Author Topic: What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?  (Read 8186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

3rd September 2003

JAMES MATTHEWS:   This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
LUKE:   No.  The burning clothes that wasn’t us.  They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.


JAMES MATTHEWS:   Was that you or anyone connected to you?
LUKE:   No, not that we know of.

Interesting. Who was this supposed female relative of the suspect burning clothes??

His mother Corinne

Luke Mitchell:They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’

They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s

These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

His mother Corinne

Luke Mitchell:They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’

They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s

These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere

Or he could have meant the press in relation to himself ( suspect) and Corrine ( female relative ).

‘They just said’ meaning the press were making things up.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2021, 06:28:06 PM by faithlilly »

Offline Nicholas

Or he could have meant the press in relation to himself ( suspect) and Corrine ( female relative ).

‘They just said’ meaning the press were making things up.

On what date did Luke Mitchell tell police his mother and brother were having a fire in the garden?

And who else did he tell?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

How could this poor child ever have got a fair trial? This is from September 2003 before a single charge had been laid.

‘ It's midday, but the blue

curtains in the home of

Luke Mitchell are closed. The 15-year-old hasn't been to his school, St David's RC High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, for nearly four days. He was suspended by his head teacher on Monday.

Yesterday, though, nobody was at school. The streets are empty and the stream in Newbattle, where children and teenagers usually gather to catch fish and splash about, is deserted.

''It's like a shadow is hanging over everything,'' says Colin Cassidy, who runs a tool-hire business in Newbattle, near Luke's home. Cassidy's

15-year-old son also attends St David's. It is a school struggling to get on with business as usual after the murder of Jodi in June. There can be no closure for the community, Cassidy says, until her murder is solved.

The news that Luke was returning to school last Friday added to the uneasiness among parents. Although he has only been questioned, not charged, by police in connection with his girlfriend's murder, the local gossip machine has been in overdrive, and was quickened by the boy's appearance on Sky TV on the day of Jodi's funeral. After the interview, one tabloid hired a psychologist who claimed he showed no real sign of grief and may even have rehearsed what he was going to say in public.

''After that amount of police interest in him, which parent wouldn't be worried?'' says Cassidy. ''He had attracted so much attention, you can understand why the school was watching its own back and why the head teacher would choose to isolate Luke. The police have not made any arrests, so, of course, emotions are still running high.''

But not only is the community still feeling raw, it is starved of answers. Cassidy speaks of a town that is theorising incessantly. The many whispers might, or might not, have led to an incident involving Luke and other pupils at St David's. All the same, they decided to keep him apart from other pupils. But did the school make the right decision? Has it correctly balanced Luke's interests and those of other pupils? And, ultimately, has Luke been unduly robbed of his right to an education?

Whether it is legitimate or not, several parents of pupils at St David's admit privately to having been concerned about Luke's return to school. One parent claims he saw the teenager turning up to school with his mother on his first day, smoking, wearing a bandana, and out of uniform. He says: ''I was upset that he had shown up like that so I complained to the deputy head. She told me that several other parents had already got in there before me.''

Cassidy warned his own son not to get into trouble with teachers over his treatment of Luke. ''I'd heard from other people that other pupils were taking it into their own hands, following him around, giving him a hard time.''

Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, does not understand why, on Monday, Luke was sent to the deputy head's study to have his lessons in isolation. He strongly disputes that there was unrest among parents over Luke's presence, or that there had been any aggression towards him on the previous Friday.

''There was no threat to internal order of the school. He had not been attacked or bothered. That's all urban myth. There had been no threats, nothing. When Luke told his mother, both their patience ran out. Luke felt he had been deceived,'' he says. Within hours of arriving at school on Monday, Luke had been suspended. Midlothian Council said it had become clear he was not prepared to accept the authority of the school.

It wasn't the first time Luke had had a disagreement with Marion Docherty, the school's head teacher, whom Beaumont claims has not been helpful. ''He had a difficult

relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi's murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour,'' says Beaumont.

