at the time I wrote that comment:
"Donald Findlay: You talk about Luke being a couple of footsteps in front of us. “The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.” Now do you remember the dog doing that? (no answer).
To assist you I will read one more sentence. “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”. Do you remember that happening? – As I says, I can remember him being at that part of the wall. Now I can’t remember about the dog (sic). Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."
Just now I found one additional passage of interest:
DF: Remember...in your 30th July statement saying this. "I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps. I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall." Do you remember that?
SK: I can't remember.
This, too, would have been fresh in his mind when he gave his statement.
-
I did, when I previously wrote, "It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline." (05 September 2024 at 03:16:34 AM)
Here is the passage from the transcript that was in my mind at the time I wrote that comment:
"Donald Findlay: You talk about Luke being a couple of footsteps in front of us. “The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.” Now do you remember the dog doing that? (no answer).
To assist you I will read one more sentence. “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”. Do you remember that happening? – As I says, I can remember him being at that part of the wall. Now I can’t remember about the dog (sic). Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."
Just now I found one additional passage of interest:
DF: Remember...in your 30th July statement saying this. "I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps. I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall." Do you remember that?
SK: I can't remember.
This, too, would have been fresh in his mind when he gave his statement.
What on earth does all this supposedly prove or disprove?
-
I did, when I previously wrote, "It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline." (05 September 2024 at 03:16:34 AM)
Here is the passage from the transcript that was in my mind at the time I wrote that comment:
"Donald Findlay: You talk about Luke being a couple of footsteps in front of us. “The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.” Now do you remember the dog doing that? (no answer).
To assist you I will read one more sentence. “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”. Do you remember that happening? – As I says, I can remember him being at that part of the wall. Now I can’t remember about the dog (sic). Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."
Just now I found one additional passage of interest:
DF: Remember...in your 30th July statement saying this. "I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps. I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall." Do you remember that?
SK: I can't remember.
This, too, would have been fresh in his mind when he gave his statement.
Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.
“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.
You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.
Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.
Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.
-
Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.
“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.
You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.
Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.
Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.
BTW a dog finding a body would have been its handler taken the dog over the wall, leading them to where the body was. Oh wait, LM didn't have to do that, why? Because he said his dog had alerted at a "parallel" place near to where the body was. Wow, wait, look at the evidence, it couldn't be clearer, it didn't happen. Whatever that dog was doing standing up against that V break, or pulling to the wall prior to that point (fancy that a dog pulling to a wall). Which was also highlighted by the AD, that the dog had already been acting in a certain fashion anyway. What is it SL put it down to? False alerts - Comedy gold.
It's the thinking one has gotcha moments with DF's cross examination. My word, how dim did you take the AD to be? Did you imagine for one moment that these statements would not be read out? Of course not, he knew exactly what he was doing, placing the focus where it should be - No LM past that break, he was lying. Nothing of any alert showing him where to go, why? Because they weren't were he claimed to be. Take it all away, and you are left with the Crowns evidence. Which was, the dog could have been doing summersaults down that path and to the V break, it was not alerting LM to the position of the victims body. Never past it. What the evidence also show us, is that he had never walked that distance down that passage either. He had all but not moved behind that wall. He didn't need to!
-
Darn, it's like a duo act. You put something up confirming my very point.
“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.
You do know what prior means, you do, don't you? Stuck forever on what you can't possibly bring yourself to accept. You seriously have a problem bud.
Let me do it slowly for you, I doubt it will make any difference. Here is point A and there is point B. and "Never the Twain shall meet". Point A is where LM claimed his dog had alerted him. Point A is some distance past the break in the wall. His 'not quite 20yards --' past it. His point where he had them all past that break. Point B is where the dog was actually up at the wall. Point B is the V break. It really isn't difficult Chris. Therefore again. The evidence from the other searches was always that LM had went directly to that break whilst approaching if from the east. He had not been past it, there was nothing at all guiding him as to where to go when entering that woodland. His claim of heading down that narrow passage in the direction of where his dog alerted (claimed) "parallel to" Does that help any more? Just so as not to be confused like? That there is no LM was just mistaken. He surely meant it was the V break to tie in with that outstanding description from Kelly, of the dog being right up against the break.
Further confirmation which further exposed the lies in place by the enablers. Thank you. That there was never this, it was not before the Jury. All they said in court was Luke went to the V, that his dog had did nothing. Now before all that, there was of course LM going to the "Gino" break, shining his torch directly to the ground behind that wall. DF striving hard to give it ye olde, didn't he do well, he was the only one of the 4 to think of looking beyond that high wall. Wasn't he just, wasn't he just.
Kelly saw Mia “pulling Luke to the wall” which suggests that Luke was some distance away from the wall. Your thoughts?
Kelly, in his testimony, seemed to have forgotten much of what he had related in his statements. This included much of what happened during the search. Does that make him a liar or, like Luke, a human being who had just gone through a horrific experience?
-
From Alice Walker’s 5th of July statement.
“ This is the part where Luke actually climbed over. I don't know what drew us to that part, but l'm certain that it was Luke's idea. The dog didn't seem to be
bothered but I couldn't say if it jumped at the wall or not, I don't think that it did".
From various statements from Steven Kelly.
"The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.”
“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.
"I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps. I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall."
And Janine Jones’s statement.
"Luke's dog was on a lead at all times but it started jumping about at the wall".
How can two people who saw the same incident recollections be so different? It makes you wonder what else was missed by the witnesses?
-
From Alice Walker’s 5th of July statement.
“ This is the part where Luke actually climbed over. I don't know what drew us to that part, but l'm certain that it was Luke's idea. The dog didn't seem to be
bothered but I couldn't say if it jumped at the wall or not, I don't think that it did".
From various statements from Steven Kelly.
"The dog was sniffing about and pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall.”
“I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall prior to us reaching the broken part of the wall where we went over”.
"I stopped to check some (incomprehensible) out, something in the undergrowth, but Alice carried on a couple of steps. I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall."
How can two people who saw the same incident recollections be so different? It makes you wonder what else was missed by the witnesses?
” Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it?”. Ring any bells?
-
” Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it?”. Ring any bells?
I would say Faith must be the supreme troll in the LM case, in managing to make so much out of so little and ignoring key issues in favour of trivialities that were not picked up by the defence QC, who at the time was at the peak of his powers. There's a few LM supporters, Lean included, who I wonder if they still believe in him, or just don't want to admit they've backed a wrong 'un.
-
I would say Faith must be the supreme troll in the LM case, in managing to make so much out of so little and ignoring key issues in favour of trivialities that were not picked up by the defence QC, who at the time was at the peak of his powers. There's a few LM supporters, Lean included, who I wonder if they still believe in him, or just don't want to admit they've backed a wrong 'un.
Trivialities? As one of the main planks of the prosecution’s case was focused on Luke finding of Jodi’s body I’d hardly call the anomalies between witness statements of the event ‘trivial’.
I feel as if if you have read the testimony of Kelly, Walker and Jones you certainly didn’t fully understand Findlay’s line of questioning and the doubt he so brutally brought to the fore regarding their honesty.
-
I've read all the court transcripts but yet to see anything that would cause me to re-evaluate that LM isn't guilty as charged. If DF was so sure of LM's innocence, why does he no longer represent him?
The three planks were: the witness sightings, his brother not being to alibi him, and LM finding the body within 5-6 mins.
-
I've read all the court transcripts but yet to see anything that would cause me to re-evaluate that LM isn't guilty as charged. If DF was so sure of LM's innocence, why does he no longer represent him?
The three planks were: the witness sightings, his brother not being to alibi him, and LM finding the body within 5-6 mins.
Why doesn’t Findlay represent Luke anymore? Really?
True Shane was not able to alibi Luke. That is clearly not the same as saying that his alibi was untrue. Shane could simply not remember. Corrine Mitchell could though and she gave her son a solid alibi and yes there was the tattoo incident but of course on the other hand we have Judith Jones lying to her son’s mental health team about her son’s whereabouts on the Monday afternoon of the 30th and you have no trouble believing her testimony. I can’t see the difference myself.
-
Why doesn’t Findlay represent Luke anymore? Really?
True Shane was not able to alibi Luke. That is clearly not the same as saying that his alibi was untrue. Shane could simply not remember. Corrine Mitchell could though and she gave her son a solid alibi and yes there was the tattoo incident but of course on the other hand we have Judith Jones lying to her son’s mental health team about her son’s whereabouts on the Monday afternoon of the 30th and you have no trouble believing her testimony. I can’t see the difference myself.
His mother is his alibi? Seriously?? And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….
-
His mother is his alibi? Seriously?? And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….
Agree. The entire extended Mitchell family has ex-communicated LM/CM. LM has had to rely on local fruitcakes like Lean & Forbes. Nothing the Jones family said or did contributed to their daughter's murder. Legally, no one will touch the case with a barge pole.
-
Agree. The entire extended Mitchell family has ex-communicated LM/CM. LM has had to rely on local fruitcakes like Lean & Forbes. Nothing the Jones family said or did contributed to their daughter's murder. Legally, no one will touch the case with a barge pole.
As did Andrew Malkinson’s sister even when he was innocent. Your point?
As to the Jones family I didn’t say that Judith’s lies led to Jodi’s death but it did show her to be less than an honest individual. She obviously was prepared to lie when needed.
On the flip side many legal experts believe that Luke was not given a fair trial.
-
As did Andrew Malkinson’s sister even when he was innocent. Your point?
As to the Jones family I didn’t say that Judith’s lies led to Jodi’s death but it did show her to be less than an honest individual. She obviously was prepared to lie when needed.
On the flip side many legal experts believe that Luke was not given a fair trial.
You didn’t say it explicitly but your sly implication was clear to anyone with half a braincell. And thank god for Andrew Malkinson’s sister, eh? How many times is that you’ve dragged the poor woman into your posts despite her having absolutely nothing to do with this case?
ETA Andrew Malkinson’s sister hadn’t seen her brother for 10 years prior to his arrest for rape. They were described as “estranged”. This is why dragging in comparisons with circumstances in other cases is really not all that helpful. The Mitchell brothers saw each other every day, lived in the same house and Mitchell’s brother wasn’t even able to provide him with an alibi. Two completely different sets of circumstances and relationships.
-
His mother is his alibi? Seriously?? And yet you set a very much higher bar for alibis in the other case you follow….
Seriously indeed - Pulling up yet another lie to boot in an attempt to give weight to air. JuJ's testimony has been read by no one, it has never been transcribed. Exposure of yet another lie from SL & her alias. Inference that some claimed cancellation had the mother lie (nothing to do with the trial of course), with added "of her sons whereabouts" so building on an already existent lie anyway. This claimed cancellation, some tiny excerpt used with zero context as per. What has SL been proven to do? Add her own, building up those lies. Just like her alias did there, again. What has she also been discovered to have been doing? Making up s**t claiming it was said in statements. - There is no credibility in proven liars scraping to claim someone else did. Kindred spirits who care not a jot for the truth.
-
Seriously indeed - Pulling up yet another lie to boot in an attempt to give weight to air. JuJ's testimony has been read by no one, it has never been transcribed. Exposure of yet another lie from SL & her alias. Inference that some claimed cancellation had the mother lie (nothing to do with the trial of course), with added "of her sons whereabouts" so building on an already existent lie anyway. This claimed cancellation, some tiny excerpt used with zero context as per. What has SL been proven to do? Add her own, building up those lies. Just like her alias did there, again. What has she also been discovered to have been doing? Making up s**t claiming it was said in statements. - There is no credibility in proven liars scraping to claim someone else did. Kindred spirits who care not a jot for the truth.
Hmmm can I just point out that if we haven’t seen JuJ’s testimony we can’t know that the cancellation by JuJ was a lie.
Like the rest of us you do not have the slightest idea what claims JuJ’s original statements or her court testimony contained. Of course we do know for certain that you have no proof of several ‘facts’ you’ve relied on.
-
Hmmm can I just point out that if we haven’t seen JuJ’s testimony we can’t know that the cancellation by JuJ was a lie.
Like the rest of us you do not have the slightest idea what claims JuJ’s original statements or her court testimony contained. Of course we do know for certain that you have no proof of several ‘facts’ you’ve relied on.
Why are you perpetuating these stories if you don’t have the slightest idea what claims her original statements or her court testimony contained then?
-
Different case, different set of circumstances, not comparable clearly.
Exactly how are they different? Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"? If so, why?
-
Most folk who have analysed this case objectively would be utterly astonished if he never did it - that's why he is where he is, has had his numerous appeals rejected and why he'll most likely remain where he is indefinitely.
David Wilson, who was a prison governor, thinks otherwise regarding LM. As for the number of appeals, that is a meaningless metric. Todd Willingham lost at least ten appeals, yet in the reality-based community, there is a strong consensus that there was no evidence of arson in his case.
-
Donald Finlay was the defence barrister wasn’t he? So of course he would say that wouldn’t he?
Are you saying that he was incorrect? if so, please explain.
-
BTW a dog finding a body would have been its handler taken the dog over the wall, leading them to where the body was.
You have every right to your opinion. If another commenter were to say that your statement was not merely wrong, but worthy of a Billy Madison award, that opinion would also be within his or her right. Neither view aligns exactly with my thoughts.
-
Alas
I counted five paragraphs, not one of which dealt with the procedural problems of F and W's testimony, let alone any other problems with it. Alas, indeed.
-
What on earth does all this supposedly prove or disprove?
If I had a dog (especially one being trained in tracking) who put her paws up on the wall, I would want to see what was on the other side of it. YMMV.
-
Exactly how are they different? Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"? If so, why?
And you compblain about me putting words in your mouth? Sheesh. I wrote what I wrote and what I wrote is self evident and entirely factual. Exactly how are the two cases different? In evert way that’s how. No two cases are ever the same either in the manner of the crime itself, the witnesses and their powwrs of recall, police procedures, how the evidence is presented in court, etc etc etc.
-
Are you saying that he was incorrect? if so, please explain.
I’m saying that as he was Mitchell’s defence lawyer everything he has to say on the case comes with an agenda, the defence of his client. He is not an impartial commentator. Do I really have to spell every single one of my posts out to you?
-
If I had a dog (especially one being trained in tracking) who put her paws up on the wall, I would want to see what was on the other side of it. YMMV.
YMMV?
If i had murdered someone and returned to the murder site with a dog trained in tracking I would expect it to show an interest in that site, so what does this prove or disprove exactly?
-
Exactly how are they different? Are you saying that it was not ok for the witnesses to have seen Kirk Bloodsworth's picture, but it was ok for witnesses to see LM's"? If so, why?
These kind of comments does make me wonder how the writer thinks case law or police procedures are devised?
-
As I've said many times previously, and also said many times by Venturi Swirl, this is a very different case with very different circumstances - and different circumstantial evidence that was categorically overwhelming.
MA,
Every case is by definition different, but neither you nor VS discussed which differences you mean or why the are signficant in your opinion. The rest of your comment is conclusory. If you want to see an overwhelming case for guilt, Rudy Guede in the murder of Meredith Kercher is a good example; if you want to see an overwhelming case for innocence, the Duke lacrosse three is pretty good. This case does not fall into either category.
-
I’m saying that as he was Mitchell’s defence lawyer everything he has to say on the case comes with an agenda, the defence of his client. He is not an impartial commentator. Do I really have to spell every single one of my posts out to you?
Your answer fails to answer my question, which is whether proper procedures were followed or not. A good rule of thumb regarding a well constructed lineup is that a person who is entirely unrelated to the case should pick the suspect out only at the level indicated by chance (for a lineup of twelve people, this would be about 8% of the time). "Mr Findlay pointed out that one of the 11 photos was a child much younger that Mitchell. No-one else had a similar haircut and the background in the Mitchell photo was much lighter than the others." ""If a proper ID parade had been held instead - as recommended in official guidelines - a solicitor could have objected to the "stand-ins", said the lawyer [Donald Findlay]."
"Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects." This is one of those statements that damages the credibility of the authorities. "It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade." (Scotsman)
-
YMMV?
If i had murdered someone and returned to the murder site with a dog trained in tracking I would expect it to show an interest in that site, so what does this prove or disprove exactly?
Even if there are two reasonable interpretations of Mia's behavior, the burden is the prosecution to show that LM had prior knowledge of its location, and they failed to do so. Beyond that your comment assumes that the murder took place where [Name removed]'s body was found, and two former detectives disputed that matter.
(YMMV means your mileage may vary)
-
In every way that’s how. No two cases are ever the same either in the manner of the crime itself, the witnesses and their powers of recall, police procedures, how the evidence is presented in court, etc etc etc.
One implication of what you wrote is that no wrongful conviction could be the starting point for reform. Another implication is that a just conviction could be used as a model of how to investigate correctly.
-
YMMV?
If i had murdered someone and returned to the murder site with a dog trained in tracking I would expect it to show an interest in that site, so what does this prove or disprove exactly?
Claimed partial training, locating a toy from a tree! The bog standard play games.
You would indeed expect the dog to take an interest in the scent of its master. You would also expect the dog to take in the scent of many other dogs such as DD's 8 spaniels who had been over that break earlier that evening. And of course other dogs along the path scenting at the wall, damn dogs in the field running loose also. LM's dog was on a short lead at all times. It had nothing to scent with in respect of that young girl. But and again, this is in respect of where the dog was actually standing up at the wall, sniffing the V shape lol. You know, where DD and his 8 spaniels had been over before, no doubt on their return journey also.
Let's just remind people where the victims body lay which was some 43ft west of that V break, several feet in from the wall. Now let us remind people again of what LM claimed had taken place. Of his dog reacting some distance past that V break. Not quite 20yrds. Not bad eh? That he had to return to the break in the wall to gain access. That he turned left to follow in the direction of where his dog had reacted (claimed) parallel to on the path side of that wall. Did not happen. It was always that the dog was up at that wall at the V break, its head level with the base of that shape. That not them, LM, the dog had been where LM claimed. Straight to that V break, up and over and his pretence of going left.
Got to love this 'assuming' the murder had taken place there. WTAF has that got to do with LM's lies? It changes absolutely nothing of him knowing where the victims body had been hidden behind his "large oak tree" It doesn't erase all of that, replace the dogs interest in the V break with an alternate murder place - Hilarious.
-
Claimed partial training, locating a toy from a tree! The bog standard play games.
You would indeed expect the dog to take an interest in the scent of its master. You would also expect the dog to take in the scent of many other dogs such as DD's 8 spaniels who had been over that break earlier that evening. And of course other dogs along the path scenting at the wall, damn dogs in the field running loose also. LM's dog was on a short lead at all times. It had nothing to scent with in respect of that young girl. But and again, this is in respect of where the dog was actually standing up at the wall, sniffing the V shape lol. You know, where DD and his 8 spaniels had been over before, no doubt on their return journey also.
Let's just remind people where the victims body lay which was some 43ft west of that V break, several feet in from the wall. Now let us remind people again of what LM claimed had taken place. Of his dog reacting some distance past that V break. Not quite 60yrds. Not bad eh? That he had to return to the break in the wall to gain access. That he turned left to follow in the direction of where his dog had reacted (claimed) parallel to on the path side of that wall. Did not happen. It was always that the dog was up at that wall at the V break, its head level with the base of that shape. That not them, LM, the dog had been where LM claimed. Straight to that V break, up and over and his pretence of going left.
Got to love this 'assuming' the murder had taken place there. WTAF has that got to do with LM's lies? It changes absolutely nothing of him knowing where the victims body had been hidden behind his "large oak tree" It doesn't erase all of that, replace the dogs interest in the V break with an alternate murder place - Hilarious.
Therefore yes, it certainly was demonstrated that LM had prior knowledge. Not least of all because he made us some fable of where his dog had been putting off this alert. Did not happen, there was no point A (LM's position) There was only point B (The V break). We really do need context not this continuous dog & wall game. His 'large oak tree' he described the body being behind. Marvellous stuff, the lad who claimed never to have been in there before. Enters that woodland alone in the dark (torch or not), takes in a big "oak tree" Pull the other one. Describes a hair fastener that only the killer could have known about. Deeply embedded in the victims hair, found by the pathologist. Victim facing upwards! Clothing, injuries etc.
Back to the evidence. It was demonstrated that LM had all but not moved beyond that wall when entering the woodland. The boy who claimed never to have been in there before. Who described the tree by type that the victims body lay behind. His "big oak tree," describing things only the killer would know, someone familiar with the scene. Such as that distinctive hair tie, no doubt intentionally left out of the reconstruction for that reason. We know his alert did not take place where he claimed, we know there was absolutely nothing to guide him to the spot where the victims body lay. But let us talk time here?
The dog is standing up at the V break, a dark woodland lies beyond that wall. The boy claims never to have been in there before. AW takes the dogs lead, she stays at the break. JaJ's with SK continue to walk away from the V break. (spot the flaws again with LM's fable?) The young couple walk around 10 -15 no more than '20' steps when LM calls out, his voice 'behind' them. AW who describes his voice as being next to her (The V break). They haste back that tiny distance and LM is indeed at the V break. He had all but not moved beyond that wall. Everything he was to describe was shown to have come from prior knowledge. All stuck fast in that web of deceit he kept spinning?
An incredulous tale from a boy with zero credibility.
-
Beyond that your comment assumes that the murder took place where [Name removed]'s body was found, and two former detectives disputed that matter.
Who were the two former detectives? Were they working on the case at the time? As regards David Wilson, he made a newspaper comment based on what he'd read of the case. I'd be very surprised if he ever mentions it again, far less include it in one of his books or TV programmes.
-
Even if there are two reasonable interpretations of Mia's behavior, the burden is the prosecution to show that LM had prior knowledge of its location, and they failed to do so. Beyond that your comment assumes that the murder took place where [Name removed]'s body was found, and two former detectives disputed that matter.
(YMMV means your mileage may vary)
Thanks clarifying , I was concerned it might stand for You Make Me Vomit @)(++(*
My comment assumes nothing of the sort actually, what peculiar logic..
-
These kind of comments does make me wonder how the writer thinks case law or police procedures are devised?
You’re right, I was unaware that Scottish law and police procedures are influenced by cases that occur in the USA.
-
Therefore yes, it certainly was demonstrated that LM had prior knowledge. Not least of all because he made us some fable of where his dog had been putting off this alert. Did not happen, there was no point A (LM's position) There was only point B (The V break). We really do need context not this continuous dog & wall game. His 'large oak tree' he described the body being behind. Marvellous stuff, the lad who claimed never to have been in there before. Enters that woodland alone in the dark (torch or not), takes in a big "oak tree" Pull the other one. Describes a hair fastener that only the killer could have known about. Deeply embedded in the victims hair, found by the pathologist. Victim facing upwards! Clothing, injuries etc.
Back to the evidence. It was demonstrated that LM had all but not moved beyond that wall when entering the woodland. The boy who claimed never to have been in there before. Who described the tree by type that the victims body lay behind. His "big oak tree," describing things only the killer would know, someone familiar with the scene. Such as that distinctive hair tie, no doubt intentionally left out of the reconstruction for that reason. We know his alert did not take place where he claimed, we know there was absolutely nothing to guide him to the spot where the victims body lay. But let us talk time here?
The dog is standing up at the V break, a dark woodland lies beyond that wall. The boy claims never to have been in there before. AW takes the dogs lead, she stays at the break. JaJ's with SK continue to walk away from the V break. (spot the flaws again with LM's fable?) The young couple walk around 10 -15 no more than '20' steps when LM calls out, his voice 'behind' them. AW who describes his voice as being next to her (The V break). They haste back that tiny distance and LM is indeed at the V break. He had all but not moved beyond that wall. Everything he was to describe was shown to have come from prior knowledge. All stuck fast in that web of deceit he kept spinning?
An incredulous tale from a boy with zero credibility.
Not commenting on the rest of your post as it’s been torn to shreds a hundred times before but this did interest me.
‘ Describes a hair fastener that only the killer could have known about. Deeply embedded in the victims hair, found by the pathologist.’
Bryson’s sighting had no scrunchy in her hair so, if it was Jodi she saw, when did Jodi put her hair up? As she was angrily berating Luke about his secret girlfriend, as he was dragging her to her deathbed or perhaps to give him greater access to her neck? When?
-
Thanks clarifying , I was concerned it might stand for You Make Me Vomit @)(++(*
My comment assumes nothing of the sort actually, what peculiar logic..
You wrote, "...returned to the murder site..."
-
You wrote, "...returned to the murder site..."
Nitpicking. I meant the site where the victim lay. It doesn’t alter my point in any way, shape or form. So let me say it again in more precise terms. If I had murdered someone and returned to the vicinity of the victim’s corpse with a tracker dog I would expect the dog to show an interest in that vicinity. Hope that’s quite clear now.
-
Not commenting on the rest of your post as it’s been torn to shreds a hundred times before but this did interest me.
‘ Describes a hair fastener that only the killer could have known about. Deeply embedded in the victims hair, found by the pathologist.’
Bryson’s sighting had no scrunchy in her hair so, if it was Jodi she saw, when did Jodi put her hair up? As she was angrily berating Luke about his secret girlfriend, as he was dragging her to her deathbed or perhaps to give him greater access to her neck? When?
Do you have a link to the Bryson statement or witness testimony? I would like to read it, tia.
-
Do you have a link to the Bryson statement or witness testimony? I would like to read it, tia.
More transcripts available at this website.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-testimony-vs-innocents.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-testimony-vs-innocents.html)
-
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024_06_16_archive.html
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-10th-nov-2004.html
Days one and two of Andrina Bryson's testimony.
-
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024_06_16_archive.html
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-10th-nov-2004.html
Days one and two of Andrina Bryson's testimony.
Thanks. So contrary to what Faithlilly has assertrd above, Bryson does suggest the girl she saw may have been wearing her her in a ponytail. One might need a scrunchy in order to do so, no?
-
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024_06_16_archive.html
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-10th-nov-2004.html
Days one and two of Andrina Bryson's testimony.
We’re looking at Day 1.
It appears Bryson saw a wave in her sighting’s hair as if it may have been in a ponytail at some point but not when she saw the female.
-
We’re looking at Day 1.
It appears Bryson saw a wave in her sighting’s hair as if it may have been in a ponytail at some point but not when she saw the female.
She did not state categorically that there was no ponytail. Furthermore if it had the appearance of having recently been in a ponytail it’s unlikely to have remained in that style for more than a couple of minute which suggests that a hair tie was still on hand, possibly even literally. My daughter is constantly fiddling with her top knot, removing her scrunchy, putting it on her wrist and retying it moments later.
-
We need to bear in mind that the police took the crime scene photographs AFTER the police moved Jodi. Any scrunchie could have easily been hidden from this point compared to the finding of the body, however it’s well stated that this was a reporter who wrote a comment and he had no idea why he jotted that down in his diary. It’s got no substance at all
-
We need to bear in mind that the police took the crime scene photographs AFTER the police moved Jodi. Any scrunchie could have easily been hidden from this point compared to the finding of the body, however it’s well stated that this was a reporter who wrote a comment and he had no idea why he jotted that down in his diary. It’s got no substance at all
I seen a comment that he had sent him letters. I can’t find it now which is annoying. Apparently he admitted in it he was never his lawyer. Scots totally destroying any credibility he and Sandra had (if he ever did). They’ve made a mockery of a very serious situation in a man’s life. They are sick to do what have done, all for publicity and attention. Who inserts themselfs into a nitemare and makes it an even bigger nitemare for all involved?
Why therefore are you repeating their BS?
-
They saw him. No two ways.
-
In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock." The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road. If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it. If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches. Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain. Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.
-
In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock." The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road. If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it. If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches. Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain. Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.
Andrina Bryson’s testimony is problematic in so many ways.
-
In his summation Mr Turnbull said, "One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock." The entrance to the path is not perpendicular with respect to the road. If one is driving toward Easthouses, the entrance to the path is blind until one is upon it. If one is drying away from Easthouses, one can see into the entrance as one approaches. Ms Bryson must have been traveling away from Easthouses, meaning after she got lost and saw the house, and those times are uncertain. Therefore, what Mr Turnbull said about the accuracy of the time is nonsense.
The timings were inclusive of those factors, highlighted by DF that the timings set by police were inclusive to the point of her reaching Carrick Crescent, seeing house and leaving. That very small compact scheme where you appear to imply getting lost, viewing whatever must have taken a considerable amount of time. It didn't. You are getting there Chris, good to see you have moved away from the ridiculous notion that her sighting was when she was driving into EH.
-
An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.
-
An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.
The point being you were wrong before trying to apply she had to have been driving into EH. You are wrong again with the lost/viewing not being put before the Jury with the summing up, the timing was included with the AD's approximations. Not forgetting the Jury had been listening, taken notes, summarizing whatever in each days events prior to the closing speeches. All tying together.
