Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 27710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #90 on: June 20, 2019, 05:44:47 PM »
@ approx 5.20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corinne Mitchell claims Luke phoned her whilst she was in the back garden, looking for JJ?

I presume the above is related to this?

7pm Luke phones his mother to tell her if Jodi comes to the house, he is in The Abbey, and to tell Jodi to come there.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 05:47:34 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #91 on: June 20, 2019, 09:11:13 PM »
A STEAK pie is mentioned here:


“THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family’s house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell’s statement given on the previous day to Shane’s. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502

So is the STEAK pie a mistake of the media’s or Shane Mitchell’s?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #92 on: June 20, 2019, 09:41:15 PM »
It’s suggested here https://www.academia.edu/4093239/Serial_Murder_and_the_Psychology_of_Violent_Crimes (Page 63 onwards) Luke Mitchell met JJ in the woods at 5pm
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #93 on: June 21, 2019, 03:18:13 PM »
Many a controversy over this has been had. Didn't the laddie phone his pal several times chasing him up yet failed to chase up his GF? Why for a mate and not for the lassie? IF he believed she had been grounded which I believe was later stated, then why agree that the stepfather had said she was on her way. Did he think she had returned home and then grounded? Still doesn't make sense that he chased his pal up and not phone to confirm if she had been grounded. Bit of a puzzler thus the controversy IMO

Maybe it was because Jodi's phone was broken at the time (I think?!) and so to chase her would have been more difficult and involved phoning her house again, potentially getting her into more trouble.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #94 on: June 21, 2019, 04:34:06 PM »
Maybe it was because Jodi's phone was broken at the time (I think?!) and so to chase her would have been more difficult and involved phoning her house again, potentially getting her into more trouble.

Certainly a theory.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #95 on: June 24, 2019, 11:44:25 PM »
My first thoughts on the debates against this laddies conviction started with why?

A fit up begged the Q why?

We all know it happens in our society, many a miscarriage has taken place.  Why frame this youth of 14yrs of age?

20 points of circumstantial evidence were presented against him. It mattered to me not that there was no physical evidence, (maybe I have a deviant mind) In a world of revolving ways, technology becoming more precise from then with major advancements still. The deviant mind would first and foremost concentrate on DNA and all that is attributable to it.


There were no full profiles of Lukes DNA. Not what we are led to believe in the minority of there being 100% nothing. I am by no means a scientist. From then til now? 20 markers make a full profile. At this time there were x amount of male DNA profile markers, this does not mean that there were x amount of unknown males, it simply meant that there were DNA male factors that could have been Lukes, but if more were given could have matched up to perhaps another 10 different male profiles. Every DNA profile has similarities with at least 10 other people. Thus why we need more than 10 to akin them to one person alone. For some who are fair minded, it was thought strange that no FULL DNA profile matched Lukes, they had been in close contact that day. The defence and prosecution decided to put this to the side for that very reason. It would not have mattered one Iota if Lukes DNA had been present. A relentless , time consuming argument would have unfolded as to why it was present.

There was DNA present from other males. The main one debated about resulting in every scenario imaginable was that of the sisters boyfriend. Some time ago it was stated that there was both blood and semen, now retracted back to simply being semen. (Many times, probably with much damage) I looked into this, did not take it a face value. Tried very hard to discount the simple explanation behind it and drew a blank.


Condom man, I drew a blank from the first instance, simply because, IMO, a crime that warranted intelect. You don't just deposit your full DNA. Does it matter, yes it does. Damages done to those behind a screen mean nothing to those it affects. IMO


So 3 major points of DNA , the markers not making a full profile, matched Lukes, The sisters boyfriend, went through every test and , dare I say , stould the test of time and still does. Condom man, really?


Move on from DNA. We have 2 lads on a bike, they lied, they were in the vicinity. They were not seen by the witness on his cycle who heard strange noises. there was no DNA even in 1 marker of the 20 attributable of theirs. There was of Lukes.


Their kin, dad with the dogs, spaniels, Over the wall between 5.30 onwards. Police tested the dogs, they passsed, did not pick up police scents re blood etc ( For those who may be led to believe this is a small area, it's pretty widescale. )

BUT , from here we have, liars on bikes at the location, we have condom man, we have the dad and spaniels, we have the sisters boyfriend. If what is put forward re times, reasons WHY target this 14 yr old laddie?