The community is not entirely unsympathetic to Luke. Luke's father left the family some time ago, leaving his mother, Corrine, to run a business to provide for Luke and his brother, Shane. ''People have said how scandalous it is that he went to Jodi's grave with a cigarette,'' says a mother who did not wish to be named and whose son used to socialise with Luke at The Mission, a club night.

She adds: ''It's ridiculous and hypocritical. So he smokes: so do lots of people. People are so quick to condemn a boy who has not even been charged with anything. If he is

innocent, he's gone through a traumatic time. If he's guilty, he's going through a terrible time, too. He's

just a child. It makes me uneasy that so many people are focusing on

this one young boy, when there is a murderer, who could be anyone, on the loose.''

Nor are all parents against Luke's return to school. Jean Watson, whose son is also at St David's although not in the same year, says that the worry of parents is probably greater among those whose children are in the

same year. ''If I had a daughter, it might be different. But my son's path never crosses Luke's. He could go

to school, come back, and never

see him, and it's not like my son is looking round the corner for him all the time.''

On the day after his suspension, Luke's mother made an official request for a school transfer. This has worried some parents of pupils at Dalkeith High and Newbattle High, such as Cassidy, whose daughter attends the latter. Like Watson, he is only worried for his daughter. He says: ''I'm not worried about my son being in the same school as Luke. If my daughter was, I would be.''

The head teacher of Newbattle has the right to refuse Luke a place in the school, which is visible from Jodi's parents' home, if it is believed it would be detrimental to the delivery of education for all. Luke has since refused the offer of home tuition. ''He wants to go to school,'' says Beaumont. ''He has the right to an education, and he should have had access to normal schooling.''

While Luke's rights to education are undisputed, and even backed by the Education Act of 2000, it is not an absolute right, says Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.

''Everyone has the right to an education, that's the start and stop of it. But nobody has rights that can override the rights of others,'' she says. ''There is also more than one way of providing the education that someone has a right to. If the pupil does not want to comply with the way the school is going about providing education, they have a right to exclude that person.''

In other words, the school chose what they thought was the best way to educate Luke, given the concerns of parents, heightened emotions, and the fact that Luke had already been so widely identified.

Gillespie suggests that, in a situation as intense and sensitive as that at St David's, there is often no clear path for head teachers. ''They have to manage the needs of all groups. It is not a case of bending to what parents want, but doing what benefits everyone. People can't stop feeling how they feel, whether they have reason to or not.''

Somehow, in the haze of gossip and fact, concern and panic, Marion Docherty had to make a decision that would promote the safety, comfort, and rights of all. All this, while the community she serves looks over its shoulder for an unknown killer. Mike Doig, president of Headteachers' Association Scotland, says Ms Docherty had to do the best she could in exceptional circumstances. ''It can be the hardest thing for a headteacher to balance one youngster's needs with those of the other 29 in the class and the teacher,'' he says.

''When a pupil is lost, the whole school is affected. It makes this situation all the more difficult that time lapsed between the murder and funeral, and that there is still a culprit out there. Unfortunately, there is no script for a head teacher.''

There are as few clear solutions for Ms Docherty as there are certainties for Luke, whose school life shows no signs of normalising. As his peers troop past his window to school next week, he may well decide to keep his curtains shut, and the whispers out.’

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12532615.isolated-vilified-and-left-with-nowhere-to-go-luke-mitchell-the-15-year-old-boyfriend-of-jodi-jones-is-suspended-from-school-amid-a-whispering-campaign-over-her-murder-abigail-wild-assesses-the-mood-in-his-midlothian-community/

Offline Nicholas

How could this poor child ever have got a fair trial? This is from September 2003 before a single charge had been laid.

‘ It's midday, but the blue

curtains in the home of

Luke Mitchell are closed. The 15-year-old hasn't been to his school, St David's RC High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, for nearly four days. He was suspended by his head teacher on Monday.

Yesterday, though, nobody was at school. The streets are empty and the stream in Newbattle, where children and teenagers usually gather to catch fish and splash about, is deserted.

