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: Admin on March 04, 2012, 04:09:04 AM
-
Point 1.
You mention whether it would have been an impossibility for two young lads to have seen each other in the same house at the same time? We accept your point that an adult can go without seeing their child due to being preoccupied but it is stretching it somewhat in the current scenario.
The Mitchell's home is not large by any stretch of the imagination. All the bedrooms are on the 1st floor. You are asking us to believe that Luke could come home from school, get changed, play his music, go to the toilet, rattle around in the kitchen, burn the chicken pie and all this without Shane who is sitting in his bedroom with the door open waiting for any sound of his mother coming home??
Point 2.
The point about there being no witnesses to Luke's movements after 3.30pm are crucial to this case. If he had walked home he would have been seen. He was not.
As far as we know he hasn't even said that he seen anyone as he walked home that afternoon. At school time??? An impossibility we feel.
Have you ever seen the roads after the schools turn out after 3pm or 3.30pm? They are mobbed. Luke did not live that far from the school and for anyone to say that he was not seen that afternoon is just silly.
I know this point was aimed at me since I was the first one to raise it and show that the Mitchell's were actually being economical in relation to certain facts.
I was instrumental in setting up a confidential hotline some time ago in order that witnesses could still come forward but not one did. I also suggested that Corinne Mitchell offer a reward for witnesses to come forward and this suggestion was shot down in flames. The question I must ask is WHY?
WHY are the Mitchell's NOT PREPARED to pursue EVERY POSSIBLE avenue in order to clear their son?
If it was my child that was wrongly accused I would get off my hobby horse and do something positive rather than pandering to people who are novices and haven't a baldy clue of how to really help them. You are being taken for a fool Corinne, it is action that is required not speeches in a Birmingham shed.
Stinks to me!
We agree John, Corinne Mitchell's attitude changed towards you when she realised that you had stumbled across a fatal flaw in her arguments. I believe she feigned illness at the time in order to gain sympathy, what an actor.
Brother Shane really put the proverbial boot in his brother on that one.
-
What is remarkable is that several motorists came forward who identified him on the main road after 6pm yet not one saw him earlier. The chances of that happening are just about nil.
This would be the 6pm when many people were returning from their work or shopping trips. This would be the 6pm when Luke was hanging around the area waiting for Jodi.
This would not be the early afternoon when a boy goes home after school, a short journey and one with the likelyhood of no cars being on that road in the short time he was.
In addition, as the Mitchell home is located within a large housing site the chances of him being observed and by someone who knew him was very high yet nobody came forward.
This for me again is supposition, basing the actual events in a context of perceived events is not doing anyone justice.
We have always wondered about this. Given the seriousness and enormity of the allegations against him you would have thought that someone would have seen him walk home after school that afternoon and come forward to clear him. Apparently not.
Then again, why are we not surprised when his own brother couldn't even give him an alibi?
The key word here is apparently, you cannot for sure say that no one came forward with this information as it was never asked in court.
Shane never gave Luke an alibi simply because he couldn't as he did not see Luke in the house, are you suggesting that he should have lied also to provide such a thing?
-
If I may intercede in this discussion,
Have you ever been to Newbattle and Easthouses gordo?
I have visited the scene and the surrounding area on several occasions and have monitored pedestrian movements around about the same time as the murder took place. The school trip to Alton Towers would have had no relevance to the general movement of the public at large and only minimal impact on students walking in the general area of Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
I will be releasing photographs in due course in relation to all these activities in support of my contention that if Mitchell walked home that afternoon he would have been seen.
If you have been to the scene of the murder maybe you can tell me what happened to the wooden gate located on the main road opposite the entry to Roan's Dyke footpath.
Here is a picture of what it looked like some time after the murder.
(http://i.imgur.com/zGbef.gif)
-
I now know why Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell failed to identify this 5-bar wooden gate but that will remain my secret for the moment.
For those readers who are new to the forum I can tell you that a youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder. Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.
One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon.
Strange part in all of this too is that Luke never saw him but then, after all, it was his doppelgänger!
-
I have never at any point said in any post that I had visted the murder scene, I have had occasions where I have spent many a night in the company of people in Newbattle or Nitton as they called it.
I wonder how relevant any picture/s are when they have been taken at a point with similar numbers of pupils and during an excursion and at that particular time in the day could hold for any event over 7 years prior?
I still would like to hear your reasoning john why Luke was not seen going off in another direction and then seen again in the 110 mins approx that he was out of the house?
-
I have never at any point said in any post that I had visted the murder scene, I have had occasions where I have spent many a night in the company of people in Newbattle or Nitton as they called it.
I wonder how relevant any picture/s are when they have been taken at a point with similar numbers of pupils and during an excursion and at that particular time in the day could hold for any event over 7 years prior?
I still would like to hear your reasoning john why Luke was not seen going off in another direction and then seen again in the 110 mins approx that he was out of the house?
It is quite obvious why he wasn't seen...he hid but unfortunately for him Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh caught him just as he emerged from the path at 5.38pm!
The only place anyone ever saw him was on Newbattle Road, strange that??
-
He hid !!!! Really John I was expecting something more dramatic than that.
I'm sure I just read how you stated that you had been to the scene and observed the behavior of pupils coming and going from the schools and In the general area.(the way the police are these days its a wonder you weren't arrested) I ask again why didn't so many of them contact your HOTLINE to describe how they saw Luke going in a different direction to his house and why did no one see him in approx 110 Min's when after all he was committing a murder,cleaning the scene.cleaning himself,making telephone calls,making text messages,changing his clothes,disposing of clothes and arranging his alibi with his mother in these 110 Min's where was he hiding!!
