"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Sorry I was not talking about the paper printing the photo but to them reporting what Turnbull said to Luke’s mum. That witnesses saw Luke in the coat not “I refer to the photo showing Luke in a parka”. If they had it they would have used it. Maybe there was a photo that police had but were so incompetent it never made it to the prosecution to be used it court. Might still be in a box somewhere but it does not appear to have been used at the trial. I think your friend is making stuff up, exaggerating or just mistaken it was used in court.

There was clearly evidence of psycho killer Luke Mitchell owning a khaki green army parka-style jacket before his murder

“She also rejected witness claims that Mitchell had a parka-style jacket before 14-year-old Jodi died.

She said she had bought him one eight days later as it was 'fashionable'.

And Mrs Mitchell denied burning anything in her garden within a couple of hours of Jodi being murdered.

[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Maybe the reporters who reported on the trial missed hearing the evidence of all the witnesses who gave evidence of seeing killer Luke Mitchell wearing his khaki green army parka-style jacket

[Nicholas]

Sorry I was not talking about the paper printing the photo but to them reporting what Turnbull said to Luke’s mum. That witnesses saw Luke in the coat not “I refer to the photo showing Luke in a parka”. If they had it they would have used it. Maybe there was a photo that police had but were so incompetent it never made it to the prosecution to be used it court. Might still be in a box somewhere but it does not appear to have been used at the trial. I think your friend is making stuff up, exaggerating or just mistaken it was used in court.

The media don’t appear to have reported on what Matthew Muraska’s (platoon commander) evidence was regarding killer Luke Mitchell’s khaki green army parka-style jacket


“Mr Turnbull said a range of witnesses, including friends, acquaintances and a platoon commander from Mr Mitchell's Army cadets remembered the accused wearing a Parka before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell said the one she had bought was his first.


Instead they focused on reporting on Matthew Muraska’s evidence regarding the missing knife/knives

’Another witness,Matthew Muraska, 50, said he helped run an Army Cadets Force unit in Bonnyrigg. Mitchell had joined the unit in December 2001 and left in March last year.

Mr Muraska said he'd warned about carrying knives at meetings and said the weapons had no place in the cadets.

He continued: 'I can understand some parents wanting to buy their child a Swiss Army knife when they are out camping.

'But some of the knives I have come across in the past have been extremely lethal weapons.'

He then went on to describe an incident when he ticked off Mitchell for having a knife at a meeting.

He said: 'They were on parade at the end of the evening and I saw one of the cadets passing something to Luke.

'I said 'what was that?' and he said 'nothing'. He removed the knife from his pocket and handed it to me.

'I opened the knife and it was about six or seven inches long - a lock-type knife with a pointed blade.

'I opened the knife and held it up so all the cadets could see.

'I said I never ever wanted to see a knife like that in the Army cadets and that a knife such as that was made for one purpose and one purpose only.

'At that point, one young cadet said 'killing' and I said 'yes, exactly'.'


What exactly did Matthew Muraska say about killer Luke Mitchell’s missing khaki green army parka-style jacket?

And on what dates did he see him wearing the missing parka?

“Mr Turnbull said a range of witnesses, including friends, acquaintances and a platoon commander from Mr Mitchell's Army cadets remembered the accused wearing a Parka before Jodi's death

The following was published post trial - again nothing about Matthew Muraska‘s parka evidence

‘At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.

Full article can be read here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12058.msg662498#msg662498

UPDATED
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Samantha Phillips With all the new people filling the various roles in the Scottish Parliament, we're waiting to see who lands up where. But we will be contacting everyone we think could (or should) help push this forward.

 

[faithlilly]

The media don’t appear to have reported on what Matthew Muraska’s (platoon commander) evidence was regarding killer Luke Mitchell’s khaki green army parka-style jacket


“Mr Turnbull said a range of witnesses, including friends, acquaintances and a platoon commander from Mr Mitchell's Army cadets remembered the accused wearing a Parka before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell said the one she had bought was his first.