''It's like a shadow is hanging over everything,'' says Colin Cassidy, who runs a tool-hire business in Newbattle, near Luke's home. Cassidy's

15-year-old son also attends St David's. It is a school struggling to get on with business as usual after the murder of Jodi in June. There can be no closure for the community, Cassidy says, until her murder is solved.

The news that Luke was returning to school last Friday added to the uneasiness among parents. Although he has only been questioned, not charged, by police in connection with his girlfriend's murder, the local gossip machine has been in overdrive, and was quickened by the boy's appearance on Sky TV on the day of Jodi's funeral. After the interview, one tabloid hired a psychologist who claimed he showed no real sign of grief and may even have rehearsed what he was going to say in public.

''After that amount of police interest in him, which parent wouldn't be worried?'' says Cassidy. ''He had attracted so much attention, you can understand why the school was watching its own back and why the head teacher would choose to isolate Luke. The police have not made any arrests, so, of course, emotions are still running high.''

But not only is the community still feeling raw, it is starved of answers. Cassidy speaks of a town that is theorising incessantly. The many whispers might, or might not, have led to an incident involving Luke and other pupils at St David's. All the same, they decided to keep him apart from other pupils. But did the school make the right decision? Has it correctly balanced Luke's interests and those of other pupils? And, ultimately, has Luke been unduly robbed of his right to an education?

Whether it is legitimate or not, several parents of pupils at St David's admit privately to having been concerned about Luke's return to school. One parent claims he saw the teenager turning up to school with his mother on his first day, smoking, wearing a bandana, and out of uniform. He says: ''I was upset that he had shown up like that so I complained to the deputy head. She told me that several other parents had already got in there before me.''

Cassidy warned his own son not to get into trouble with teachers over his treatment of Luke. ''I'd heard from other people that other pupils were taking it into their own hands, following him around, giving him a hard time.''

Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, does not understand why, on Monday, Luke was sent to the deputy head's study to have his lessons in isolation. He strongly disputes that there was unrest among parents over Luke's presence, or that there had been any aggression towards him on the previous Friday.

''There was no threat to internal order of the school. He had not been attacked or bothered. That's all urban myth. There had been no threats, nothing. When Luke told his mother, both their patience ran out. Luke felt he had been deceived,'' he says. Within hours of arriving at school on Monday, Luke had been suspended. Midlothian Council said it had become clear he was not prepared to accept the authority of the school.

It wasn't the first time Luke had had a disagreement with Marion Docherty, the school's head teacher, whom Beaumont claims has not been helpful. ''He had a difficult

relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi's murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour,'' says Beaumont.

The community is not entirely unsympathetic to Luke. Luke's father left the family some time ago, leaving his mother, Corrine, to run a business to provide for Luke and his brother, Shane. ''People have said how scandalous it is that he went to Jodi's grave with a cigarette,'' says a mother who did not wish to be named and whose son used to socialise with Luke at The Mission, a club night.

She adds: ''It's ridiculous and hypocritical. So he smokes: so do lots of people. People are so quick to condemn a boy who has not even been charged with anything. If he is

innocent, he's gone through a traumatic time. If he's guilty, he's going through a terrible time, too. He's

just a child. It makes me uneasy that so many people are focusing on

this one young boy, when there is a murderer, who could be anyone, on the loose.''

Nor are all parents against Luke's return to school. Jean Watson, whose son is also at St David's although not in the same year, says that the worry of parents is probably greater among those whose children are in the

same year. ''If I had a daughter, it might be different. But my son's path never crosses Luke's. He could go

to school, come back, and never

see him, and it's not like my son is looking round the corner for him all the time.''

On the day after his suspension, Luke's mother made an official request for a school transfer. This has worried some parents of pupils at Dalkeith High and Newbattle High, such as Cassidy, whose daughter attends the latter. Like Watson, he is only worried for his daughter. He says: ''I'm not worried about my son being in the same school as Luke. If my daughter was, I would be.''