So WHY? for me would spell , it was the prime ministers son, got to pick someone else. Yes I'm being facetious. Simply asking WHY pick Luke?. NO DNA, absolutely no evidence , circumstanial etc against him So WHY?


Because it simply ain't true, Can juggle about just about everything, and everyone this case revolves around. Not one of the scenario of suspects could even come close to 20 avenues of circumstantial evidence. Not even one of them.




Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #96 on: June 25, 2019, 12:53:08 AM »
Condom man, I drew a blank from the first instance, simply because, IMO, a crime that warranted intelect. You don't just deposit your full DNA. Does it matter, yes it does. Damages done to those behind a screen mean nothing to those it affects. IMO

Corrine Mitchell did claim Luke was more intelligent than the police however deviance does not make Luke intelligent.

Condom man may have simply had protected sex with someone and chose to omit this detail to protect the identity of the other person.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #97 on: June 28, 2019, 07:01:18 PM »
In response to Gordo30 here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452104.html#msg452104

Nugnug states: “well shel ilived in the same house as her mum but her mum didn't know

He clearly has no understanding of how secretive many teenagers can be at that age; which is telling in itself. Nor does he appear to comprehend self harming. Luke Mitchell was also self harming. Stubbing out cigarettes on his hand, using a compass on his arm, drugs. Some ‘experts’ also suggests tattoos and body piercings to be linked. Self harming is often a way young people deal with overwhelming emotions.

How didn’t Corrine Mitchell know about her sons hidden bottles of urine?

He then states: “the question for me is why the police even asked abut her sexual activity and her self harming what was the relevance.

Could it be for the pathologist and to rule out what injuries were linked to the murder and what weren’t?

Common sense often goes out of the window in cases like this.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 07:15:08 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2019, 10:55:20 PM »
So is the STEAK pie a mistake of the media’s or Shane Mitchell’s?


“THE mother of Luke Mitchell yesterday claimed that her son was at home cooking dinner at the time he is alleged to have murdered the schoolgirl Jodi Jones.

Corinne Mitchell, 45, was giving evidence at the trial of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies strangling and repeatedly stabbing his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Dalkeith, Midlothian, on June 30 last year.

The court was also told that Mrs Mitchell had been arrested and charged last April at the same time as her son. But she was told yesterday that there were now no outstanding criminal proceedings against her.

Mrs Mitchell, of Newbattle, Dalkeith, told the High Court in Edinburgh that on the day Jodi was killed she arrived home from work at about 5.15pm. She said her eldest son, Shane, 23, was in his bedroom and Luke was in the kitchen. She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead.

She said he ate his meal in the living room before setting off to meet Jodi at around 5.40pm. They had made an arrangement to meet that evening by text message, she said. “They arranged to meet. He wasn’t sure what time. All he knew was she was coming down.”

Mrs Mitchell added that her son told her he planned to wait for Jodi at the end of the road.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her son’s movements that day. “Luke and I talk a lot,” Mrs Mitchell replied.

Mr Turnbull went on to say that if her account was correct then the accused could not have been sighted at the other end of Roan’s Dyke, close to Jodi’s home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, at around 4.55pm, as earlier witnesses had suggested.

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been “impossible”.

She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.

“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Yes, it did,” she replied.

She said they thought perhaps Jodi had gone to a friend’s house or had been grounded.

“How would you describe the way he was reacting to the fact she hadn’t turned up?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Mrs Mitchell replied: “I think more miffed that she hadn’t turned up.”

Asked whether he had seemed anxious, she said: “Not at that point, no.” She said he then went up to his bedroom before taking the dog for a walk.

Later that evening the police told her that Jodi Jones was dead. She denied she then said to police: “Is Luke a suspect?”

Mrs Mitchell explained she would not have said that, because she thought at that stage Jodi had died an accidental death. “I worried that she might have left her inhaler and suffered a breathing attack.”


She told the court that Jodi’s mother banned her and Luke from attending Jodi’s funeral in September 2003. She said she had written a reply to Mrs Jones, informing her that they would respect her wishes, but had also felt the need to say goodbye. Mrs Mitchell said she had a “very good” close relationship with her son. She said she liked Jodi.

Earlier, the court had been told by Shane Mitchell that he had thought he was alone in the house watching internet pornography between 4.55pm and 5.15pm on the day Jodi died.

