Author Topic: What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?  (Read 9772 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Birds? Is it the 1970’s?

It’s unlikely that Luke had been dumped by Jodi but he didn’t know that at the time. It was one reason for her not turning up.

[Name removed] didn’t turn up because Luke Mitchell had murdered her
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Paranoid Android

You’re a local, aren’t you?  Any intel on why Jodi failed to turn up once when she and Luke had arranged to meet?

How could anyone possibly know that?

Offline faithlilly

How could anyone possibly know that?

This was a huge clue, posted earlier.

“But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."

Offline Parky41

This once that showed the exact opposite of habit?  Thus why the AD was highlighting it. As with one other occasion where Jodi was somewhere she was not supposed to be and she was with LM.

Luke Mitchell had no alibi - he was not at home. His girlfriend left to meet with him shortly after exchanging texts. LM met with her at a local rendezvous. The meeting was witnessed by AB. Unless that was another female with LM then one can as the judge stated, take this female to have been Jodi Jones. He was not meeting with anyone else and neither was she. Jodi was therefore last seen with LM just shortly before 5pm. LM was seen on Newbattle R'd around 17.40pm. He was, as one would expect seen several times over a period of approx 20mins. From just prior to 6pm. When he put himself in full view. He was not seen again until he was in the company of DH until around 7.30pm He left the boys around 9pm. He did not arrive home until 10pm. He claimed to remain at home until the text came through from Jodi's mother at 10.42pm. He claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm and was only then on RDP by 10.59pm when he stated to Jodi's mother, this was where he was.

There was burning going on in the Mitchell garden. LM told one lie after the other in his attempt to explain what he had been doing from around 4.30pm until just short of 6pm and again from around 6.20pm until 7.30pm. And again from 9pm until in the company of Jodi's family around 11.20pm. For every lie he told, he only incriminated himself more.

There has been a fairy tale book written as a follow up to a short story - everything other than the truth of the death of Jodi Jones. The author has completely failed to do as one suggests, to crumble the evidence that led to LM's conviction. She uses completely irrelevant material to disperse doubt upon the honestly of crucial witnesses. Desperately attempts to shore over the gaping holes in every part of LM's evidence. To the point that she gives evidence for him rather than from him. As with one suggestion after the other. 'Perhaps he had popped into the Abbey to get stoned then popped back out to phone his mother,' thus reason as to why he may have missed Jodi walking down Newbattle Road. LM was not on Newbattle R'd and there is absolutely nothing that can be shown, to put him there. These ridiculous claims that no appeal was put out for him?

This author?? has used irrelevant, missing phone logs - to make claim to witnesses being dishonest. Of phoning friends, of the aunt and of communication between Judith and her mother - Everything is clear in those statements, precognitions done and every relevant part that Findlay deemed necessary used. Findlay did not let LM down, did he let Tobin? down also? - He was faced with an extremely difficult task. He could not show the Jury that the evidence was wrong - most of which came from LM himself. Findlay was wise not to put Luke on the stand, he only had a ball hair of chance as it was - He did not need to seal the deal completely.

The police did no fit LM up, they did not shoe horn evidence together.- there is no major conspiracy theory of aunts having friends in high places - everything is done on the basis to divert away from LM - from the liar he was,and the extraordinary story he told. Of these claims just recently yet again - That Jodi's aunts had arrived at the path too quickly? That they should have been at Judith's consoling her (SL) - rather than being at the path? How quick is quick for Ms Lean? Does she mean? Consoling a mother who did not even know at this point her daughter was dead - did she?

The speed in which LM was prepped and ready and out his door (claimed) like a shot. And on RDP just minutes after the call to the police. How quick does she have him up this path now, it is hard to keep track - one minute he is searching, then he is not - then he is at neck break speed to get up it - No he was not, and every single piece of evidence shows the complete opposite. This search trio where only heading out this complex at 11.18pm. Of this nonsense talk of being with their sister rather than their mother to console her? Dear oh dear - which part of being reported missing at 10.50 does not sink in? of the search party being in each others company less than 10mins before LM is shouting out? What part of 99% of those statements must she continue to ignore - on the basis that DF kept not the phone log of AW's call to her daughter. The friends including YW.