The guestimates re her husbands call, the lost/viewing made not a blind bit of different to this, those couple of minutes in that small housing scheme. It shows us just how off she was with her guestimates. There is nothing on that side pre sighting to make up that time she was off by. There is however ample on the other side to make up the time.
-
An additional problem with the notion that she was driving away from Easthouses when she supposedly saw the two is that this puts her home much earlier than she said.
The problem is her timings could be absolutely accurate ( we know that they’re not) and the descriptions still don’t fit Luke and Jodi. It’s not even obvious from where Bryson describes them as standing that the couple were even that well acquainted.
-
The problem is her timings could be absolutely accurate ( we know that they’re not) and the descriptions still don’t fit Luke and Jodi. It’s not even obvious from where Bryson describes them as standing that the couple were even that well acquainted.
You think she would walk down an isolated path that she was specifically forbidden from walking along on her own (by Judith) with someone she didn't know??? AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd (ie, his body language and arm and hand gesticulations); that comment was the last thing she said about their meeting, so it was more of an afterthought, after conveying the gist of what she thought about the sighting: that the male's actions were odd and were the reason why she noticed the male & female. Her description of LM was very accurate and, again, like RW & LF, when she saw a photo of LM in a newspaper she, in her own words, "was taken aback by how much it looked like the boy she saw that day". When looking at a book of police photographs, she commented that "she was as sure as she could be" that the photo she picked out was LM. RW, when she saw LM's photo in a newspaper, said: "Oh my God, it's him!" She also said that the aforementioned photo "jumped out at her
as being the boy she saw that day". LF agreed with her sister-in-law (RW) that the newspaper photo was LM, saying that he looked "up to no good". AB's timings could be ascertained by her bank statement. They all checked out and were another piece of the jigsaw that got LM convicted of murder.
-
You think she would walk down an isolated path that she was specifically forbidden from walking along on her own (by Judith) with someone she didn't know??? AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd (ie, his body language and arm and hand gesticulations); that comment was the last thing she said about their meeting, so it was more of an afterthought, after conveying the gist of what she thought about the sighting: that the male's actions were odd and were the reason why she noticed the male & female. Her description of LM was very accurate and, again, like RW & LF, when she saw a photo of LM in a newspaper she, in her own words, "was taken aback by how much it looked like the boy she saw that day". When looking at a book of police photographs, she commented that "she was as sure as she could be" that the photo she picked out was LM. RW, when she saw LM's photo in a newspaper, said: "Oh my God, it's him!" She also said that the aforementioned photo "jumped out at her
as being the boy she saw that day". LF agreed with her sister-in-law (RW) that the newspaper photo was LM, saying that he looked "up to no good". AB's timings could be ascertained by her bank statement. They all checked out and were another piece of the jigsaw that got LM convicted of murder.
‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’
No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.
This is part of Bryson’s testimony.
‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.
So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.
"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.
So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”
3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.
What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?
-
‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’
No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.
This is part of Bryson’s testimony.
‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.
So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.
"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.
So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”
3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.
What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?
Yes, from looking at Brysons testimony and also looking at photos of Luke Mitchell in his parka, a few things stand out, Faith.
Notably Brysons description of a high collar, this gives me a picture in my mind of a jacket with an obvious collar without a hood, although if the parka was well zipped up at the neck it may look like a high collar, I dont know.
Also, the Parka that LM bought from Flip after the murder is obviously too big for him. Did any of the ten witnesses describe his parka as too big for him, being too long in the sleeves?
This is important, because if Luke Mitchells alleged pre-murder parka was also too long in the sleeves then Andrina Bryson could not have seen his hands when his arms were hanging by his side.
Also, Bryson describes hair sticking up in clumps while Lukes hair has always been as straight as a poker.
One other thing, Turnbull kept refering to a male and female, yet Bryson didn't see the persons face at all who was standing on the pavement looking down the path, how can you determine what gender someone is without seeing their face? Did Bryson notice any of her other assets that suggested the person on the pavement was female, or was she going by the hair only?
-
‘ AB's comment "it didn't look like they were there to meet" is, admittedly, ambiguous, but she was trying to convey that the actions of the male were odd’
No she wasn’t. That simply you again reading into a situation what you want to see.
This is part of Bryson’s testimony.
‘His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.
So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.
"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.
So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh.”
3 times Bryson confirmed that she had said in her statements that the male youth she saw had a ‘waist length’ jacket on which could not possibly be a parka because we have established that a parka is mid-thigh length. The youth was also described as ‘in his early 20’s…Luke was 15.
What apart of Bryson’s testimony convinces you that the youth she saw was Luke?
The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).
-
The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).
And when you combine this with all the other substantial circumstantial evidence, it becomes more robust and compelling. Occam's razor, and so on. There are far too many coincidences in this case that it couldn't not have been LM (and, again, Occam's razor is applied).
-
The fact she was taken aback by how much the photo in the newspaper looked like the boy she saw and the fact she said she was as sure as she could be the photo she picked out from the book of photographs shown to her by police was the male youth she saw that day. Combine this with her accurate description of him: he had a lot of messy sandy hair that stood up in a clump at the back and looked like Shaggy from the Scooby-Doo movie released back then (the photo of LM that was taken at DPS on 14.08.03 in a black t-shirt clearly shows
his hair standing up in a clump ant the back ... and he was only wearing the black t-shirt with no jacket!). She only had a fleeting glance of the couple that day and managed to take in quite a lot in spite of this. She was even honest enough to say "she wasn't sure" when asked if LM was in court that day by ADT; she probably knew it was LM deep down, but because LM was going through puberty and still developing, he had changed so much physically -- taller, heavier, hair a lot longer and wearing different clothing -- that the woman couldn't be 100% sure and consequently gave an honest answer (AB saying "she wasn't sure" is a lot different from saying simply "no" that some of his supporters falsely claim).
Yet Bryson also said in a statement that she probably wouldn’t be able to recognise the youth again. How do we square that circle? What made her so sure that it was the youth if she had earlier admitted that she probably wouldn’t recognise him?
One thing that’s always bothered me. The time between the murder and the photograph taken by the police on the 14th of August was six weeks. Luke’s hair would have grown in that time. I suppose it doesn’t matter as Bryson had no idea what length the youth’s hair was because of the collar on his jacket. Further it is clear from the photograph of 14/8 that Luke has wispy bits of hair that stick out at the side. My hair is straight like Luke’s and if not tamed with product my hair does the same. These stray hairs could in no way be called ‘a clump sticking up at the back’.
-
And when you combine this with all the other substantial circumstantial evidence, it becomes more robust and compelling. Occam's razor, and so on. There are far too many coincidences in this case that it couldn't not have been LM (and, again, Occam's razor is applied).
Occam’s razor suggests that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be correct. Do you really think that your jumping through hoops to explain the lack of DNA…Luke had a parka on and underneath a German shirt which he took off to retrieve a bomber jacket from where we can only guess but not before he’d either washed his hair in a brook….with no sign of the microbes from the brook on his hair…or showered at home in a ridiculously small timeframe but still managing to have dirty hair, but with no DNA on it, when examined by the forensic examiner…is the best way to find the simplest explanation?
-
Occam’s razor suggests that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be correct. Do you really think that your jumping through hoops to explain the lack of DNA…Luke had a parka on and underneath a German shirt which he took off to retrieve a bomber jacket from where we can only guess but not before he’d either washed his hair in a brook….with no sign of the microbes from the brook on his hair…or showered at home in a ridiculously small timeframe but still managing to have dirty hair, but with no DNA on it, when examined by the forensic examiner…is the best way to find the simplest explanation?
I'm taking about Occam's razor in the respect of all of the coincidences not really being coincidences, and that no individual could be so unlucky (all the strands of evidence that, when combined, made for a very robust & compelling case against LM). Are we expected to believe, by sheer coincidence, that there was someone who looked identical to LM in Easthouses and surrounding areas that day?? Either a local lookalike or a lookalike from another area? Mk was ruled out by DNA and by virtue of the fact he was in another area for most of the day that day (in a different area when the murder took place and hence why he was 'untraceable' at the time of the investigation as a person of interest?).
Oh, btw, what about AB telling her husband about the male youth she spotted with long messy hair, wearing army clothing and big boots (mentioned in IB)? This was AB's initial recollection, but then it evolved into a fishing style jacket by the time she gave her evidence in court? Was it the German army badge that she noticed? The same German badge that other witnesses mentioned and hence why the badge became a focal point for the police in respect of LM's clothing that day? It will be interesting to see how many other eyewitnesses mentioned this distinctive badge on the sleeves.
-
I'm taking about Occam's razor in the respect of all of the coincidences not really being coincidences, and that no individual could be so unlucky (all the strands of evidence that, when combined, made for a very robust & compelling case against LM). Are we expected to believe, by sheer coincidence, that there was someone who looked identical to LM in Easthouses and surrounding areas that day?? Either a local lookalike or a lookalike from another area? Mk was ruled out by DNA and by virtue of the fact he was in another area for most of the day that day (in a different area when the murder took place and hence why he was 'untraceable' at the time of the investigation as a person of interest?).
Oh, btw, what about AB telling her husband about the male youth she spotted with long messy hair, wearing army clothing and big boots (mentioned in IB)? This was AB's initial recollection, but then it evolved into a fishing style jacket by the time she gave her evidence in court? Was it the German army badge that she noticed? The same German badge that other witnesses mentioned and hence why the badge became a focal point for the police in respect of LM's clothing that day? It will be interesting to see how many other eyewitnesses mentioned this distinctive badge on the sleeves.
Luke was never seen in Easthouses on the 30th. Bryson describes the youth as in his 20s, she admitted that she couldn’t see the length of his hair so how could she describe it to her husband as long and she 3 times confirmed that the jacket she saw was ‘waist length’. His trousers were the same colour as his jacket. That’s not what Luke was wearing. She said that she didn’t know if she’d recognise him again.
-
Luke was never seen in Easthouses on the 30th. Bryson describes the youth as in his 20s, she admitted that she couldn’t see the length of his hair so how could she describe it to her husband as long and she 3 times confirmed that the jacket she saw was ‘waist length’. His clothes were the same colour as his jacket. That’s not what Luke was wearing. She said that she didn’t know if she’d recognise him again.
Well, we've seen from the 3 push bike boys' evidence how messy the clothing evidence was. What wasn't inconsistent or messy from their evidence was that it positively was LM on that road (DH & GE knew him and Id'd him in court; AH didn't know him but Id'd him in court). AB, Lf, RW & CH all didn't know him, were reasonably consistent with their clothing description evidence (green, khaki, grungy, army, fishing style; it's all the same bag of bones: it was LM's style which ever way you slice it. All 4 of these women were very confident it was LM they saw, as per their testimonies; no ambiguity or uncertainty at all about his face. Very important & telling. So, in these little settlements and suburbs, LM had a twin? Or, by a remarkable coincidence, a twin/lookalike from another town was in Dalkeith that day and murdered a girl and planked her body in about the only place you could murder her in that area and get away with it? No way, Jose! Only someone she knew and was local would be able to get her in such an isolated spot (where she was specifically
banned from walking on her own) and only someone local would know that where she was found was about the only spot in that area where there was a chance they wouldn't be seen murdering her and where there was a chance of her body being potentially undiscovered for a while. Occam's razor.
-
In his summation Mr Turnbull said, “The next most important area or adminicle of the Crown case is the evidence of Andrina Bryson. And again this is important evidence from her. One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock. More probably between ten to five and five to five. And the way we can do that, of course, is by starting from the known time of the Switch transaction at the supermarket and once we have that, all we need to know is the time to drive from the supermarket to the area of Easthouses and that’s been done. So, unusually perhaps, in this case, but in any case, rather, we are to bet a very precise time for an event which happened." He later said, "If she’s leaving the house about ten to five, a couple of minutes along the road to the top of the path gets her there just before five to five. It’s exactly the time that Andrina Bryson is going to be there." .
For argument's sake, we can take the earlier of the two times (4:32:45) for the supermarket transaction (which implies that she shopped and queued for only twenty minutes), Mrs. Bryson still had to get to her car, load the groceries, and settle her children into the car (one of whom was two years old) before she could even start to drive toward Easthouses. I am under the impression that the drive took 12-17 minutes. That would get her there, but not give her time to get lost and look at the house. Mr Turnbull said nothing about seeing the house in his summation, perhaps because it throws a monkey wrench into the timeline.
Again for the sake of argument, suppose that she viewed the house and somehow made it back to the trail by roughly 4:50. She drove straight home, which takes a few minutes (that should have been roughly 5 o'clock). When she arrived home she remembered that she had received a phone call about 30 minutes later. The call came in at 6:17, meaning that she arrived at her house about 5:47. That leaves us with a discrepancy of about 45-50 minutes. In other words, there are two major problems in the proposed timeline for her sighting.
-
In his summation Mr Turnbull said, “The next most important area or adminicle of the Crown case is the evidence of Andrina Bryson. And again this is important evidence from her. One the advantages of Mrs Bryson's evidence is that we can identify, with considerable accuracy, just what time it was that she was driving past the top of the path. It must have been between ten and five and five o'clock. More probably between ten to five and five to five. And the way we can do that, of course, is by starting from the known time of the Switch transaction at the supermarket and once we have that, all we need to know is the time to drive from the supermarket to the area of Easthouses and that’s been done. So, unusually perhaps, in this case, but in any case, rather, we are to bet a very precise time for an event which happened." He later said, "If she’s leaving the house about ten to five, a couple of minutes along the road to the top of the path gets her there just before five to five. It’s exactly the time that Andrina Bryson is going to be there." .
For argument's sake, we can take the earlier of the two times (4:32:45) for the supermarket transaction (which implies that she shopped and queued for only twenty minutes), Mrs. Bryson still had to get to her car, load the groceries, and settle her children into the car (one of whom was two years old) before she could even start to drive toward Easthouses. I am under the impression that the drive took 12-17 minutes. That would get her there, but not give her time to get lost and look at the house. Mr Turnbull said nothing about seeing the house in his summation, perhaps because it throws a monkey wrench into the timeline.
Again for the sake of argument, suppose that she viewed the house and somehow made it back to the trail by roughly 4:50. She drove straight home, which takes a few minutes (that should have been roughly 5 o'clock). When she arrived home she remembered that she had received a phone call about 30 minutes later. The call came in at 6:17, meaning that she arrived at her house about 5:47. That leaves us with a discrepancy of about 45-50 minutes. In other words, there are two major problems in the proposed timeline for her sighting.
Excellent - You are doing what the Jury was able to do. They had listened to the evidence, highlighted whatever from it. The summation from both sides at the end working towards what had taken place over the course of the trial. 'Including' the timings applied to AB, her acceptance of these and on it goes. It wasn't a major problem, it was something that DF got to deal with in his summation, such as mentioning the time factor after her sighting. That's what this is about, what the Jury got to hear. Not just from the summation from both, but all of it.
When people are actively busy time appears much shorter, that is a simple fact. AB looked to something to give her an estimate of time that day, her busy day. It was her shopping receipt which as we know turned out to be much later than it was. The till mechanism was faulty, they obtained her bank statement for the accurate time. You can knock those minutes off now from guestimates. Timings were then carried out where you still refuse to acknowledge that small housing scheme, time factors, distance from the sighting. You are zoned into 'lost/viewing' attempting to apply this had to have taken some considerable time when it clearly did not. It was included in the timings. The AD ended up applying it could certainly have been within a 5min time scale to tie in with Jodi leaving her home. Narrowed down from within ten minutes. Jodi's time of leaving not set in stone either, again an estimate worked around AO's arrival home. Using a clear starting point to time things. Petrol station for him, bank statement for AB. To note, her journey was the everything to the point of the sighting. Her journey took her into that small housing scheme then out again.
It's the Coop, Hunterfield Road, Gorebridge. Have a good look. The car park, the amount of trollies, then you will see just how much time it would take someone to walk to their car and take their trolley back, also included in the timings. Where again you are applying this all had to have taken much longer. Look at the store, the length, it has approx 4 small aisles inside, it's as long as it is wide, almost square shaped. What has not changed is the inner dimensions of it. Checkouts always near to the exit point. When last in that area I did some shopping there, it has changed inside, however not changed in any way that would alter those timings applied.
-
If it’s like most other Co-Ops it’s not the kind of place you go to do the weekly shop but a place to stop for a quick five minute dash for a bottle of wine and a packet of nappies. In and out in under 5 minutes. What was actually on her till receipt?
-
Excellent - You are doing what the Jury was able to do. They had listened to the evidence, highlighted whatever from it. The summation from both sides at the end working towards what had taken place over the course of the trial. 'Including' the timings applied to AB, her acceptance of these and on it goes. It wasn't a major problem, it was something that DF got to deal with in his summation, such as mentioning the time factor after her sighting. That's what this is about, what the Jury got to hear. Not just from the summation from both, but all of it.
When people are actively busy time appears much shorter, that is a simple fact. AB looked to something to give her an estimate of time that day, her busy day. It was her shopping receipt which as we know turned out to be much later than it was. The till mechanism was faulty, they obtained her bank statement for the accurate time. You can knock those minutes off now from guestimates. Timings were then carried out where you still refuse to acknowledge that small housing scheme, time factors, distance from the sighting. You are zoned into 'lost/viewing' attempting to apply this had to have taken some considerable time when it clearly did not. It was included in the timings. The AD ended up applying it could certainly have been within a 5min time scale to tie in with Jodi leaving her home. Narrowed down from within ten minutes. Jodi's time of leaving not set in stone either, again an estimate worked around AO's arrival home. Using a clear starting point to time things. Petrol station for him, bank statement for AB. To note, her journey was the everything to the point of the sighting. Her journey took her into that small housing scheme then out again.
It's the Coop, Hunterfield Road, Gorebridge. Have a good look. The car park, the amount of trollies, then you will see just how much time it would take someone to walk to their car and take their trolley back, also included in the timings. Where again you are applying this all had to have taken much longer. Look at the store, the length, it has approx 4 small aisles inside, it's as long as it is wide, almost square shaped. What has not changed is the inner dimensions of it. Checkouts always near to the exit point. When last in that area I did some shopping there, it has changed inside, however not changed in any way that would alter those timings applied.
The time Jodi left was/should have been set in stone, Peter, without any help from Alen Ovens.
No guestimates as you put it, Judith should have simply told the police that Jodi left roughly ten minutes after the last text to Luke.
Pity Judith's testimony is'nt available, wonder why so much work was carried out on AO's activity that day in order to work out when Jodi left?
After all, the police had an accurate time, surely? A mere few minutes after the text!
Was Joe down stairs when Jodi left? Was he listening to the Rod Srewart song too?
When did they listen to the song, before or after the texts?
Anyway, Joe was probably another witness as to when Jodi left, soon after the last text.
So the time should be in stone more or less without any input from AO whatsoever.
What do you think , Peter?
-
Excellent - You are doing what the Jury was able to do. They had listened to the evidence, highlighted whatever from it. The summation from both sides at the end working towards what had taken place over the course of the trial. 'Including' the timings applied to AB, her acceptance of these and on it goes. It wasn't a major problem, it was something that DF got to deal with in his summation, such as mentioning the time factor after her sighting. That's what this is about, what the Jury got to hear. Not just from the summation from both, but all of it.
When people are actively busy time appears much shorter, that is a simple fact. AB looked to something to give her an estimate of time that day, her busy day. It was her shopping receipt which as we know turned out to be much later than it was. The till mechanism was faulty, they obtained her bank statement for the accurate time. You can knock those minutes off now from guestimates. Timings were then carried out where you still refuse to acknowledge that small housing scheme, time factors, distance from the sighting. You are zoned into 'lost/viewing' attempting to apply this had to have taken some considerable time when it clearly did not. It was included in the timings. The AD ended up applying it could certainly have been within a 5min time scale to tie in with Jodi leaving her home. Narrowed down from within ten minutes. Jodi's time of leaving not set in stone either, again an estimate worked around AO's arrival home. Using a clear starting point to time things. Petrol station for him, bank statement for AB. To note, her journey was the everything to the point of the sighting. Her journey took her into that small housing scheme then out again.
It's the Coop, Hunterfield Road, Gorebridge. Have a good look. The car park, the amount of trollies, then you will see just how much time it would take someone to walk to their car and take their trolley back, also included in the timings. Where again you are applying this all had to have taken much longer. Look at the store, the length, it has approx 4 small aisles inside, it's as long as it is wide, almost square shaped. What has not changed is the inner dimensions of it. Checkouts always near to the exit point. When last in that area I did some shopping there, it has changed inside, however not changed in any way that would alter those timings applied.
It’s fortuitous that the ‘guesstimates’ always work for the prosecution, never the defence. Luke, a no doubt traumatised teenager, said that he had been waiting 30 minutes for Jodi but that’s not to be believed but Bryson who’s first estimates, if the prosecution are correct, are out by at least 30 minutes are to be accepted because she was ‘actively busy’.
If Bryson saw the couple at the top of RDP at 4.54 then she must have been home shortly afterwards which means her estimate of when she arrived home must have been out by almost an hour if we take her husband’s call into account. Would you trust the evidence of such an unreliable witness….and this was their star witness!
-
It’s fortuitous that the ‘guesstimates’ always work for the prosecution, never the defence. Luke, a no doubt traumatised teenager, said that he had been waiting 30 minutes for Jodi but that’s not to be believed but Bryson who’s first estimates, if the prosecution are correct, are out by at least 30 minutes are to be accepted because she was ‘actively busy’.
If Bryson saw the couple at the top of RDP at 4.54 then she must have been home shortly afterwards which means her estimate of when she arrived home must have been out by almost an hour if we take her husband’s call into account. Would you trust the evidence of such an unreliable witness….and this was their star witness!
Out of interest did Mitchell show any signs of being traumatised? You say there's no doubt he was, but what's the actual evidence of it?
-
Well, we've seen from the 3 push bike boys' evidence how messy the clothing evidence was. What wasn't inconsistent or messy from their evidence was that it positively was LM on that road (DH & GE knew him and Id'd him in court; AH didn't know him but Id'd him in court). AB, Lf, RW & CH all didn't know him, were reasonably consistent with their clothing description evidence (green, khaki, grungy, army, fishing style; it's all the same bag of bones: it was LM's style which ever way you slice it. All 4 of these women were very confident it was LM they saw, as per their testimonies; no ambiguity or uncertainty at all about his face. Very important & telling. So, in these little settlements and suburbs, LM had a twin? Or, by a remarkable coincidence, a twin/lookalike from another town was in Dalkeith that day and murdered a girl and planked her body in about the only place you could murder her in that area and get away with it? No way, Jose! Only someone she knew and was local would be able to get her in such an isolated spot (where she was specifically
banned from walking on her own) and only someone local would know that where she was found was about the only spot in that area where there was a chance they wouldn't be seen murdering her and where there was a chance of her body being potentially undiscovered for a while. Occam's razor.
His clothing MA, the age was a guess because of how he was dressed. She also made clear the jacket could have been drawn in thus not waist length. His trousers she took to be the same colour from that glancing view as she passed. Not therefore difficult to see why, thought waist length because it was drawn in, clarifying it could have been because the jacket had something that drew it in around the waist, colour below that khaki also she took to be his trousers. The AD making clear how ludicrous it would be to expect someone to get everything spot on. Pointing out that DF's exercise was not based upon reality, one didn't get to examine clothing in great detail when passing someone by. She saw Mitchell that day and she made clear she was in no doubt via the photo ID and image in paper that is who it was. And again, the image she chose re the jacket was likened to the one she saw that day. He also cleared up why AB could have missed that logo. As he did with the engaging in conversation with the male.
Damn right there weren't two or even 3 of Mitchell (according to some accounts) doing the rounds that day coincidently in the same quiet suburbs. AB also stated she had passed by the lane many times and never seen anyone standing in it before. Not the hive of activity that some like to make it out to be. We can see why Jodi had been forbidden to walk isolated areas by herself, we can see why she wouldn't be wandering off into a woodland strip for absolutely no reason on her own either. She had no phone, no security, no means of reaching out for help. We are told she was a bright intelligent young girl. Apart from Mitchell there is no evidence of her doing so, he himself omitting that ban, we know why, its not difficult. The AD also clarifying the evidence of her sister, it wasn't never walking the path, it was not doing it alone.
-
His clothing MA, the age was a guess because of how he was dressed. She also made clear the jacket could have been drawn in thus not waist length. His trousers she took to be the same colour from that glancing view as she passed. Not therefore difficult to see why, thought waist length because it was drawn in, clarifying it could have been because the jacket had something that drew it in around the waist, colour below that khaki also she took to be his trousers. The AD making clear how ludicrous it would be to expect someone to get everything spot on. Pointing out that DF's exercise was not based upon reality, one didn't get to examine clothing in great detail when passing someone by. She saw Mitchell that day and she made clear she was in no doubt via the photo ID and image in paper that is who it was. And again, the image she chose re the jacket was likened to the one she saw that day. He also cleared up why AB could have missed that logo. As he did with the engaging in conversation with the male.
Damn right there weren't two or even 3 of Mitchell (according to some accounts) doing the rounds that day coincidently in the same quiet suburbs. AB also stated she had passed by the lane many times and never seen anyone standing in it before. Not the hive of activity that some like to make it out to be. We can see why Jodi had been forbidden to walk isolated areas by herself, we can see why she wouldn't be wandering off into a woodland strip for absolutely no reason on her own either. She had no phone, no security, no means of reaching out for help. We are told she was a bright intelligent young girl. Apart from Mitchell there is no evidence of her doing so, he himself omitting that ban, we know why, its not difficult. The AD also clarifying the evidence of her sister, it wasn't never walking the path, it was not doing it alone.
Bit disingenuous of you Parky.
This is the clarification from Bryson when asked about the jacket being drawn in.
BY THE COURT: - What would you have meant by saying that the jacket that you saw was pulled in at the waist. Would you have meant it was pulled in at the bottom edge of the jacket or some other part of the jacket?
- I meant it was pulled (incomprehensible) jacket to make it like a... to pull it in.
Pulled in at the bottom edge? - Yeah.
Thank you’
Pulled in at the bottom edge and therefore not pulled in at the middle as you are suggesting so no opportunity to mistake the material below the tie as trousers.
‘The AD also clarifying the evidence of her sister, it wasn't never walking the path, it was not doing it alone.’
Again disingenuous. This is what Janine said in one of her first statements.
‘This is the route that Jodi takes to Luke’s house, even although she has been told not to’
Why would Jodi be told by her mum not to walk the path if she always walked it with Luke? There would be no need. It is obvious from Janine’s statement that Jodi did indeed use that route along RDP alone even though she had been warned by her mum not to.
It would appear that there was one question that was never asked, isn’t in any of the family’s statements even though it is one of the most obvious.
‘Luke why didn’t you come and meet Jodi where you usually meet her?’
Now we know Judith asked other questions of Luke but not this. Why not? Could it be that it was accepted immediately that Jodi had walked the path alone as she often did?
-
Bit disingenuous of you Parky.
This is the clarification from Bryson when asked about the jacket being drawn in.
BY THE COURT: - What would you have meant by saying that the jacket that you saw was pulled in at the waist. Would you have meant it was pulled in at the bottom edge of the jacket or some other part of the jacket?
- I meant it was pulled (incomprehensible) jacket to make it like a... to pull it in.
Pulled in at the bottom edge? - Yeah.
Thank you’
Pulled in at the bottom edge and therefore not pulled in at the middle as you are suggesting so no opportunity to mistake the material below the tie as trousers.
Peter cant put one over on you, Faith! The rascal!
-
The till mechanism was faulty, they obtained her bank statement for the accurate time.
I am not aware of any evidence showing that the bank statement, not the till receipt, gave the correct time. Mr Turnbull said, "...all we need to know is the time to drive from the supermarket to the area of Easthouses and that’s been done." He said nothing about the times for packing up the care, for getting lost, or for viewing the house. Each time has an associated uncertainty, and the total uncertainty in time is greater than the uncertainty in time of any one single event. Even if one ignores these problems, one still has the issue of Ms Bryson's arriving home much earlier than she remembered. Only by waving one's hands so mightily that one might take leave the ground (sort of like The Flying Nun) can one argue that this does not lessen the probative value of her testimony. The parsimonious explanation is that Ms. Bryson saw two people who did not look especially like Luke or Jodi on her return journey, at a time that was much later in the day than her testimony suggested.