The head teacher of Newbattle has the right to refuse Luke a place in the school, which is visible from Jodi's parents' home, if it is believed it would be detrimental to the delivery of education for all. Luke has since refused the offer of home tuition. ''He wants to go to school,'' says Beaumont. ''He has the right to an education, and he should have had access to normal schooling.''

While Luke's rights to education are undisputed, and even backed by the Education Act of 2000, it is not an absolute right, says Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.

''Everyone has the right to an education, that's the start and stop of it. But nobody has rights that can override the rights of others,'' she says. ''There is also more than one way of providing the education that someone has a right to. If the pupil does not want to comply with the way the school is going about providing education, they have a right to exclude that person.''

In other words, the school chose what they thought was the best way to educate Luke, given the concerns of parents, heightened emotions, and the fact that Luke had already been so widely identified.

Gillespie suggests that, in a situation as intense and sensitive as that at St David's, there is often no clear path for head teachers. ''They have to manage the needs of all groups. It is not a case of bending to what parents want, but doing what benefits everyone. People can't stop feeling how they feel, whether they have reason to or not.''

Somehow, in the haze of gossip and fact, concern and panic, Marion Docherty had to make a decision that would promote the safety, comfort, and rights of all. All this, while the community she serves looks over its shoulder for an unknown killer. Mike Doig, president of Headteachers' Association Scotland, says Ms Docherty had to do the best she could in exceptional circumstances. ''It can be the hardest thing for a headteacher to balance one youngster's needs with those of the other 29 in the class and the teacher,'' he says.

''When a pupil is lost, the whole school is affected. It makes this situation all the more difficult that time lapsed between the murder and funeral, and that there is still a culprit out there. Unfortunately, there is no script for a head teacher.''

There are as few clear solutions for Ms Docherty as there are certainties for Luke, whose school life shows no signs of normalising. As his peers troop past his window to school next week, he may well decide to keep his curtains shut, and the whispers out.’

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12532615.isolated-vilified-and-left-with-nowhere-to-go-luke-mitchell-the-15-year-old-boyfriend-of-jodi-jones-is-suspended-from-school-amid-a-whispering-campaign-over-her-murder-abigail-wild-assesses-the-mood-in-his-midlothian-community/

Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell go to the press or was it done via Nigel Beaumont?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Mr Apples

Am more convinced that he did it than he didn’t, but still not enough to categorically say guilty beyond reasonable doubt.    But, beyond reasonable doubt is quite a vague term, so presents a problem in itself, and everyone’s interpretation of what it constitutes will be different. I suspect all concerned in this case at the time of the trial — in both the defence & prosecution camps — had reasonable doubt. However, because it was such a high profile case involving an utterly heinous and brutal crime, they had to convict Luke. I think that, as with myself, all concerned likely had an element of doubt as regards to his guilt, but were more convinced he did it than he didn’t. Emotions were high, it was a local case, Luke was, unfairly, disproportionately focused on, some of the evidence used against him was stretched to the maximum so as to seem plausible and further incriminate him (the prosecution clutching at straws in some instances), but they had to get a conviction, and I suspect all concerned, bar the defence team, were swayed to a large degree by the pressure of the case and the hysteria that accompanied it — to the point that any modicum of doubt that was present in their mind regarding Luke’s guilt, was eliminated by it. I personally think Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence used, but I still think he did it, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime. And, I would also suggest that I am not really surprised that Luke was convicted. In spite of my own personal doubts, the prosecution did, imo, still have a strong circumstantial case against him.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2021, 09:36:49 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline faithlilly