Instead they focused on reporting on Matthew Muraska’s evidence regarding the missing knife/knives

’Another witness,Matthew Muraska, 50, said he helped run an Army Cadets Force unit in Bonnyrigg. Mitchell had joined the unit in December 2001 and left in March last year.

Mr Muraska said he'd warned about carrying knives at meetings and said the weapons had no place in the cadets.

He continued: 'I can understand some parents wanting to buy their child a Swiss Army knife when they are out camping.

'But some of the knives I have come across in the past have been extremely lethal weapons.'

He then went on to describe an incident when he ticked off Mitchell for having a knife at a meeting.

He said: 'They were on parade at the end of the evening and I saw one of the cadets passing something to Luke.

'I said 'what was that?' and he said 'nothing'. He removed the knife from his pocket and handed it to me.

'I opened the knife and it was about six or seven inches long - a lock-type knife with a pointed blade.

'I opened the knife and held it up so all the cadets could see.

'I said I never ever wanted to see a knife like that in the Army cadets and that a knife such as that was made for one purpose and one purpose only.

'At that point, one young cadet said 'killing' and I said 'yes, exactly'.'


What exactly did Matthew Muraska say about killer Luke Mitchell’s missing khaki green army parka-style jacket?

And on what dates did he see him wearing the missing parka?

“Mr Turnbull said a range of witnesses, including friends, acquaintances and a platoon commander from Mr Mitchell's Army cadets remembered the accused wearing a Parka before Jodi's death

The following was published post trial - again nothing about Matthew Muraska‘s parka evidence

‘At an army cadet corps he attended in Bonnyrigg, a lock knife with a six-inch blade that he was carrying was confiscated by Matthew Muraska, the company leader. Mitchell would often show the other boys weapons he had improvised from blades and sticks.

Full article can be read here https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12058.msg662498#msg662498

UPDATED
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/

Okay…let’s apply some logic here. Corrine Mitchell was one of the last witnesses to be called.The alleged photograph would have, at that point, been entered into evidence and the owner questioned on the witness stand. Corrine, as we know when called to give evidence was asked about the parka and denied Luke had had one before Jodi’s death. At that point don’t you agree that any prosecutor worth his salt would then hold up the photograph of Luke wearing the parka and proclaim triumphantly “ in that case how do you explain this photograph?”. Absolute slam dunk. Corrine’s credibility shattered beyond repair and no need for all that nonsense with the tattoo parlour.

Every reporter worth their salt would have been in court for Corrine’s testimony, she was one of the main alibi witnesses after all, yet are you really claiming that either one of Scotland’s leading advocates didn’t ask her about the photograph or that every reporter who attended the court that day simply forgot to mention it?

[Nicholas]

Every reporter worth their salt would have been in court for Corrine’s testimony, she was one of the main alibi witnesses after all, yet are you really claiming that either one of Scotland’s leading advocates didn’t ask her about the photograph or that every reporter who attended the court that day simply forgot to mention it?

But not ‘every reporter worth their salt would have been in court’ to listen to the evidence of someone like Matthew Muraska

What was it exactly Matthew Muraska said about the missing parka jacket during his evidence ?

[Nicholas]

Okay…let’s apply some logic here. Corrine Mitchell was one of the last witnesses to be called.The alleged photograph would have, at that point, been entered into evidence and the owner questioned on the witness stand. Corrine, as we know when called to give evidence was asked about the parka and denied Luke had had one before Jodi’s death. At that point don’t you agree that any prosecutor worth his salt would then hold up the photograph of Luke wearing the parka and proclaim triumphantly “ in that case how do you explain this photograph?”. Absolute slam dunk. Corrine’s credibility shattered beyond repair and no need for all that nonsense with the tattoo parlour.

Rosalind McInnes made it clear in her Jan 2005 BBC article that there was an “….absence of visual material”

Meaning - the trial weren’t sharing photographic exhibits with reporters to publish

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

The few exhibit that were published from the trial only appear to have been published after the trial had concluded

And there appears to have been only one photographic exhibit of psycho killer Luke Mitchell ever published - a copy of a Polaroid with him wearing a t-shirt

The jury had already heard the evidence from all of the witnesses regarding the missing parka and from the gig on the 13th June 2003

Why would Alan Turnbull need to repeat this for the jury?