-
I was instrumental in setting up a confidential hotline some time ago in order that witnesses could still come forward but not one did. I also suggested that Corinne Mitchell offer a reward for witnesses to come forward and this suggestion was shot down in flames. The question I must ask is WHY?
WHY are the Mitchell's NOT PREPARED to pursue EVERY POSSIBLE avenue in order to clear their son?
If it was my child that was wrongly accused I would get off my hobby horse and do something positive rather than pandering to people who are novices and haven't a baldy clue of how to really help them. You are being taken for a fool Corinne, it is action that is required not speeches in a Birmingham shed.
Stinks to me!
Could I suggest that you release the telephone hotline number again John if you still have it. I read a post some days ago by admin which stated that they were going to release these numbers in any event. I think it is a brill idea. What happened the last time you posted it publicly?
-
What happened the last time you posted it publicly?
Nothing basicly
-
Could I suggest that you release the telephone hotline number again John if you still have it. I read a post some days ago by admin which stated that they were going to release these numbers in any event. I think it is a brill idea. What happened the last time you posted it publicly?
I will get admin to add it to the board title but it is still active and here it is...
Hotline Tel No 07092 984 231
-
What happened the last time you posted it publicly?
Nothing basicly
Can I ask how you know this gordo?
-
Gordo is well known to me. He is pro Mitchell and constantly attempts to ridicule any evidence which shows Mitchell could be guilty as charged.
I am sure the reader can work the rest out.
His remark just now is typical of the Mitchell campaign...lies and deceptions.
-
Do you really think John would sit on anything that could go even the slightess way to proving beyond doubt that Luke had comitted this murder without sprwling it in neon lights in big letters?
-
You see Gordo does not know who contacted the telephone hotline whereas I do or at least I know what they said if they telephoned it anonymously.
I will say something however just to show that Gordo is talking out of his ass. The hotline was contacted by one of the Mitchell's principal witnesses in relation to new evidence which they hoped would clear him and point the finger at someone else. This person asked for me personally and we had several telephone conversations thereafter.
I found the information this person provided to be intriguing. 8(0(*
-
I don't need you to talk for me John, yes indeed I am a firm believer in Luke's innocence of the crime he was incarcerated for.
I have always tried to be objective with any questions asked of me or those that are put on a public forum. I really only want the truth but until those who get in the way of that truth can explain themselves in that same objective manner then you may find me more obtrusive than I am.
-
I don't need you to talk for me John, yes indeed I am a firm believer in Luke's innocence of the crime he was incarcerated for.
I have always tried to be objective with any questions asked of me or those that are put on a public forum. I really only want the truth but until those who get in the way of that truth can explain themselves in that same objective manner then you may find me more obtrusive than I am.
So why post disingenuously and tell lies about something you know absolutely nothing about?
-
This would be the 6pm when many people were returning from their work or shopping trips. This would be the 6pm when Luke was hanging around the area waiting for Jodi.
This would not be the early afternoon when a boy goes home after school, a short journey and one with the likelyhood of no cars being on that road in the short time he was.
This for me again is supposition, basing the actual events in a context of perceived events is not doing anyone justice.
Do you have any idea how long it would have taken him to walk to his mothers house Gordo? You have no real idea of the distance and time involved do you?
You are expecting us to believe that no cars passed Luke as he walked home from school, no pedestrians saw Luke, no school pals saw Luke and no school pals walked home with Luke.
Could the moon be made of cheese in your estimation?
-
No school pals saw him at all if you are to be believed though John. Tell me am I to simply just believe that no one saw him in a far longer period when he was out the house than the relative short journey to his house?
-
In addition, as the Mitchell home is located within a large housing site the chances of him being observed and by someone who knew him was very high yet nobody came forward.
This for me again is supposition, basing the actual events in a context of perceived events is not doing anyone justice.
So the housing site was a ghost town too....was Luke Mitchell the only living thing there that afternoon?
-
John I have only asked one question all night and that is why didn't this area that in your expert opinion and observance not produce one witness that could verify your own position about Luke coming home?
-
We have always wondered about this. Given the seriousness and enormity of the allegations against him you would have thought that someone would have seen him walk home after school that afternoon and come forward to clear him. Apparently not.
Then again, why are we not surprised when his own brother couldn't even give him an alibi?
The key word here is apparently, you cannot for sure say that no one came forward with this information as it was never asked in court.
Shane never gave Luke an alibi simply because he couldn't as he did not see Luke in the house, are you suggesting that he should have lied also to provide such a thing?
If anyone came forward the defence would have known about it.
Shane was coached by his mother who sent him back to the police to change his story. It didn't wash. In court he was warned of the consequences for him if he lied. He then had to tell the truth and admit that he did not see Luke at home that afternoon. Apparently it was a ghost who made dinner! ;D
-
John I have only asked one question all night and that is why didn't this area that in your expert opinion and observance not produce one witness that could verify your own position about Luke coming home?
You will have to rephrase that Gordon, don't understand your one question.
-
Well basically what I am asking is why can it be taken seriously that no one saw Luke leaving school and heading in a direction away from his house, why can you say with certainty that no one could have saw Luke in a longer period when he was out of the house but be so positive that no one could have seen him going home in a shorter period.
How can you justify the fact that the prosecution did not and will not agree with your assumption, how can you know that no one had came forward and provided information that would allow the prosecution to simply skip this fundamental period of time?
Sry that's more than 1 question...
-
Now Lamberton is having another go at Shanes memory. He states "Imagine folks,two days after the murder he couldn't even remember Luke making the dinner that afternoon"
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!