Where is their evidence around this? Of Judith trying desperately to phone them, of AW not wanting to speak with her daughter, to tell her she had just seen her daughter dead? Of Judith's sister having to break the news to her? - of Judith, AO and son rushing to RDP as soon as the sister told her - a body has been found! Where are this mothers screams when she arrived at this path? She was in hysterics.. Why is she not mentioning that Jodi's brother was in the company of the police? Quick to mention that when the officers attended they only noted one male in the room that she did not know who though? with that familiar "make of that what you will" shite. - that slippery method of trying to imply that he was not at home, that the family said he was but the policeman who attended did not say? Where is all this? Where is the time for everything she states this girls family should have been doing? Less than 50min from that text to a body being found -

When it is blatantly clear, it could not be any clearer - That in this family state of worry, their minds were fed with one thing only. That LM was on RDP. That he claimed Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. That AW makes it abundantly clear they were heading to Easthouses and heading to meet with him - as he was on this very path. And bang she is found dead - And that is why all of this irrelevant nonsense is pushed out - to divert away from LM. From the speed in which he was on this path, to still being on this  path. And yet again this state of worry - fed with using his dog, wanting something of Jodi's to scent with - and the lies of not being in this woodland before, yet introduces this very woodland to this family - at the Gino spot.

Where is AW's account of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck, of that clear feeling of sensing evil beside her. when she turned round LM was standing directly behind her. - unbeknown until later that he was the evil she was sensing. - Once that fog had lifted.

Scrape scrape scrape - and of just recently telling her followers to be patient - to look at around 5-10yrs at least until? Until what exactly.? These people have read her book, they believe there is this amazing new evidence that will have LM out in no time - Unbeknown to most of them, that it is the exact same stuff that has been getting touted out for years. There is nothing in the slightest new - except more bad light being shed on others - to where one's attention needs to be - away from the Mitchells.

And the never ending slight on this Jury - this nonsense that LM was tried by media only, to them yes who tried him. They don't know a fraction of the evidence that warranted LM being prime suspect and why he could not be eliminated. They only believe the one who makes claim to having all of the evidence - tsk tsk. Trying each and every other person from it.- Truth and Justice? - not on your life it isn't. As stated - truth is everything, not claims to having everything when one clearly does not.

And one must be careful - for one can not continue to make claim to what the jury did not get to hear, without including each and every single thing in respect of LM, his brother and mother also.

SL "It is clear by what people are saying that they know far more than they are letting on" - definitely. The major missing parts have never been silent - Lies may spread faster, truth however does not change. And only lies need shoring over with more.

Offline faithlilly

This once that showed the exact opposite of habit?  Thus why the AD was highlighting it. As with one other occasion where Jodi was somewhere she was not supposed to be and she was with LM.

Maybe not habitual but definitely not unheard of and if Jodi had failed to turn up for one arrangement they’d made before there’s no reason for Luke not to believe it had happened again.

The rest will have to wait until morning.


Luke Mitchell had no alibi - he was not at home. His girlfriend left to meet with him shortly after exchanging texts. LM met with her at a local rendezvous. The meeting was witnessed by AB. Unless that was another female with LM then one can as the judge stated, take this female to have been Jodi Jones. He was not meeting with anyone else and neither was she. Jodi was therefore last seen with LM just shortly before 5pm. LM was seen on Newbattle R'd around 17.40pm. He was, as one would expect seen several times over a period of approx 20mins. From just prior to 6pm. When he put himself in full view. He was not seen again until he was in the company of DH until around 7.30pm He left the boys around 9pm. He did not arrive home until 10pm. He claimed to remain at home until the text came through from Jodi's mother at 10.42pm. He claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm and was only then on RDP by 10.59pm when he stated to Jodi's mother, this was where he was.

There was burning going on in the Mitchell garden. LM told one lie after the other in his attempt to explain what he had been doing from around 4.30pm until just short of 6pm and again from around 6.20pm until 7.30pm. And again from 9pm until in the company of Jodi's family around 11.20pm. For every lie he told, he only incriminated himself more.

There has been a fairy tale book written as a follow up to a short story - everything other than the truth of the death of Jodi Jones. The author has completely failed to do as one suggests, to crumble the evidence that led to LM's conviction. She uses completely irrelevant material to disperse doubt upon the honestly of crucial witnesses. Desperately attempts to shore over the gaping holes in every part of LM's evidence. To the point that she gives evidence for him rather than from him. As with one suggestion after the other. 'Perhaps he had popped into the Abbey to get stoned then popped back out to phone his mother,' thus reason as to why he may have missed Jodi walking down Newbattle Road. LM was not on Newbattle R'd and there is absolutely nothing that can be shown, to put him there. These ridiculous claims that no appeal was put out for him?

This author?? has used irrelevant, missing phone logs - to make claim to witnesses being dishonest. Of phoning friends, of the aunt and of communication between Judith and her mother - Everything is clear in those statements, precognitions done and every relevant part that Findlay deemed necessary used. Findlay did not let LM down, did he let Tobin? down also? - He was faced with an extremely difficult task. He could not show the Jury that the evidence was wrong - most of which came from LM himself. Findlay was wise not to put Luke on the stand, he only had a ball hair of chance as it was - He did not need to seal the deal completely.