Alan Turnbull told Corinne Mitchell other witnesses had seen her killer son wearimg said parka before his murder

The jury had already heard the other witnesses and seen any and all photographic exhibits

Corinne Mitchell had not

All Alan Turnbull needed from Corinne Mitchell was her claiming her killer son didn’t previously own a khaki green army style parka jacket

When Corinne Mitchell denied this in front of the jury - that would have been the ‘slam dunk’ to which you refer

Other witness evidence had already confirmed to the jury he did own one before his murder

When Alan Turnbull asked Corinne Mitchell;

“Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?"

Suspect the jury would have known by this point that Corinne Mitchell was not telling the truth in court

The jury, by this point, had also heard from umpteen witnesses in regards to the various knifes her killer son owned and had been seen with

’The court heard that police had questioned Mrs Mitchell about a knife on April 14, 2004, when she was arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, and the same day Mr Mitchell was arrested.

She said she found the knife later that day in a bag after her house had been searched by police. It was only then that she remembered she had bought her son a "skunting" knife from a catalogue as a Christmas present in December 2003, after Jodi's death. She said he needed it for a camping trip.

"How could the police have missed it?" asked Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting.

Mrs Mitchell said: "I don't know."

Corinne Mitchell’s “I don’t know” reply didn’t help her either

[Mr Apples]

Okay…let’s apply some logic here. Corrine Mitchell was one of the last witnesses to be called.The alleged photograph would have, at that point, been entered into evidence and the owner questioned on the witness stand. Corrine, as we know when called to give evidence was asked about the parka and denied Luke had had one before Jodi’s death. At that point don’t you agree that any prosecutor worth his salt would then hold up the photograph of Luke wearing the parka and proclaim triumphantly “ in that case how do you explain this photograph?”. Absolute slam dunk. Corrine’s credibility shattered beyond repair and no need for all that nonsense with the tattoo parlour.

Every reporter worth their salt would have been in court for Corrine’s testimony, she was one of the main alibi witnesses after all, yet are you really claiming that either one of Scotland’s leading advocates didn’t ask her about the photograph or that every reporter who attended the court that day simply forgot to mention it?

I concede that it is a tad odd that the photo wasn't shown to CM by AT, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary because of the cross section of people -- 8 witnesses, as he said to CM whilst she was on the stand -- he said had said (presumably under oath) they had seen him in that parka before the murder (family, friends, school teachers and acquaintances). Even if AT had shown her the photo, she would have likely have said she couldn't remember him having the parka. It was interesting that when AT confronted her about these witnesses, she said she was not suggesting they were lying, but that she could not remember her son ever having one (ahem!). 8 witnesses = overwhelming evidence he had worn a parka before 30.06.03; no need for the photo.

As I said, I spoke to a woman from Whitburn --  in her thirties with kids  -- whose sister was a witness at the trial and whose sister had a photo of LM with Jodi and some friends at concert circa May/June '03, which the police took as evidence and never returned. The woman was not a troll, and I highly doubt she would make the story up for attention or 'to act the big woman'. The woman struck me as reasonably bright, level-headed and sincere.
I

[Nicholas]

I concede that it is a tad odd that the photo wasn't shown to CM by AT, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary because of the cross section of people -- 8 witnesses, as he said to CM whilst she was on the stand -- he said had said (presumably under oath) they had seen him in that parka before the murder (family, friends, school teachers and acquaintances).

Corinne Mitchell wasn’t the one on trial

There was no need to show Corinne any of the photographic exhibits

All Alan Turnbull needed to do was convince the jury she was lying - Which he did

He didn’t need to convince Corinne Mitchell he knew she was lying - he already knew she was

[Mr Apples]

Rosalind McInnes made it clear in her Jan 2005 BBC article that there was an “….absence of visual material”

Meaning - the trial weren’t sharing photographic exhibits with reporters to publish

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

The few exhibit that were published from the trial only appear to have been published after the trial had concluded

And there appears to have been only one photographic exhibit of psycho killer Luke Mitchell ever published - a copy of a Polaroid with him wearing a t-shirt

The jury had already heard the evidence from all of the witnesses regarding the missing parka and from the gig on the 13th June 2003

Why would Alan Turnbull need to repeat this for the jury?