And again, their double standards......2 days after the murder AW couldn't remember what she was wearing!! You can't condem one for their memory and not the other
Yes, It was to turn into a very important thing afterwards but not 2 days afterwards. It is easy for those to condem......when they haven't been in that particular situation!
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/the-lm-alibi-offered-at-trial-was-it-necessary-has-it-obstructed-justice/msg10824/#msg10824
An important thing? ......Yes, the whole case basically, it's a pity he didn't even remember seeing Luke in the house either but, then again, he wouldn't have done if he wasn't there.
Even his own brother couldn't admit to having seen him, heard him or smelled the dinner he alleged to have burned in the family home that afternoon.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried?
-
It doesn’t matter that Luke wasn’t seen after school on 30.06.03, because the landline logs on the Mitchell family house phone prove that Luke spoke to Shane at 1610 that day (Shane phoned from his mobile to say he’d be home later than normal as he was helping a friend fix his car; Shane normally was back in the house before Luke, at 1530 . . . Luke normally got home from school around 1545/1550) and Luke used the phone to call Corinne at 1625 at her work (Caravan business) to ask what he should make for dinner. Sandra Lean has confirmed this. Besides, Luke was under the impression that Jodi was still grounded, until he received a text from Jodi at 1634 (texting from her mother’s mobile phone because hers was broken) indicating that she was now allowed out. Luke and Jodi then exchanged further text messages between 1634 & 1638, and had then arranged to meet up (unfortunately, these text exchanges wee never retrieved and therefore it was never ascertained exactly where or when they’d arranged to meet up later that evening).
-
It doesn’t matter that Luke wasn’t seen after school on 30.06.03, because the landline logs on the Mitchell family house phone prove that Luke spoke to Shane at 1610 that day (Shane phoned from his mobile to say he’d be home later than normal as he was helping a friend fix his car; Shane normally was back in the house before Luke, at 1530 . . . Luke normally got home from school around 1545/1550) and Luke used the phone to call Corinne at 1625 at her work (Caravan business) to ask what he should make for dinner. Sandra Lean has confirmed this. Besides, Luke was under the impression that Jodi was still grounded, until he received a text from Jodi at 1634 (texting from her mother’s mobile phone because hers was broken) indicating that she was now allowed out. Luke and Jodi then exchanged further text messages between 1634 & 1638, and had then arranged to meet up (unfortunately, these text exchanges wee never retrieved and therefore it was never ascertained exactly where or when they’d arranged to meet up later that evening).
Interestingly Shane in his first statement didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car and had to be reminded that he had been home late because of it...much the same as his mother had to remind him about the burned pies.
One obvious question, if Corrine got home at 5.15 and it’s agreed that Shane left the house soon after, who made his dinner as he seems to have had some?
-
Interestingly Shane in his first statement didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car and had to be reminded that he had been home late because of it...much the same as his mother had to remind him about the burned pies.
One obvious question, if Corrine got home at 5.15 and it’s agreed that Shane left the house soon after, who made his dinner as he seems to have had some?
According to Sandra Lean, Shane came downstairs to collect his dinner just after 1715, after being logged on to car websites (websites that generated or caused pop-ups for porn sites to appear on his monitor for only a few seconds . . . as per Sandra Lean’s book & a Mr Cravens who analysed Shane’s computer hard drive for police, Shane hadn’t accessed porn sites because they were popups that the car websites generated). It was Luke who made the dinner for everyone. Shane took his upstairs to his room, Corinne had hers out in the back garden (except she had prawns and wanted to go outside as she’d been couped up all day in her work office and wanted to enjoy the June sun) and Luke ate his in the living room, in front of the tv. Shane went out to meet friends just after 1730 and Luke went out a few minutes later to go and meet Jodi (all as per Sandra’s book).
-
I think it's all very well, one thing, that LM, a 14yr old may have, in the heat of the moment become so enraged he killed his girlfriend. Being able to plan the perfect cover up in the aftermath is something entirely different. "The police didn't bank on Luke being Luke though" - there is however no way that LM could have banked on the police being anything. Of the finer details in everything that would have been sought to confirm all that was said.
What did he need - An alibi, evident at this point that only his mother would perhaps suffice. No evident collaboration from SM. From the moment it was evident however that his mother would not suffice, SM's story changed.
Does it make sense, even after the change - simply no. That he had come downstairs, Luke was mashing tatties, had a conversation around the dinner, went back upstairs, then came down and collected his dinner, took it upstairs, ate it and left shortly after 5.30pm - CM did not arrive home until 5.15pm at the earliest, the dinner was not ready. Where is the time?
We know by Luke's account he could not have left any later really that 5.30pm. He claimed to have made the call to the Jones landline, whilst sitting on the wall at the entrance of the estate. This call was at 5.32pm.
Both brothers, irrespective of change in statements made it clear that neither saw the other around these times of leaving.
How could this possibly be? - SM could not have left earlier than LM and SM could not have failed to see Luke walking or sitting on the wall. There is only one entrance to Newbattle Abbey crescent. It is a straight road to the entrance from the house in which they stayed.
-
Furthermore - this "warm sunny day" There is absolutely nothing to back this up, quite the opposite. People were in heavier outer clothing. The day was overcast, the temperature low for the height of summer. "typical Scottish weather" Parka type jackets, thick blouson jackets, thick hoodies. - "warm and sunny?"
CM claimed to be enjoying the summer sun, eating her dinner outside after being "cooped up all day" Perhaps the weather was different in the back garden of the Mitchell home that evening?