-
I am not aware of any evidence showing that the bank statement, not the till receipt, gave the correct time. Mr Turnbull said, "...all we need to know is the time to drive from the supermarket to the area of Easthouses and that’s been done." He said nothing about the times for packing up the care, for getting lost, or for viewing the house. Each time has an associated uncertainty, and the total uncertainty in time is greater than the uncertainty in time of any one single event. Even if one ignores these problems, one still has the issue of Ms Bryson's arriving home much earlier than she remembered. Only by waving one's hands so mightily that one might take leave the ground (sort of like The Flying Nun) can one argue that this does not lessen the probative value of her testimony. The parsimonious explanation is that Ms. Bryson saw two people who did not look especially like Luke or Jodi on her return journey, at a time that was much later in the day than her testimony suggested.
We can keep going round in circles here Chris. Will we play tit for tat here? Someone coming forward and stating it was me in the lane, there's your probative value. Did the defence produce someone, has all these years of it being broadcast far and wide produced anyone, no? I suspect (I know) that's because it really was Mitchell that day. Mitchells brother lying held probative value, Mitchell lying held probative value, his mother lying held probative value. He wasn't home.
Was something produced to show the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was her shop receipt mentioned, yes. Can you produce anything to prove the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was the bank statement accepted by the witness as correct, yes. And again, what was accepted by the witness holds value. At no point have I ever claimed that sighting was tip top, neither did the Crown. They applied many factors put together to give it probative value.
Zero evidence directly linking Mitchell to the murder holds value. Zero evidence pointing this murder elsewhere holds value. Zero evidence of Jodi walking down into that area with anyone other than Mitchell holds value. No evidence of any altercation taken place elsewhere. DF's feeble attempts with his massive big knife scenario. smh. Seen in that lane, girl murdered in an area the two frequented together. Hidden by someone who needed time on their side, the boyfriend who needed time because he was the one person to have been in her company. We can go on and on, rhyming off the same over and over again. Attempting to apply the defence tactics doesn't break that chain of events. As one places something to weaken it another is applied to add strength to it.
-
I am not aware of any evidence showing that the bank statement, not the till receipt, gave the correct time. Mr Turnbull said, "...all we need to know is the time to drive from the supermarket to the area of Easthouses and that’s been done." He said nothing about the times for packing up the care, for getting lost, or for viewing the house. Each time has an associated uncertainty, and the total uncertainty in time is greater than the uncertainty in time of any one single event. Even if one ignores these problems, one still has the issue of Ms Bryson's arriving home much earlier than she remembered. Only by waving one's hands so mightily that one might take leave the ground (sort of like The Flying Nun) can one argue that this does not lessen the probative value of her testimony. The parsimonious explanation is that Ms. Bryson saw two people who did not look especially like Luke or Jodi on her return journey, at a time that was much later in the day than her testimony suggested.
Did you know, or even bother to check, the fact that it takes a shorter amount of time to get from the coop to the lane than it does to Carrick Cres. Depending on route 7/8 mins. 5:33 (added the seconds) her bank transaction. Sighting up to 5:55pm. That is 22mins. He wasn't meaning all we count is the time from the Coop directly to the lane, that is ludicrous. He was meaning what counted was the time from Coop until her sighting. Before the sighting. That is what he was asking them to consider. 'Testing what was before the Jury' is all of it Chris and not just his summing up. Before that Jury, with her testimony, included packing her car and so forth. DF asking her to confirm that the timings applied included going into that small housing scheme also. She agreed they did. Now probative value would have been AB stating, it can't possibly be correct. I looked at the clock when I got home and the time was definitely 5:45pm. She didn't though. She accepted those times to be correct.
Switch receipt and bank statement were both before the Jury.
-
His clothing MA, the age was a guess because of how he was dressed. She also made clear the jacket could have been drawn in thus not waist length. His trousers she took to be the same colour from that glancing view as she passed. Not therefore difficult to see why, thought waist length because it was drawn in, clarifying it could have been because the jacket had something that drew it in around the waist, colour below that khaki also she took to be his trousers. The AD making clear how ludicrous it would be to expect someone to get everything spot on. Pointing out that DF's exercise was not based upon reality, one didn't get to examine clothing in great detail when passing someone by. She saw Mitchell that day and she made clear she was in no doubt via the photo ID and image in paper that is who it was. And again, the image she chose re the jacket was likened to the one she saw that day. He also cleared up why AB could have missed that logo. As he did with the engaging in conversation with the male.
Damn right there weren't two or even 3 of Mitchell (according to some accounts) doing the rounds that day coincidently in the same quiet suburbs. AB also stated she had passed by the lane many times and never seen anyone standing in it before. Not the hive of activity that some like to make it out to be. We can see why Jodi had been forbidden to walk isolated areas by herself, we can see why she wouldn't be wandering off into a woodland strip for absolutely no reason on her own either. She had no phone, no security, no means of reaching out for help. We are told she was a bright intelligent young girl. Apart from Mitchell there is no evidence of her doing so, he himself omitting that ban, we know why, its not difficult. The AD also clarifying the evidence of her sister, it wasn't never walking the path, it was not doing it alone.
Disingenuous indeed. Someone was pulled up for being just that then they retort with more of the same. Back to the point being made. AB saw Mitchell that day, she clarified that he appeared to be wearing a jacket that was drawn in around the waist, giving it the appearance of being the bottom of the jacket with trouser that appeared to be the same colour. The AD highlighted that DF's exercise wasn't born from the reality of the sighting. The witness didn't have the advantage of being stopped and intricately examining each minute detail of clothing. How easily, under those conditions could that coat have been longer, giving the appearance of one item stopping and another starting. Same goes for the high collar etc. Studying many pictures of fishing style jackets that is exactly how they appear, very similar to parkas, we can see why she chose no 8 as being closest to what was in memory. He did well did Donald. 'Walking into a shop and multiple jackets all the same colour looking the same but with differences.' I can see why some people doubt his belief in Mitchells innocence. Of not representing as best he could? But they then fail to apply why that would be? Much the same with Tobin, I'm sure he believed he was innocent too (cough). But it is as he states, everyone is indeed innocent right up to the point of a guilty verdict being declared. Much the same as Fibs just now with his 'the house was illegally bugged' (Mitchell).Nonsense of course, but as the conspiracy nutters eagerly agree with him, they don't stop to think? What could possibly have been heard with the 'illegal bugging' that confirmed to the police Mitchell was the guilty party?
-
We can keep going round in circles here Chris. Will we play tit for tat here? Someone coming forward and stating it was me in the lane, there's your probative value. Did the defence produce someone, has all these years of it being broadcast far and wide produced anyone, no? I suspect (I know) that's because it really was Mitchell that day. Mitchells brother lying held probative value, Mitchell lying held probative value, his mother lying held probative value. He wasn't home.
Was something produced to show the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was her shop receipt mentioned, yes. Can you produce anything to prove the bank statement was incorrect, no. Was the bank statement accepted by the witness as correct, yes. And again, what was accepted by the witness holds value. At no point have I ever claimed that sighting was tip top, neither did the Crown. They applied many factors put together to give it probative value.
Zero evidence directly linking Mitchell to the murder holds value. Zero evidence pointing this murder elsewhere holds value. Zero evidence of Jodi walking down into that area with anyone other than Mitchell holds value. No evidence of any altercation taken place elsewhere. DF's feeble attempts with his massive big knife scenario. smh. Seen in that lane, girl murdered in an area the two frequented together. Hidden by someone who needed time on their side, the boyfriend who needed time because he was the one person to have been in her company. We can go on and on, rhyming off the same over and over again. Attempting to apply the defence tactics doesn't break that chain of events. As one places something to weaken it another is applied to add strength to it.
Your first point of course is absolutely ridiculous. There was no appeal for the couple at the beginning of RDP. Not that the police weren’t staging appeals. There was of course one for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. So why not the couple at the beginning of the path? They could then have been eliminated and the focus could have changed to elsewhere. That there was no appeal does beg the question why not? Were the police afraid that they might actually find them?
The importance of the couple was only made public almost a full eighteen months after the murder during the trial. If the couple even heard the reports from the court would they even link the testimony to themselves after the passage of time? Would you know where you were at a certain time on a rather mundane day almost 18 months ago? Of course there’s always the chance that their interest in the case didn’t survive beyond the first flurry after the murder so still, to this day, know nothing about their place in the case.
Now here's the thing. We’re told there was a plan in Luke’s mind. A plan to confuse and divert attention away from himself. Part of that plan was the 5.40 call to the Jones’s home phone. Let’s look at this more closely. Luke calls to see if Jodi is still at home. This allegedly was to cover his tracks after the murder. The only thing is as soon as he made that phone call he must have known, if he was the killer, that he could be setting in motion a set of events that he had no control over. He would have known that Jodi had left home 50 minutes before and by calling her mum’s phone he was alerting her to the fact that Jodi was missing.
Now the prosecution would have Luke, still in his murder attire, inviting interest in Jodi’s whereabouts. How could he have known that Jodi’s mum wouldn’t panic and rope everyone close to her into finding Jodi. Of course Luke couldn’t have avoided being roped into such a search, with no time to return home, discard his DNA spattered parka etc etc. Luke could not have known that Judith may have been too busy to notice the passage of time. From that 5.40 phone-call Luke could not have been sure what would lead from it. Not much of a plan, was it?
-
Disingenuous indeed. Someone was pulled up for being just that then they retort with more of the same. Back to the point being made. AB saw Mitchell that day, she clarified that he appeared to be wearing a jacket that was drawn in around the waist, giving it the appearance of being the bottom of the jacket with trouser that appeared to be the same colour. The AD highlighted that DF's exercise wasn't born from the reality of the sighting. The witness didn't have the advantage of being stopped and intricately examining each minute detail of clothing. How easily, under those conditions could that coat have been longer, giving the appearance of one item stopping and another starting. Same goes for the high collar etc. Studying many pictures of fishing style jackets that is exactly how they appear, very similar to parkas, we can see why she chose no 8 as being closest to what was in memory. He did well did Donald. 'Walking into a shop and multiple jackets all the same colour looking the same but with differences.' I can see why some people doubt his belief in Mitchells innocence. Of not representing as best he could? But they then fail to apply why that would be? Much the same with Tobin, I'm sure he believed he was innocent too (cough). But it is as he states, everyone is indeed innocent right up to the point of a guilty verdict being declared. Much the same as Fibs just now with his 'the house was illegally bugged' (Mitchell).Nonsense of course, but as the conspiracy nutters eagerly agree with him, they don't stop to think? What could possibly have been heard with the 'illegal bugging' that confirmed to the police Mitchell was the guilty party?
Just because you are blind to the truth Parky does not make the truth disappear and you can’t simply cherrypick what part of a witness’s testimony suits your narrative.
“His clothing was a green fishing or hunting style jacket. It was waist length and zipped at the front, although open at the
neck” Yeah? - Uh-huh.
So once... or here again we confirm that the jacket was waist length. Yes ?
- Uh-huh.
"It appeared to have a high collar and a pocket on the left sleeve. The pocket appeared to stick out, it may have been flat fashioning"? - Uh-huh.
So this confirms what you said in your evidence earlier, that you appear -if I may say so - to have a very clear picture in your mind of a waist-length jacket with a bulging sleeve pocket with some kind of flap
perhaps. Yeah? - Uh-huh”
And
“ BY THE COURT: - What would you have meant by saying that the jacket that you saw was pulled in at the waist. Would you have meant it was pulled in at the bottom edge of the jacket or some other part of the jacket?
- I meant it was pulled (incomprehensible) jacket to make it like a... to pull it in.
Pulled in at the bottom edge? - Yeah.
Thank you”
This is the evidence that Bryson gave both in her statements and under oath. You may not like it. You may wish it was different but it isn’t.
The rest of your post is news to me and of course never happened.
-
This is very interesting from Steven Kelly.
'I think it was Janine's idea that we would go and search out Jodi. She knew that if she was meeting Luke she would sometimes walk down the path in the field that runs between Eashouses and Newbattle Road!'
More evidence, if more was needed, that Jodi did indeed walk down RDP alone to meet Luke.
-
Yawn. "cherry picked" extracts that don't work now people have access to it all you bleat Faith in one breath whilst doing just that in the next. You can't get away with that anymore, eh? I know old habits die hard. Like that little extract you tried earlier. Now less of the hypocrisy and put the rest up or indeed just the link to the transcripts themselves. So again, just like that of AB, the AD swiftly righting the attempts made by DF to muddy the waters with most of the witnesses. There is no "hiding" of anything anymore. My interest in guilt/innocence is not on your level. My reasons for studying this case primarily round that false narrative, exposed. But one really shouldn't take things so personally Faith with others belief in his guilt. You're not some martyr of injustice, you troll the web under many user names. Where is the pride to be had in that? Or indeed the hypocrisy you live and breath. Lighten up old gal.
-
Yawn. "cherry picked" extracts that don't work now people have access to it all you bleat Faith in one breath whilst doing just that in the next. You can't get away with that anymore, eh? I know old habits die hard. Like that little extract you tried earlier. Now less of the hypocrisy and put the rest up or indeed just the link to the transcripts themselves. So again, just like that of AB, the AD swiftly righting the attempts made by DF to muddy the waters with most of the witnesses. There is no "hiding" of anything anymore. My interest in guilt/innocence is not on your level. My reasons for studying this case primarily round that false narrative, exposed. But one really shouldn't take things so personally Faith with others belief in his guilt. You're not some martyr of injustice, you troll the web under many user names. Where is the pride to be had in that? Or indeed the hypocrisy you live and breath. Lighten up old gal.
The difference between you and I Parky is that I evidence my claims with direct quotes from witnesses. You merely make claims, which are often down the line proved wrong…need I remind you again about the ‘strong majority’? Your interest in guilt/innocence is not on my level….now that did make me chuckle. You have no interest in innocence and AD righted nothing as there was nothing to right. Findlay’s closing speech to the jury was as thoughtful and concise as any I’ve seen and drove a horse and cart through much of AD’s rather tenuous narrative.
Time to put up or….well you know the rest Parky. Counter my claims with evidence, if you can.
BTW where is the pride in endeavouring to find out what names members post under elsewhere, if indeed they do? What does it achieve? Perhaps it’s being challenged by a woman that irks you? Is that it Parky or is it simply being challenged?
It does bring me endless amusement that far from blowing apart the case for Luke’s innocence which many guilters believed would happen the transcripts have actually amplified the paucity of the crown’s case.
-
This is very interesting from Steven Kelly.
'I think it was Janine's idea that we would go and search out Jodi. She knew that if she was meeting Luke she would sometimes walk down the path in the field that runs between Eashouses and Newbattle Road!'
More evidence, if more was needed, that Jodi did indeed walk down RDP alone to meet Luke.
No one questioned Jodi using RDP on her own to get to Newbattle/Lukes house on the night of the murder as far as I can see, Faith.
Luke told Judith about the arrangement/meeting place on the phone, then Judith relayed this to Alice on the phone who immediately set off to search RDP and RDP only [Alice's own words], that is where she was going with Janine and Steven to search, RDP and RDP only!
I'm sure Findlay pointed out to Janine that she knew exactly where RDP was and that Jodi used it on her own, and to be honest, why on earth would RDP hold any danger in daylight? , its absurd to suggest this!
Judith certainly didn't question Luke about Jodi using the path nor the meeting place in the days after the murder, she only quizzed Luke as to why he didn't phone again later on to say that Jodi still hadn't arrived.
But then its obvious that once Luke was the main suspect, a credible scenario had to be formed around this, and the possibility of Jodi walking along RDP on her own and being attacked by someone other than Luke was simply not on, no way jose!
After all, this would cause severe doubt about the Andrina Bryson sighting. After all, if Jodi was allowed to use RDP and had arranged to meet at Lukes house that day, then why on earth could Luke have been at the Easthouses end of RDP?
No no no, it was imperative to claim that RDP was taboo for Jodi to use on her own and that the 'usual' meeting place for Jodi/Luke was Easthouses.
So statements had to be changed and the claim of 'mucking about up here' was added so that it could be 'proven' beyond doubt that Luke met Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP that day, and undoubtably seen by star witness Andrina Bryson.
Of course, Donald Findlay pointed out in court how Janines statement about RDP changed, but it fell on deaf ears like so many other things.
So, all very good then! By the time of the trial the evidence had been manipulated to show that Jodi was forbiden to use RDP on her own, therefore it must have been Luke that Andrina Bryson saw meeting her in Easthouses, besides, Jodi had told Judith that she would be 'mucking about up here' remember! Although, it seems, Lukes version of meeting in Newbattle didn't seem to be questioned by Judith until she knew he was a suspect????
But!!! There was another big problem for the police, they could possibly manipulate the evidence to make it seem that LM was seen in RDP at the Easthouses end by Andrina Bryson, but what about the lack of blood and DNA on the clothing they took from him on the night of the murder? That is, his school clothes including his green bomber jacket.
Well again, the police needed to manipulate and twist the evidence to introduce a set of 'murder clothes'.
You see, Luke claimed that he wore the same clothes the whole day, and indeed on the face of it this was backed up by the two push bike boys who testified that LM was standing beside Barondale cottages in his bomber jacket, and indeed they were the only witnesses who actually knew Luke.
But!! This was no good for the police, after all, they had possesion of the bomber jacket and school clothes and absolutely no blood nor DNA from the locus was found on them, hence they were not worn by the killer that day!
So, again the police had to simply discount the bike boys evidence and say they were mistaken, that they simply presumed LM was wearing his bomber because they were accustomed to seeing him wearing it in school!
No no, in the eyes of the police it was imperative that LM was 'not' wearing his school clothing on the 'way home' as it were, from the murder scene.
So it was decided that Luke was actually wearing a parka jacket and other clothing when he was seen by all the witnesses, firstly by Andrina Bryson before the murder then by everyone else on Newbattle Road, 'including' the two pushbike boys, although all of the witnesses descriptions of the clothing they saw varied.
But alas, a parka nor any other blood stained clothing were recovered, hence it was claimed they were burned in the Mitchells back yard. Although no remains were recovered!
But again, there had to be an explaination about the murder clothes and what became of them!
Without any murder clothes, there was no case against LM,although of course there was no tangible evidence of murder clothing, just a 'theory', nothing more! Although it was claimed by the police that the clothing was burned in fires seen in the Mitchells back yard by neighbours.
So, thats about it, how the main planks of the prosecution case were manipulated to point to LM as the killer, to place him at the scene as it were!
And it begs the question, if Janine lied about her knowledge of RDP, who was telling the truth about the prosecutions other' plank' of evidence, the finding of Jodi's body????
-
Your first point of course is absolutely ridiculous. There was no appeal for the couple at the beginning of RDP. Not that the police weren’t staging appeals. There was of course one for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. So why not the couple at the beginning of the path? They could then have been eliminated and the focus could have changed to elsewhere. That there was no appeal does beg the question why not? Were the police afraid that they might actually find them?
The importance of the couple was only made public almost a full eighteen months after the murder during the trial. If the couple even heard the reports from the court would they even link the testimony to themselves after the passage of time? Would you know where you were at a certain time on a rather mundane day almost 18 months ago? Of course there’s always the chance that their interest in the case didn’t survive beyond the first flurry after the murder so still, to this day, know nothing about their place in the case.
Now here's the thing. We’re told there was a plan in Luke’s mind. A plan to confuse and divert attention away from himself. Part of that plan was the 5.40 call to the Jones’s home phone. Let’s look at this more closely. Luke calls to see if Jodi is still at home. This allegedly was to cover his tracks after the murder. The only thing is as soon as he made that phone call he must have known, if he was the killer, that he could be setting in motion a set of events that he had no control over. He would have known that Jodi had left home 50 minutes before and by calling her mum’s phone he was alerting her to the fact that Jodi was missing.
Now the prosecution would have Luke, still in his murder attire, inviting interest in Jodi’s whereabouts. How could he have known that Jodi’s mum wouldn’t panic and rope everyone close to her into finding Jodi. Of course Luke couldn’t have avoided being roped into such a search, with no time to return home, discard his DNA spattered parka etc etc. Luke could not have known that Judith may have been too busy to notice the passage of time. From that 5.40 phone-call Luke could not have been sure what would lead from it. Not much of a plan, was it?
Quite simply, he decided it was a risk he had to take; he had to make some kind of contact as no contact at all would've been very suspicious. He knew that when he phoned at 1740 there was less of a chance of Judith becoming suspicious or alarmed as him phoning about an hour later or 2 hours later; him phoning when he did would arouse little suspicion, particularly as most families are rushing about to prepare family dinners at 1740, clearing up after dinner, and so on. It was very crafty on LM's part phoning at 1740, imo; as I said, it was a ruse that served a dual purpose: to give the Joneses the impression that they hadn't met yet, and to buy Mitchell time to cover his tracks as he knew that by not phoning back the Joneses would've presumed they had eventually met up. The telling thing was that he didn't try and contact Jodi or the Jones landline again, especially as by that point they were in the habit of meeting most nights and Jodi had only failed to meet LM once during their entire dating history and even then she had phoned LM to tell him why she wouldn't make it on that single, solitary instance. Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).
-
Quite simply, he decided it was a risk he had to take; he had to make some kind of contact as no contact at all would've been very suspicious. He knew that when he phoned at 1740 there was less of a chance of Judith becoming suspicious or alarmed as him phoning about an hour later or 2 hours later; him phoning when he did would arouse little suspicion, particularly as most families are rushing about to prepare family dinners at 1740, clearing up after dinner, and so on. It was very crafty on LM's part phoning at 1740, imo; as I said, it was a ruse that served a dual purpose: to give the Joneses the impression that they hadn't met yet, and to buy Mitchell time to cover his tracks as he knew that by not phoning back the Joneses would've presumed they had eventually met up. The telling thing was that he didn't try and contact Jodi or the Jones landline again, especially as by that point they were in the habit of meeting most nights and Jodi had only failed to meet LM once during their entire dating history and even then she had phoned LM to tell him why she wouldn't make it on that single, solitary instance. Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).
Quite simply, Mr Apples, the 5.40 call would only makes sense to Judith Jones if she knew that Jodi was meeting Luke in Newbattle.
If not. Lukes call would have caused a raft of questions which would definately cause Judith to phone Luke back!
For instance, Ovens comes off the phone and tells Judith that it was Luke phoning to say that Jodi hadn't turned up, Judith replies, what? its only a few minutes walk to the end of RDP where she was meeting Luke! Where could she have gone, she asks herself? Its almost an hour since she left! Then Judith would ask Alen Ovens where LM was phoning from, obviously presuming that it was the Easthouses end of RDP and probably wondering why LM simply didn't continue the short distance to her house to see if Jodi was there.
Of course Ovens didn't ask Luke any questions, so could not have given Judith any answers, hence the obvious need to phone Luke back to find out what the situation was.
Out of decency alone Judith needed to phone back, she couldn't just leave him standing at the end of RDP indefinately, surely?
Now at this stage, any further correspondence with Judith would have been devastating for Luke.
The first thing Judith would have asked Luke was where he was, and as soon as Luke said Newbattle he was in trouble, as Judith would simply say, 'well thats the problem Luke, Jodi is waiting for you at the Easthouses end of the path, get your arse over there now you dope!', hence Luke would be stuffed !
Even if Luke said, no no Judith, your wrong, Jodi was coming to my house in Newbattle, he would end up in trouble
as Judith would say, 'well if that is the case Jodi should still have arrived with you about half an hour ago, phone back soon if she doesn't appear!', this again setting in motion a search for Jodi sooner rather than later.
And also, there is the possibility that Judith would phone Lukes house and get Corrine on the line, who would inevitably tell her that Luke wasn't there and wasn't there when she got home from work, again, game over!
No, to be honest, logic tells us that Luke would only have phoned Jodi's mums house at 5.40 if he was innocent and was telling the truth about Jodi meeting him at Newbattle Abbey Crescent!
Otherwise, if the plan was to meet with Jodi in Easthouses then a phone call to Judith's house at 5.40 was total suicide! Had to be! And quite simply, the fact that the 5.40 call didn't cause any alarm for Judith proves that Jogi/Luke planned to meet in Newbattle that day!
Think it through, Mr Apples.
-
Quite simply, Mr Apples, the 5.40 call would only makes sense to Judith Jones if she knew that Jodi was meeting Luke in Newbattle.
If not. Lukes call would have caused a raft of questions which would definately cause Judith to phone Luke back!
For instance, Ovens comes off the phone and tells Judith that it was Luke phoning to say that Jodi hadn't turned up, Judith replies, what? its only a few minutes walk to the end of RDP where she was meeting Luke! Where could she have gone, she asks herself? Its almost an hour since she left! Then Judith would ask Alen Ovens where LM was phoning from, obviously presuming that it was the Easthouses end of RDP and probably wondering why LM simply didn't continue the short distance to her house to see if Jodi was there.
Of course Ovens didn't ask Luke any questions, so could not have given Judith any answers, hence the obvious need to phone Luke back to find out what the situation was.
Out of decency alone Judith needed to phone back, she couldn't just leave him standing at the end of RDP indefinately, surely?
Now at this stage, any further correspondence with Judith would have been devastating for Luke.
The first thing Judith would have asked Luke was where he was, and as soon as Luke said Newbattle he was in trouble, as Judith would simply say, 'well thats the problem Luke, Jodi is waiting for you at the Easthouses end of the path, get your arse over there now you dope!', hence Luke would be stuffed !
Even if Luke said, no no Judith, your wrong, Jodi was coming to my house in Newbattle, he would end up in trouble
as Judith would say, 'well if that is the case Jodi should still have arrived with you about half an hour ago, phone back soon if she doesn't appear!', this again setting in motion a search for Jodi sooner rather than later.
And also, there is the possibility that Judith would phone Lukes house and get Corrine on the line, who would inevitably tell her that Luke wasn't there and wasn't there when she got home from work, again, game over!
No, to be honest, logic tells us that Luke would only have phoned Jodi's mums house at 5.40 if he was innocent and was telling the truth about Jodi meeting him at Newbattle Abbey Crescent!
Otherwise, if the plan was to meet with Jodi in Easthouses then a phone call to Judith's house at 5.40 was total suicide! Had to be! And quite simply, the fact that the 5.40 call didn't cause any alarm for Judith proves that Jogi/Luke planned to meet in Newbattle that day!
Think it through, Mr Apples.
Excellent post Joe.
-
Very odd and telling, imo, that LM made no effort to find out about Jodi's whereabouts between 1740 - 2238 (the latter time being when Judith contacted him to find out where her daughter was, as it was past her 2200 curfew).
It's obvious that if he made any contact after 6pm he would have been rumbled. Yet while he waited at the end of his road he called his mum and friend (twice) and gave many different reasons for her not turning up to various people and different versions in his police interviews. AO says she's already left (on a 15 min walk) yet LM doesn't walk 5-10 mins to check but waits over an hour doing nothing. Only a troll would believe him. Let's see who is the first to blame the Jones.
-
It's obvious that if he made any contact after 6pm he would have been rumbled. Yet while he waited at the end of his road he called his mum and friend (twice) and gave many different reasons for her not turning up to various people and different versions in his police interviews. AO says she's already left (on a 15 min walk) yet LM doesn't walk 5-10 mins to check but waits over an hour doing nothing. Only a troll would believe him. Let's see who is the first to blame the Jones.
If Luke was guilty, Ken, then honestly, it makes zero sense to stand on Newbattle Road at all.
What purpose did it serve? Did witnesses seeing him stand there waiting give him any kind of alibi?
Far far more important for Luke to rush home as soon as possible and get things into motion before phoning anyone.
Get Corrine on side, after all without her assistance it was all over for him, change clothes and shower, then and only then when things were in place and every eventuality covered phone Jodi's house!
Luke could have done all this before 6.00, and after all, Luke claimed that Jodi was coming to his house anyway, so why not wait there?
Look at it this way, Ken, doesn't it make more sense to get changed and start disposing of the evidence before risking phoning anyone as opposed to phoning to report Jodi missing and then standing in the murder clothing for another hour, another hour without putting anything in place?? Why? Talk about back to front or priorities!
And it isn't as if Luke really wanted to be seen on Newbattle Road anyway for heavens sake! Head down, standing back into a driveway etc., Certainly didn't look like he was displaying himself to all on the pretence of waiting for Jodi.
Why didn't Luke stand on the edge of the pavement in full view gesturing as if he was looking for someone coming?
Ach! None of it makes sense from a guilt point of view at all! He's either decided to stand on Newbattle Road to claim he was waiting for Jodi, and on the other hand he's standing there in his parka jacket for all to see for an hour before going home to burn it!
Gee whizz, all Luke had to do was sneak home and no one would have seen the parka, hence the Andrina Bryson sighting would have had far less impact on things.
Just rush home, get things in order, then if need be walk to the end of his street in the bomber jacket before six while Corrine is burning the parka, everything in place ready for any eventuality. Job done!
Alternatively, phone Jodi's house and then stand on Newbattle Rd for an hour with nothing in place?