Am more convinced that he did it than he didn’t, but still not enough to categorically say guilty beyond reasonable doubt.    But, beyond reasonable doubt is quite a vague term, so presents a problem in itself, and everyone’s interpretation of what it constitutes will be different. I suspect all concerned in this case at the time of the trial — in both the defence & prosecution camps — had reasonable doubt. However, because it was such a high profile case involving an utterly heinous and brutal crime, they had to convict Luke. I think that, as with myself, all concerned likely had an element of doubt as regards to his guilt, but were more convinced he did it than he didn’t. Emotions were high, it was a local case, Luke was, unfairly, disproportionately focused on, some of the evidence used against him was stretched to the maximum so as to seem plausible and further incriminate him (the prosecution clutching at straws in some instances), but they had to get a conviction, and I suspect all concerned, bar the defence team, were swayed to a large degree by the pressure of the case and the hysteria that accompanied it — to the point that any modicum of doubt that was present in their mind regarding Luke’s guilt, was eliminated by it. I personally think Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence used, but I still think he did it, which is extremely problematic given the enormity of the crime. And, I would also suggest that I am not really surprised that Luke was convicted. In spite of my own personal doubts, the prosecution did, imo, still have a strong circumstantial case against him.

Can I ask if you believe that Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence presented in court what evidence sways you to probable guilt now?

Offline rulesapply

Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell go to the press or was it done via Nigel Beaumont?

I once heard or read from SL that Sky had phoned the Mitchell home to arrange the interview.

Offline Mr Apples

Can I ask if you believe that Luke suffered a miscarriage of justice on the evidence presented in court what evidence sways you to probable guilt now?


I’ve clearly delineated in previous posts why I think LM did it, and as I no longer have a PC, laptop, etc, and am merely typing and posting from an iPhone (which I have done for several years now), I can’t be bothered going over it all again and typing it out. Sorry. There isn’t one single piece of evidence per se that proves Luke was the killer. Taking all the circumstantial evidence together, however, and it provides a very strong circumstantial case against Luke, imo, and it’s no surprise at all to me that he was convicted because of it. The weak alibi that his own brother Shane couldn’t corroborate, all the sightings between 1654 - 1830 and those who testified in court that Luke owned a parka prior to 30.06.03 are the three main bastions of circumstantial evidence that sway me in the direction of guilty. Also, I think it is very telling and extremely noteworthy that Rosemary Walsh, after Luke’s picture was first shown in the newspapers in August 2003, exclaimed: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal that it was the youth that she and her sister-in-law saw that day on the N’battle Rd. The same youth these two women also said was on his own, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact with passers-by in cars, looking cheesed off and looking up to no good (that brooding, angsty look that many pics of Luke from 2003-2005 had clearly shown he expressed; that temper and short fuse inherited from mum Corrine and Gran Ruby). All these eyewitnesses did identify him and it was accepted by the courts; not 100% a perfect process, but still enough to convict him. All eyewitnesses never saw another male on the roads they saw him, not on Easthouses or N’battle. Telling. Makes me feel uneasy.

Having said all that, there are areas of this case I’d still like clarification on, such as: who it was that said Mark Kane was running on the N’battle rd in the early evening and if the police thoroughly investigated this and eliminated accordingly. The moped boys and their bike being riderless at 1715 at the v break; an article I posted a few weeks back clearly stated these boys had admitted that their bike was propped there & unmanned at this time. I’d like an in-depth analysis of their movements from 1650-1740 that day, and what eyewitnesses said about them and their movements that day, alibis, etc. I’d also like to educate myself on the entire dna evidence in this case. Oh, also, I think all the clothing from the search trio should have been taken that morning (as they did with Luke’s on 01.07.03) and not days later when they had been washed & laundered. I still find it very odd that Steven Kelly’s first words to police when they arrived at the locus that night, was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” Very strange comment to make, imo. Same with the moped boys. Their clothing should have been taken when they eventually did come forward.Their bike, too. Why wasn’t it seized and forensically analysed? More to the point, why did they have it crushed and destroyed?

So, yes, while I’m more convinced that Luke was responsible for Jodi’s horrific murder than not, there are still areas of this case that I’d like further clarification on before I could commit myself to saying Luke categorically did it beyond reasonable doubt.