The police did no fit LM up, they did not shoe horn evidence together.- there is no major conspiracy theory of aunts having friends in high places - everything is done on the basis to divert away from LM - from the liar he was,and the extraordinary story he told. Of these claims just recently yet again - That Jodi's aunts had arrived at the path too quickly? That they should have been at Judith's consoling her (SL) - rather than being at the path? How quick is quick for Ms Lean? Does she mean? Consoling a mother who did not even know at this point her daughter was dead - did she?

The speed in which LM was prepped and ready and out his door (claimed) like a shot. And on RDP just minutes after the call to the police. How quick does she have him up this path now, it is hard to keep track - one minute he is searching, then he is not - then he is at neck break speed to get up it - No he was not, and every single piece of evidence shows the complete opposite. This search trio where only heading out this complex at 11.18pm. Of this nonsense talk of being with their sister rather than their mother to console her? Dear oh dear - which part of being reported missing at 10.50 does not sink in? of the search party being in each others company less than 10mins before LM is shouting out? What part of 99% of those statements must she continue to ignore - on the basis that DF kept not the phone log of AW's call to her daughter. The friends including YW.

Where is their evidence around this? Of Judith trying desperately to phone them, of AW not wanting to speak with her daughter, to tell her she had just seen her daughter dead? Of Judith's sister having to break the news to her? - of Judith, AO and son rushing to RDP as soon as the sister told her - a body has been found! Where are this mothers screams when she arrived at this path? She was in hysterics.. Why is she not mentioning that Jodi's brother was in the company of the police? Quick to mention that when the officers attended they only noted one male in the room that she did not know who though? with that familiar "make of that what you will" shite. - that slippery method of trying to imply that he was not at home, that the family said he was but the policeman who attended did not say? Where is all this? Where is the time for everything she states this girls family should have been doing? Less than 50min from that text to a body being found -

When it is blatantly clear, it could not be any clearer - That in this family state of worry, their minds were fed with one thing only. That LM was on RDP. That he claimed Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. That AW makes it abundantly clear they were heading to Easthouses and heading to meet with him - as he was on this very path. And bang she is found dead - And that is why all of this irrelevant nonsense is pushed out - to divert away from LM. From the speed in which he was on this path, to still being on this  path. And yet again this state of worry - fed with using his dog, wanting something of Jodi's to scent with - and the lies of not being in this woodland before, yet introduces this very woodland to this family - at the Gino spot.

Where is AW's account of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck, of that clear feeling of sensing evil beside her. when she turned round LM was standing directly behind her. - unbeknown until later that he was the evil she was sensing. - Once that fog had lifted.

Scrape scrape scrape - and of just recently telling her followers to be patient - to look at around 5-10yrs at least until? Until what exactly.? These people have read her book, they believe there is this amazing new evidence that will have LM out in no time - Unbeknown to most of them, that it is the exact same stuff that has been getting touted out for years. There is nothing in the slightest new - except more bad light being shed on others - to where one's attention needs to be - away from the Mitchells.

And the never ending slight on this Jury - this nonsense that LM was tried by media only, to them yes who tried him. They don't know a fraction of the evidence that warranted LM being prime suspect and why he could not be eliminated. They only believe the one who makes claim to having all of the evidence - tsk tsk. Trying each and every other person from it.- Truth and Justice? - not on your life it isn't. As stated - truth is everything, not claims to having everything when one clearly does not.

And one must be careful - for one can not continue to make claim to what the jury did not get to hear, without including each and every single thing in respect of LM, his brother and mother also.

SL "It is clear by what people are saying that they know far more than they are letting on" - definitely. The major missing parts have never been silent - Lies may spread faster, truth however does not change. And only lies need shoring over with more.

Offline Paranoid Android

This was a huge clue, posted earlier.

“But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."

So what?

If you think you know the answer, just post it.

If you don't know the answer, ask Dr Lean.

Offline Paranoid Android

The V in the wall - why do they refer to it as 'the Gino spot'?

Offline Parky41

The V in the wall - why do they refer to it as 'the Gino spot'?

Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.

So twice with the woodland, first the Gino spot then the V break in the wall where it was easier to gain access. LM with the search party, had definitely not walked some distance passed this V break. I believe the path is really sheltered here with the wall and trees on one side and trees on the field side. Thus the distinct differences in the account they gave. SK, JaJ and AW could not have given reference at all, to what LM and the dog were doing at this V if they had been some 40ft down from it. They were beside them and it was at the V.  Which they stated in that first account given. When clarification was sought - LM drew a diagram where X marked the spot, exactly parallel to where Jodi lay, whilst the search trio then clarified it was LM leading his dog to the V and not the dog leading him.