Alan Turnbull told Corinne Mitchell other witnesses had seen her killer son wearimg said parka before his murder

The jury had already heard the other witnesses and seen any and all photographic exhibits

Corinne Mitchell had not

All Alan Turnbull needed from Corinne Mitchell was her claiming her killer son didn’t previously own a khaki green army style parka jacket

When Corinne Mitchell denied this in front of the jury - that would have been the ‘slam dunk’ to which you refer

Other witness evidence had already confirmed to the jury he did own one before his murder

When Alan Turnbull asked Corinne Mitchell;

“Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?"

Suspect the jury would have known by this point that Corinne Mitchell was not telling the truth in court

The jury, by this point, had also heard from umpteen witnesses in regards to the various knifes her killer son owned and had been seen with

’The court heard that police had questioned Mrs Mitchell about a knife on April 14, 2004, when she was arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, and the same day Mr Mitchell was arrested.

She said she found the knife later that day in a bag after her house had been searched by police. It was only then that she remembered she had bought her son a "skunting" knife from a catalogue as a Christmas present in December 2003, after Jodi's death. She said he needed it for a camping trip.

"How could the police have missed it?" asked Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting.

Mrs Mitchell said: "I don't know."

Corinne Mitchell’s “I don’t know” reply didn’t help her either

Good post. Makes a lot of sense and highlights what a unique case it was. Such a tragic and difficult case for all involved -- including the media.

[Nicholas]

Even if AT had shown her the photo, she would have likely have said she couldn't remember him having the parka.

Like Corinne Mitchell said she didn’t remember buying her killer son another shunting knife a few months after his brutal murder

 

[Mr Apples]

Corinne Mitchell wasn’t the one on trial

There was no need to show Corinne any of the photographic exhibits

All Alan Turnbull needed to do was convince the jury she was lying - Which he did

He didn’t need to convince Corinne Mitchell he knew she was lying

I think you are correct, Nicholas.  Just like he knew SM was lying about his wee brother "mashing tatties" and only said "he could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit. He knew SM would never come right out and say, categorically, that LM wasn't in the house, but nonetheless exposed their lies and concocted alibi.

[Nicholas]

It was interesting that when AT confronted her about these witnesses, she said she was not suggesting they were lying, but that she could not remember her son ever having one (ahem!). 8 witnesses = overwhelming evidence he had worn a parka before 30.06.03; no need for the photo.

It was also another red flag

[Mr Apples]

It was also another red flag

I think the missing parka is the single most compelling piece of evidence against LM, then LM finding the body, then the false alibi. Every single piece of evidence is important (obviously), but the aforementioned 3 strands are the most convincing.

[Nicholas]

I think you are correct, Nicholas.  Just like he knew SM was lying about his wee brother "mashing tatties" and only said "he could have been there" so as not to fully drop LM in the shit. He knew SM would never come right out and say, categorically, that LM wasn't in the house, but nonetheless exposed their lies and concocted alibi.

Shane and Corinne Mitchell appear to be the last two witnesses to give evidence

The jury had already heard 30 odd days of damning evidence against psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell by the time they took the witness stand

Shane Mitchell’s evidence didn’t help his killer brother at all but there was a wealth of other evidence that showed the guilty killer and his mother Corinne were still prepared to lie in the face of damning evidence - and that they had lied about their alibi evidence

[Nicholas]

I think the missing parka is the single most compelling piece of evidence against LM, then LM finding the body, then the false alibi. Every single piece of evidence is important (obviously), but the aforementioned 3 strands are the most convincing.

If Corinne Mitchell knew without any doubts that her killer son had not had another khaki green jacket - before she replaced it a few days after his murder - wouldn’t she have called the other witnesses outright liars?