Ms Lean has stated often enough of memory. In respect of SM having none. Could anyone remember what they did, or eaten the week before? This was not the week before this was within 36hrs of this girls murder. Ms Lean has an amazing memory though (when suits it would seem)
SL:
"The day wasn't "cooler, wet and dreich" - it was a day of changeable weather, warm and sunny in the early evening with a couple of sudden downpours - I was sitting outside on the deck reading a book after dinner when, all of a sudden, it started to rain. No miracles required, just typical Scottish weather."
Not overcast and cloudy then, that Ms Lean did not see the approaching clouds? Not quite "all of a sudden" Perhaps the weather In Ms Leans garden was similar to Ms Mitchell. Why were people dressed in heavier, outer clothing?
The finer details of those statements - that did not hold up to scrutiny. Which literally, did not stand up to the 'test of time'
There simply was not enough time from 5.15pm until 5.30pm for the stories given around this dinner.
-
According to Sandra Lean, Shane came downstairs to collect his dinner just after 1715, after being logged on to car websites (websites that generated or caused pop-ups for porn sites to appear on his monitor for only a few seconds . . . as per Sandra Lean’s book & a Mr Cravens who analysed Shane’s computer hard drive for police, Shane hadn’t accessed porn sites because they were popups that the car websites generated). It was Luke who made the dinner for everyone. Shane took his upstairs to his room, Corinne had hers out in the back garden (except she had prawns and wanted to go outside as she’d been couped up all day in her work office and wanted to enjoy the June sun) and Luke ate his in the living room, in front of the tv. Shane went out to meet friends just after 1730 and Luke went out a few minutes later to go and meet Jodi (all as per Sandra’s book).
So no porn sites, therefore no masturbation and no justification for knowing that there was no one in the house.
Shane didn’t make the dinner and there was no time for Corrine to make the dinner if Shane left the house at 5.30. So who made the dinner?
-
According to Sandra Lean, Shane came downstairs to collect his dinner just after 1715, after being logged on to car websites (websites that generated or caused pop-ups for porn sites to appear on his monitor for only a few seconds . . . as per Sandra Lean’s book & a Mr Cravens who analysed Shane’s computer hard drive for police, Shane hadn’t accessed porn sites because they were popups that the car websites generated). It was Luke who made the dinner for everyone. Shane took his upstairs to his room, Corinne had hers out in the back garden (except she had prawns and wanted to go outside as she’d been couped up all day in her work office and wanted to enjoy the June sun) and Luke ate his in the living room, in front of the tv. Shane went out to meet friends just after 1730 and Luke went out a few minutes later to go and meet Jodi (all as per Sandra’s book).
What did Luke Mitchell say to the police about these alleged prawns?
Did he stand at the sink rinsing them until cold water for them to defrost - presuming they were frozen (His mum was said to have purchased a pack of cigarettes from the shop not fresh prawns and she wasn’t due to do a food shop apparently until the Tuesday re James English podcast with Corrine) or did he sit them in cold water and if so how long for?
-
I think it's all very well, one thing, that LM, a 14yr old may have, in the heat of the moment become so enraged he killed his girlfriend. Being able to plan the perfect cover up in the aftermath is something entirely different. "The police didn't bank on Luke being Luke though" - there is however no way that LM could have banked on the police being anything. Of the finer details in everything that would have been sought to confirm all that was said.
What did he need - An alibi, evident at this point that only his mother would perhaps suffice. No evident collaboration from SM. From the moment it was evident however that his mother would not suffice, SM's story changed.
Does it make sense, even after the change - simply no. That he had come downstairs, Luke was mashing tatties, had a conversation around the dinner, went back upstairs, then came down and collected his dinner, took it upstairs, ate it and left shortly after 5.30pm - CM did not arrive home until 5.15pm at the earliest, the dinner was not ready. Where is the time?
We know by Luke's account he could not have left any later really that 5.30pm. He claimed to have made the call to the Jones landline, whilst sitting on the wall at the entrance of the estate. This call was at 5.32pm.
Both brothers, irrespective of change in statements made it clear that neither saw the other around these times of leaving.
How could this possibly be? - SM could not have left earlier than LM and SM could not have failed to see Luke walking or sitting on the wall. There is only one entrance to Newbattle Abbey crescent. It is a straight road to the entrance from the house in which they stayed.
The above (in bold) appears to have stemmed from Luke Mitchell himself
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg546670#msg546670
Luke Mitchell
'I was never going to break down in public - I'm not that kind of bloke
They made a mistake and thought I was just a normal teenager'
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg546670#msg546670
The police spoke with journalist James Matthews - did they also speak with and take a statement from Grace McLean from the Daily Mail?
-
I remember reading on another forum a few month back SL saying that there were a couple of boys from Luke’s year at school said he took his normal route home that day. Disappearing act after school never happened — that there were witness statements from people who knew Luke testifying that he took his normal route home. One kid apparently was leaned on afterwards - he changed his story to he thought he'd seen Luke walking home, then he wasn't sure, then he didn't think it was that day. First statement from this kid was absolutely certain — what do we think happened there?
One other theory for the lack of anything categorical re LM’s journey home from school that day is that maybe he walked his normal route home but did so alone because he’d had an argument with Jodi in school that day (possibly over Kimberly Thomson) and wasn’t in the mood for company. There were stories of them being in the China Gardens that afternoon during school lunch break but they weren’t talking to one another and apparently they had their backs to one another during all the lunch break. Also, one of Jodi’s best friends at the time (a girl called Kirsten Ford) mentioned that Jodi seemed more quiet than normal that day.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
So no porn sites, therefore no masturbation and no justification for knowing that there was no one in the house.