Come on, Ken! Who are you kidding son!
-
If Luke was guilty.....
You didn't address any of the previous points. He phoned various other people after 6pm but didn't phone the person he'd already agreed to meet despite knowing she would be only 10 minutes away. He called DH twice despite apparently not knowing J's whereabouts. Why no second call to Jones/AO?
Behave yourself with your hypothetical trolling.
-
You didn't address any of the previous points. He phoned various other people after 6pm but didn't phone the person he'd already agreed to meet despite knowing she would be only 10 minutes away. He called DH twice despite apparently not knowing J's whereabouts. Why no second call to Jones/AO?
Behave yourself with your hypothetical trolling.
A…Jodi didn’t have a phone so how could he call her?
B…Why call the Jones household when he had already been told that Jodi had left? If she had returned in the meantime she’d have been told that Luke had called and would have called him.
With nothing valuable to add to the debate I believe that it’s you who are trolling.
-
A…Jodi didn’t have a phone so how could he call her?
B…Why call the Jones household when he had already been told that Jodi had left? If she had returned in the meantime she’d have been told that Luke had called and would have called him.
With nothing valuable to add to the debate I believe that it’s you who are trolling.
I've nothing to add to the debate because LM knew at 5.40pm he'd already killed his g/f and was desperately trying to put his alibi in place. Nothing in the past 20 years has shown otherwise apart from endless dribbling on forums.
-
I've nothing to add to the debate because LM knew at 5.40pm he'd already killed his g/f and was desperately trying to put his alibi in place. Nothing in the past 20 years has shown otherwise apart from endless dribbling on forums.
So why are you here?
Haven’t you got better things to do?
-
So why are you here?
Haven’t you got better things to do?
To expose and challenge innocence fraudsters and trolls like Lean and yourself. No sane person would consider this a MOJ. It's a scam that's fooled a few vulnerable people, no more.
-
A…Jodi didn’t have a phone so how could he call her?
B…Why call the Jones household when he had already been told that Jodi had left? If she had returned in the meantime she’d have been told that Luke had called and would have called him.
With nothing valuable to add to the debate I believe that it’s you who are trolling.
Out of concern for her welfare? I mean if I had arranged to meet a14 year old girl who I knew was walking down a reasonably secluded path to meet me and she never showed up I’d be concerned and want to make sure she was ok. Why didn’t Mitchell?
-
To expose and challenge innocence fraudsters and trolls like Lean and yourself. No sane person would consider this a MOJ. It's a scam that's fooled a few vulnerable people, no more.
There are many legal experts who believe that this conviction is unsafe and have spoken publicly. I’ve yet to hear one who actually thinks it is safe…apart from perhaps Turnbull.
Who are you challenging?
To the uninitiated who perhaps mistakenly stumble upon this little corner of the internet you really must come across as a rather puerile man baby with a Sandra Lean fixation.
I hate to break it to you sweetie but you ain’t exposing nothing apart from your ignorance.
-
There are many legal experts who believe that this conviction is unsafe and have spoken publicly. I’ve yet to hear one who actually thinks it is…apart from perhaps Turnbull.
Who are you challenging?
To the uninitiated who perhaps mistakenly stumble upon this little corner of the internet you really must come across as a rather puerile man baby with a Sandra Lean fixation.
I hate to break it to you sweetie but you ain’t exposing nothing apart from your ignorance.
Your 19,000 posts suggests otherwise. Your hero is still in jail and about to fail his forthcoming parole while you sit at home "liking" posts by Jo Blogs aka Sandra Lean thinking you're making a difference with passive aggressive comments to anyone that doesn't agree, which is only Chris H and JB Lean. The LM campaign is finished.
-
Your 19,000 posts suggests otherwise. Your hero is still in jail and about to fail his forthcoming parole while you sit at home "liking" posts by Jo Blogs aka Sandra Lean thinking you're making a difference with passive aggressive comments to anyone that doesn't agree, which is only Chris H and JB Lean. The LM campaign is finished.
‘Hero’….have a word with yourself.
Every post reeks of immaturity. Hero, troll….i suggest that it’s time to grow up.
-
‘Hero’….have a word with yourself.
Every post reeks of immaturity. Hero, troll….i suggest that it’s time to grow up.
wow, breathtaking hypocrisy.
-
Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!
-
Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!
Six of those witnesses did definitely see Luke and two probably but not where the said that they did.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner describe Luke wearing the same clothes as Elliot and Houston.
“ Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.
She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw that Monday evening, the witness replied: "No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”
They didn’t go to Luke’s school so isn’t it a coincidence that they described Luke’s clothes in the same way? Although O’Sullivan and her partner were adamant that the boy they saw wasn’t Luke it’s obvious that it was. This again shows the unreliability of eye witness testimony.
Andrew Holborn said that he saw Luke using his phone. Luke used his phone three times after 6pm. Once to call David High just after 6.30, his mum and 6.39 and High again at 6.55 so Holborn couldn’t have got home at 6.15 if his statement is correct. If he saw Luke talking to High on the phone for the first time then it could only have been at 6.32. So Holborn couldn’t have been home earlier that 6.32 if he saw Luke on his phone.
-
Six of those witnesses did definitely see Luke and two probably but not where the said that they did.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner describe Luke wearing the same clothes as Elliot and Houston.
“ Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.
She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.
Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw that Monday evening, the witness replied: "No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.
Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”
They didn’t go to Luke’s school so isn’t it a coincidence that they described Luke’s clothes in the same way? Although O’Sullivan and her partner were adamant that the boy they saw wasn’t Luke it’s obvious that it was. This again shows the unreliability of eye witness testimony.
Andrew Holborn said that he saw Luke using his phone. Luke used his phone three times after 6pm. Once to call David High just after 6.30, his mum and 6.39 and High again at 6.55 so Holborn couldn’t have got home at 6.15 if his statement is correct. If he saw Luke talking to High on the phone for the first time then it could only have been at 6.32. So Holborn couldn’t have been home earlier that 6.32 if he saw Luke on his phone.
Refresh my memory -- who didn't see LM where they said they'd seen him? Where was LM when they saw him?
MO & DH probably didn't recognise LM in court as he'd changed so much between their sighting & the trial. As for their bomber jacket anomaly, it is possible LM quickly went home immediately after the F&W sighting and changed into the bomber jacket while still leaving his German army shirt on underneath (nobody saw him between 1740 -1805). An attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses? Or he could've had the bomber jacket planked nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at 1640ish (probably not, though)?
AH nor GE said anything about LM being on his phone -- it was DH who said that. DH never made it clear if LM was on a phone call or merely reading text messages at 1800/1805 (he said LM had his phone out in front of him and was looking down at it, strongly suggesting he was reading text messages). The puncture boy (GE) never mentioned LM being on the phone at all (nor did AH), he just said LM was at the exact same spot as he passed him the second time and said he got home about 1815 (despite saying earlier in his testimony that approximately 40 mins to 60 mins had elapsed between his first sighting of LM and the second). Messy. I'm surprised ADT didn't ask GE what clothing LM had on when he passed him the second time.
-
Had a quick scan over the testimonies of the 3 push bike boys there. It's interesting that the 2 who knew LM personally (Dean Houston & Grant Elliott), went to the same school as him and sometimes cycled home with him from school, were the ones who were adamant that when they cycled past him at Barondale Cottages he was wearing a Bomber jacket - but conceded that they may have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing the Bomber jacket often at school. By contrast, the one boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn) was positive in his first statement in early July 03 that it, in his exact words, "definitely, definitely was a shirt, not a jacket." AH went on to say in early July 03 that he'd seen a few people wearing these shirts and that they were sold in a shop called Flip (the same shop LM was in with CM on 08.07.03 buying the exact clothes many people said he owned pre-murder, but which he & CM denied). Interestingly, he was captured in the Morning, Noon & Night shop in Newtongrange at 1750 on cctv and said he was in the shop for 5-10 mins and saw LM about 5 mins after he left the shop; that means he might not have seen LM until 1805 - enough time for him to dart home and change jacket (and still have his green army shirt from Flip on underneath). After all, LM wasn't seen by anyone after the f&w sighting, between 1740-1805. Did he go home during this window of time? Or hide in the adjacent woods? Also interesting that the puncture boy ((Grant Elliot) said he got home with his puncture at approximately 1815 -- meaning LM could potentially have had 50 mins to go home, change, set up a plan to dispose of his clothing, and meet the boys in the abbey at 1905. After all, no one saw³ him during this time and he said he was on NB road, occasionally stepping out of view to have a smoke? Funny that the 8 witnesses who saw that solitary boy on that rd between 1740-1815 all said he looked 'suspicious'. Funny they all described the same type of clothing that LM often wore. Funny that 6 out of the 8 eyewitnesses were very confident it was LM they saw that day (2 of whom knew him personally). And on and on and on it goes. Occam's razor ... it was LM they all saw!
With all due respect, Mr Apples, I dont think your scenarios come under the heading of 'Occams Razor' by any stretch of the imagination, with LM running back and forth between Newbattle Road, the woods and his mums house, 'planking' various items of clothing here there and everywhere to confuse the witnesses!
You're certainly confusing me anyway Mr Apples! I would describe your scenarios more as 'jumping through hoops' to achieve a guilty LM!
-
Refresh my memory -- who didn't see LM where they said they'd seen him? Where was LM when they saw him?
MO & DH probably didn't recognise LM in court as he'd changed so much between their sighting & the trial. As for their bomber jacket anomaly, it is possible LM quickly went home immediately after the F&W sighting and changed into the bomber jacket while still leaving his German army shirt on underneath (nobody saw him between 1740 -1805). An attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses? Or he could've had the bomber jacket planked nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at 1640ish (probably not, though)?
AH nor GE said anything about LM being on his phone -- it was DH who said that. DH never made it clear if LM was on a phone call or merely reading text messages at 1800/1805 (he said LM had his phone out in front of him and was looking down at it, strongly suggesting he was reading text messages). The puncture boy (GE) never mentioned LM being on the phone at all (nor did AH), he just said LM was at the exact same spot as he passed him the second time and said he got home about 1815 (despite saying earlier in his testimony that approximately 40 mins to 60 mins had elapsed between his first sighting of LM and the second). Messy. I'm surprised ADT didn't ask GE what clothing LM had on when he passed him the second time.
Apologies MA you are absolutely right. It wasn’t Grant Elliot but Dean Houston who saw Luke with the phone. Elliot, who had the puncture, did estimate however that it was 30 -40 minutes between first seeing Luke and seeing him on his return journey. This means that he couldn’t have been home by 6.15. It also means that Luke was still standing on Newbattle Road around 6.40 with the same jacket on as previously seen by Elliot. A bit of a stretch to believe that Elliot saw Luke twice and still potentially mistook what he was wearing.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner saw a youth with exactly the same clothes on as described by Elliot and Houston. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that they all saw the same youth? That O’Sullivan and her partner may not have recognised Luke due to the passage of time and his change in appearance but that doesn’t seem to have hindered Walsh and Fleming.
I’m confused. Do you think that Luke wore his German shirt under his parka, went home, burned the parka then put a bomber jacket on top of the possibly contaminated German shirt? Though not only a German shirt but under the shirt and parka must have been a t-shirt with writing on because Rosemary Walsh says this.
“What I could see was he had on some sort of dark t-shirt with some writing on it on the front’.
Why all the changing of outfits? You say that it may have been to confuse potential witnesses but why would he want to confuse them? Surely if he was setting up an alibi he would want all eyewitnesses to see him in the same clothes?
-
With all due respect, Mr Apples, I dont think your scenarios come under the heading of 'Occams Razor' by any stretch of the imagination, with LM running back and forth between Newbattle Road, the woods and his mums house, 'planking' various items of clothing here there and everywhere to confuse the witnesses!
You're certainly confusing me anyway Mr Apples! I would describe your scenarios more as 'jumping through hoops' to achieve a guilty LM!
I admitted that LM planking his bomber jacket nearby as he set off to meet Jodi at approximately 1640ish was unlikely. Everything else in my previous post is still a possibility, though. He could've potentially and feasibly went home and changed into the bomber jacket immediately after the F&W sighting and been back on the NB rd to be seen by the 3 push bike boys, CH, and the couple MO & DH in said bomber jacket (though push bike boy AH was adamant that it, in his own exact words in his first statement to police in early July 03, "definitely wasn't a jacket, it was a shirt .").
-
Apologies MA you are absolutely right. It wasn’t Grant Elliot but Dean Houston who saw Luke with the phone. Elliot, who had the puncture, did estimate however that it was 30 -40 minutes between first seeing Luke and seeing him on his return journey. This means that he couldn’t have been home by 6.15. It also means that Luke was still standing on Newbattle Road around 6.40 with the same jacket on as previously seen by Elliot. A bit of a stretch to believe that Elliot saw Luke twice and still potentially mistook what he was wearing.
Marion O’Sullivan and her partner saw a youth with exactly the same clothes on as described by Elliot and Houston. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that they all saw the same youth? That O’Sullivan and her partner may not have recognised Luke due to the passage of time and his change in appearance but that doesn’t seem to have hindered Walsh and Fleming.
I’m confused. Do you think that Luke wore his German shirt under his parka, went home, burned the parka then put a bomber jacket on top of the possibly contaminated German shirt? Though not only a German shirt but under the shirt and parka must have been a t-shirt with writing on because Rosemary Walsh says this.
“What I could see was he had on some sort of dark t-shirt with some writing on it on the front’.
Why all the changing of outfits? You say that it may have been to confuse potential witnesses but why would he want to confuse them? Surely if he was setting up an alibi he would want all eyewitnesses to see him in the same clothes?
Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).
Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.
LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).
-
Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).
Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.
LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).
Why did LM step back into the driveway at Barondale cottages if he wanted to be seen in his bomber jacket, Mr Apples?
-
Why did LM step back into the driveway at Barondale cottages if he wanted to be seen in his bomber jacket, Mr Apples?
I never said he wanted to be seen in his bomber jacket; I merely said he had time to go home and change into it immediately after the F&W sighting, and may have been spotted in it at 1800/1805 by 6 witnesses (3 bike boys, ch & the couple mo & dh), though ah said in his first statement he was certain it wasn't a short bomber jacket and ch merely described it as 'grunge' style clothing and couldn't say what type of jacket (I think). It's messy. It's safe to say it was LM they all saw as 2 people knew him and positively id'd him ... LM was unlikely to have a twin locally, was he? And a lookalike from a different town was unlikely to be skulking around rural suburbs like Easthouses and newbattle road?? LM had no other choice but to be seen on nb road as he was the only one to be meeting her. And, regardless of where they were meeting (wether it be at Jodi's or his), he had no choice but to cross the nb road. I personally think he met Jodi at easthouses (their most common arrangement) and hence AB's "as sure as she could possibly be that it was LM" sighting of him. He wouldn't have been strutting around like a peacock, would he? Even a psychopath like him would have been looking suspicious and out of place standing alone on that road, especially having just murdered his girlfriend. He was on high alert, and possibly planking his hacket when CH saw him at that entrance as if he was hiding. All those eyewitnesses who didn't know him said he looked up to no good, and one of the pushbike boys who did know him said seeing him standing there doing nothing was 'weird'. The 2 boys who knew him said they very well could have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing his bomber jacket in school often. As for MO & DH, we'll just have to wait and see what their transcripts reveal. They might've have been mistaken about what a Bomber jacket actually is. I admit, the eyewitness testimony on the NB road after the F&W sighting is messy. It was LM they all saw, though -- and he did wear all items of clothes described by them, before the murder.
-
I never said he wanted to be seen in his bomber jacket; I merely said he had time to go home and change into it immediately after the F&W sighting, and may have been spotted in it at 1800/1805 by 6 witnesses (3 bike boys, ch & the couple mo & dh), though ah said in his first statement he was certain it wasn't a short bomber jacket and ch merely described it as 'grunge' style clothing and couldn't say what type of jacket (I think). It's messy. It's safe to say it was LM they all saw as 2 people knew him and positively id'd him ... LM was unlikely to have a twin locally, was he? And a lookalike from a different town was unlikely to be skulking around rural suburbs like Easthouses and newbattle road?? LM had no other choice but to be seen on nb road as he was the only one to be meeting her. And, regardless of where they were meeting (wether it be at Jodi's or his), he had no choice but to cross the nb road. I personally think he met Jodi at easthouses (their most common arrangement) and hence AB's "as sure as she could possibly be that it was LM" sighting of him. He wouldn't have been strutting around like a peacock, would he? Even a psychopath like him would have been looking suspicious and out of place standing alone on that road, especially having just murdered his girlfriend. He was on high alert, and possibly planking his hacket when CH saw him at that entrance as if he was hiding. All those eyewitnesses who didn't know him said he looked up to no good, and one of the pushbike boys who did know him said seeing him standing there doing nothing was 'weird'. The 2 boys who knew him said they very well could have been getting mixed up as they had seen him wearing his bomber jacket in school often. As for MO & DH, we'll just have to wait and see what their transcripts reveal. They might've have been mistaken about what a Bomber jacket actually is. I admit, the eyewitness testimony on the NB road after the F&W sighting is messy. It was LM they all saw, though -- and he did wear all items of clothes described by them, before the murder.
How do you think LM got to Newbattle Rd from the murder scene, Mr Apples?
I mean what route did he take to get to the gate where Flem/walsh saw him?
In fact, what was LM planned route home after the murder?
-
Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).
Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.
LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).
Let’s look at this MA.
“ Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905).”
Now Grant Elliot initially saw Luke around 6pm. He then cycled to Jewel and Esk college which would have taken him around 8 minutes at a steady pace. At the college he finds that he has a puncture so that’s probably five minutes give or take to check the tyre, give it a kick and decide to go home. Of course we don’t know what he did at the college or how many minutes that took. He said that he biked some of the way and walked the rest. It takes 19 minutes to walk from the college to Newbattle Road so it must have taken him around 14 minutes to get to where he saw Luke for the second time. We don’t know where he lived but the journey there would obviously have added some time to his journey. In conclusion Elliot couldn’t have possibly got home at 6.15 and his estimate of seeing Luke around 30-40 minutes after his first sighting seems spot on.
-
Like I said, GE's estimated time of arrival back home with a slow puncture at 1815 could've been accurate and thus nullifying his 40-60 mins claim earlier in his testimony (meaning LM potentially could've had 50-55 mins to cover his tracks before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1905). It would've been interesting to read his answer if ADT asked him what LM was wearing the second time he passed him (though I suspect GE would've mentioned different clothing without being prompted by ADT).
Different folk have different recollections. I agree -- it was likely LM they all saw.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.
LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).
Again you say this
“ Yes, that's what I'm saying. He possibly went home & changed into the bomber, knowing full well that what he was wearing underneath was uncontaminated as the parka had taken the brunt of the contamination.
LM knew most likely he'd been spotted at the EH end of RDP wearing the long parka. He probably thought it was best to try and confuse eyewitnesses with what he was wearing, especially at the Newbattle road end of RDP. After all, he'd just murdered his girlfriend. Unluckily for him, F&W had seen the same youth as AB in that long parka/fishing style jacket -- the same jacket he was no doubt wearing while he was murdering Jodi in that woodland strip at 1715 (which cyclist Leonard Kelly heard).”
Firstly he could have no had idea what might have transferred to the rest of his clothes while committing this most brutal of murders. Do you really think that he would have burned the parka yet taken the chance that there was contamination underneath? Even the tiniest drop of blood could have seen him charged with murder.
I’m still struggling with your second paragraph. Why would Luke even feel he needed to confuse eyewitnesses? Surely he was trying to set up an alibi? Surely what he would have done is ditch the parka and return to the Newbattle Road in order to have as many people as possible identify him in clothes that didn’t include a parka?
By changing outfits several times surely he would have made it less likely that his contrived alibi worked as passers-by may have thought that he was different youths merely by his clothes?
-
How do you think LM got to Newbattle Rd from the murder scene, Mr Apples?
I mean what route did he take to get to the gate where Flem/walsh saw him?
In fact, what was LM planned route home after the murder?
I don't think he had a 'planned' route home. I think he killed Jodi in a fit of rage and proceeded directly down that woodland strip, which, by no coincidence, led him exactly in line with that gate on NB rd he was spotted at by F&W at approx. 1740. He could've went down the field to his right, but it exposed him too much (especially to the moped boys JF & GD) or to the left, where the roan's dyke path could've potentially exposed him to joggers, cyclists or dog walkers on that path; the woodland strip offered him the sanctuary he needed.
-
I don't think he had a 'planned' route home. I think he killed Jodi in a fit of rage and proceeded directly down that woodland strip, which, by no coincidence, led him exactly in line with that gate on NB rd he was spotted at by F&W at approx. 1740. He could've went down the field to his right, but it exposed him too much (especially to the moped boys JF & GD) or to the left, where the roan's dyke path could've potentially exposed him to joggers, cyclists or dog walkers on that path; the woodland strip offered him the sanctuary he needed.
Nothing planned, fit of rage, yet planking clothes before hand, Mr Apples? Oh well!
Anyway, yes I agree the woodland gave him sanctuary, so why not use it most of the way home?
Why not use the woods right down to the entrance of Newbattle Abbey Crescent and then cross over?
If guilty, why did LM decide to emerge onto Newbattle Abbey Rd beside the entrance to RDP?
Did Luke want to be seen walking home in his parka? Must have surely?
Lukes actions simply dont make any sense from a guilty point of view, Mr Apples.
From an innocence point of view its quite simple though, Luke walked onto Newbattle Road after he had his supper where he was seen by all witnesses in his school clothes and bomber jacket!
-
Nothing planned, fit of rage, yet planking clothes before hand, Mr Apples? Oh well!
Anyway, yes I agree the woodland gave him sanctuary, so why not use it most of the way home?
Why not use the woods right down to the entrance of Newbattle Abbey Crescent and then cross over?
If guilty, why did LM decide to emerge onto Newbattle Abbey Rd beside the entrance to RDP?
Did Luke want to be seen walking home in his parka? Must have surely?
Lukes actions simply dont make any sense from a guilty point of view, Mr Apples.
From an innocence point of view its quite simple though, Luke walked onto Newbattle Road after he had his supper where he was seen by all witnesses in his school clothes and bomber jacket!
Occam’s razor?
-
Occam’s razor?
Exactly, Faith!
All the guilt scenarios put forward are extremely complicated and downright illogical.
Luke described as looking suspicious, keeping his head down, stepping into the drive at Barondale cottages, etc,
well why the hell then did he walk the entire length of Newbattle Rd to get home if he didn't want to be seen? Makes no sense to me!
And it gets worse, he even loiters for the best part of an hour on Newbattle Road, before going home allegedly, although there is no actual evidence that Luke went home at all before meeting the boys at the Abbey!
-
Nothing planned, fit of rage, yet planking clothes before hand, Mr Apples? Oh well!
Anyway, yes I agree the woodland gave him sanctuary, so why not use it most of the way home?
Why not use the woods right down to the entrance of Newbattle Abbey Crescent and then cross over?
If guilty, why did LM decide to emerge onto Newbattle Abbey Rd beside the entrance to RDP?
Did Luke want to be seen walking home in his parka? Must have surely?
Lukes actions simply dont make any sense from a guilty point of view, Mr Apples.
From an innocence point of view its quite simple though, Luke walked onto Newbattle Road after he had his supper where he was seen by all witnesses in his school clothes and bomber jacket!
The woodland strip never offered him a camoflauged route home. It was, quite simply, the safest route home at that point as it was not out in the open. The woodland strip never took him anywhere near newbattle abbey crescent. What you on about? The woodland strip took him opposite that gate, hence why he was spotted at it at 1740ish by F&W looking 'suspicious'. Why would he have wanted to be spotted in his parka on nb rd at 1740, when he'd been spotted in it at 1655 at the opposite end of the road -- the place where he normally met Jodi???!! He had no choice but to be spotted in it at that point, as that's what he chose to wear. He only decided to expose the shirt or bomber as he'd already been seen twice in that parka jacket between 1655 & 1740.
-
The woodland strip never offered him a camoflauged route home. It was, quite simply, the safest route home at that point as it was not out in the open. The woodland strip never took him anywhere near newbattle abbey crescent. What you on about? The woodland strip took him opposite that gate, hence why he was spotted at it at 1740ish by F&W looking 'suspicious'. Why would he have wanted to be spotted in his parka on nb rd at 1740, when he'd been spotted in it at 1655 at the opposite end of the road -- the place where he normally met Jodi???!! He had no choice but to be spotted in it at that point, as that's what he chose to wear. He only decided to expose the shirt or bomber as he'd already been seen twice in that parka jacket between 1655 & 1740.
Ha ha! No of course Luke didn't want to be seen in his parka if guilty, Mr Apples, so why parade up and down Newbattle Road in it, thats the whole point!
Are you saying that using NB Road was the only way home from the murder scene, that no other routes were available?
I thought LM suggested to the police that Jodi may have climbed over the V break and taken a short cut through the field? Scott Forbes also suggested a route which I believe came out beside Newbattle Abbey collage, I will check!
It is quite difficult to form an opinion of the best route for LM to take home from the murder scene when one hasn't visited the area, I may have to do this some day and check out the possible routes myself.
Have you visited the area and checked the routes out, Mr Apples? If so, do you maintain that walking down Newbattle Rd was the only option available for Luke Mitchell to get home?
-
Ha ha! No of course Luke didn't want to be seen in his parka if guilty, Mr Apples, so why parade up and down Newbattle Road in it, thats the whole point!
Are you saying that using NB Road was the only way home from the murder scene, that no other routes were available?
I thought LM suggested to the police that Jodi may have climbed over the V break and taken a short cut through the field? Scott Forbes also suggested a route which I believe came out beside Newbattle Abbey collage, I will check!
It is quite difficult to form an opinion of the best route for LM to take home from the murder scene when one hasn't visited the area, I may have to do this some day and check out the possible routes myself.
Have you visited the area and checked the routes out, Mr Apples? If so, do you maintain that walking down Newbattle Rd was the only option available for Luke Mitchell to get home?
I haven't been to the locus, no (and I don't come from or live in Dalkeith or surrounding areas). I have seen enough from Google Maps and YouTube videos to get a feel for the area and terrain. LM had no choice but to cross the NB road that day - both on his outbound journey to meet Jodi and on his return journey home as the main arrangement between them was that LM would go and meet her in Easthouses (Jodi was forbidden from using the path alone by her mother) and then they'd either muck around there, or go to Woodburn, Mayfield, or back to Newbattle, etc. There have been discussions regarding wether Jodi sometimes walked the path alone regardless, but that's a separate argument altogether. Anyway, Jodi had been grounded in mid May 03 for skipping school and generally wasn't allowed out before 1800 (I believe LM regularly went over to her house during the grounding, after dinner). The grounding had petered out somewhat in the few weeks prior to June 30th, where Jodi would do some household chores in exchange for a more relaxed grounding where she was generally allowed out at 1700 instead of 1800 (I believe this is detailed on p54-57 in IB). Judith unexpectedly lifted the grounding completely on June 30th, so Jodi texted LM at 1634 to meet up (they exchanged texts between 1634-1638, but the contents of those texts were never retrieved, both from LM's phone and Judith's phone, as they'd been deleted). Now, why would Jodi text LM to say she was allowed out at that moment? As I said, LM went over to get her during her grounding and relaxed grounding, so presumably they met up ASAP regardless of what they were doing between 1634-1638? Neither LM nor Jodi had any commitments at that time, including dinner. LM phoned the speaking clock at 1654 and, as highlighted in court, he was invariably outside when he phone the service (ie, during school or walking to school). I'm suggesting they had arranged to meet right away. Even before 1700. AB saw him having a confrontation with Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP at 1655 (like I said, AB didn't know them at all and said she was as sure as she could be that it was him, and that she was taken aback by just how much the boy she saw with the girl looked like the photo of LM in the newspaper). (And remember, SM didn't corroborate the alibi of LM being at home between 1650-1715, so where was he??? It really all adds up, doesn't it? That the one guy Jodi texted to meet up with wasn't home and was spotted at easthouses with a girl matching Jodi's description at the time Jodi left her house to meet him, and was then spotted alone and looking suspicious on nb rd some 45 minutes later, at 1740ish?) Approximately 15 mins later, at roughly 1710/1715, cyclist LK heard those disturbing strangling noises coming from behind that wall in that woodland strip that made him slow down to a standstill and listen. LM phones the Jones landline at 1732 & 1740, the latter call being answered by AO who told LM Jodi had already left to meet him. About a minute later, LM is seen by F&W at a gate on NB rd, alone and looking suspicious (like AB, the women were positive it was LM they saw). The same gate that LM said he never went as far as? On the same road that AH said no other pedestrian was on other than LM? LM didn't have a twin? Do you see a vivid picture emerging here??
