Author Topic: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"  (Read 18149 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

"Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« on: October 03, 2021, 04:20:40 PM »
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.

Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.

We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's  say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans,  morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.

Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.

The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.

So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.

Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.

Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.

Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3.  For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.

Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him!  Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.

And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 50/100 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.

So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.

Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.

And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:

Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
 
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.

AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.

But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2021, 11:33:29 AM by Parky41 »

Offline Parky41

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2021, 09:08:53 PM »
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.

Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.

We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's  say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans,  morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.

Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.

The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.

So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.

Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.

Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.

Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3.  For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.

Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him!  Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.

And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.

So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.

Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.

And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:

Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
 
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.

AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.

But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.

It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know  that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.

Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place. 

But those witnesses, rather no witnesses to this youth at the entrance of that estate or up to Barondale cottages from 5.30 until 5.55pm. Yet two witnesses seeing him at 5.40 near to the entrance of that path, and of course those other two witnesses seeing him at that path entrance to the woods. Wearing his very distinct blouson jacket. Where we know it takes approx 5mins to walk from that woodland entrance to the estate entrance, where he was seen by those boys on the cycles, touching 6pm. Where it could not be clearer. That the initial time for leaving home was to distance himself from those sightings, at places he did not want to be seen. But the timing of those calls, and his claims only highlighted those lies more - as there were people who had arrived home into the estate, coming from the Eskbank side of Newbattle Road. None of them nor his brother, or anyone else saw him at the places he claimed to be.

And most definitely not enough time to be cleaned up properly but he needed to be seen, and then we have that 15-20mins max. Where he placed himself exactly where he claimed to be always. The entrance of that estate up to Barondale cottages. Then nothing until he was in the boys company in those Abbey grounds. Where it shows clearly how easily noticed, on a stretch of road with little pedestrians. Several times in 20mins. Once by people from that estate who knew him.

So never that there were two youths the same, or of only catching sight of one of them - Not just by one person but four. Near to the entrance of RDP but no where else on that stretch of approx 550 yards. From 5.30 until 5.55pm - Then touching 6pm, up to 20mins saw readily, then nothing at all.

And we know that contrary to these claims of Jodi not being allowed out that evening, the evidence was that only LM knew she was getting out earlier than could have been anticipated, from any arrangement made from school that day. She had been on punishment which was lifted entirely upon her arrival home from school. She only contacted LM and she left home just short of 5pm to meet with him. That if it were him and not his brother in the house at 4.25pm, there was absolutely nothing that placed him home from this point. That he did not have to wait on those exchange of texts, simply been out and about, on his way even to her house. To wait until those chores, he thought she had to do, were over with.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2021, 10:10:00 PM »
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.

Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.

We are not interested in the ludicrous claims that eye witnesses should be able to take in every single detail for it to merit a positive ID. Let's  say that one stated the person was wearing a blue coat and had long black hair, the other a green coat and very short ginger hair - now that would be laughable. Not what happened though, in the slightest. And neither are we interested in this cherry picking of certain words, mainly from first statements, and that clear attempt to make them something they were not. As we had with the girl and "lighter" coloured trousers, possibly jeans,  morphed into light denim jeans. Those desperate measures used to show anything but the actual truth.

Realism - The youth ID as being LM in Easthouse's was wearing a khaki green jacket, hair style that reminded her of the actor who played "Shaggy" in the 2002 adaption of "Scooby Doo" the movie. She was "as sure as could be" that this male was Luke Mitchell. And this does not stand alone, as she noticed a badge which was a German Army badge.

The male who was seen and positively ID as being LM by two people, some 45mins later was also wearing a khaki green jacket, with straggly hair. And they also mentioned this German army badge on that jacket.

So there is strong contention from this point that this male was one and the same: Same colour of clothing, same straggly hair and ID positively as being LM.

Newbattle Road is a commute road leading from Newtongrange into Eskbank/Dalkeith. The distance between the sightings approx: 550 yards (gate by F&W to entrance of the Newbattle Abbey Cres) Which consists of a couple of turns in the road, not sharp bends. From just past the gate it is a 30mph zone. It is not a town or village and has little in the way of pedestrians. Rarely spotting anyone actually walking along it. And it is important to note at this point, that the first time LM gave for being on this road, was shortly after 5.45pm, when he claimed to leave home, to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm.

Now if one were driving along an area with no pedestrians and they saw one person but failed to remember another, more that feasible, just. If however on this road there were two people wearing the same colouring of clothing then it is not so feasible they would miss one of them. If we then add in that they actually looked remarkably like each other (enough for a mistaken ID) along a 550 yards stretch of road then it is not likely at all, is it? That they would only pick up on one of them. They are driving, these areas, split seconds apart. These witnesses did see two people that day, they also saw a jogger. They actually did not miss anyone. Only two people, and one ID as being Mitchell.

Now the jogger trick, of attempting to state the sighting could not have been at the gate, due to the curve in the road - not interested in one's analytical skills of nonsense for the most part. This is, as above split seconds, see LM at the gate and mere second or two later see the jogger - it is as it is, together 1,2,3.  For the important part to do with that jogger, of where they were, they did not see Mitchell. Not at the entrance, not at Barondale cottages. And they went into the woodland before the lad at the gate was in sight for them.

Further to this, what you are not being shown, is those commuters coming from Eskbank, that stayed in the estate who did not see Mitchell at the entrance, nor in sight to Barondale cottages from 5.30pm up until 5.55pm. And the answer given, but no appeal was put out for him!  Ah, there were door to door enquiries from everyone in that estate, and no one saw Mitchell, as stated, in that 25min time frame, not even his brother who claimed to leave home just after 5.30pm.