Shane didn’t make the dinner and there was no time for Corrine to make the dinner if Shane left the house at 5.30. So who made the dinner?
Maybe there wasn't a dinner or maybe all three weren't home for dinner.
-
I remember reading on another forum a few month back SL saying that there were a couple of boys from Luke’s year at school said he took his normal route home that day. Disappearing act after school never happened — that there were witness statements from people who knew Luke testifying that he took his normal route home. One kid apparently was leaned on afterwards - he changed his story to he thought he'd seen Luke walking home, then he wasn't sure, then he didn't think it was that day. First statement from this kid was absolutely certain — what do we think happened there?
One other theory for the lack of anything categorical re LM’s journey home from school that day is that maybe he walked his normal route home but did so alone because he’d had an argument with Jodi in school that day (possibly over Kimberly Thomson) and wasn’t in the mood for company. There were stories of them being in the China Gardens that afternoon during school lunch break but they weren’t talking to one another and apparently they had their backs to one another during all the lunch break. Also, one of Jodi’s best friends at the time (a girl called Kirsten Ford) mentioned that Jodi seemed more quiet than normal that day.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
There were no witnesses who came forward to say they saw him after school, he effectively disappeared only to reappear hours later at home.
-
There were no witnesses who came forward to say they saw him after school, he effectively disappeared only to reappear hours later at home.
Thanks
-
I now know why Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell failed to identify this 5-bar wooden gate but that will remain my secret for the moment.
For those readers who are new to the forum I can tell you that a youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder. Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.
One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon.
Strange part in all of this too is that Luke never saw him but then, after all, it was his doppelgänger!
Walsh and Fleming were not insistent the youth they saw was Mitchell, what they said in Court was that he looked very similar to Mitchell. There's a big difference between that and what you've said. You also don't mention that 2 other witnesses saw a youth in similar clothing shortly after this near a lane in Newbattle near her in-laws house which is close to LM's house. One of these people knew who Luke Mitchell was as she had seen him and Jodi around several times in recent weeks. She said the person she saw was most definitely NOT Mitchell. I've spoken to her very recently. Even now she says 100% that it wasn't Mitchell.
The person she saw was wearing a green bomber type jacket similar to what was seen by Fleming and Walsh who didn't know Mitchell, nor did they get more than a passing glimpse of his face from their car. The chances of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket within a few minutes of each other are somewhat remote. It's almost certainly the same person, but the witness who knew what Mitchell looked like said it definitely wasn't him she saw. The person she saw was older, late teens at least and a good bit taller (LM was only 5-4 I think).
-
Walsh and Fleming were not insistent the youth they saw was Mitchell, what they said in Court was that he looked very similar to Mitchell. There's a big difference between that and what you've said. You also don't mention that 2 other witnesses saw a youth in similar clothing shortly after this near a lane in Newbattle near her in-laws house which is close to LM's house. One of these people knew who Luke Mitchell was as she had seen him and Jodi around several times in recent weeks. She said the person she saw was most definitely NOT Mitchell. I've spoken to her very recently. Even now she says 100% that it wasn't Mitchell.
The person she saw was wearing a green bomber type jacket similar to what was seen by Fleming and Walsh who didn't know Mitchell, nor did they get more than a passing glimpse of his face from their car. The chances of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket within a few minutes of each other are somewhat remote. It's almost certainly the same person, but the witness who knew what Mitchell looked like said it definitely wasn't him she saw. The person she saw was older, late teens at least and a good bit taller (LM was only 5-4 I think).
Do you have a cite?
-
Some of what I said was reported in the Press at the time, but the person who was a witness at the Trial told me that herself very recently.
Personally I think Mitchell was a victim of "confirmation bias" by the Police from the very start. When you look at it logically, how could someone carry out an extreme murder such as this and be seen less than 45m later, with no blood or scratches, leave no trace of DNA at the scene and leave no trace in his house even although forensics can find blood that has been washed down plug holes and pipes? More so when it was found Mitchell's nails and hair had not been cleaned/washed that night. He didn't do it. It is possible also that he lied about being in the house because he feared getting blamed. He might actually have been out the house, but wasn't the person who did it.
Regarding the absence of DNA, there was a case in Glasgow recently where the accused's DNA was found on the seat lever of the victim's car. The murder didn't happen in her car, but they still found that tiny bit of DNA. That s..mbag got in the car to clean it (was seen on CCTV doing it also), didn't want to be seen putting gloves on outside it, so probably got in the car and used the seat lever to put the seat back then put gloves on. If his DNA was found because he touched something, how could Mitchell's DNA not be found at the scene or anywhere else?
-
Some of what I said was reported in the Press at the time, but the person who was a witness at the Trial told me that herself very recently.
Personally I think Mitchell was a victim of "confirmation bias" by the Police from the very start. When you look at it logically, how could someone carry out an extreme murder such as this and be seen less than 45m later, with no blood or scratches, leave no trace of DNA at the scene and leave no trace in his house even although forensics can find blood that has been washed down plug holes and pipes? More so when it was found Mitchell's nails and hair had not been cleaned/washed that night. He didn't do it. It is possible also that he lied about being in the house because he feared getting blamed. He might actually have been out the house, but wasn't the person who did it.
Regarding the absence of DNA, there was a case in Glasgow recently where the accused's DNA was found on the seat lever of the victim's car. The murder didn't happen in her car, but they still found that tiny bit of DNA. That s..mbag got in the car to clean it (was seen on CCTV doing it also), didn't want to be seen putting gloves on outside it, so probably got in the car and used the seat lever to put the seat back then put gloves on. If his DNA was found because he touched something, how could Mitchell's DNA not be found at the scene or anywhere else?