Offline faithlilly

Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.

So twice with the woodland, first the Gino spot then the V break in the wall where it was easier to gain access. LM with the search party, had definitely not walked some distance passed this V break. I believe the path is really sheltered here with the wall and trees on one side and trees on the field side. Thus the distinct differences in the account they gave. SK, JaJ and AW could not have given reference at all, to what LM and the dog were doing at this V if they had been some 40ft down from it. They were beside them and it was at the V.  Which they stated in that first account given. When clarification was sought - LM drew a diagram where X marked the spot, exactly parallel to where Jodi lay, whilst the search trio then clarified it was LM leading his dog to the V and not the dog leading him.

You really do like flogging a dead horse...even when it goes against the evidence from the main protagonists. 20 yards ( or other estimates were given ) ?’ ‘Yards’ from a young boy who had constantly used feet in all his interviews to describe distances. 20 yards or 20 feet....a small mistake in the interview record but a very big difference.

Clarified? What wasn’t clear about their first statements? They exactly matched what Luke was telling police miles away. How was that possible if their recollections were wrong? Of the dog reacting and pulling Luke to the wall? How could three people remember the same thing in their first statements then two ‘unremember’ those very vivid recollections by the trial. Does any rational person really think that’s possible?

Offline Paranoid Android

Two separate spots PA. Prior to the V. The V was when LM went into the woodland. After claiming his dog had reacted some 40ft passed it. The Gino spot is where there is Graffiti on the wall. Whilst the V is closer to the Newbattle end of the path the Gino is closer to the Easthouses end. He climbed the wall here first and shone his torch around the woodland. No claimed reaction from his dog - he just took the notion to do so, thus introducing the woodland as a possible place Jodi would be. Then when they came to the V he actually entered the woodland.

Cheers.

I'm sure I read the other day that LM claims he'd never noticed the V before.

When walking that path, which is a fairly long walk, especially if walking uphill towards Easthouses, I tend to look for landmarks so as to gauge how far I have to walk - the V is one of those landmarks - when I were a lad, me and my mates would often climb up and peer through the V - we'd sometimes even climb over.

What I'm saying is that it's hard to believe someone who regularly walked that path wouldn't have noticed the V before.

And he's already been checking in the woodland at the Gino spot, but he only checks the V because the dog has reacted there?

Offline faithlilly

Cheers.

I'm sure I read the other day that LM claims he'd never noticed the V before.

When walking that path, which is a fairly long walk, especially if walking uphill towards Easthouses, I tend to look for landmarks so as to gauge how far I have to walk - the V is one of those landmarks - when I were a lad, me and my mates would often climb up and peer through the V - we'd sometimes even climb over.

What I'm saying is that it's hard to believe someone who regularly walked that path wouldn't have noticed the V before.

And he's already been checking in the woodland at the Gino spot, but he only checks the V because the dog has reacted there?

Hadn’t you noticed the Gino spot before?

Offline Paranoid Android

Hadn’t you noticed the Gino spot before?

Maybe - I'll check next time I walk the path.

I/we certainly never called it the Gino spot or whatever, but we belonged to different social groups and eras.

Why would they even have a name for that spot? Was it a place to meet? i.e. - 'Meet you at the Gino spot'?

Offline faithlilly

Maybe - I'll check next time I walk the path.

I/we certainly never called it the Gino spot or whatever, but we belonged to different social groups and eras.

Why would they even have a name for that spot? Was it a place to meet? i.e. - 'Meet you at the Gino spot'?

No idea but it does prove that you can walk Roan’s Dyke path again and again and still fail to notice parts of the wall.

Offline Paranoid Android

No idea but it does prove that you can walk Roan’s Dyke path again and again and still fail to notice parts of the wall.

No it doesn't.

If you're asking if I've seen graffiti on the wall, I've seen graffiti on the wall - we just never thought to give a name to a part of a wall with graffiti on it. Why would you? Unless it was a place to meet.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2151
  • Total likes: 790
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
You really do like flogging a dead horse...even when it goes against the evidence from the main protagonists. 20 yards ( or other estimates were given ) ?’ ‘Yards’ from a young boy who had constantly used feet in all his interviews to describe distances. 20 yards or 20 feet....a small mistake in the interview record but a very big difference.

Clarified? What wasn’t clear about their first statements? They exactly matched what Luke was telling police miles away. How was that possible if their recollections were wrong? Of the dog reacting and pulling Luke to the wall? How could three people remember the same thing in their first statements then two ‘unremember’ those very vivid recollections by the trial. Does any rational person really think that’s possible?


No, I don't think it's possible.  Nor do I think trauma and shock would, somehow make all three witnesses invent the behaviour of a dog.  My only problem with this is, who has actually seen the statements?