Offline faithlilly


I’ve clearly delineated in previous posts why I think LM did it, and as I no longer have a PC, laptop, etc, and am merely typing and posting from an iPhone (which I have done for several years now), I can’t be bothered going over it all again and typing it out. Sorry. There isn’t one single piece of evidence per se that proves Luke was the killer. Taking all the circumstantial evidence together, however, and it provides a very strong circumstantial case against Luke, imo, and it’s no surprise at all to me that he was convicted because of it. The weak alibi that his own brother Shane couldn’t corroborate, all the sightings between 1654 - 1830 and those who testified in court that Luke owned a parka prior to 30.06.03 are the three main bastions of circumstantial evidence that sway me in the direction of guilty. Also, I think it is very telling and extremely noteworthy that Rosemary Walsh, after Luke’s picture was first shown in the newspapers in August 2003, exclaimed: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal that it was the youth that she and her sister-in-law saw that day on the N’battle Rd. The same youth these two women also said was on his own, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact with passers-by in cars, looking cheesed off and looking up to no good (that brooding, angsty look that many pics of Luke from 2003-2005 had clearly shown he expressed; that temper and short fuse inherited from mum Corrine and Gran Ruby). All these eyewitnesses did identify him and it was accepted by the courts; not 100% a perfect process, but still enough to convict him. All eyewitnesses never saw another male on the roads they saw him, not on Easthouses or N’battle. Telling. Makes me feel uneasy.

Having said all that, there are areas of this case I’d still like clarification on, such as: who it was that said Mark Kane was running on the N’battle rd in the early evening and if the police thoroughly investigated this and eliminated accordingly. The moped boys and their bike being riderless at 1715 at the v break; an article I posted a few weeks back clearly stated these boys had admitted that their bike was propped there & unmanned at this time. I’d like an in-depth analysis of their movements from 1650-1740 that day, and what eyewitnesses said about them and their movements that day, alibis, etc. I’d also like to educate myself on the entire dna evidence in this case. Oh, also, I think all the clothing from the search trio should have been taken that morning (as they did with Luke’s on 01.07.03) and not days later when they had been washed & laundered. I still find it very odd that Steven Kelly’s first words to police when they arrived at the locus that night, was: “I suppose you’ve been to my house already?” Very strange comment to make, imo. Same with the moped boys. Their clothing should have been taken when they eventually did come forward.Their bike, too. Why wasn’t it seized and forensically analysed? More to the point, why did they have it crushed and destroyed?

So, yes, while I’m more convinced that Luke was responsible for Jodi’s horrific murder than not, there are still areas of this case that I’d like further clarification on before I could commit myself to saying Luke categorically did it beyond reasonable doubt.

Why do you chose to believe that AB’s timings in her first two statements regarding her sighting were wrong and how do you account for the 45 lost minutes if you believe the timings used in court?

As to Rosemary Walsh’s sighting, doesn’t her evidence in court give you pause for thought?


She agreed with Donald Findlay QC, defending, that Mitchell hadn't done anything to try to hide himself.

Miss Fleming broke down in tears as he quizzed her about newspaper photos she claimed to have remembered.

She told police that the Record's August 15 picture last year 'showed more of his face and eyes' than a photo she had seen earlier and had reminded her of the youth on Newbattle Road.

Findlay then said a search of Scottish newspapers had revealed no published picture of Mitchell before August 15.

She sobbed: 'You are just confusing me. All I can do is tell you what I saw and that is what I am doing.'

Mr Findlay continued: 'What it does demonstrate is that people, however genuine, however honest, can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences.'

Miss Fleming replied: 'Yes.’


Offline Mr Apples

His mother Corinne

Luke Mitchell:They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’

They’ could mean the police - who wouldn’t have stated anything and certainly not to the Mitchell’s

These are the words of a killer attempting to divert attention away from himself and place blame elsewhere

Who introduced ‘they just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes’? Was this the police’s attempts earlier, to try and trick Luke into thinking they had obtained a confession from Corrine regarding her burning clothes? Was there anyone else in the investigation who admitted to burning clothes on the night of 30.06.03? For example, Luke’s neighbours, Luke’s friends’ parents? People not necessarily from Newbattle, but from the nearby villages and settlements? It’s definitely quite a strange thing for Luke to say, but there could be an innocent explanation for it.