I have lots of second hand information from mutual friends of mine and Kane's but I resist posting the info here because, like your info, it's second hand and I don't have a cite.
-
Walsh and Fleming were not insistent the youth they saw was Mitchell, what they said in Court was that he looked very similar to Mitchell. There's a big difference between that and what you've said. You also don't mention that 2 other witnesses saw a youth in similar clothing shortly after this near a lane in Newbattle near her in-laws house which is close to LM's house. One of these people knew who Luke Mitchell was as she had seen him and Jodi around several times in recent weeks. She said the person she saw was most definitely NOT Mitchell. I've spoken to her very recently. Even now she says 100% that it wasn't Mitchell.
The person she saw was wearing a green bomber type jacket similar to what was seen by Fleming and Walsh who didn't know Mitchell, nor did they get more than a passing glimpse of his face from their car. The chances of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket within a few minutes of each other are somewhat remote. It's almost certainly the same person, but the witness who knew what Mitchell looked like said it definitely wasn't him she saw. The person she saw was older, late teens at least and a good bit taller (LM was only 5-4 I think).
Nonsense - they were called as witnesses for the prosecution, specifically due to getting that blouson jacket and jeans correct, the same clothing seen by the boys on the pushbike, and not the same jacket as that by F&W. They could only ID the clothing and not the person, and no they did not know LM. You are mixing up the witness who did know him, who positively ID him with that same jacket on.
Now for the part you are correct on - there were not two people on that stretch of road at the same time, wearing the same clothing - spot on there! Very much why they were called as witnesses, to show the Jury that it had to have been Mitchell and that he was spotted at a point in the road he claimed not to have walked to. That Jacket shown to them by the AD and them agreeing it was the jacket the youth had been wearing. And stating to the Jury, that even though they could not ID Luke as the person, there could be no doubt that only one youth was on that stretch of road wearing that jacket and that youth had to be LM, as he had been positively ID with that clothing on by the motorist who knew him and by those boys on the pushbikes. All around the same time frame. And although Mitchell stated he had not walked that far, he still claimed to have been on that road at that exact time.
It was to show the Jury, that Mitchell lied easily, and the sighting was near to the entrance to the woods. And DF attempted to show that Mitchell was telling the truth, that he had not walked that far, leaving that ludicrous notion of there being two people dressed identically!!
So no, it was not the same jacket and F&W were not wavering on it being Mitchell. To the point, of whilst under duress of questioning by the defence, stated clearly and without doubt ! "I know what I saw, you are trying to confuse me!" And of the picture in the paper, and "look, it's him, the person we saw!"
And we know without a doubt it was not MK at that gate - so muddle away with the same ole same ole - There were not two youths identical on that stretch of road at the same time! One ID by F&W as being Mitchell, and no other looking the same as him, with another khaki green jacket on. As with the one who stated it was NOT Mitchell but wearing the exact same clothing he actually did have on, when positively ID by the others. - One youth and that youth was LM, plain and simple. ID with that German army style parka on at the gate, and around 15mins later he had changed into that green blouson jacket. And he was seen by 7 people with that blouson, Two motorists who knew him, positively ID him and the jacket he was wearing, The three cyclists, again who knew him and ID that jacket he had on. And the other two in the car, who did not know him! and gave a positive ID of that jacket and clothing and stated that it was not Mitchell. - Fluke? not on your life, It was Mitchell.
What it does show us, depending on what the focus is upon, what different people will pick up on. The ones who could not ID LM got every part of his clothing spot on! The ones who knew him, knew him. The one's who didn't and were concentrated on him, ID him and got the clothing close, but not exact! And of AB, F&W and the motorist who could not ID - all said the same thing, there was something off about him, up to no good, looking dubious, and confrontational.
So some baby steps here, it is not a long stretch of road we are talking of here. Mere seconds between the different points in a car. F&W see Mitchell at the gate, with that khaki green Parka style jacket on, seconds to drive that small stretch of road, and they do not see another youth in khaki green clothing looking like the one at the gate, And you would notice! There was only one youth and it could only be Mitchell. The motorist who did not know him, again only saw one youth in that exact jacket Mitchell was wearing, no other youth on that road. Just him, it was Mitchell.
And we know you must be talking of a different witness, that no one who gave evidence, that stated it was NOT Mitchell claimed to have known him - are you saying they were lying in court? Put it this way, that would make it stand out more, as they did not state they saw a youth looking dubious with Mitchells clothing on, the did not see Mitchell at the entrance even though they knew him - there are those bells again!!
-
Walsh and Fleming were not insistent the youth they saw was Mitchell, what they said in Court was that he looked very similar to Mitchell. There's a big difference between that and what you've said. You also don't mention that 2 other witnesses saw a youth in similar clothing shortly after this near a lane in Newbattle near her in-laws house which is close to LM's house. One of these people knew who Luke Mitchell was as she had seen him and Jodi around several times in recent weeks. She said the person she saw was most definitely NOT Mitchell. I've spoken to her very recently. Even now she says 100% that it wasn't Mitchell.
The person she saw was wearing a green bomber type jacket similar to what was seen by Fleming and Walsh who didn't know Mitchell, nor did they get more than a passing glimpse of his face from their car. The chances of 2 people being seen wearing a green jacket within a few minutes of each other are somewhat remote. It's almost certainly the same person, but the witness who knew what Mitchell looked like said it definitely wasn't him she saw. The person she saw was older, late teens at least and a good bit taller (LM was only 5-4 I think).