Anyway, that gate he was spotted at is straight down from the locus. It would be the logical route to travel if one needed cover and to save time. The field to his right was too exposed and JF &GD were on or around that field on a noisy motorbike at that time (according to witnesses & Leonard Kelly himself said he heard it in the distance as he travelled east along the path at 1710/1715). Likewise, the RDP to the left of the locus was too exposed also (cyclists, joggers, dog walkers, etc). I suspect LM would've went straight home had F&W not seen him, but decided then to hide periodically in the woodlands behind that gate, taking off the parka and wearing only the German army shirt. Or maybe he did go home quickly after the f&w sighting and change into the bomber (with the German army shirt underneath) and be back on the nb road again for 1800/1805. The thing is, LM did have all these items of clothing to wear at the time. Maybe he was looking suspicious as he was changing jackets/ planking jackets in those woodlands behind the gate/barondale cottages - both of which were only a 5 minute brisk walk away from his house in newbattle abbey crescent
-
I haven't been to the locus, no (and I don't come from or live in Dalkeith or surrounding areas).... LM had no choice but to cross the NB road that day The thing is, LM did have all these items of clothing to wear at the time. Maybe he was looking suspicious as he was changing jackets/ planking jackets in those woodlands behind the gate/barondale cottages - both of which were only a 5 minute brisk walk away from his house in newbattle abbey crescent
JB is well aware of the locus and is trying to create doubt as usual. Perhaps examine the Mitchell's alibis in the same depth as the parka/bomber jacket palaver. As you say, LM had both and even could have worn one under the other. There's no doubt he was spotted at both ends of the RDP 4.55pm onwards. His only alibi was his mother. His brother didn't see him, LM didn't see his brother but his mother saw them both??
There is also a strong chance he could have gone down the Barrondale cottages lane to emerge in NAC rather than the main route in. It's all hypothetical though and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves.
Pic below of gate beyond lamp post on far side of NBR with likely exit point of path (parallel to RDP) below = the most obvious route to cross NBR. It's on a slight blind bend so it's possible he crossed thinking he was clear then got caught out looking shifty at the gate. Was it them that saw him ruffling his hair left-handed?
-
JB is well aware of the locus and is trying to create doubt as usual. Perhaps examine the Mitchell's alibis in the same depth as the parka/bomber jacket palaver. As you say, LM had both and even could have worn one under the other. There's no doubt he was spotted at both ends of the RDP 4.55pm onwards. His only alibi was his mother. His brother didn't see him, LM didn't see his brother but his mother saw them both??
There is also a strong chance he could have gone down the Barrondale cottages lane to emerge in NAC rather than the main route in. It's all hypothetical though and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves.
Pic below of gate beyond lamp post on far side of NBR with likely exit point of path (parallel to RDP) below = the most obvious route to cross NBR. It's on a slight blind bend so it's possible he crossed thinking he was clear then got caught out looking shifty at the gate. Was it them that saw him ruffling his hair left-handed?
Thank you for the photo. I posted similar myself some time ago. You can see from the first photo that the murderer, if he was trying to conceal himself, need only cross straight across the road, slide between the wall and the fence and he would have been hidden amongst the foliage. There was no need for him to walk to the gate. In fact he would have known that by doing so he significantly increased the risk of being seen. Not only that but standing at the gate looking suspicious’. Only an absolute numpty would believe that this is how a murderer, only minutes after killing his victim, would act.
-
Thank you for the photo. I posted similar myself some time ago. You can see from the first photo that the murderer, if he was trying to conceal himself, need only cross straight across the road, slide between the wall and the fence and he would have been hidden amongst the foliage. There was no need for him to walk to the gate. In fact he would have known that by doing so he significantly increased the risk of being seen. Not only that but standing at the gate looking suspicious’. Only an absolute numpty would believe that this is how a murderer, only minutes after killing his victim, would act.
Between the end of the wall and the gate is a steep embankment leading down to a stream and culvert - it's impossible to walk along unseen. The gate is the nearest space he could have moved to be out of sight. As I said, who knows his exact movements. 10 seconds later and he would have been out of sight - maybe he heard the car and froze, who knows. A rookie mistake.
-
Thank you for the photo. I posted similar myself some time ago. You can see from the first photo that the murderer, if he was trying to conceal himself, need only cross straight across the road, slide between the wall and the fence and he would have been hidden amongst the foliage. There was no need for him to walk to the gate. In fact he would have known that by doing so he significantly increased the risk of being seen. Not only that but standing at the gate looking suspicious’. Only an absolute numpty would believe that this is how a murderer, only minutes after killing his victim, would act.
FYI there is no prescribed set way a murderer would act minutes after committing a murder.
-
Between the end of the wall and the gate is a steep embankment leading down to a stream and culvert - it's impossible to walk along unseen. The gate is the nearest space he could have moved to be out of sight. As I said, who knows his exact movements. 10 seconds later and he would have been out of sight - maybe he heard the car and froze, who knows. A rookie mistake.
Absolute nonsense.
10 seconds and he could have been seen by a dozen cars. Better to scramble crouched through a stream or culvert than be seen.
-
Absolute nonsense.
10 seconds and he could have been seen by a dozen cars. Better to scramble crouched through a stream or culvert than be seen.
It's a sheer drop into the stream, possibly 15 feet - I've seen it as it's my photos. It would be pointless to descend as he'd have to come back up at the raised culvert near the gate seconds later as the culvert pipe is too small and he'd need climbing gear to get back up from the stream - completely illogical and again it's a hypothetical argument. It was LM.
Also, it's a quiet B road - maybe 1 or 2 cars every minute.
-
JB is well aware of the locus and is trying to create doubt as usual. Perhaps examine the Mitchell's alibis in the same depth as the parka/bomber jacket palaver. As you say, LM had both and even could have worn one under the other. There's no doubt he was spotted at both ends of the RDP 4.55pm onwards. His only alibi was his mother. His brother didn't see him, LM didn't see his brother but his mother saw them both??
There is also a strong chance he could have gone down the Barrondale cottages lane to emerge in NAC rather than the main route in. It's all hypothetical though and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves.
Pic below of gate beyond lamp post on far side of NBR with likely exit point of path (parallel to RDP) below = the most obvious route to cross NBR. It's on a slight blind bend so it's possible he crossed thinking he was clear then got caught out looking shifty at the gate. Was it them that saw him ruffling his hair left-handed?
Hi Ken, you may be just the fellow to educate Mr Apples and myself about the available routes from the locus to Lukes house, or at least the entrance to Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
I mean, I know Luke [if guilty of course] had to cross Newbattle Road at some point to get home, but was down by the gate near to the entrance to RDP the best/only place to do this?
Couldn't Luke have continued through the trees on the RDP side of the road in the direction of the Abbey?
As I was saying to Mr Apples, Luke pointed out to the police a route from the V heading up towards the Abbey I believe, which he suggested Jodi may have taken that day. Do you know this route,Ken? Have you traveled all the possible routes from the locus to Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
What i'm asking is, why did LM choose to cross the road onto Newbattle Road so far away from the entrance to his estate, what was his plan?
And what do you mean that Luke crossed the road thinking he was in the clear then got caught? Caught in what sense?
Peter also mentions this in the opening post of this topic, that Luke was caught like a deer in headlights or some such description, what did he mean?
Flemying and Walsh didn't mention Luke crossing the road did they? So what was he 'caught' doing?
Surely the only damaging thing that Luke could be caught doing was crossing the road, yes? What else??
Is there a suggestion that he was trying to climb over the gate and get into the woods for some reason? Mr Apples keeps talking of planked clothes, which would undoubtably mean the killing was indeed planned, yet Mr Apples also suggests the killing took place in a fit of rage.
And as Faith pointed out, if Luke didn't go home and wash first then he would simply contaminate any clothing that he changed into surely?
This planking clothes and changing clothes on the way home is very far fetched, he still had to get the parka home to burn anyway and besides 'all' his clothing would end up getting contaminated as we have said!
This is why the guilt scenarios get so complicated, trying to explain every sighting of LM in various clothing!
Yet, to be honest, it is more than likely that all the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw LM in the same clothing, there simply wasn't enough time for LM to go home and change in between sightings, and if he did he certainly didnt have time to shower, so again contamination would be an issue.
Anyway, can you enlighten us with your knowledge of the locus and surrounding area, Ken, and the possible routes LM could have taken to get home from the locus?
-
Anyway, can you enlighten us with your knowledge of the locus and surrounding area, Ken, and the possible routes LM could have taken to get home from the locus?
As I said earlier scenarios are hypothetical though and don't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves. No one can prove the exact route he took but he certainly wouldn't have dropped down a steep embankment to climb back up a few seconds later. I'm satisfied it was him and that he's guilty mainly due to the Mitchell's alibi, or lack of.
-
As I said earlier scenarios are hypothetical though and don't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves. No one can prove the exact route he took but he certainly wouldn't have dropped down a steep embankment to climb back up a few seconds later. I'm satisfied it was him and that he's guilty mainly due to the Mitchell's alibi, or lack of.
Yes, we understand you're stance, Ken, and you are entitled to it, but you must know that some will always doubt LM guilt! Its just that kind of case!
-
It's a sheer drop into the stream, possibly 15 feet - I've seen it as it's my photos. It would be pointless to descend as he'd have to come back up at the raised culvert near the gate seconds later as the culvert pipe is too small and he'd need climbing gear to get back up from the stream - completely illogical and again it's a hypothetical argument. It was LM.
Also, it's a quiet B road - maybe 1 or 2 cars every minute.
I’d be interested to see the photos.
-
As I said earlier scenarios are hypothetical though and don't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves. No one can prove the exact route he took but he certainly wouldn't have dropped down a steep embankment to climb back up a few seconds later. I'm satisfied it was him and that he's guilty mainly due to the Mitchell's alibi, or lack of.
You are absolutely right, we can’t prove or disprove anything but what we do know that even if the gate was the only means of entry to the foliage beyond no killer would stand at the gate giving any passer-by the opportunity to identify him. That would be suicide.
Luke’s alibi is his mother and his brother. His brother forgot when giving his first interview that he had gone to a friend’s house to fix his car. What makes you disbelieve that he wasn’t also able to forget who was in the house that evening?
Corrine lied about her son’s age at the tattooists. Judith lied about her son to his mental health care team. Does that mean that we can’t believe either’s evidence?
-
JB is well aware of the locus and is trying to create doubt as usual. Perhaps examine the Mitchell's alibis in the same depth as the parka/bomber jacket palaver. As you say, LM had both and even could have worn one under the other. There's no doubt he was spotted at both ends of the RDP 4.55pm onwards. His only alibi was his mother. His brother didn't see him, LM didn't see his brother but his mother saw them both??
There is also a strong chance he could have gone down the Barrondale cottages lane to emerge in NAC rather than the main route in. It's all hypothetical though and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Most killers exact movements will be unknown to all but themselves.
Pic below of gate beyond lamp post on far side of NBR with likely exit point of path (parallel to RDP) below = the most obvious route to cross NBR. It's on a slight blind bend so it's possible he crossed thinking he was clear then got caught out looking shifty at the gate. Was it them that saw him ruffling his hair left-handed?
Thanks for the pics, KM. I don't think he emerged down that path (the one with that yellow gate at the end). I think he kept more to his right as he left the locus (travelling in a northwesterly direction) and emerged down a quite steep embankment, almost exactly opposite that steel gate with the six bars he was spotted at by F&W (I think it was a wooden gate at the time). Is that a possible route , KM? I don't know the terrain at all, but I take it you do and live nearby? Also, behind that steel gate with the six bars ... it seems that it is not possible to walk in a westerly direction (or behind it) as it's really steep & overgrown with a big stone wall behind it? I can't make out the terrain behind it on Google maps. Also, in your other pic (the one at the steel gate, looking south towards RDP) it seems the terrain has changed at the left hand side where the rdp is? Of course, my eyes may ve failing me here.
-
You are absolutely right, we can’t prove or disprove anything but what we do know that even if the gate was the only means of entry to the foliage beyond no killer would stand at the gate giving any passer-by the opportunity to identify him. That would be suicide.
Luke’s alibi is his mother and his brother. His brother forgot when giving his first interview that he had gone to a friend’s house to fix his car. What makes you disbelieve that he wasn’t also able to forget who was in the house that evening?
Corrine lied about her son’s age at the tattooists. Judith lied about her son to his mental health care team. Does that mean that we can’t believe either’s evidence?
says the woman who believes a father would carry his dead daughter’s uncovered corpse through a holiday resort at the same time his wife raised the alarm that she was missing. Incredible lack of consistency there!
-
Thank you for the photo. I posted similar myself some time ago. You can see from the first photo that the murderer, if he was trying to conceal himself, need only cross straight across the road, slide between the wall and the fence and he would have been hidden amongst the foliage. There was no need for him to walk to the gate. In fact he would have known that by doing so he significantly increased the risk of being seen. Not only that but standing at the gate looking suspicious’. Only an absolute numpty would believe that this is how a murderer, only minutes after killing his victim, would act.
Your discourse is farcical at the best of times, but this takes the cake! @)(++(*
LM may have been an intelligent boy, able to think on his feet, but he wasn't some child criminal mastermind. How would a fledgling killer, a fourteen-year-old boy at that, act?
-
Thanks for the pics, KM. I don't think he emerged down that path (the one with that yellow gate at the end). I think he kept more to his right as he left the locus (travelling in a northwesterly direction) and emerged down a quite steep embankment, almost exactly opposite that steel gate with the six bars he was spotted at by F&W (I think it was a wooden gate at the time). Is that a possible route , KM? I don't know the terrain at all, but I take it you do and live nearby? Also, behind that steel gate with the six bars ... it seems that it is not possible to walk in a westerly direction (or behind it) as it's really steep & overgrown with a big stone wall behind it? I can't make out the terrain behind it on Google maps. Also, in your other pic (the one at the steel gate, looking south towards RDP) it seems the terrain has changed at the left hand side where the rdp is? Of course, my eyes may ve failing me here.
Yes, it used to be wooden gate and yes it would be possible to descend further down to the right and directly opposite the gate, although it's quite a steep terrace. Unlikely he ascended behind the gate, it's very steep and overgrown and at the top are lots of walking trails for dog walkers so unlikely he'd go there. I don't think the NB end of RDP has changed much as far as I can recall.
Yes I know the area well which is why it's peculiar to hear people say he couldn't have done it in such a short time frame. It's a very small area, 7 mins from LM's to RDP, then 10-11 mins to EH end of RDP. Even less for a young lad.
-
Luke’s alibi is his mother and his brother. His brother forgot when giving his first interview that he had gone to a friend’s house to fix his car. What makes you disbelieve that he wasn’t also able to forget who was in the house that evening.
Not that old chestnut again! *Sighs*
You know fine well that it was impossible for two people to have been in that two-storey detached house at the same time and not be able to hear or see each other, especially if one of them was making dinner. I'll remind you of SM's exact words verbatim in his testimony that unequivocally proved his younger brother wasn't in the house making dinner between 1650-1715: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." And remember, this was said after he'd changed his statement three times previously, and one of his statements was, as he admitted to police, coached by his mother Corinne (ie, that he had seen LM in the kitchen mashing tatties, spoke to him, and saying LM seemed happy). The alibi, as has been proven on here and elsewhere many times previously, was a complete mess. A joke. It was dismantled by ADT in court with ease, inviting the jury to arrive at the same conclusion: the alibi was concocted and LM wasn't at home between 1650-1715.
-
Your discourse is farcical at the best of times, but this takes the cake! @)(++(*
LM may have been an intelligent boy, able to think on his feet, but he wasn't some child criminal mastermind. How would a fledgling killer, a fourteen-year-old boy at that, act?
I don’t think I saw your answer to my post regarding Grant Elliot and the time of his arrival home. Did you post one?
-
Not that old chestnut again! *Sighs*
You know fine well that it was impossible for two people to have been in that two-storey detached house at the same time and not be able to hear or see each other, especially if one of them was making dinner. I'll remind you of SM's exact words verbatim in his testimony that unequivocally proved his younger brother wasn't in the house making dinner between 1650-1715: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." And remember, this was said after he'd changed his statement three times previously, and one of his statements was, as he admitted to police, coached by his mother Corinne (ie, that he had seen LM in the kitchen mashing tatties, spoke to him, and saying LM seemed happy). The alibi, as has been proven on here and elsewhere many times previously, was a complete mess. A joke. It was dismantled by ADT in court with ease, inviting the jury to arrive at the same conclusion: the alibi was concocted and LM wasn't at home between 1650-1715.
You say coached, Shane said reminded.
Why do you accept that Shane was unable to remember one thing and not another?
Shane said ‘he could have been there’ meaning he believed that it would be possible, even in that two storey house.
It appears that you believe the parts of Shane’s testimony that suits.
-
Yes, it used to be wooden gate and yes it would be possible to descend further down to the right and directly opposite the gate, although it's quite a steep terrace. Unlikely he ascended behind the gate, it's very steep and overgrown and at the top are lots of walking trails for dog walkers so unlikely he'd go there. I don't think the NB end of RDP has changed much as far as I can recall.
Yes I know the area well which is why it's peculiar to hear people say he couldn't have done it in such a short time frame. It's a very small area, 7 mins from LM's to RDP, then 10-11 mins to EH end of RDP. Even less for a young lad.
Can I ask you one question, Ken ? and this applies to Mr Apples too!
What route do you think LM took to get to the Easthouses end of RDP when he was 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson?
-
You say coached, Shane said reminded.
Why do you accept that Shane was unable to remember one thing and not another?
Shane said ‘he could have been there’ meaning he believed that it would be possible, even in that two storey house.
It appears that you believe the parts of Shane’s testimony that suits.
The 'he could've been there" part was, let's face it, an afterthought. It was incidental and was only said to soften the blow of SM landing his brother in really deep sh%# by destroying the alibi and saying he truthfully couldn't remember seeing Luke in the house at those crucial times. SM's memory loss and amnesia couldn't have been that bad as he was employed full time as a car mechanic - a reasonably responsible job. SM just had to say his brother was there and he didn't. He could've prevented his own brother going to jail for murder. He didn't. It's very telling and damning. "He could've been there" is a cop-out, much like he and Corinne's many "I can't remember" and "I don't know" answers. Deliberately ambiguous. It was obvious they were lying and they were sussed out overwhelmingly.
-
The 'he could've been there" part was, let's face it, an afterthought. It was incidental and was only said to soften the blow of SM landing his brother in really deep sh%# by destroying the alibi and saying he truthfully couldn't remember seeing Luke in the house at those crucial times. SM's memory loss and amnesia couldn't have been that bad as he was employed full time as a car mechanic - a reasonably responsible job. SM just had to say his brother was there and he didn't. He could've prevented his own brother going to jail for murder. He didn't. It's very telling and damning. "He could've been there" is a cop-out, much like he and Corinne's many "I can't remember" and "I don't know" answers. Deliberately ambiguous. It was obvious they were lying and they were sussed out overwhelmingly.
So Shane was a liar but quite conveniently wasn’t lying when he said that he didn’t remember Luke being in the house.
As to don’t know and can’t remember answers have you read Steven Kelly’s testimony? Is he a liar too?
-
Can I ask you one question, Ken ? and this applies to Mr Apples too!
What route do you think LM took to get to the Easthouses end of RDP when he was 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson?
Who knows. It has been suggested that he cycled over, as a yellow bike similar to LM's was seen chained up by JOHFER at a railings at the back of Newbattle high school. I believe in one of the transcripts already uploaded that a person has said that they saw LM on his bike at some park in the early evening of June 30th, but I can't remember which transcript. I don't think it matters how he got there or what route he'd taken; he was spotted by an independent witnesses at 1655 at the EH end of RDP who said that she was as sure as she could be that it was was LM she saw when presented with the police's book of photographs and when she saw his photo in a newspaper (she even said of the latter that she was taken aback by just how much the photo in the newspaper resembled the boy she saw that day with the girl who matched Jodi's description).
-
So Shane was a liar but quite conveniently wasn’t lying when he said that he didn’t remember Luke being in the house. As to don’t know and can’t remember answers have you read Steven Kelly’s testimony? Is he a liar too?
Of course he wasn't lying. If he'd have seen his brother, surely he would have said so. It would've saved his brother from going to prison. As I said, it would have been impossible for him not to have seen or heard his own brother cooking dinner at that time; no amount of memory loss, especially in a 21-year-old full time car mechanic, could explain him not seeing or hearing LM that day. Once he saw the pics of poor Jodi, he did the right thing and told the truth -- his human side coming to the fore. All this nonsense about the police bullying SM, him being intimidated by his dropped charge of perverting the course of justice or fearful of perjury would make him say he didn't see his brother when he actually did is ridiculous; it was his own flesh and blood possibly going to prison forever - if he really did see him surely his conscience would be clear regardless of what happened to him, LM or CM, and that he would be shouting it from the rooftops from the beginning of the investigation til the trial that he DID SEE his brother in the house at those times. It was crucial evidence. Why would he withhold it if his conscience was clear and he genuinely saw LM at those times? It was extremely telling that he didn't. All he had to say was he was there, but he didn't, and a big song and dance was made about LM's whereabouts. He said he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother simply because LM wasn't there. "Could've been there" was a cop-out, merely thrown in because he didn't want to fully drop LM in it.
S Kelly had a solid alibi in his own father. Besides, do you think Janine would cover for a mere teenage romance, over her own sister - someone she got on well with and let borrow her clothes?
-
Of course he wasn't lying. If he'd have seen his brother, surely he would have said so. It would've saved his brother from going to prison. As I said, it would have been impossible for him not to have seen or heard his own brother cooking dinner at that time; no amount of memory loss, especially in a 21-year-old full time car mechanic, could explain him not seeing or hearing LM that day. Once he saw the pics of poor Jodi, he did the right thing and told the truth -- his human side coming to the fore. All this nonsense about the police bullying SM, him being intimidated by his dropped charge of perverting the course of justice or fearful of perjury would make him say he didn't see his brother when he actually did is ridiculous; it was his own flesh and blood possibly going to prison forever - if he really did see him surely his conscience would be clear regardless of what happened to him, LM or CM, and that he would be shouting it from the rooftops from the beginning of the investigation til the trial that he DID SEE his brother in the house at those times. It was crucial evidence. Why would he withhold it if his conscience was clear and he genuinely saw LM at those times? It was extremely telling that he didn't. All he had to say was he was there, but he didn't, and a big song and dance was made about LM's whereabouts. He said he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother simply because LM wasn't there. "Could've been there" was a cop-out, merely thrown in because he didn't want to fully drop LM in it.
S Kelly had a solid alibi in his own father. Besides, do you think Janine would cover for a mere teenage romance, over her own sister - someone she got on well with and let borrow her clothes?
What you are conveniently forgetting is that Shane couldn’t remember many, many things, not only whether his brother was home that night and yes, looking at it in isolation, it may appear that Shane didn’t see his brother that night but looking at other factors the picture is not quite as clear as you suggest. Further it might not frighten you being threatened with several years in prison by I’m sure it would to any right minded person, myself included.
Of course if you are suggesting that his forgetfulness is an affectation then you are suggesting that he is a liar.
For the sake of doubt I’m not accusing Kelly of anything, although it is interesting how quickly you jump to his defence. You suggested that Shane’s forgetfulness suggested guilt. I’m merely pointing out the Kelly was just as forgetful in the witness stand.
-
Can I ask you one question, Ken ? and this applies to Mr Apples too!
What route do you think LM took to get to the Easthouses end of RDP when he was 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson?
Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.
As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.
Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.
-
Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.
As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.
Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.
And Andrew Malkinson’s sister thought her brother guilty. Your point?
-
And Andrew Malkinson’s sister thought her brother guilty. Your point?
My point was scenarios Vs facts by JB but you jump in desperate to make a point, like claiming "absolute nonsense" about something when you clearly knew nothing about the terrain near the gate.
I don't know anything about AM. Many thousands of family members still visit their convicted relatives even though they think they're guilty. SM doesn't visit.
-
Why do you ask? Your usual response is "Aah, but that couldn't possibly have happened". I stated earlier that hypothetical scenarios aren't that interesting as they can never be proved.
As far as "allegedly" being seen by AB, we have to accept it was accepted in court that it was LM just like the other sightings. You can't just make up allegations that were unchallenged in court.
Allegedly: Shane doesn't support his brother.
Fact: Shane never positively admitted he saw LM in court and has never spoken publicly in support of his brother.
Oh just a few things going on in my mind, Ken, regarding the sightings and such!
But! As you rightly say, Shanes evidence is what sways most towards guilt, not the witness sightings!
Although for me, Lukes actions from 5.40 onwards point to innocence. A guilt scenario from that time onwards makes little sense.
-
My point was scenarios Vs facts by JB but you jump in desperate to make a point, like claiming "absolute nonsense" about something when you clearly knew nothing about the terrain near the gate.
I don't know anything about AM. Many thousands of family members still visit their convicted relatives even though they think they're guilty. SM doesn't visit.
There are no ‘facts’ in a circumstantial case, just interpretation fed by bias.
No need to know anything about the terrain to know that an individual who wants to get out of sight as soon as possible wouldn’t stand at a gate by a road for every passer-by to see. If you truly believe that they would well I really can’t help you.
And many thousands of relatives don’t visit their convicted relatives even if they are innocent. Does Shane know that you’re stalking him and posting private conversations on line? I’m under the impression that Shane keeps a low profile in order to avoid people just like you.
-
There are no ‘facts’ in a circumstantial case, just interpretation fed by bias.
No need to know anything about the terrain to know that an individual who wants to get out of sight as soon as possible wouldn’t stand at a gate by a road for every passer-by to see. If you truly believe that they would well I really can’t help you.
And many thousands of relatives don’t visit their convicted relatives even if they are innocent. Does Shane know that you’re stalking him and posting private conversations on line? I’m under the impression that Shane keeps a low profile in order to avoid people just like you.
There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?
You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.
There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.
-
There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?
You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.
There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.
I dont get it, Ken! What was Luke hoping to achieve getting into the woods unseen when he crossed the road beside the gate? What next?
I mean, what was his next move?
-
There are many circumstantial cases, the Suzanne Pilley murder was, no DNA, not even a body. Was that fed by bias?
You stated LM would have gone between the wall/fence and down a steep embankment you never knew existed only to pop up less than 10 secs later. Even if he appeared directly opposite there would be no way to get out of sight if a car appeared over the blind summit or blind bend. You don't know what you're talking about.
There are many people that have been stalked or publicly humiliated in this case - SM isn't one of them.
There are many circumstantial cases and many convictions resulting from them. That’s why we have a Not Proven verdict in Scotland.
If Luke was trying to hide his identity something as simple as putting the hood up of the parka would have helped hide both his hair and his face. He didn’t do that. I wonder why? Further Luke wasn’t even ‘trying to get out of sight’. He was leaning on the gate as if he had all the time in the world. Surely taking off the parka and carrying on walking up the road would have drawn less attention to him…if he was the killer. Why stop?
According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.
-
According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.
You don't know SM. It's not as those he's been accused of murder like at least 3 innocent people by SL & SF. Many others implicated without reason and pursued by a baying mob of idiots too stupid to think for themselves, all the while SL asks for money to further her "work" in shaming the victim's family. You couldn't make it up eh?
You and people like you have no respect for privacy constantly mentioning the J family when they were powerless to stop LM's actions in murdering their daughter.
-
There are many circumstantial cases and many convictions resulting from them. That’s why we have a Not Proven verdict in Scotland.
If Luke was trying to hide his identity something as simple as putting the hood up of the parka would have helped hide both his hair and his face. He didn’t do that. I wonder why? Further Luke wasn’t even ‘trying to get out of sight’. He was leaning on the gate as if he had all the time in the world. Surely taking off the parka and carrying on walking up the road would have drawn less attention to him…if he was the killer. Why stop?
According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.
once again your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Who was it who published private correspondence between herself and the Find Madeleine admin all over the intended in an attempt to make out she was a liar and to cast aspersions on the innocent mother of a missing child?
-
There are many circumstantial cases and many convictions resulting from them. That’s why we have a Not Proven verdict in Scotland.
If Luke was trying to hide his identity something as simple as putting the hood up of the parka would have helped hide both his hair and his face. He didn’t do that. I wonder why? Further Luke wasn’t even ‘trying to get out of sight’. He was leaning on the gate as if he had all the time in the world. Surely taking off the parka and carrying on walking up the road would have drawn less attention to him…if he was the killer. Why stop?
According to you Shane made derogatory comments about his brother to you in a private conversation. From his past behaviour to have that made public is I’m sure the last thing he would have wanted. I feel sorry for Shane. He obviously doesn’t want to be the subject of public interest and yet you and people like you have got no respect for his privacy.