The court was told that he had given two conflicting statements to police about the events of that night, because he had a poor memory due to previous drug use and had been reminded of the evening’s events by his mother. In his first statement he told police he thought Luke was at home cooking a steak pie in the kitchen while he was upstairs. But a few days later he changed his statement and said that he could not remember seeing Luke in the house between 4.55pm and 5.15pm.

Luke Mitchell’s special defence of alibi claims that he was at or near his home between 5pm and 5.45 pm, around the time Jodi is thought to have been murdered.

Mr Turnbull asked Shane Mitchell: “If you had not been in discussion with your mother, could you have given any information to the police?” He replied: “Not much. I could not remember anything.”

He agreed he now had no recollection of seeing his brother Luke in their home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

Mr Turnbull said: “Have we now reached the truth, Mr Mitchell?” The witness replied: “Yes”
The trial continues.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jodi-boyfriend-was-cooking-dinner-xpv2b0l6xn8
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 11:03:00 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2019, 11:04:44 PM »
She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead.



“When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #100 on: July 02, 2019, 10:53:26 AM »
My first thoughts on the debates against this laddies conviction started with why?

A fit up begged the Q why?

We all know it happens in our society, many a miscarriage has taken place.  Why frame this youth of 14yrs of age?


.....WHY target this 14 yr old laddie?

So WHY? for me would spell , it was the prime ministers son, got to pick someone else. Yes I'm being facetious. Simply asking WHY pick Luke?. NO DNA, absolutely no evidence , circumstanial etc against him So WHY?

According to Sandra Lean the people in her book “No Smoke ”were just ordinary citizens, living ordinary lives, until they became caught up in a nightmare from which there was no escape. (Luke Mitchell & Simon Hall were 2 of the 7 people in her book)
As hard as it is for us to believe, there was nothing in their lifestyles, background, or personalities which brought them into the criminal justice system as “suspects,” quite aside from any consideration of evidence.


I strongly disagree with the above, for obvious reasons, and wonder what lessons, if any, have been learned since Simon Halls confession in 2013 and how he was able to con so many people over such a long period of time?

Remember Sandra Leans “imaginary 12 points for a new justice system, where she claimed Luke Mitchell scored 12 points and Simon Hall scored 10 out of the 12?

Simon Hall was guilty therefore it would surely follow 10 of those 12 points in her “imaginary new justice system require reexamination and revision?

But in January 2017 Sandra Lean stated, in response to me suggesting her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn.

”I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

Surely a synopsis of the revision of her book should also contain a reference to the Zenith burglary omission along with all the other details that came to her attention in the time leading up to Simon Halls confession? By leaving these facts out she’s misleading her readers.

And by not re-examining and revising at least 10 of the 12 points in her “imaginary new justice system theory, she’s misleading people yet further. If 10 of her 12 point imaginary new justice system theory is flawed in its reasoning which affects all 7 cases not just 1!

She then went on to state here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383720.html#msg383720

”I wrote a book about wrongful convictions, and the things that make them possible. If you'd like me to write a book about psychopathy and personality disorders, then I can do that. But let's not conflate the two.

Does Sandra Leans new book avoid looking into Luke Mitchell’s personality? What about his mothers and his brother Shane? His father? His gran?

What does it say about his personality and for example about his interests in satanism?

Does the book minimise these crucial aspects in this case, and if so, why?

An example re personality:

When Corrine Mitchell refers to her mum (Luke Mitchell’s Gran) during the James English interview, when telling a story about 3 guys on motorbikes (who allegedly surrounded the car) and knocking someone off a bike; she says;
she knocked him clean off his bike, she didn’t give a shit.”
@ approx 109.26 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

Did Luke Mitchell take after his Gran?

Did the guy who his gran allegedly knocked off his bike get hurt or didn’t “she give a shit?. Facts like this are relevant to cases like this as they often give clues to the personality traits of the individual concerned.

According to Corrine Mitchell, Luke stayed at his dads house at weekends. So what does Luke Mitchell’s dad say about his youngest sons personality? And what does his dads witness statement say? Or was he never asked about his sons personality?

In cases like this, it’s a red flag if we are only hearing parts of the picture. Having no input from Luke Mitchell’s brother and father, especially when it comes to personality traits, and after 16 years, does not help the cause in the slightest.

Was Shane Mitchell on heroin? I recall him being referred to as a “smack head.” What drug or drugs was he taking previously in order to suffer from an alleged poor memory?