Talk about throwing a spanner in the works! Who is this woman, WW? Marion O’Sullivan? The woman who drove by the N’battle rd with her partner Derek Hamilton around 1800 that day? This couple testified in court that they identified a young male wearing a green bomber jacket, but were unambiguous that it definitely was not Mitchell. Or is this another witness?
People who saw a youth on N’battle road wearing either a green parka or green bomber jacket on 30.06.03:
F&W, the 3 boys on push bikes, MO & her partner DH and the woman who was an employee of the Scottish Executive. 8 people in total. Am I missing something?
-
Just seems weird that not a single soul can vouch for LM's whereabouts.
Not even his brother.
-
Nonsense - they were called as witnesses for the prosecution, specifically due to getting that blouson jacket and jeans correct, the same clothing seen by the boys on the pushbike, and not the same jacket as that by F&W. They could only ID the clothing and not the person, and no they did not know LM. You are mixing up the witness who did know him, who positively ID him with that same jacket on.
Now for the part you are correct on - there were not two people on that stretch of road at the same time, wearing the same clothing - spot on there! Very much why they were called as witnesses, to show the Jury that it had to have been Mitchell and that he was spotted at a point in the road he claimed not to have walked to. That Jacket shown to them by the AD and them agreeing it was the jacket the youth had been wearing. And stating to the Jury, that even though they could not ID Luke as the person, there could be no doubt that only one youth was on that stretch of road wearing that jacket and that youth had to be LM, as he had been positively ID with that clothing on by the motorist who knew him and by those boys on the pushbikes. All around the same time frame. And although Mitchell stated he had not walked that far, he still claimed to have been on that road at that exact time.
It was to show the Jury, that Mitchell lied easily, and the sighting was near to the entrance to the woods. And DF attempted to show that Mitchell was telling the truth, that he had not walked that far, leaving that ludicrous notion of there being two people dressed identically!!
So no, it was not the same jacket and F&W were not wavering on it being Mitchell. To the point, of whilst under duress of questioning by the defence, stated clearly and without doubt ! "I know what I saw, you are trying to confuse me!" And of the picture in the paper, and "look, it's him, the person we saw!"
And we know without a doubt it was not MK at that gate - so muddle away with the same ole same ole - There were not two youths identical on that stretch of road at the same time! One ID by F&W as being Mitchell, and no other looking the same as him, with another khaki green jacket on. As with the one who stated it was NOT Mitchell but wearing the exact same clothing he actually did have on, when positively ID by the others. - One youth and that youth was LM, plain and simple. ID with that German army style parka on at the gate, and around 15mins later he had changed into that green blouson jacket. And he was seen by 7 people with that blouson, Two motorists who knew him, positively ID him and the jacket he was wearing, The three cyclists, again who knew him and ID that jacket he had on. And the other two in the car, who did not know him! and gave a positive ID of that jacket and clothing and stated that it was not Mitchell. - Fluke? not on your life, It was Mitchell.
What it does show us, depending on what the focus is upon, what different people will pick up on. The ones who could not ID LM got every part of his clothing spot on! The ones who knew him, knew him. The one's who didn't and were concentrated on him, ID him and got the clothing close, but not exact! And of AB, F&W and the motorist who could not ID - all said the same thing, there was something off about him, up to no good, looking dubious, and confrontational.
So some baby steps here, it is not a long stretch of road we are talking of here. Mere seconds between the different points in a car. F&W see Mitchell at the gate, with that khaki green Parka style jacket on, seconds to drive that small stretch of road, and they do not see another youth in khaki green clothing looking like the one at the gate, And you would notice! There was only one youth and it could only be Mitchell. The motorist who did not know him, again only saw one youth in that exact jacket Mitchell was wearing, no other youth on that road. Just him, it was Mitchell.
And we know you must be talking of a different witness, that no one who gave evidence, that stated it was NOT Mitchell claimed to have known him - are you saying they were lying in court? Put it this way, that would make it stand out more, as they did not state they saw a youth looking dubious with Mitchells clothing on, the did not see Mitchell at the entrance even though they knew him - there are those bells again!!
You are absolutely correct. The boy seen by all the witnesses was the same person. The only problem is the jogger described by RW was never on the stretch of bridge RW described but further up, nearer to Newbattle college and at also exactly the position where Luke said he was at the time he said he was there.
I’m sure RW felt that she was helping nail a vicious killer. Within days of the murder the public knew exactly how horrendous this crime had been and I’m sure it would not have taken too many of the ‘is it possible’ type questions frequently favoured by police who aren’t getting exactly what they want from a witness for RW to acquiesce to changes to their recollection.
“ all said the same thing, there was something off about him, up to no good, looking dubious, and confrontational. “ The original statements of those witnesses claimed none of the above. Why do you continue to spread disinformation?
-
There were no witnesses who came forward to say they saw him after school, he effectively disappeared only to reappear hours later at home.
So, what are you suggesting? That LM had devised some elaborate plan that afternoon to get rid of Jodi? I don’t think so. Besides, he was home between 1600 and 1625 as per the landline calls he answered and made (he answered a call from Shane’s mobile at 1600 hrs on the family’s landline at Newbattle Abbey Crescent and made a call to Scott’s Caravans from the same landline at 1625; this was accepted as evidence in court). Also, he was positively identified on N’battle Rd by boys he knew from school at just past 1800 hrs. This, too, was used and accepted as evidence in court. So, he didn’t just disappear only to reappear hours later at home. The real crux of the matter is his whereabouts between 1625 hrs and 1800 hrs — and, of course, he was caught out between those crucial times, too.