Yes, put the hood up or take the parka off alltogether, the same thoughts have crossed my mind, Faith!
Gee whiz, its common sense surely.
But as you say, he didn't try to hide his face nor the parka.
-
Gee whiz, its common sense surely.
Where's the common sense in taking a knife to meet your girlfriend and killing her?
-
Where's the common sense in taking a knife to meet your girlfriend and killing her?
Exactly. You only have to look at the killing of Brianna Ghey to see an example of two young teenagers not really thinking through the consequences of their actions. To claim that all murderers would or wouldn’t do something is utterly absurd.
-
Where's the common sense in taking a knife to meet your girlfriend and killing her?
But Luke Mitchells actions on Newbattle Rd simply dont speak of guilt, Ken!
As Faith said, a boy in no panic to do anything other than stand there waiting for Jodi.
-
But Luke Mitchells actions on Newbattle Rd simply dont speak of guilt, Ken!
As Faith said, a boy in no panic to do anything other than stand there waiting for Jodi.
He was witnessed in a place he claimed not to be in. Whether he was standing by a gate or doing cartwheels is irrelevant - he claimed not to be there.
Why didn't he either phone her again or walk up the RDP to save waiting for an hour - the same impatient boy who chased up DH twice in half an hour. Don't be daft.
-
You don't know SM. It's not as those he's been accused of murder like at least 3 innocent people by SL & SF. Many others implicated without reason and pursued by a baying mob of idiots too stupid to think for themselves, all the while SL asks for money to further her "work" in shaming the victim's family. You couldn't make it up eh?
You and people like you have no respect for privacy constantly mentioning the J family when they were powerless to stop LM's actions in murdering their daughter.
Of course I don’t know Shane Mitchell. I don’t think that you do either.
-
He was witnessed in a place he claimed not to be in. Whether he was standing by a gate or doing cartwheels is irrelevant - he claimed not to be there.
Why didn't he either phone her again or walk up the RDP to save waiting for an hour - the same impatient boy who chased up DH twice in half an hour. Don't be daft.
Luke couldn't walk up the path incase Jodi took another route to get to Newbattle, Ken!
Luke showed the police a shortcut which he believed Jodi may take remember, and Scott Forbes pointed out another shortcut heading towards the Abbey I believe.
-
Luke couldn't walk up the path incase Jodi took another route to get to Newbattle, Ken!
Luke showed the police a shortcut which he believed Jodi may take remember, and Scott Forbes pointed out another shortcut heading towards the Abbey I believe.
The fact you mentioned a complete idiot like Forbes is pretty desperate. She never ventured down the RDP as they were witnessed at EH end. No one in their right mind would attempt a different route, nevermind a teenage girl.
-
Of course I don’t know Shane Mitchell. I don’t think that you do either.
Never claimed to know him, only been his company a few times a few years ago. You'll know best though.
-
He was witnessed in a place he claimed not to be in. Whether he was standing by a gate or doing cartwheels is irrelevant - he claimed not to be there.
Why didn't he either phone her again or walk up the RDP to save waiting for an hour - the same impatient boy who chased up DH twice in half an hour. Don't be daft.
He was allegedly seen waiting across from the lane where his girlfriend would have exited from RDP. Why not just admit that he’d been waiting there? After all it would certainly have been one of the places that it wouldn’t be suspicious for him to be waiting and he knew that he’d been seen.
Why didn’t he phone Jodi again? You are aware that she didn’t have a phone, aren’t you? Further he already knew that she wasn’t at her house so what was the point of calling there? Of course he could also have been wary of annoying Jodi’s mum or her boyfriend by ringing again when they had already told him that she’d left.
Ovens went into the kitchen and told Judith that her daughter still hadn’t met Luke some 50 minutes after she had left even though she only had to walk a short distance. Why didn’t she ring Luke back?
-
Never claimed to know him, only been his company a few times a few years ago. You'll know best though.
Don’t be dishonest if you don’t have a good memory.
-
The fact you mentioned a complete idiot like Forbes is pretty desperate. She never ventured down the RDP as they were witnessed at EH end. No one in their right mind would attempt a different route, nevermind a teenage girl.
How's your community garden coming on? Will you be the treasurer Sandra?
Bryson’s evidence has been well and truly debunked. Remember Findlay commenting that she’d mentioned a ‘waist length jacket’ in her statements several times? That’s not a parka, is it?
-
Why didn’t he phone Jodi again? You are aware that she didn’t have a phone, aren’t you? Further he already knew that she wasn’t at her house so what was the point of calling there? Of course he could also have been wary of annoying Jodi’s mum or her boyfriend by ringing again when they had already told him that she’d left.
Because he'd already killed her and was trying to create an alibi, but as always, if in doubt blame the family. It's getting a bit "why did the murderer cross the road?" and the replies more outlandish every time. I think yourself and JB Lean should get together and write a book. "Our Struggle (in defending a teenage killer)".
-
He was allegedly seen waiting across from the lane where his girlfriend would have exited from RDP. Why not just admit that he’d been waiting there? After all it would certainly have been one of the places that it wouldn’t be suspicious for him to be waiting and he knew that he’d been seen.
Why didn’t he phone Jodi again? You are aware that she didn’t have a phone, aren’t you? Further he already knew that she wasn’t at her house so what was the point of calling there? Of course he could also have been wary of annoying Jodi’s mum or her boyfriend by ringing again when they had already told him that she’d left.
Ovens went into the kitchen and told Judith that her daughter still hadn’t met Luke some 50 minutes after she had left even though she only had to walk a short distance. Why didn’t she ring Luke back?
Good post. Faith!
That all makes perfect sense to me.
-
Don’t be dishonest if you don’t have a good memory.
Care to expand? My memory is fine. You come across as bitter and twisted to anyone that doesn't agree with you and try and put down various posters as inferior to you.
Madam Superior or Millie Tant?
-
Care to expand? My memory is fine. You come across as bitter and twisted to anyone that doesn't agree with you and try and put down various posters as inferior to you.
Madam Superior or Millie Tant?
I point out stupidity when I read it. Some don’t like that.
In Bryson’s first statement she describes the youth she saw as
He was male, white, early twenties….Luke was almost 15…
Average build height, not tall
or short, medium build….average for a 20-something?
Sandy brown hair, sticking up on top and very thick…..Luke’s hair was blonde and straight and kicked out at the bottom. It is fine not thick.
And wearing a green fishing style jacket with lots of pockets, high collar, waist length, olive green
like outdoor clothing and the trousers appeared to be the same colour". Yeah ?
Uh-huh…so not a parka.
Could she have got Luke’s description more wrong?
-
Because he'd already killed her and was trying to create an alibi, but as always, if in doubt blame the family. It's getting a bit "why did the murderer cross the road?" and the replies more outlandish every time. I think yourself and JB Lean should get together and write a book. "Our Struggle (in defending a teenage killer)".
He was allegedly trying to create an alibi by standing on the Newbattle Road waiting for her. If he knew that he had been seen what better way to explain it than by saying that he was waiting across the road from the path that he knew that she’d use? There’s nothing outlandish about that.
What did I blame the family for?
-
I point out stupidity when I read it. Some don’t like that.
If only your convictions were shared by the legal professions instead of online conspiracy theorists. 20+ years and no one has lodged an appeal with new evidence. A fraudulent campaign from SL & SF and his new girlfriend threatening to burn or mow people down, plus your own pleas suggests his freedom is not imminent.
-
If only your convictions were shared by the legal professions instead of online conspiracy theorists. 20+ years and no one has lodged an appeal with new evidence. A fraudulent campaign from SL & SF and his new girlfriend threatening to burn or mow people down, plus your own pleas suggests his freedom is not imminent.
I’ve seen sentences being quashed after 25, 30 even forty years. Your point?
Further several legal experts have publicly voiced doubts about Luke’s conviction. It really is a sign of hubris that you assume that you know more than them.
-
I’ve seen sentences being quashed after 25, 30 even forty years. Your point?
Further several legal experts have publicly voiced doubts about Luke’s conviction. It really is a sign of hubris that you assume that you know more than them.
I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.
Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?
-
I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.
Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?
Indeed. More so when none had access to near enough of anything when giving their judgement. Much of what has been said by the handful of experts quashed by one of many names. Nasen Saadi. No forensic evidence left and none found, clothing he had been wearing disposed of along with the knife. Forensically aware in much the same way as Mitchell imo. But they know all this anyway, where their impossible becomes possible if a receipt for the jacket was produced. Amazing logic.
-
I might have some concern if those legal experts had done anything more than offered a soundbite. Wilson himself refuted the LM not guilty claim the year before he stated otherwise and has yet to make a TV programme about the case. If any of the other legal experts felt strongly enough about it they would have done something by now.
Claiming someone's sentence is quashed after 25+ years does not mean that will happen to LM. What are the MOJ statistics in Scotland?
I deliberately did not mention Wilson because we only have press reports of his recantation. I’m grappling with your logic though that you have to make a television programme about a case to prove that you believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. A bizarre prerequisite.
John Scott KC, a lawyer for 30, has twice appeared in documentaries regarding Luke’s case. Do you honestly think that he would put his professional reputation on the line in that way if he didn’t truly believe that Luke was innocent? What would it gain him? If you really believe that Scott’s intervention in this case was simply to hear himself talk than I really can’t help you.
Of course just because someone’s conviction was quashed after 25+ years does not mean Luke’s will be but it does rather debunk the myth you were peddling that the longer you spend in prison without parole the less likely it is that you are innocent. That’s errant nonsense.
-
See attached screenshot from Val (LM fan) to DW less than 12 months before he changed his mind, coincidentally on the eve of his book tour. Whatever Scott or Wilson claim is irrelevant - they are not actively involved, in fact no one is.
Your word salads come across as desperately trying to defend your initial stance which was informed by Lean. I think at one point you defended the village idiot Forbes as credible. Both have been exposed as con artists which was clear to see years ago. SL was duped by the Mitchell's and you followed suit. SL & CM, the most untrustworthy people in the whole of Dalkeith, yet you believed them.
-
Indeed. More so when none had access to near enough of anything when giving their judgement. Much of what has been said by the handful of experts quashed by one of many names. Nasen Saadi. No forensic evidence left and none found, clothing he had been wearing disposed of along with the knife. Forensically aware in much the same way as Mitchell imo. But they know all this anyway, where their impossible becomes possible if a receipt for the jacket was produced. Amazing logic.
Again you have absolutely no idea what Scott, Jamieson etc had access to before stating their opinion.
There may not have been forensic evidence in the Nasen Saadi case but there was a live witness who had also been attacked, another witness who Saadi had walked past just after the killing and extensive CCTV footage that showed the killing happening. Saadi’s internet search history was also investigated and revealed his perverse determination to carry out a murder. He had also made several purchases of knives online, and officers found knives, latex gloves and a balaclava at his home in Purley.
Saadi left a trail of evidence that made a conviction almost certain. Compare that to the threadbare circumstantial case offered up to the jury by Turnbull et al. There is no comparison.
-
Compare that to the threadbare circumstantial case offered up to the jury by Turnbull et al. There is no comparison.
At the time LM was the longest trial in Scottish history. Turnbull exposed LM and his mum for the liars they were. LM wasn't where he claimed to be and was witnessed 5+ times despite no receipts or photographs of the clothing he was wearing that night. He's languishing in HMP Shotts with a bedraggled campaign of an ex-gf and local fishwives his only hope of freedom.
-
See attached screenshot from Val (LM fan) to DW less than 12 months before he changed his mind, coincidentally on the eve of his book tour. Whatever Scott or Wilson claim is irrelevant - they are not actively involved, in fact no one is.
Your word salads come across as desperately trying to defend your initial stance which was informed by Lean. I think at one point you defended the village idiot Forbes as credible. Both have been exposed as con artists which was clear to see years ago. SL was duped by the Mitchell's and you followed suit. SL & CM, the most untrustworthy people in the whole of Dalkeith, yet you believed them.
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make by dragging Wilson into this.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are never allowed to change your mind even when the circumstances dictate it. Isn’t that what adults do? I believed in Luke’s innocence long before I had even heard of Dr Lean and no doubt I’ll believe in it long after she has left the campaign.
-
At the time LM was the longest trial in Scottish history. Turnbull exposed LM and his mum for the liars they were. LM wasn't where he claimed to be and was witnessed 5+ times despite no receipts or photographs of the clothing he was wearing that night. He's languishing in HMP Shotts with a bedraggled campaign of an ex-gf and local fishwives his only hope of freedom.
It was the longest trial precisely because it was so threadbare. If there had been compelling evidence of Luke’s guilt Turnbull wouldn’t have needed so many woeful witnesses.
-
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make by dragging Wilson into this.
You seem to be of the opinion that you are never allowed to change your mind even when the circumstances dictate it. Isn’t that what adults do? I believed in Luke’s innocence long before I had even heard of Dr Lean and no doubt I’ll believe in it long after she has left the campaign.
Fair point - we are all allowed to change our mind. The fact is you used Lean's book/etc to support your arguments. When you still refer to a disgraced mature student as "Dr" suggests you are reluctant to admit you've fallen for a complete con/fraud. The person you call a "Dr" has never been employed in legal or criminology matters. Her book was fictitious, non-referenced lies mostly sourced from the killer himself - yet you quoted it for years.
-
It was the longest trial precisely because it was so threadbare. If there had been compelling evidence of Luke’s guilt Turnbull wouldn’t have needed so many woeful witnesses.
Between 80-100 witnesses. Which ones were untruthful?
-
Fair point - we are all allowed to change our mind. The fact is you used Lean's book/etc to support your arguments. When you still refer to a disgraced mature student as "Dr" suggests you are reluctant to admit you've fallen for a complete con/fraud. The person you call a "Dr" has never been employed in legal or criminology matters. Her book was fictitious, non-referenced lies mostly sourced from the killer himself - yet you quoted it for years.
I call Dr Lean doctor because she has earned the right to that title through her academic achievements. I’m sorry if you don’t like, or apparently, understand that but that’s the truth.
Much of Dr Lean’s book was latterly proven to be correct when the transcripts were published. Certain claims that she has made are indeed problematic but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bath water.
-
Between 80-100 witnesses. Which ones were untruthful?
I didn’t say that any were untruthful, just woeful.
-
Certain claims that she has made are indeed problematic but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bath water.
Problematic is one way of putting it, dishonest and deliberately misleading is another. I'm not sure how anyone can take Lean or "IB" seriously when so many lies have been exposed. Why not tell the truth if she had ALL the transcripts as she claimed on YT. (another lie). There's about 15 deliberate lies in her book (see below). One or two might be possible, but not 15+.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
Problematic is one way of putting it, dishonest and deliberately misleading is another. I'm not sure how anyone can take Lean or "IB" seriously when so many lies have been exposed. Why not tell the truth if she had ALL the transcripts as she claimed on YT. (another lie). There's about 15 deliberate lies in her book (see below). One or two might be possible, but not 15+.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
Yet there is much in the book that is verified in the transcripts. Shall we talk about those?
-
Yet there is much in the book that is verified in the transcripts. Shall we talk about those?
Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?
If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.
ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!
-
Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?
If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.
ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!
You have posted the link where there is a discussion about the lies. What more would you like to discuss?
I’d advise anyone who has read the book to read the transcripts and find for themselves the congruity between the two.
I’m not interested in the various relationships within the case or who’s fallen out with who. That does not change the facts and the facts are all that concern me, not personalities.
It is telling though that rather than challenge my belief that Luke is innocent, the transcripts have done the opposite and hardened my conviction. They have shown several witnesses to be if not deliberately dishonest then certainly evasive. An excellent example of this was Findlay’s masterful taking apart of the testimony of Fleming and Walsh. He left them with not a shred of credibility.
-
Once we've talked about the 15+ blatant lies then we can move onto the other points?
If I realised a book contained say 5 lies I'd put it aside, yet you continue to try and cling onto a self-published book by someone who the main protagonist (LM) has rejected. It's been a con all along.
ps: JBlogs aka S Lean monitoring this forum as we speak but not responding? Come out Sandra - the truth will set you free!!!!
No Sandras here Ken! Only Josephs!
Yes i'm monitoring, but cant really add anything, best leaving Faith to deal with you, her replies to you are far superior to anything I can offer!
-
You have posted the link where there is a discussion about them. What more would you like to discuss?
An excellent example of this was Findlay’s masterful taking apart of the testimony of Fleming and Walsh. He left them with not a shred of credibility.
If that was the case re: DF being so masterful why did the jury not acquit? The only people who believe this weren't in court - particularly Lean who wrote a book about a case based on testimony from the killer and his mother.
-
No Sandras here Ken! Only Josephs!
Yes i'm monitoring, but cant really add anything, best leaving Faith to deal with you, her replies to you are far superior to anything I can offer!
Why are you so invested then? Every day you seem to be here or elsewhere. Any word on the latest parole hearing?
-
Why are you so invested then? Every day you seem to be here or elsewhere. Any word on the latest parole hearing?
If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?
-
If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?
Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...
-
Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...
I'll start Ken, Dr Lean was quite correct about the Manson DVD being a freebie, although it came free with a music album and not a magazine.
So Dr Leans point still stands, the DVD was a free gift!
-
If you know that JB is here and elsewhere you must have been here and elsewhere too to know he’s there. Surely by your own logic that makes you just as likely to be Dr Lean as JB?
Oh Ken is most certainly elsewhere, Faith, but I would never accuse him of such and cause him any anxiety!
-
Not quite. Any time I look in here (every few days or so) JB Lean is always logged in. Now about these 15+ SL lies rather than pondering over minor issues...
Absolutely.
Now before we start our discussion I think it’s best if I make it clear that if you are looking at me to excuse claims of Dr Lean’s that have turned our to be untrue then you’re looking in the wrong place. Dishonesty moves the case forward not one jot….i think we both are in agreement about that.
Now what would you like to discuss?
-
I didn’t say that any were untruthful, just woeful.
I might use the word woeful or problematic to describe cyclist Leonard Kelly's testimony, for example. I would also like to make clear, however, that "untruthful" does not mean the same thing as lying.
-
I might use the word woeful or problematic to describe cyclist Leonard Kelly's testimony, for example. I would also like to make clear, however, that "untruthful" does not mean the same thing as lying.
Indeed. It surprises me that the police used a piece of evidence, which in itself was problematic, to build their case around.
Leonard Kelly in his first statement claimed.
“ I cannot describe the noise. It wasn’t a voice. It sounded of movement, like branches moving on a tree.”
Yet by the trial this was his recollection.
“ I thought somebody had somebody in a headlock. It was just a strangling sort of sound — a human,”
How can one of those statements be in the least congruent with the other and yet the police used this single piece of evidence to tie all the others together?
-
Now what would you like to discuss?
Why is LM regarded as a danger to women (as per his last parole review) and is his recent engagement to his 6th gf from 2003 anything to do with his current parole/MAPPA terms?
LM seemed to be progressing until the disastrous leaked phone call from Lean last year. Do you think it was sabotage so she could try and stay relevant after admitting she knew he was guilty?
-
Why is LM regarded as a danger to women (as per his last parole review) and is his recent engagement to his 6th gf from 2003 anything to do with his current parole/MAPPA terms?
LM seemed to be progressing until the disastrous leaked phone call from Lean last year. Do you think it was sabotage so she could try and stay relevant after admitting she knew he was guilty?
You’re not asking me to discuss, you’re asking me to speculate and that won’t take us one inch forward.
-
You’re not asking me to discuss, you’re asking me to speculate and that won’t take us one inch forward.
I'm not asking you to do anything. You can engage if you want, or not. The burden of proof is on the naysayers, none of whom have moved the case forward one inch in 20 years.
There are pages of discussions/speculations, but as it stands LM's campaign is being lead by an ex- gf who has recently been cautioned for death threats and his former chief advocate SL, removed for financial improprieties. The campaign is riddled with fraudsters, sex offenders, murderers, domestic abusers etc and a half-arsed quote from David Wilson.
What is it you want to discuss?
-
I'm not asking you to do anything. You can engage if you want, or not. The burden of proof is on the naysayers, none of whom have moved the case forward one inch in 20 years.
There are pages of discussions/speculations, but as it stands LM's campaign is being lead by an ex- gf who has recently been cautioned for death threats and his former chief advocate SL, removed for financial improprieties. The campaign is riddled with fraudsters, sex offenders, murderers, domestic abusers etc and a half-arsed quote from David Wilson.
What is it you want to discuss?
And none of which makes Luke guilty.
-
And none of which makes Luke guilty.
You’d have to ask yourself why it’s mainly people with such poor judgement and self-discipline who have thrown themselves behind this campaign though wouldn’t you? Or perhaps you would prefer not to..
-
And none of which makes Luke guilty.
He's already been found guilty. He's already been deemed a threat to females at parole. Maybe that's why he attracts the type of supporters that don't seem to have a problem with violence towards women.
-
He's already been found guilty. He's already been deemed a threat to females at parole. Maybe that's why he attracts the type of supporters that don't seem to have a problem with violence towards women.
Every miscarriage of justice began with a guilty verdict. Every victim of a miscarriage of justice was a convicted prisoner at one point.
I would say the majority of Luke’s supporters are women. Are you misogynistic enough to really believe that all those women condone violence towards their own sex?
-
Every miscarriage of justice began with a guilty verdict. Every victim of a miscarriage of justice was a convicted prisoner at one point.
I would say the majority of Luke’s supporters are women. Are you misogynistic enough to really believe that all those women condone violence towards their own sex?
That in itself is quite odd wouldn’t you say? Is it because some women just love a bad boy? Look at the fanmail serial killers attract, mainly from women.
-
I would say the majority of Luke’s supporters are women. Are you misogynistic enough to really believe that all those women condone violence towards their own sex?
Only you could introduce misogyny while defending a killer recently refused parole as being a danger to females. Most of LM's supporters might be women but they are only involved due to Lean & Forbes lies and nonsense. That is, they'll believe anything on facebook or channel 5 - many were scrabbling to meet him before his old girlfriend re-appeared recently.
-
Only you could introduce misogyny while defending a killer recently refused parole as being a danger to females. Most of LM's supporters might be women but they are only involved due to Lean & Forbes lies and nonsense. That is, they'll believe anything on facebook or channel 5 - many were scrabbling to meet him before his old girlfriend re-appeared recently.
Not just a killer but a killer of a female. Of course this poster has form when it comes to defending vile men in their crimes against women and girls, as well as more generalised misogyny such as referring to a well known married pair of journalists by his name only and to her as simply “the wife” in an continual attempt to belittle her achievements and views.
-
Only you could introduce misogyny while defending a killer recently refused parole as being a danger to females. Most of LM's supporters might be women but they are only involved due to Lean & Forbes lies and nonsense. That is, they'll believe anything on facebook or channel 5 - many were scrabbling to meet him before his old girlfriend re-appeared recently.
And there’s the misogyny right there. You really do damn yourself with your own words. Do you not think that women have to intellectual capacity to think for themselves? To do their own research?
-
And there’s the misogyny right there. You really do damn yourself with your own words. Do you not think that women have to intellectual capacity to think for themselves? To do their own research?
You obviously don’t based on your assessment of Summers and Swann.
-
And there’s the misogyny right there. You really do damn yourself with your own words. Do you not think that women have to intellectual capacity to think for themselves? To do their own research?
Many of the women in the LM campaign lack critical thinking skills - they believe what unqualified people tell them. Some have done their own research and left the campaign after finding out that the story they'd been fed by Lean was lies. The LM transcripts website is an excellent example of this.
Many of the male campaigners are criminals or ex-criminals, often with female related offences.
You still haven't addressed why he would be refused parole as a danger to females.
-
Many of the women in the LM campaign lack critical thinking skills - they believe what unqualified people tell them. Some have done their own research and left the campaign after finding out that the story they'd been fed by Lean was lies. The LM transcripts website is an excellent example of this.
Many of the male campaigners are criminals or ex-criminals, often with female related offences.
You still haven't addressed why he would be refused parole as a danger to females.
What do you think the transcripts have revealed that have convinced some women to leave the campaign? TBH I’ve studied every transcript so far and have found nothing to make me change my mind.
As to the parole question…without view of the psychiatric report in question any opinion would only be speculative on my part. How would that help?
-
What do you think the transcripts have revealed that have convinced some women to leave the campaign? TBH I’ve studied every transcript so far and have found nothing to make me change my mind.
As to the parole question…without view of the psychiatric report in question any opinion would only be speculative on my part. How would that help?
The transcripts revealed how much chief campaigner and ex-POA SL had distorted the facts via podcasts, protests, TV and books, when there was no need to tell so many lies if a truthful account was being presented. The transcripts website goes into this in detail. Many campaigners (both M/F) are still parroting her lies.
The parole decision deemed LM to be a sexual risk to females. It was approved under MAPPA via numerous agencies not just SPS or the psychiatric report (Orchard Clinic consultant).
Your whole approach has been speculative so why would you need to see the psych report when you presumably made a decision on LM many years ago without full disclosure?
-
The transcripts revealed how much chief campaigner and ex-POA SL had distorted the facts via podcasts, protests, TV and books, when there was no need to tell so many lies if a truthful account was being presented. The transcripts website goes into this in detail. Many campaigners (both M/F) are still parroting her lies.
The parole decision deemed LM to be a sexual risk to females. It was approved under MAPPA via numerous agencies not just SPS or the psychiatric report (Orchard Clinic consultant).
Your whole approach has been speculative so why would you need to see the psych report when you presumably made a decision on LM many years ago without full disclosure?
Yet again, if you have a problem with Dr Lean can I suggest that you take it up with her. I found nothing in the transcripts to date which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke was Jodi’s killer.
The psych report has nothing to do with Luke’s mental state at the time of Jodi’s murder and therefore has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.
-
Yet again, if you have a problem with Dr Lean can I suggest that you take it up with her. I found nothing in the transcripts to date which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke was Jodi’s killer.
The psych report has nothing to do with Luke’s mental state at the time of Jodi’s murder and therefore has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.
It was proven in court that LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was recently refused parole as a danger/sexual risk to females, regardless of guilt or innocence. He won't be able to visit you if ever released unless his named female (GC) and criminal justice parole officer is there too.
Over the years you've based many of your arguments on SL's claims which turned out to be lies. I thought she was a con-artist from day one so no need to take up anything with her - she is well aware of that. Out of interest, which transcripts prove brd that LM is not guilty?
-
It was proven in court that LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He was recently refused parole as a danger/sexual risk to females, regardless of guilt or innocence. He won't be able to visit you if ever released unless his named female (GC) and criminal justice parole officer is there too.
Over the years you've based many of your arguments on SL's claims which turned out to be lies. I thought she was a con-artist from day one so no need to take up anything with her - she is well aware of that. Out of interest, which transcripts prove brd that LM is not guilty?
Again every miscarriage of just begins with a guilty verdict in court and why on earth would Luke visit me? My interest is purely academic.
Mark Lindsay KC, the parole board's lawyer, said that the report you have mentioned played no part in the parole board's eventual decision so you really do have to wonder why not? Surely a damning report of that nature would be included when considering Luke for parole?
Luke had no need to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing I have read from any of the witness testimony presented by the prosecution has reached that threshold for me. It appears John Scott QC and Allan Jamieson agree.
-
Again every miscarriage of just begins with a guilty verdict in court and why on earth would Luke visit me? My interest is purely academic.
Mark Lindsay KC, the parole board's lawyer, said that the report you have mentioned played no part in the parole board's eventual decision so you really do have to wonder why not? Surely a damning report of that nature would be included when considering Luke for parole?
Luke had no need to prove his innocence. The prosecution had to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing I have read from any of the witness testimony presented by the prosecution has reached that threshold for me. It appears John Scott QC and Allan Jamieson agree.
He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether you, or half-arsed comments from JS QC and AJ (really?) doesn't matter. There is not the slightest chance of him being the next Guildford 4, Birm 6, Ice Cream 1, however much you mention MOJ beginning with a guilty verdict.
You previously mentioned you'd happily entertain Mitchell in your home if he was released - do you still hold that view after the parole risk warning? Your interest is emotional, not academic. No one has moved this case forward an inch in 20+ years. It's an Innocence Fraud, nothing more.
-
He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether you, or half-arsed comments from JS QC and AJ (really?) doesn't matter. There is not the slightest chance of him being the next Guildford 4, Birm 6, Ice Cream 1, however much you mention MOJ beginning with a guilty verdict.
You previously mentioned you'd happily entertain Mitchell in your home if he was released - do you still hold that view after the parole risk warning? Your interest is emotional, not academic. No one has moved this case forward an inch in 20+ years. It's an Innocence Fraud, nothing more.