Quote
The court was told that he had given two conflicting statements to police about the events of that night, because he had a poor memory due to previous drug use and had been reminded of the evening’s events by his mother.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 03:03:35 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #101 on: July 02, 2019, 01:27:18 PM »
Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her son’s movements that day. “Luke and I talk a lot,” Mrs Mitchell replied.

Mr Turnbull went on to say that if her account was correct then the accused could not have been sighted at the other end of Roan’s Dyke, close to Jodi’s home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, at around 4.55pm, as earlier witnesses had suggested.

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been “impossible”.

She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.

“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Yes, it did,” she replied.

Yet Corrine Mitchell appears to tell James English the opposite. Remember the comment “she’ll be yipping
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #102 on: July 02, 2019, 02:48:53 PM »
Caught in the lie

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452006.html#msg452006
Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)


According to Luke Mitchell his mother helped him finish off making dinner and according to Corrine Mitchells evidence given during trial, and depending on what version you believe, Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli.

She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead

Shane Mitchell said his brother was standing at the cooker “mashing tatties.”

Yet “The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes (Note: no mention of the broccoli/bean story)

So dinner couldn’t have been ready as Sandra Lean claims.

She also stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997
Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.

There are several anomalies with this particular version of events, not only with timings but linked to the broccoli, tatties, bean and chicken and/or steak pie stories. Who’s version of events should be believed? Why did Luke need to ask his mother when she got home if he should cook broccoli or beans? Hadn’t he already telephoned her to ask what to cook for dinner? He was an intelligent lad remember; could hold his own when interrogated by the police

Quote
For Luke's part, he did not give evidence, his mother now says that he was badly represented by Donald Findlay QC.  In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner.  He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=583.msg17873#msg17873

Yet Shane Mitchell said; “Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

Quote
Mrs Mitchell, of Newbattle, Dalkeith, told the High Court in Edinburgh that on the day Jodi was killed she arrived home from work at about 5.15pm. She said her eldest son, Shane, 23, was in his bedroom and Luke was in the kitchen. She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jodi-boyfriend-was-cooking-dinner-xpv2b0l6xn8

Corrine Mitchell:
“When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead..
.as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813

Quote
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.
His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502

as was the case of Lynne Hall

R v SIMON JOHN HALL http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/Hall/index.html
The appellant told the police in interview and the jury at trial that he arrived home at 6.28 am, the time he saw displayed on the microwave oven clock. He went straight home, a journey of some 5 minutes. His mother was up when he arrived and they spent 10 minutes over a cup of tea. Mrs Hall gave evidence that the microwave clock was faulty; her son arrived home, she said, at 6.10 – 6.15 am. There was, on the prosecution case, an unexplained interval of an hour. http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/Hall/index.html
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 07:23:29 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #103 on: July 02, 2019, 04:59:49 PM »
Corrine Mitchell is given a pretty big platform in which to finally put across her version of the truth (as she sees it) and after 16 years the stakes are high but within only 2 minute and 53 seconds (Approx) of the James English interview she avoids answering his question about Luke’s mindset on the night leading up to the murder.

Huge red flag! Massive!

Instead of setting the record straight once and for all she chose to go off at a tangent and generalise instead.

James English gives her another chance to answer, this is within the first 5 minutes of the interview, and she again chooses avoidance and skips straight to Luke allegedly leaving the house at 5.40pm.  *&^^&



« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 06:52:52 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Rusty

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #104 on: July 02, 2019, 07:24:12 PM »
Thanks for your input Nicholas. I watched both podcasts, i had to come find information from other sources, it does seem both podcasts are extremely bias. I don't think the interviewer had a clue what to ask or maybe he was not allowed to ask the mother on the terms of the interview.

I was a member of a Hearts fc forum a while back, a thread regarding this case was inundated with what seemed like a multi account user that actually resembles that first ladies podcasts views.

I tried to sign up to another forum, but for some reason i can't get activated, then i found this one, which seems more civil and grammar is not unreadable.

A question i have you might know, is who seen the 2 guys on the moped, and who seen the moped parked against the wall, for all the reading iv'e done on this, i cant seem to find an answer to this.

Also, how far was the body from the break in the wall, and how thick was the wood/growth? i'm just curious, as when Luke seen the body as soon as he jumped over with his light, i'm very sceptical he could do this, without known what was there already.