-
So, what are you suggesting? That LM had devised some elaborate plan that afternoon to get rid of Jodi? I don’t think so. Besides, he was home between 1600 and 1625 as per the landline calls he answered and made (he answered a call from Shane’s mobile at 1600 hrs on the family’s landline at Newbattle Abbey Crescent and made a call to Scott’s Caravans from the same landline at 1625; this was accepted as evidence in court). Also, he was positively identified on N’battle Rd by boys he knew from school at just past 1800 hrs. This, too, was used and accepted as evidence in court. So, he didn’t just disappear only to reappear hours later at home. The real crux of the matter is his whereabouts between 1625 hrs and 1800 hrs — and, of course, he was caught out between those crucial times, too.
And was it not Jodi's idea to meet up with him?
-
And was it not Jodi's idea to meet up with him?
That was never ascertained and, like every other facet of this case, there is some ambiguity about what happened or what was supposed to happen. Luke claimed that Jodi was coming to over to Newbattle to meet him (which I don’t believe), but the Joneses said that Jodi indicated that she and Luke would be ‘mucking about up there/here’ (the inference being that they would be in Easthouses). I think the general consensus is that they normally would meet halfway on the Roan’s Dyke Path or that Luke would meet her at Easthouses and then they’d go wherever they had planned to go. Judith had stipulated that Jodi hadn’t to walk the path due to its seclusion, so it stands to reason that Luke likely met her at the Easthouses end so as to put her out of harm’s way (it was common knowledge that Jodi still sometimes walked the path on her own, despite her mother’s warnings). The thing that bamboozles me is that there doesn’t appear to have been any attempts made by either the defence or prosecution to obtain Luke & Jodi’s text exchanges between 1638 and up until she died. The text exchanges were deleted, but mobile phone operators retained the info for a year before completely erasing them so there was ample opportunity for the police and Luke’s legal team to do so (admittedly either of them had only about 2 months to obtain the texts and not a year, since Luke wasn’t arrested until April 2004, but given the potential evedential importance of the messages, then, it is surprising they never did this). Or maybe they did, but the it didn’t yield any results. Another bone of contention was the lack of cell site analysis, but, again, perhaps the police had done this and there were no conclusive results as the data couldn’t pinpoint exactly where a person was at a given time (the technology back then could only locate a person to the nearest few miles, which was useless); also, unfortunately, technology back in 2003/04 didn’t have GPS. (In the case of the defence, they were denied cell site analysis because the Legal Aid Board said it was too expensive.)
-
Talk about throwing a spanner in the works! Who is this woman, WW? Marion O’Sullivan? The woman who drove by the N’battle rd with her partner Derek Hamilton around 1800 that day? This couple testified in court that they identified a young male wearing a green bomber jacket, but were unambiguous that it definitely was not Mitchell. Or is this another witness?
People who saw a youth on N’battle road wearing either a green parka or green bomber jacket on 30.06.03:
F&W, the 3 boys on push bikes, MO & her partner DH and the woman who was an employee of the Scottish Executive. 8 people in total. Am I missing something?
They described the bomber jacket but were adamant the boy was a different boy than Luke, in court. The sighting of two different boys wasn't witnessed by anyone at all. Those witnesses didn't know Luke and didn't identify him but W&F didn't know Luke but did identify him in a longer, green jacket. I'm not suggesting that any witness lied and I'm not suggesting that because one set of witnesses testified to one thing then so should the other set of witnesses testify to that thing. I'm saying, what if every witness is correct and LM had help on Newbattle Road from another male?
-
You are absolutely correct. The boy seen by all the witnesses was the same person. The only problem is the jogger described by RW was never on the stretch of bridge RW described but further up, nearer to Newbattle college and at also exactly the position where Luke said he was at the time he said he was there.
I’m sure RW felt that she was helping nail a vicious killer. Within days of the murder the public knew exactly how horrendous this crime had been and I’m sure it would not have taken too many of the ‘is it possible’ type questions frequently favoured by police who aren’t getting exactly what they want from a witness for RW to acquiesce to changes to their recollection.
“ all said the same thing, there was something off about him, up to no good, looking dubious, and confrontational. “ The original statements of those witnesses claimed none of the above. Why do you continue to spread disinformation?
So not MK at all then? Did you just call Parky correct whilst selling the idea of "the same boy?" Must be, Parky! I don't agree. Whilst you're pushing the "same boy" story, I think there were two different boys on Newbattle Road but not at exacctly the same time and that's why I think you're pushing the one boy story. The witnesses who were there disagree with you.
-
It doesn’t matter that Luke wasn’t seen after school on 30.06.03, because the landline logs on the Mitchell family house phone prove that Luke spoke to Shane at 1610 that day (Shane phoned from his mobile to say he’d be home later than normal as he was helping a friend fix his car; Shane normally was back in the house before Luke, at 1530 . . . Luke normally got home from school around 1545/1550) and Luke used the phone to call Corinne at 1625 at her work (Caravan business) to ask what he should make for dinner. Sandra Lean has confirmed this. Besides, Luke was under the impression that Jodi was still grounded, until he received a text from Jodi at 1634 (texting from her mother’s mobile phone because hers was broken) indicating that she was now allowed out. Luke and Jodi then exchanged further text messages between 1634 & 1638, and had then arranged to meet up (unfortunately, these text exchanges wee never retrieved and therefore it was never ascertained exactly where or when they’d arranged to meet up later that evening).
Do you know if the Mitchell landline had an answering machine or some other kind of answering service please? Does anyone know? The point I'm making here is the logs are only proof of calls but they're not proof of who made them or to whom. An answering machine would pick up an incoming call so not necessarily answered by a real person.