Luke was found guilty be a majority verdict….of course we now know that the ‘strong majority’ claim was a lie…so perhaps 7 jurors weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the chance of this being a miscarriage of justice, individuals with much more experience of the legal system than you or I have grave concerns about this conviction. What makes you think that your uninformed opinion holds more water?
For you this case isn’t really about Luke is it? It’s actually about sticking the boot into Dr Lean. Any individual who Dr Lean had campaigned for would have been the object of the same treatment from you. I often wonder if you two have history. Did she turn you down at some point because your hatred of her is certainly personal?
-
Luke was found guilty be a majority verdict….of course we now know that the ‘strong majority’ claim was a lie…so perhaps 7 jurors weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the chance of this being a miscarriage of justice, individuals with much more experience of the legal system than you or I have grave concerns about this conviction. What makes you think that your uninformed opinion holds more water?
For you this case isn’t really about Luke is it? It’s actually about sticking the boot into Dr Lean. Any individual who Dr Lean had campaigned for would have been the object of the same treatment from you. I often wonder if you two have history. Did she turn you down at some point because your hatred of her is certainly personal?
Haven’t most of the people Sandra Lean campaigned for turned out to be guilty?
-
A
-
Haven’t most of the people Sandra Lean campaigned for turned out to be guilty?
Some even confessed.
Sorry Faith, I've never met Auld Sandra - bit of an age gap. You'll need to think of new ways to belittle me.
-
Some even confessed.
Sorry Faith, I've never met Auld Sandra - bit of an age gap. You'll need to think of new ways to belittle me.
No need Ken, you do a perfectly adequate job yourself.
-
No need Ken, you do a perfectly adequate job yourself.
I'm post-modern - I know I don't always get it right, but I knew Lean was a con artist the first time I saw/heard her. You were duped by a new age clairvoyant and actively supported her claims for years. You come across as mad Annie in Misery waiting to capture the author.
There are are only 3 court verdicts:
1) Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)
2) Not proven
3) Not guilty
There isn't a fourth option for internet conspiracy theorists 20 years later. It was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).
PS: Hi Sandra/JB.
-
I'm post-modern - I know I don't always get it right, but I knew Lean was a con artist the first time I saw/heard her. You were duped by a new age clairvoyant and actively supported her claims for years. You come across as mad Annie in Misery waiting to capture the author.
There are are only 3 court verdicts:
1) Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt)
2) Not proven
3) Not guilty
There isn't a fourth option for internet conspiracy theorists 20 years later. It was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).
But court verdicts can lead to appeals as you know Ken.
A court verdict isn't the end of the line.
-
But court verdicts can lead to appeals as you know Ken.
A court verdict isn't the end of the line.
Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.
-
Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.
The tide can turn, Ken, the tide can turn!
Goodnight, sir.
-
The tide can turn, Ken, the tide can turn!
Goodnight, sir.
T
-
Yes I know that. Why has he been refused parole as a danger to females? His new campaign manager/girlfriend cautioned for death threats? His family nowhere to be seen? He's had 3 appeals and a failed SCCRC as well you know - every attempt/appeal or review has been refused.
Have you ever looked into how many individuals who have subsequently had their convictions quashed have either been refused leave to appeal that conviction or lost their appeal?
-
Have you ever looked into how many individuals who have subsequently had their convictions quashed have either been refused leave to appeal that conviction or lost their appeal?
Yes, thats a good point, Faith, very few people have found it plain sailing overturning their convictions.
-
Yes, thats a good point, Faith, very few people have found it plain sailing overturning their convictions.
Do you have any stats that show quashed convictions in Scottish murder cases, say from the past 20 years? The only one I can think of is Joe Steele but you might know more?
The reason it's not plain sailing is because they are highly probably guilty. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in 20 years to prove LM not guilty.
-
Do you have any stats that show quashed convictions in Scottish murder cases, say from the past 20 years? The only one I can think of is Joe Steele but you might know more?
The reason it's not plain sailing is because they are highly probably guilty. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in 20 years to prove LM not guilty.
The LM case is similar to the Jeremy Bamber case, Jim, there was so little evidence to prove them guilty that it logically follows there can be little evidence to prove them innocent! What would it be based on?
There was certainly no forensic evidence linking either to the scene of their alleged crime!
-
The LM case is similar to the Jeremy Bamber case, Jim, there was so little evidence to prove them guilty that it logically follows there can be little evidence to prove them innocent! What would it be based on?
There was certainly no forensic evidence linking either to the scene of their alleged crime!
That's not what I asked, I'm asking about Scottish MOJ murder cases. What are the stats etc?
There have been many murder convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, some even without a body.
It's a bad case of cherry picking on your part while ignoring the large amount of circumstantial evidence and witness statements used in court. I'm not familiar with Bamber or wish to compare him to LM.
-
The LM case is similar to the Jeremy Bamber case, Jim, there was so little evidence to prove them guilty that it logically follows there can be little evidence to prove them innocent! What would it be based on?
There was certainly no forensic evidence linking either to the scene of their alleged crime!
Interesting. Your number one ally on this forum believes JB is definitely guilty, how can that be?
-
That's not what I asked, I'm asking about Scottish MOJ murder cases. What are the stats etc?
There have been many murder convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, some even without a body.
It's a bad case of cherry picking on your part while ignoring the large amount of circumstantial evidence and witness statements used in court. I'm not familiar with Bamber or wish to compare him to LM.
Bamber has had a submission sitting with the CCRC since 2021, Jim.
A decision is expected at any moment, it may even be in the papers if he gets a referral.
As for Scottish MOJ stats, I haven't the foggiest!
-
Interesting. Your number one ally on this forum believes JB is definitely guilty, how can that be?
Who, Faith?
-
As for Scottish MOJ stats, I haven't the foggiest!
I'm not interested in Bamber. If you haven't the foggiest about Scottish MOJ why are you commenting about it? You've stated it isn't plain sailing so I'm curious who you are referring to? (Scottish only).
-
Do you have any stats that show quashed convictions in Scottish murder cases, say from the past 20 years? The only one I can think of is Joe Steele but you might know more?
The reason it's not plain sailing is because they are highly probably guilty. There hasn't been a shred of evidence in 20 years to prove LM not guilty.
Kimberley Hainey, John Jenkins, Ineta Dzinguviene to name a few.
Proving there’s been a miscarriage of justice isn’t plain sailing because the judiciary hate to admit that the legal system is flawed.
The evidence that Luke was convicted on is enough to shed doubt on his guilt.
-
Kimberley Hainey, John Jenkins, Ineta Dzinguviene to name a few.
Proving there’s been a miscarriage of justice isn’t plain sailing because the judiciary hate to admit that the legal system is flawed.
The evidence that Luke was convicted on is enough to shed doubt on his guilt.
I'll have a look at those cases you mentioned.
I believe LM was convicted on strong circumstantial evidence so we'll have to disagree on that. His legal position remains guilty as no one has progressed his case an inch in 20+ years and he has failed his parole.
-
Kimberley Hainey, John Jenkins, Ineta Dzinguviene to name a few.
Proving there’s been a miscarriage of justice isn’t plain sailing because the judiciary hate to admit that the legal system is flawed.
The evidence that Luke was convicted on is enough to shed doubt on his guilt.
Thanks Faith, Ken wont get one over on you!
-
I'm not interested in Bamber. If you haven't the foggiest about Scottish MOJ why are you commenting about it? You've stated it isn't plain sailing so I'm curious who you are referring to? (Scottish only).
Why only Scotland? Every legal system has flaws that’s why miscarriages of justice occur all over the world. Do you honestly think that it’s easier to get a conviction overturned in Scotland than, let’s say, anywhere else in the U.K? That Scottish judges are more willing to admit that makes were made than English judges?
-
I'll have a look at those cases you mentioned.
I believe LM was convicted on strong circumstantial evidence so we'll have to disagree on that. His legal position remains guilty as no one has progressed his case an inch in 20+ years and he has failed his parole.
Luke was convicted by a majority decision which suggests that the circumstantial evidence wasn’t as strong as you suggest.
As to moving Luke’s case forward, Stephen Downing was in prison for 27 years after two appeals were turned down. The jury found him guilty by a unanimous verdict. He wasn’t even considered for parole. His conviction was unsafe.
-
Who, Faith?
Correct.
-
Luke was convicted by a majority decision which suggests that the circumstantial evidence wasn’t as strong as you suggest.
As to moving Luke’s case forward, Stephen Downing was in prison for 27 years after two appeals were turned down. The jury found him guilty by a unanimous verdict. He wasn’t even considered for parole. His conviction was unsafe.
Not a good example. After a long and extensive re-investigation following his release -
“After failing to link any other person with the murder, and unable to eliminate Downing as the suspect, the police declared the case closed and said they were not looking for anyone else.[16] Even though Downing remained the prime suspect, under the "double jeopardy" rules in place at the time a suspect could not be re-arrested and charged with a crime they had previously been acquitted of.[4] The police said that, had the law been different, they would have applied to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to again charge Downing with the murder.[4] The findings of the investigation led to public doubts over whether he should have been released.[5]”
-
Correct.
Well thats fine,Vertigo.
I'm sure I can have a civilized discussion with Faith about Bamber. He will no doubt get a mention on the forum here again when the CCRC decision is finally made.
Do you think JB is guilty?
-
Well thats fine,Vertigo.
I'm sure I can have a civilized discussion with Faith about Bamber. He will no doubt get a mention on the forum here again when the CCRC decision is finally made.
Do you think JB is guilty?
Indeed Joe. I’d be interested in your point of view. I’m not deeply invested in the case so my opinion is probably not as informed as yours.
-
Indeed Joe. I’d be interested in your point of view. I’m not deeply invested in the case so my opinion is probably not as informed as yours.
Oh i'm no expert on the case by any means, Faith, some of the members on the various websites know every detail of every statement and every book written about the case, no doubt there are some of those here.
No, after looking at the case I decided to come down on reasonable doubt due to the obvious anomalies shall we say, the silencer being found by the relatives after the police had vacated the farm house, Julie waiting a month to come forward, JB passing the lie detector, the uncertainty of the blood inside the silencer belonging to Sheila and how it got there. And of course the destruction of the crime scene exhibits in 1996.
Just the obvious things really, just enough for me to go for reasonable doubt.
And since then of course we have Philip Boyce's Aga evidence which could be very important if accepted.
This would mean that either the police moved Nevill from the Aga to the chair/scuttle after entry to the WHF at 7.35 or the burns were caused earlier that night before Nevill was shot to death, either way, the burns favour an innocent JB.
So, I believe this is a very important CCRC submission for JB if the Aga burns are accepted.
Of course the campaign team say they have proof of the 6.09 phone call from inside the house along with other proof of JBs innocence too.
Anyway, it is probably JBs last chance at freedom at his age, we will know in the near future, Faith, until then there isn't much more to say.
-
until then there isn't much more to say.
Off topic! There's a JB section here for discussion.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=6.0 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=6.0)
-
Well thats fine,Vertigo.
I'm sure I can have a civilized discussion with Faith about Bamber. He will no doubt get a mention on the forum here again when the CCRC decision is finally made.
Do you think JB is guilty?
Yes. It’s just about the only thing me and your pal have ever agreed on!
-
Off topic! There's a JB section here for discussion.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=6.0 (https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=6.0)
Quite right, sir. quite right!
You can get genned up on the case and join in too , Ken.
If you go for guilt you might even get to be friends with Faith! 8(0(*
-
Yes. It’s just about the only thing me and your pal have ever agreed on!
Nothing stopping you being a pal too, Vertigo!
I have friends on other sites who think LM is guilty.
Its all to do with attitude!
-
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/stephen-downing/
Stephen Downing was seventeen and had the reading ability of an eleven-year-old. "The court also analysed the confession evidence and found that there had been breaches of relevant rules and that the confession was not reliable." One wonders what the result would be if these ideas were applied to the present case. BTW I also found this at a different site: "However, as he [Downing] did not admit to the crime, he was classified as in denial of murder and therefore ineligible for parole."
-
Nothing stopping you being a pal too, Vertigo!
I have friends on other sites who think LM is guilty.
Its all to do with attitude!
Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed wrt to Faith. I have no problem with you or your views however as you have a non combative attitude and are not unpleasantly personal when discussing these matters.
-
Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed wrt to Faith. I have no problem with you or your views however as you have a non combative attitude and are not unpleasantly personal when discussing these matters.
Nah! I'm sure Faith would meet you half way, Vertigo!
-
Nah! I'm sure Faith would meet you half way, Vertigo!
@)(++(* I’m sure she wouldn’t!
-
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/stephen-downing/
Stephen Downing was seventeen and had the reading ability of an eleven-year-old. "The court also analysed the confession evidence and found that there had been breaches of relevant rules and that the confession was not reliable." One wonders what the result would be if these ideas were applied to the present case. BTW I also found this at a different site: "However, as he [Downing] did not admit to the crime, he was classified as in denial of murder and therefore ineligible for parole."
Did you know that the average reading age of UK adults is 9? Shocking I know!
Also I suggest you read this from the section entitled Later Investigation onwards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Wendy_Sewell.
Now, back on topic….
-
Did you know that the average reading age of UK adults is 9? Shocking I know!
Also I suggest you read this from the section entitled Later Investigation onwards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Wendy_Sewell.
Now, back on topic….
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38581779
I resist the notion that discussion of the Downing case is off topic. The fact that he spent additional time because he maintained his innocence is one aspect that makes it pertinent to the present case.
The Wikipedia article is woefully biased. I suggest that the BBC article, whose link is above, is a better source of information. "With Hale's help, Mr Downing won ?13,000 from the Legal Aid Board. This paid for a modern forensic examination of the weapon, crucially revealing Mr Downing's fingerprints were not present - although there was a bloody palm print from an unknown person." The blood is a time stamp, and a palm print can be useful in identifying or ruling out an individual. The lack of forensic evidence (Mr. Downing's fingerprints in this instance) can be helpful, just as in the present case.
-
Hi, I'm Marion O'Sullivan, let's just clear this up, I most definitely 1 million percent know the person I saw was not luke Mitchell. How can I be so sure you may ask, because I'd seen luke Mitchell and Jodie Jones walk past my mother in laws house on many occasions, no I had never spoken to either of them, but I sure as hell would of recognised him,
-
Hi, I'm Marion O'Sullivan, let's just clear this up, I most definitely 1 million percent know the person I saw was not luke Mitchell. How can I be so sure you may ask, because I'd seen luke Mitchell and Jodie Jones walk past my mother in laws house on many occasions, no I had never spoken to either of them, but I sure as hell would of recognised him,
Hi Marion, pleased to meet you.
I'm sure everyone will agree that its nice to have an actual witness from the case to debate with.
Can you just refresh our memory and tell us where and when you saw this person on Newbattle road that day?
-
Hi, I'm Marion O'Sullivan, let's just clear this up, I most definitely 1 million percent know the person I saw was not luke Mitchell. How can I be so sure you may ask, because I'd seen luke Mitchell and Jodie Jones walk past my mother in laws house on many occasions, no I had never spoken to either of them, but I sure as hell would of recognised him,
If you're certain it wasn't LM then you must have seen the persons face? can you give a description, Marion?
-
Hi, I'm Marion O'Sullivan, let's just clear this up, I most definitely 1 million percent know the person I saw was not luke Mitchell. How can I be so sure you may ask, because I'd seen luke Mitchell and Jodie Jones walk past my mother in laws house on many occasions, no I had never spoken to either of them, but I sure as hell would of recognised him,
Hi Marion, and welcome to the forum! I have a couple of questions to ask you in regard to your sighting that day: when the police came to see you & your partner back in 2003, did you tell them at that particular time that it wasn't Luke Mitchell you saw on the Newbattle Road? Or did you tell them you weren't really sure? I am not talking about what you said in court in November/December 2004, I am talking about what you said to police back in 2003 before the trial. Also, did you see anyone else on the road as you and your partner drove by? And why did you say that the boy you saw on the road was acting "suspiciously"? The interesting thing here is that 3 boys on pushbikes who knew Luke Mitchell personally cycled past him at approximately the same time as you saw him, but they said it was definitely him. Those boys were also on the same side of the road as Luke Mitchell was so they had a closer look than you. These boys also said they never saw anyone else on the road that day -- only Luke Mitchell. Another 3 witnesses -- Rosemary Walsh, Lorraine Fleming & Carol Heatlie (all of whom didn't know Luke Mitchell) -- saw him on the Newbattle Road between 1740 - 1805 acting suspiciously and were sure it was him. These 3 women also said there was no one else standing on the Newbattle Road when they drove along it.
-
Hi Marion, and welcome to the forum! I have a couple of questions to ask you in regard to your sighting that day: when the police came to see you & your partner back in 2003, did you tell them at that particular time that it wasn't Luke Mitchell you saw on the Newbattle Road? Or did you tell them you weren't really sure? I am not talking about what you said in court in November/December 2004, I am talking about what you said to police back in 2003 before the trial. Also, did you see anyone else on the road as you and your partner drove by? And why did you say that the boy you saw on the road was acting "suspiciously"? The interesting thing here is that 3 boys on pushbikes who knew Luke Mitchell personally cycled past him at approximately the same time as you saw him, but they said it was definitely him. Those boys were also on the same side of the road as Luke Mitchell was so they had a closer look than you. These boys also said they never saw anyone else on the road that day -- only Luke Mitchell. Another 3 witnesses -- Rosemary Walsh, Lorraine Fleming & Carol Heatlie (all of whom didn't know Luke Mitchell) -- saw him on the Newbattle Road between 1740 - 1805 acting suspiciously and were sure it was him. These 3 women also said there was no one else standing on the Newbattle Road when they drove along it.
Well lets just take it that the person Marion saw around 6.00 that day was not Luke, Mr Apples and proceed from there for the moment shall we?
Obviously that means that both LM and the 'other guy in similar attire' were both standing in Newbattle Rd at the same time, Luke at Barondale cottages and the other guy by the wooden gate.
Now this does make sense when you think about it, Luke was seen by Carol Heatlie looking up and down the road to see if Jodi was coming, yet the guy at the gate simply looked suspicious and evasive. Why would Luke openly look for Jodi while standing at Barondale cottages only to avert his gaze from passers by while standing at the gate? This alone suggests two different people.
Now, I see where you're coming from, Mr Apples, you want to know where the guy buy the gate came from, where he went and why didn't the witnesses see both Luke and the 'other guy' as they passed by?
Well, the most obvious place that the 'other guy' came from must surely be RDP, and he must have crossed the road to the wooden gate sometime before Flemying and Walsh passed by.
Now, you say, why didn't Flem/Walsh also see LM standing at the entrance to Barondale cottages? well simply because he was probably standing in the driveway at the time having a smoke, just back from the pavement and out of view. This is why Marion O'Sullivan failed to spot Luke too.
The bike boys on the otherhand couldn't miss Luke passing by slowly, and nor could Carol Heatlie as Luke happened to be standing on the pavement looking up and down the road at the time.
Now you may ask, why didn't the push bike boys or Carol Heatlie see the 'other guy' standing by the wooden gate as they passed by? Well obviously the 'other guy' had skedadled by around 6.00 before the bike boys/Heatlie arrived!
This means the 'other guy' must have left the scene soon after Marion passed by him, just before the bike boys/Heatlie arrived on the scene.
So where did the 'other guy' go? Well he couldn't have set off in the direction of the Home farm else the bike boys would have passed him, and he didn't walk past Luke. So that just leaves two options, either he re-entered RDP or he went into the Tool hire entrance.
Now, I suppose we have to ask why the 'other guy' emerged onto Newbattle Rd and stood by the gate for about 15 minutes or so before disappearing again? Presuming that he was the killer of course! And that isn't easy to answer! Maybe he heard something or somebody while at the crime scene and scarpered quickly through the V and along the path to Newbattle Road.
The thing is, I don't think the killer would have fled across the open field anyway when he left the crime scene and risk being seen? Even if the killer lived in the direction of the Abbey it would be less risky taking the long way home?
Still doesn't explain standing on Newbattle Rd for any length of time though? Mind you, he was probably quite physically and emotionally knackered after carrying out such an atrocity? Besides, we cant be sure how long he stood by the gate?
Oh well, just a few thoughts in reply to Marions post!
Any other theories, appart from the obvious, that it was Luke standing by the wooden gate?
-
Well lets just take it that the person Marion saw around 6.00 that day was not Luke, Mr Apples and proceed from there for the moment shall we?
Obviously that means that both LM and the 'other guy in similar attire' were both standing in Newbattle Rd at the same time, Luke at Barondale cottages and the other guy by the wooden gate.
Now this does make sense when you think about it, Luke was seen by Carol Heatlie looking up and down the road to see if Jodi was coming, yet the guy at the gate simply looked suspicious and evasive. Why would Luke openly look for Jodi while standing at Barondale cottages only to avert his gaze from passers by while standing at the gate? This alone suggests two different people.
Now, I see where you're coming from, Mr Apples, you want to know where the guy buy the gate came from, where he went and why didn't the witnesses see both Luke and the 'other guy' as they passed by?
Well, the most obvious place that the 'other guy' came from must surely be RDP, and he must have crossed the road to the wooden gate sometime before Flemying and Walsh passed by.
Now, you say, why didn't Flem/Walsh also see LM standing at the entrance to Barondale cottages? well simply because he was probably standing in the driveway at the time having a smoke, just back from the pavement and out of view. This is why Marion O'Sullivan failed to spot Luke too.
The bike boys on the otherhand couldn't miss Luke passing by slowly, and nor could Carol Heatlie as Luke happened to be standing on the pavement looking up and down the road at the time.
Now you may ask, why didn't the push bike boys or Carol Heatlie see the 'other guy' standing by the wooden gate as they passed by? Well obviously the 'other guy' had skedadled by around 6.00 before the bike boys/Heatlie arrived!
This means the 'other guy' must have left the scene soon after Marion passed by him, just before the bike boys/Heatlie arrived on the scene.
So where did the 'other guy' go? Well he couldn't have set off in the direction of the Home farm else the bike boys would have passed him, and he didn't walk past Luke. So that just leaves two options, either he re-entered RDP or he went into the Tool hire entrance.
Now, I suppose we have to ask why the 'other guy' emerged onto Newbattle Rd and stood by the gate for about 15 minutes or so before disappearing again? Presuming that he was the killer of course! And that isn't easy to answer! Maybe he heard something or somebody while at the crime scene and scarpered quickly through the V and along the path to Newbattle Road.
The thing is, I don't think the killer would have fled across the open field anyway when he left the crime scene and risk being seen? Even if the killer lived in the direction of the Abbey it would be less risky taking the long way home?
Still doesn't explain standing on Newbattle Rd for any length of time though? Mind you, he was probably quite physically and emotionally knackered after carrying out such an atrocity? Besides, we cant be sure how long he stood by the gate?
Oh well, just a few thoughts in reply to Marions post!
Any other theories, appart from the obvious, that it was Luke standing by the wooden gate?
Hi, JB.
LF & RW said it was categorically Luke Mitchell standing at the gate at 1740ish; they were in no doubt it was him. Also, as per previous posts on this forum with cites, Mark Kane was ruled out via DNA (i.e., his wasn't found on Jodi or near the locus). LM was spotted with Jodi at 1655 hrs by Andrina Bryson arguing with her at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path and then was spotted alone & acting suspiciously by 8 separate witnesses on the Newbattle Road, between 1740 - 1820. Let's face it, the principles of Occam's razor tell us that it was Luke Mitchell Marion & her parther saw at just before 1800 at Barondale Cottages.
-
Hi, JB.
LF & RW said it was categorically Luke Mitchell standing at the gate at 1740ish; they were in no doubt it was him. Also, as per previous posts on this forum with cites, Mark Kane was ruled out via DNA (i.e., his wasn't found on Jodi or near the locus). LM was spotted with Jodi at 1655 hrs by Andrina Bryson arguing with her at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path and then was spotted alone & acting suspiciously by 8 separate witnesses on the Newbattle Road, between 1740 - 1820. Let's face it, the principles of Occam's razor tell us that it was Luke Mitchell Marion & her parther saw at just before 1800 at Barondale Cottages.
So you're saying Marion and partner saw Luke at Barondale cottages, Mr Apples? Is there documentation of this somewhere? I can't find much info about Marion/Derek, did they give evidence at trial?
-
So you're saying Marion and partner saw Luke at Barondale cottages, Mr Apples? Is there documentation of this somewhere? I can't find much info about Marion/Derek, did they give evidence at trial?
Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.
Yes, both Marion and her partner at the time (Derek Hamilton) were called to court as witnesses. Unfortunately, their transcripts haven't been made public yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4181637.stm
Both claimed in court they did not know Luke Mitchell at the time, but Marion is now teliing us that she had seen Luke & Jodi walking past her father-in-law's house many times before the murder - and hence why she & her partner said in court it WAS NOT Luke Mitchell they saw that day. I was merely seeking clarification on their sighting: did they always say it wasn't Luke Mitchell they saw? Or did they say it wasn't him when they were on the stand 18 months later at the trial? Luke Mitchell looked completely different at trial compared to when they saw him on that road on 30.06.03; he was still developing and going through puberty, and was fatter about the face at trial and plus his hair was longer and in a ponytail.
-
Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.
Yes, both Marion and her partner at the time (Derek Hamilton) were called to court as witnesses. Unfortunately, their transcripts haven't been made public yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4181637.stm
Both claimed in court they did not know Luke Mitchell at the time, but Marion is now teliing us that she had seen Luke & Jodi walking past her father-in-law's house many times before the murder - and hence why she & her partner said in court it WAS NOT Luke Mitchell they saw that day. I was merely seeking clarification on their sighting: did they always say it wasn't Luke Mitchell they saw? Or did they say it wasn't him when they were on the stand 18 months later at the trial? Luke Mitchell looked completely different at trial compared to when they saw him on that road on 30.06.03; he was still developing and going through puberty, and was fatter about the face at trial and plus his hair was longer and in a ponytail.
Isn't pathway entrance referring to RDP rather than the driveway at Barondale cottages, Mr Apples?
Anyway,yes it would be handy if Marion could expand a little. Wonder why her trial transcript is available or not?
-
Isn't pathway entrance referring to RDP rather than the driveway at Barondale cottages, Mr Apples?
Anyway,yes it would be handy if Marion could expand a little. Wonder why her trial transcript is available or not?
Well, let's apply some common sense. The 3 boys on push bikes, who definitely knew him personally, saw him standing alone, just before 1800, at the Barondale Cottages (they all made it clear during their testimonies that it was the entrance to Barondale Cottages when they saw him). Marion and Derek said it was just before 1800 they saw him at a driveway; it was the same sighting at the same pathway/driveway-- i.e. Barondale Cottages. The entrance to Roan's Dyke Path on Newbattle Road doesn't have a driveway or pathway. So, we can infer safely it was at Barondale Cottages. It would be nice if we had Marion's & Derek's court transcripts to clarify this, but unfortunately they haven't been made public yet.
-
Well, let's apply some common sense. The 3 boys on push bikes, who definitely knew him personally, saw him standing alone, just before 1800, at the Barondale Cottages (they all made it clear during their testimonies that it was the entrance to Barondale Cottages when they saw him). Marion and Derek said it was just before 1800 they saw him at a driveway; it was the same sighting at the same pathway/driveway-- i.e. Barondale Cottages. The entrance to Roan's Dyke Path on Newbattle Road doesn't have a driveway or pathway. So, we can infer safely it was at Barondale Cottages. It would be nice if we had Marion's & Derek's court transcripts to clarify this, but unfortunately they haven't been made public yet.
OK, thanks ,Mr Apples, I will continue to look for info on what, where and when Marion/Derek saw that day!
-
Well, let's apply some common sense. The 3 boys on push bikes, who definitely knew him personally, saw him standing alone, just before 1800, at the Barondale Cottages (they all made it clear during their testimonies that it was the entrance to Barondale Cottages when they saw him). Marion and Derek said it was just before 1800 they saw him at a driveway; it was the same sighting at the same pathway/driveway-- i.e. Barondale Cottages. The entrance to Roan's Dyke Path on Newbattle Road doesn't have a driveway or pathway. So, we can infer safely it was at Barondale Cottages. It would be nice if we had Marion's & Derek's court transcripts to clarify this, but unfortunately they haven't been made public yet.
There is already quite a discussion on the forum here about Marion/Derek started by you a few years ago, Mr Apples!
Having read some of it, including some newspaper inserts, I am still not sure whether Luke was standing by the wooden gate or at Barondale cottages when they saw him?
Pity that Marion won't clarify this important point!
-
Going back to why the killer would exit RDP and cross the road to the wooden gate?
Well, obviously the killer wouldn't want to take the murder weapon home in case their premises was searched, and they wouldn't want to leave the weapon too near to the crime scene as it would be found by the police, hence it makes sense the killer would dispose of the weapon somewhere it was unlikely to be found,eg, deep in the woods and gulleys at the opposite side of the road from RDP.
Yes, that is probably why the killer crossed the road, to climb over the fence and hide the murder weapon before going home?
Wonder if its still there to this day, hiding in a gully or the bottom of a burn amongst the sand and stones?
-
Yes, the killer exited RDP just before flemying/walsh arrived on the scene about 5.45, he waited at the gate until they drove past, climbed over the gate and delved deep into the woods to dispose of the weapon, maybe he pulled back a sod and buried it, unlikely ever to be found without the aid of a metal detector.
The killer then climbed back over the gate just before 6.00 as Marion/Derek/child passed, rushing home to catch the Simpsons at 6.00.
The killer then immediately crosses the road again and re-enters RDP to make his way home, just before the bike boys arrive, he probably goes through the woods at the side of the road and up past the Tool hire estate.
Yes, it all kind of makes sense now!
-
Going back to why the killer would exit RDP and cross the road to the wooden gate?
Well, obviously the killer wouldn't want to take the murder weapon home in case their premises was searched, and they wouldn't want to leave the weapon too near to the crime scene as it would be found by the police, hence it makes sense the killer would dispose of the weapon somewhere it was unlikely to be found,eg, deep in the woods and gulleys at the opposite side of the road from RDP.
Yes, that is probably why the killer crossed the road, to climb over the fence and hide the murder weapon before going home?
Wonder if its still there to this day, hiding in a gully or the bottom of a burn amongst the sand and stones?
Endless places to hide a murder weapon in that semi-rural area (a place LM knew like the back of his hand). He phoned the Jones Landline after he'd murdered Jodi at 1740 and spoke to Allen Ovens, pretending he hadn't met up with her yet (this was the beginning of setting up his false alibi). He then continued down that woodland strip which leads to that wooden gate on NB Rd across the road from where he emerged. He had no choice but to get away from the murder scene and out of that clothing (no doubt that khaki green parka had traces of Jodi's blood on it). He needed to get home without looking or acting flustered (for example, if the motorists had seen him running or climbing over fences, now that would look bad for him). As it turned out, he was seen by LF & RW at that gate, in their words "looking up to no good" and "looking cheesed off"; this was his guilty conscience coming through, imo. When the police delved into LM's past and his personality, and so on, all manner of problematic and alarming things came to the fore (not least that he'd been referred to a psychologist in both primary school and high school; there had been sexual and physical assaults on other females previously; in other words, this was a deeply troubled boy - which copious amounts of cannabis smoking only exacerbated. LM was convicted by 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence (all detailed on this forum). Guilty as sin, imo.
I don't think he would re-enter RDP after murdering Jodi. That would not make sense and very too risky. Interestingly, he was on that busybroad at peak time, but no one saw him between 1745 - 1800, but 6 people saw him at 6 pm at Barondale cottages and then one of the guys on the pushbike saw him standing there at the same spot at 1820. Then no one saw him again between 1820 - 1915. He met up with 3 boys in the Abbey at 1915. And then not seen from after 2030 -2200, after leaving the boys in the Abbey. Where was he during these windows of time??
-
Endless places to hide a murder weapon in that semi-rural area (a place LM knew like the back of his hand). He phoned the Jones Landline after he'd murdered Jodi at 1740 and spoke to Allen Ovens, pretending he hadn't met up with her yet (this was the beginning of setting up his false alibi). He then continued down that woodland strip which leads to that wooden gate on NB Rd across the road from where he emerged. He had no choice but to get away from the murder scene and out of that clothing (no doubt that khaki green parka had traces of Jodi's blood on it). He needed to get home without looking or acting flustered (for example, if the motorists had seen him running or climbing over fences, now that would look bad for him). As it turned out, he was seen by LF & RW at that gate, in their words "looking up to no good" and "looking cheesed off"; this was his guilty conscience coming through, imo. When the police delved into LM's past and his personality, and so on, all manner of problematic and alarming things came to the fore (not least that he'd been referred to a psychologist in both primary school and high school; there had been sexual and physical assaults on other females previously; in other words, this was a deeply troubled boy - which copious amounts of cannabis smoking only exacerbated. LM was convicted by 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence (all detailed on this forum). Guilty as sin, imo.
I don't think he would re-enter RDP after murdering Jodi. That would not make sense and very too risky. Interestingly, he was on that busybroad at peak time, but no one saw him between 1745 - 1800, but 6 people saw him at 6 pm at Barondale cottages and then one of the guys on the pushbike saw him standing there at the same spot at 1820. Then no one saw him again between 1820 - 1915. He met up with 3 boys in the Abbey at 1915. And then not seen from after 2030 -2200, after leaving the boys in the Abbey. Where was he during these windows of time??
Why do you think that LM waited until after 6.20 to go home, Mr Apples?
-
Why do you think that LM waited until after 6.20 to go home, Mr Apples?
He needed to be seen. After all, he was the one and only person who was meeting with Jodi that night. No one else. Initially, LM said he left his house at 1730 to go and meet with Jodi, who was supposedly coming to Newbattle to meet him (despite Jodi telling her mother, before she left her house at 1650, that they would be "mucking about up here", implying strongly they would be meeting at Easthouses). He deliberately placed himself on the Newbattle Road between 1800-1820 as part of his false alibi (in my opinion). He knew he would be seen on that busy road as it was peak time and the Newbattle Road connects Dalkeith to all surrounding areas (commuters to and from work). He was feigning concern for Jodi, who had died by his hand 45 minutes earlier behind that wall on the RDP behind the V-break (which was nearer the Easthouses end than the Newbattle end).
-
Here's a very important point to remember about this case:
Jodi was grounded at that point (on 30.06.03) until 1800. Her grounding began in May 2003 for dogging school. Judith unexpectedly lifted her grounding when she arrived home from school on 30.06.03. Jodi texted LM at 1634 to say she was allowed out before 1800; they were going to be meeting after 1800 that night anyway, so she obviously wanted to meet him before this; is it a coincidence that on the day Jodi wanted to meet with Luke before 1800 a woman uknown to he & Jodi saw a youth she was 'as sure as she could be was him" at 1655 with a girl who fitted Jodi's description, at a place they commonly met up at, especially as we know for a fact from Allen Ovens's testimony that Jodi left her house in Parkhead Place in Easthouses at 1650 to go and meet him and him only ?
-
He needed to be seen. After all, he was the one and only person who was meeting with Jodi that night. No one else. Initially, LM said he left his house at 1730 to go and meet with Jodi, who was supposedly coming to Newbattle to meet him (despite Jodi telling her mother, before she left her house at 1650, that they would be "mucking about up here", implying strongly they would be meeting at Easthouses). He deliberately placed himself on the Newbattle Road between 1800-1820 as part of his false alibi (in my opinion). He knew he would be seen on that busy road as it was peak time and the Newbattle Road connects Dalkeith to all surrounding areas (commuters to and from work). He was feigning concern for Jodi, who had died by his hand 45 minutes earlier behind that wall on the RDP behind the V-break (which was nearer the Easthouses end than the Newbattle end).
Well apparently he placed himself on Newbattle road from roughly 5.40 [seen by gate] until at least 6.20 before heading home, Mr Apples!
So you think his plan was to sneak out of RDP around 5.35 and gradually walk home hoping to fool everyone into thinking that he had actually left home 'first' and actually walked to the gate in the 'opposite' direction as it were?
How did he know that no one saw him walking home around 6.30?
Of course the only other alternative is that he went straight home after the murder and then back to the wooden gate before 5.40.Is that even possible?
No, none of the scenarios hold up very well, Mr Apples. Standing on Newbattle road for well over an hour with possibly blood stained clothing seems absurd, the alarm could have been raised at anytime, in fact LM more or less raised the alarm himself by phoning Jodis house at 5.40.
And what about the murder weapon, did he dispose of it on the way home?
Oh and one other thing, why did LM go down as far as the wooden gate and stand there for at least 15 minutes only to deny he had done so to the police, telling them he only went as far as Barondale cottages? Even when he must have known very well that he was seen there by several people? Makes no sense at all, does it?
-
Oh, and the V break is nearer to Newbattle rd than it is to Easthouses, Mr Apples!
-
Well apparently he placed himself on Newbattle road from roughly 5.40 [seen by gate] until at least 6.20 before heading home, Mr Apples!
So you think his plan was to sneak out of RDP around 5.35 and gradually walk home hoping to fool everyone into thinking that he had actually left home 'first' and actually walked to the gate in the 'opposite' direction as it were?
How did he know that no one saw him walking home around 6.30?
Of course the only other alternative is that he went straight home after the murder and then back to the wooden gate before 5.40.Is that even possible?
No, none of the scenarios hold up very well, Mr Apples. Standing on Newbattle road for well over an hour with possibly blood stained clothing seems absurd, the alarm could have been raised at anytime, in fact LM more or less raised the alarm himself by phoning Jodis house at 5.40.
And what about the murder weapon, did he dispose of it on the way home?
Oh and one other thing, why did LM go down as far as the wooden gate and stand there for at least 15 minutes only to deny he had done so to the police, telling them he only went as far as Barondale cottages? Even when he must have known very well that he was seen there by several people? Makes no sense at all, does it?
He had no choice but to be on the NB road. He needed to be seen as part of his false alibi. Everything else -- from AB spotting him at Easthouses at 1655 & those other eyewitnesses spotting him on NB Rd between 1740 - 1820 -- is either here nor there. He progressed down that stretch of woodland after murdering jodi. This woodland was off the beaten path and he knew he wasn't likely to be seen as he walked down it. He had no choice but to get away from the murder scene by whatever means. John [Name removed] & Gordon [Name removed] were in the field to his right hand side, driving that noisy old moped (as per Leonard Kelly's testimony) and he was hardly going to use the Roan's Dyke Path as it was used regularly by joggers, cyclists & dog walkers; that stretch of woodland offered him cover. What he couldn't bank.on was not being seen by motorists on that very busy Newbattle Road at peak time. However, he had no choice but to be on it. He sure as hell would've been hoping no one would see him on it as he emerged on to it after leaving Jodi's body in that isolated woodland strip. Inevitably, he was seen on it by 2 motorists at just after 1740 at a wooden gate, no doubt cussing under his breath that he'd been seen. If LF & RW hadn't seen LM at that gate at 1740ish, there was every chance he might've literally gotten away with murder.
-
Well apparently he placed himself on Newbattle road from roughly 5.40 [seen by gate] until at least 6.20 before heading home, Mr Apples!
So you think his plan was to sneak out of RDP around 5.35 and gradually walk home hoping to fool everyone into thinking that he had actually left home 'first' and actually walked to the gate in the 'opposite' direction as it were?
How did he know that no one saw him walking home around 6.30?
Of course the only other alternative is that he went straight home after the murder and then back to the wooden gate before 5.40.Is that even possible?
No, none of the scenarios hold up very well, Mr Apples. Standing on Newbattle road for well over an hour with possibly blood stained clothing seems absurd, the alarm could have been raised at anytime, in fact LM more or less raised the alarm himself by phoning Jodis house at 5.40.
And what about the murder weapon, did he dispose of it on the way home?
Oh and one other thing, why did LM go down as far as the wooden gate and stand there for at least 15 minutes only to deny he had done so to the police, telling them he only went as far as Barondale cottages? Even when he must have known very well that he was seen there by several people? Makes no sense at all, does it?
There is not 1 single witness reported him going home between 1730 - 1915. This was at a busy time when people are only interested in getting home from work/college/uni and into the comfort of their own home and having dinner. A very busy time of the day, when families are preoccupied with preparing dinner and then clearing up. Why would they notice LM??
-
There is not 1 single witness reported him going home between 1730 - 1915. This was at a busy time when people are only interested in getting home from work/college/uni and into the comfort of their own home and having dinner. A very busy time of the day, when families are preoccupied with preparing dinner and then clearing up. Why would they notice LM??
Yes, that's the problem, Mr Apples, no one saw LM on the move that evening, so we have no way of knowing which direction he was heading.
-
Yes, that's the problem, Mr Apples, no one saw LM on the move that evening, so we have no way of knowing which direction he was heading.
No doubt he used the woodlands for cover when going home. No doubt trying his utmost not to be spotted by neighbours in his housing estate. Because it was dinner time he got lucky and no one spotted him going home. I think he was in his house between 1845-1915, getting changed from the parka into the bomber jacket and a quick clean-up in the bathroom upstairs.
What interests me is the different recollections of the eyewitnesses on Newbattle road between 1740 -1815. Lf, RW & CH all said a hip-length, dull khaki green parka jacket; the 3 pushbike boys, 2 of them who knew LM personally couldn't really be sure what he was wearing as they cycled past him at just before 1800, but said a bomber jacket (though did concede they may have been getting mixed up as they'd seen LM wearing the bomber jacket in school often); the other pushbike boy, who didn't know him, said it was not a bomber jacket, but a khaki dull green ''boardy' shirt sold in Flip clothing, that went down to.his thigh; Marion and Derek said they thought he was wearing a bomber jacket (though their eyewitness accounts may have been contaminated as they'd seen Luke & Jodi walking past Derek Hamilton's father's house many times before the murder). It's messy.
-
No doubt he used the woodlands for cover when going home. No doubt trying his utmost not to be spotted by neighbours in his housing estate. Because it was dinner time he got lucky and no one spotted him going home. I think he was in his house between 1845-1915, getting changed from the parka into the bomber jacket and a quick clean-up in the bathroom upstairs.
What interests me is the different recollections of the eyewitnesses on Newbattle road between 1740 -1815. Lf, RW & CH all said a hip-length, dull khaki green parka jacket; the 3 pushbike boys, 2 of them who knew LM personally couldn't really be sure what he was wearing as they cycled past him at just before 1800, but said a bomber jacket (though did concede they may have been getting mixed up as they'd seen LM wearing the bomber jacket in school often); the other pushbike boy, who didn't know him, said it was not a bomber jacket, but a khaki dull green ''boardy' shirt sold in Flip clothing, that went down to.his thigh; Marion and Derek said they thought he was wearing a bomber jacket (though their eyewitness accounts may have been contaminated as they'd seen Luke & Jodi walking past Derek Hamilton's father's house many times before the murder). It's messy.
But if LM was the killer he didn't exactly use the woods as cover, he risked crossing the road beside the entrance to RDP. If the likes of the bike boys had passed by at that time it was game-up! makes no sense, Mr Apples!
Why didn't he use the woods and head for the Tool hire station instead before going onto Newbattle RD?
And again, if he did go home around 6.45 no one saw him, and no one saw him leaving again a half hour later.
As for the witness statements, remember Marion/partner swore under oath presumably that it wasn't LM they saw, so you can't say they saw 'Luke' in a bomber jacket!
-
But if LM was the killer he didn't exactly use the woods as cover, he risked crossing the road beside the entrance to RDP. If the likes of the bike boys had passed by at that time it was game-up! makes no sense, Mr Apples!
Why didn't he use the woods and head for the Tool hire station instead before going onto Newbattle RD?
And again, if he did go home around 6.45 no one saw him, and no one saw him leaving again a half hour later.
As for the witness statements, remember Marion/partner swore under oath presumably that it wasn't LM they saw, so you can't say they saw 'Luke' in a bomber jacket!
He had no choice but to cross the NB Rd. And he needed to be seen on it, for he said he went out to the end of his estate @ 1730/1745 to wait for Jodi coming. After he killed Jodi he proceeded down that woodland strip and that took him on to the NB Rd and to that wooden gate. He didn't, imo, go out onto that field on his right hand side as that would've exposed him to potential eyewitnesses and JOF & GD were in that field at that exact time; logic tells us he proceeded down that woodland strip, and that took him to that gate. Even if he did choose to go home via the Tool Hire company, he would've still needed to cross the NB Rd to get home. After the LF & RW sighting, I think he went into the woods behind him and hid for about 10 mins (possibly disposing of the knife) and was then spotted by 6 people at Barondale Cottages between 1800-1815. Marion & Derek did specifically say in court it wasn't LM and that the person they saw was wearing a bomber jacket. It would be interesting to read their court transcripts for context and clarification. Also, it would be interesting to hear what they told the police in 2003 about their sighting, before they went to court. Maybe they said they weren't sure if it was LM they saw when questioned by police in 2003. LM had changed considerably by the time they went to court (he was fatter and had much longer hair in a ponytail), so maybe his change in appearance made them say it wasn't him they'd seen that day. Even Andrina Bryson, who'd always maintained it was LM she saw in 2003, said in court that "she didn't know" if the person in the dock was LM; he had changed and she was simply being honest.
-
He had no choice but to cross the NB Rd. And he needed to be seen on it, for he said he went out to the end of his estate @ 1730/1745 to wait for Jodi coming. After he killed Jodi he proceeded down that woodland strip and that took him on to the NB Rd and to that wooden gate. He didn't, imo, go out onto that field on his right hand side as that would've exposed him to potential eyewitnesses and JOF & GD were in that field at that exact time; logic tells us he proceeded down that woodland strip, and that took him to that gate. Even if he did choose to go home via the Tool Hire company, he would've still needed to cross the NB Rd to get home. After the LF & RW sighting, I think he went into the woods behind him and hid for about 10 mins (possibly disposing of the knife) and was then spotted by 6 people at Barondale Cottages between 1800-1815. Marion & Derek did specifically say in court it wasn't LM and that the person they saw was wearing a bomber jacket. It would be interesting to read their court transcripts for context and clarification. Also, it would be interesting to hear what they told the police in 2003 about their sighting, before they went to court. Maybe they said they weren't sure if it was LM they saw when questioned by police in 2003. LM had changed considerably by the time they went to court (he was fatter and had much longer hair in a ponytail), so maybe his change in appearance made them say it wasn't him they'd seen that day. Even Andrina Bryson, who'd always maintained it was LM she saw in 2003, said in court that "she didn't know" if the person in the dock was LM; he had changed and she was simply being honest.
OK, thanks for you're scenario, Mr Apples! Not much more to say until we get more info from Marion or see her statements or trial transcript!
-
OK, thanks for you're scenario, Mr Apples! Not much more to say until we get more info from Marion or see her statements or trial transcript!
Yes, their court transcripts could potentially shed some light on things. But, as I said, they spotted him at Barondale Cottages at just before 1800. 2 boys who knew him personally and positively id'd him both at the time and in court, cycled past him at roughly the same time and at the exact same spot as where Marion and Derek spotted him; Occam's razor tells us that it was Luke Mitchell they all saw -- especially as they never saw anyone else on that road. The interesting thing is that these 6 witnesses -- Grant Eliott, Dean Houston, Andrew Holburn, Marion O'Sullivan, Derek Hamilton and Carol Heatlie -- all saw him at Barondale Cottages at roughly the same time, so it was LM they all saw; common sense and Occam's razor tell us that. What is puzzling is that 4 of them said they thought he might've been wearing a bomber jacket (GE, DH, MO & DH) and Andrew Holburn said possibly a german army shirt from Flip Clothing ('boardy shirt', as he said in court) and Carol Heatlie said a dull khaki green parka jacket thar went down to his thighs ('grunge style', as she said in court). It's messy. It just goes to prove how we all perceive things differently. However, I think when you weigh all the evidence together, it was LM on that road.
-
Yes, their court transcripts could potentially shed some light on things. But, as I said, they spotted him at Barondale Cottages at just before 1800. 2 boys who knew him personally and positively id'd him both at the time and in court, cycled past him at roughly the same time and at the exact same spot as where Marion and Derek spotted him; Occam's razor tells us that it was Luke Mitchell they all saw -- especially as they never saw anyone else on that road. The interesting thing is that these 6 witnesses -- Grant Eliott, Dean Houston, Andrew Holburn, Marion O'Sullivan, Derek Hamilton and Carol Heatlie -- all saw him at Barondale Cottages at roughly the same time, so it was LM they all saw; common sense and Occam's razor tell us that. What is puzzling is that 4 of them said they thought he might've been wearing a bomber jacket (GE, DH, MO & DH) and Andrew Holburn said possibly a german army shirt from Flip Clothing ('boardy shirt', as he said in court) and Carol Heatlie said a dull khaki green parka jacket thar went down to his thighs ('grunge style', as she said in court). It's messy. It just goes to prove how we all perceive things differently. However, I think when you weigh all the evidence together, it was LM on that road.
It all hinges on where Marion/Derek saw 'the guy',Mr Apples! at the wooden gate or at Barondale cottages?
-
It all hinges on where Marion/Derek saw 'the guy',Mr Apples! at the wooden gate or at Barondale cottages?
Well, as clarified repeatedly, it was at a pathway entrance they spotted him at just before 1800. The same as the 3 boys on pushbikes said it was him standing at "a pathway entrance" just before 1800. Common sense and Occam's razor tell us it was LM they all saw -- especially as they never saw anyone elsecon that road. You are disputing that MO & DH never saw him at Barondale Cottages? That they might've seen him at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path? A path that doesn't even have a pathway or driveway before it -- just a mere standard kerbway? 2 boys who knew him and positively id'd him at that pathway to Barondale Cottages saw him at the exact same time as MO & DH. Occam's razor: it was LM at the entrance to Barondale Cottages. It couldn't be clearer. They definitely never saw him at the opening of Roan's Dyke Path on Newbattle Road. You are clutching at straws with this assertion.
-
Well, as clarified repeatedly, it was at a pathway entrance they spotted him at just before 1800. The same as the 3 boys on pushbikes said it was him standing at "a pathway entrance" just before 1800. Common sense and Occam's razor tell us it was LM they all saw -- especially as they never saw anyone elsecon that road. You are disputing that MO & DH never saw him at Barondale Cottages? That they might've seen him at the entrance to Roan's Dyke Path? A path that doesn't even have a pathway or driveway before it -- just a mere standard kerbway? 2 boys who knew him and positively id'd him at that pathway to Barondale Cottages saw him at the exact same time as MO & DH. Occam's razor: it was LM at the entrance to Barondale Cottages. It couldn't be clearer. They definitely never saw him at the opening of Roan's Dyke Path on Newbattle Road. You are clutching at straws with this assertion.
OK, thanks, Mr Apples, but I would still like to see it in black and white as it were!
If it was Barondale cottages that Marion saw the 'guy', obviously I will accept that that 'guy' was Luke Mitchell!
-
OK, thanks, Mr Apples, but I would still like to see it in black and white as it were!
If it was Barondale cottages that Marion saw the 'guy', obviously I will accept that that 'guy' was Luke Mitchell!
JB, have you read Shane & Corinne's court transcripts in their entirety? I think it was as clear as day they were both lying (by omission mostly). They gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers under oath; they knew they were caught out and lying, not least about that (false) alibi. Most damning of all was Shane not corroborating the alibi. All Shane had to do was say his brother was there in the house between 1650-1715 and Luke would likely have been a free man. He didn't corroborate the alibi. It was very damaging to his defence and was the icing on the cake for the prosecution (on top of all the other adminicles of circumstantial evidence used to convict LM). AD Turnbull even warned Corinne about the seriousness of perjury 2 or 3 times throughout her testimony, as it was glaringly obvious she was lying (as was Shane). The fact is, no 2 boys who were in that house at the same time could have failed to see or hear each in that house that day. Shane made it clear that he took measures to make sure the house was empty before logging on to the computer and downloading pornographic images to masturbate to (looking in the living room & kitchen as soon as he arrived home at 1650 and calling out "Hello?" and getting no answer). Alan Turnbull even asked Shane directly who he thought was in the house when he arrived home at 1650 and Shane replied, verbatim: "No one at the time." More significantly, he then said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." And that tells you all you need to know: that LM wasn't in the house between 1650-1715. Shane would not be roped into that false alibi concocted by Corinne. Initially he went along with it back in July '03, but, after being shown the pictures of Jodi's butchered body in court, his human side shone through and he did the right thing and told the truth (i.e., saying that his wee brother wasn't there). When Shane was shown those horrific images of Jodi in court, he literally recoiled back in horror and went chalk white in colour with shock. He even asked if he could sit down and take a glass of water so he could compose himself. Then, wiping away tears, he said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." As I said, after seeing the photos, his human side came to the fore and he wasn't prepared to lie and give Luke a false alibi. Shane's testimony was extremely damaging to Luke's defence.
-
JB, have you read Shane & Corinne's court transcripts in their entirety? I think it was as clear as day they were both lying (by omission mostly). They gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers under oath; they knew they were caught out and lying, not least about that (false) alibi. Most damning of all was Shane not corroborating the alibi. All Shane had to do was say his brother was there in the house between 1650-1715 and Luke would likely have been a free man. He didn't corroborate the alibi. It was very damaging to his defence and was the icing on the cake for the prosecution (on top of all the other adminicles of circumstantial evidence used to convict LM). AD Turnbull even warned Corinne about the seriousness of perjury 2 or 3 times throughout her testimony, as it was glaringly obvious she was lying (as was Shane). The fact is, no 2 boys who were in that house at the same time could have failed to see or hear each in that house that day. Shane made it clear that he took measures to make sure the house was empty before logging on to the computer and downloading pornographic images to masturbate to (looking in the living room & kitchen as soon as he arrived home at 1650 and calling out "Hello?" and getting no answer). Alan Turnbull even asked Shane directly who he thought was in the house when he arrived home at 1650 and Shane replied, verbatim: "No one at the time." More significantly, he then said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." And that tells you all you need to know: that LM wasn't in the house between 1650-1715. Shane would not be roped into that false alibi concocted by Corinne. Initially he went along with it back in July '03, but, after being shown the pictures of Jodi's butchered body in court, his human side shone through and he did the right thing and told the truth (i.e., saying that his wee brother wasn't there). When Shane was shown those horrific images of Jodi in court, he literally recoiled back in horror and went chalk white in colour with shock. He even asked if he could sit down and take a glass of water so he could compose himself. Then, wiping away tears, he said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." As I said, after seeing the photos, his human side came to the fore and he wasn't prepared to lie and give Luke a false alibi. Shane's testimony was extremely damaging to Luke's defence.
OK, thanks, Mr Apples, i have digested everything you have said there!
-
Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.
Yes, both Marion and her partner at the time (Derek Hamilton) were called to court as witnesses. Unfortunately, their transcripts haven't been made public yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4181637.stm
Both claimed in court they did not know Luke Mitchell at the time, but Marion is now teliing us that she had seen Luke & Jodi walking past her father-in-law's house many times before the murder - and hence why she & her partner said in court it WAS NOT Luke Mitchell they saw that day. I was merely seeking clarification on their sighting: did they always say it wasn't Luke Mitchell they saw? Or did they say it wasn't him when they were on the stand 18 months later at the trial? Luke Mitchell looked completely different at trial compared to when they saw him on that road on 30.06.03; he was still developing and going through puberty, and was fatter about the face at trial and plus his hair was longer and in a ponytail.
And yet Fleming and Walsh recognised him? You can?t have it both ways MA.
-
He needed to be seen. After all, he was the one and only person who was meeting with Jodi that night. No one else.
Do murderers usually make an appointment then?
-
And yet Fleming and Walsh recognised him? You can?t have it both ways MA.
Faith! What a pheasant plucking surprise! How art thou, ol' gal? Fine an' dandy, one hopes! Anyway ... while Fleming and Walsh were very certain it was LM they saw at that gate on Newbattle road on 30.06.03, they were slightly less certain it was him when asked to identify him in court some 18 months later in December 2004. Both women were simply being honest as LM had changed physically (ie, he was still developing and going through puberty) and plus he'd grown his hair out into a ponytail. However, the crux of the matter is that they identified him on the day of the murder and in court. People have different perceptions of sightings; not everybody's recollection of an event will be the same, so of course I can have it both ways. Besides, Marion O'Sullivan's post on here last month is odd given what an old article from The Scotsman said (link posted below). According to that article, Marion said she didn't know who LM was and knew nothing about his appearance. Her post on here last month indicated that she had seen LM and Jodi walking past her mother-in-law's house many times prior to the murder. How do you explain that??? Anyway, she saw a 'suspicious' looking youth standing at a driveway at just before 6 pm -- at approximately the same time that the 3 pushbike boys who knew LM personally saw him standing alone at a driveway, and around the same time Carol Heatlie saw a 'suspicious' looking youth standing at a driveway. Of course it was LM that Marion O'Sullivan saw, especially as they never saw anyone else on the road! It would be helpful if we could read her and her partner Derek Hamilton's full court testimonies to confirm if it was the word 'pathway' or a 'driveway' they used, and where exactly they described they had seen this young suspicious looking lad on the Newbattle Road that day.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-in-defence-2509118