And we add in here, those phone logs coming to light and Mitchells story changed. No longer had he simply left around 5.45pm to walk out to meet with Jodi for 6pm. He changed this, stating he had phoned at 5.32pm from the entrance of that estate, to tell her he was out earlier! But of where he claimed to be on that road remained the same. The entrance to his estate and that 150/200 yards to Barondale cottages, no further. Not one solitary witness placing him here in those 25mins, the opposite in fact. Those commuters coming home into that estate, and his brother - did not see him, people who knew him.

So we are left with that same male, from both ends of that path, no mistaken ID they were LM. He was not and neither was anyone else further down that road, from Barondale cottages to the entrance of his estate.

Also, the two commuters who did not know Mitchell and could not ID him, stating it was not him they saw: - Not the reality. This was in court, before this they had stated they could not be sure! They ID that distinct bomber jacket, jeans and boots but could not ID him. In court, some 18months later they are asked "Is the person in the dock, the male you saw that day?" - 'Absolutely not'. They had taken in this male, looking dubious on that stretch of road. At an area that Mitchell claimed he was not at! Wearing his clothing and this sighting was around 5.55pm. Could not positively ID him as the person, just that clothing. And after that drastic change in appearance some 18 months later, they were dam sure it was not the same person. - And again, they saw no one else, no other male wearing the exact same clothing Mitchell had on - it was him.

And do we really need to go into the girl! Two people, a little distance apart. The lady is driving, her focus momentarily caught on that male. His actions, palms out "beckoning the girl" How the hell is she supposed to take everything in, you are being asked to apply the ludicrous notion of anything other than reality here. But what she did get was pretty dam good. As, upon clarification of colours and style we had:

Very dark blue, navy/black hoodie. Dark hair possibly contained. Trousers that were "sightly lighter" than the top. Loose fitting around the bottom, possibly jeans/cords.
 
And the only thing extremely relevant around timings, is using outside factors and going over those routes to determine accuracy - the ludicrous yet again is working on guesstimates. The 'What If's' We take these words, add them to this time, ignore this and bring in that - the agreement by the witnesses, of going over those routes, working along with other factors and agreeing to the times and places ascertained.

AB - said "not sure" not that LM was not the person in court, he had changed. As she did with that jacket. She gave accurate account of the colour, that badge but she could not state categorically it was not a parka, and she picked that upon the basis, that in memory it was closest to the type she could recall. It was making it clear that she did not take every single thing in, and rightly so.

But interestingly she did state the trousers appeared the same colour, which gave account for the length of that jacket.

 8((()*/
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2021, 11:12:05 PM »
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.

One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2021, 12:47:17 AM »
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.

One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.

I’m impressed if you’re impressed Mr Apples but as you like asking questions could you please ask Parky why he said in times past that Luke wasn’t seen between 18.15 and 19.00 when he met DH yet on this very forum stated Luke was not seen between 18.15 and 19.30 when he met DH because I’ve yet to receive an answer. Could it be because 75  minutes seems more incriminating than 45? Oh while you’re at it ask him why the youth seen by AB is now beckoning to the female youth when recently he said that AB’s attention had been attracted to the couple because they were arguing.

The devil is in the detail you see and, unfortunately for Parky, I check the detail because, unlike yourself, I want a fair appraisal of the evidence not just someone to give me information to further bolster n opinion already formed.

And FAO Parky. The more your disinformation campaign is revealed the longer your posts become. Dishonest people always use more words than are necessary….psychology 101.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2021, 01:14:10 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2021, 08:43:10 AM »
Excellent posts, parky! Even ‘Lilly and SL herself would have difficulty in countering your arguments put forward here, imo.

One thing I’ve always wondered about is LM’s phone calls to the Joneses’ landline between 1732-1738. Why the delay in the calls? Was he trying to make out, deceitfully, that he was innocently interrupted whilst walking to meet her? Trying to make it more realistic in conjunction with his fabricated alibi of just leaving his house at that (altered) time of 1730? Or was it for more sinister reasons — that he had just killed Jodi and was interrupted by an innocent bystander in the woods behind that wall after he had killed and mutilated her when making that call to try and begin his alibi at 1732? That the call which connected at 1738 was him hoping that the alibi was in place? After which, at 1740, LM proceeded down (logically) that stretch of woodland westbound until on the N’battle road? How coincidental he was spotted by F&W some 7 minutes later at a gate which would have taken him home? I’ll bet LM was cussing F&W under his breath at this point (how dare they interrupt his master plan!). Too many coincidences for LM, imo. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming; it make one feel uneasy.

I wonder if when Luke made the first call to Jodi's landline he heard someone close by and didn't want to be heard so still with Jodi's body? I read the reason the officer during the reconstruction wore her hair down deliberately because Jodi's hair had been tied so anyonee else going forward claiming to have seen Jodi may mention that. AB said the female's hair was tied. I believe AB saw Jodi and LM.

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2021, 11:12:51 AM »
Laughable eye witness testimony?: - Three people positively ID LM at a time when he (first) claimed to be at home. Not one witness to laugh at but three.

Let us look at that stark reality that this person was in fact Luke Mitchell. One ID in the lane that leads to RDP on the East end of it, two further positive ID's at a gate, slightly over and down from the west end entrance of this path, some 45mins later.


Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2021, 11:43:42 AM »
Parky, I have a question if you don't mind. I hardly know the area at all. Was there time for LM to get home and back onto that road between Fleming and Walsh positively identifying him (and I believe they saw LM) and the next sighting of him when he was wearing the bomber jacket? Thanks.

Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.

At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.

A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.

We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.

So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:

Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 01:58:44 PM by Parky41 »

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2021, 03:35:27 PM »
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.

Offline Rusty

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2021, 04:18:20 PM »
I’m surprised no one saw him emerging from that woodland on to his estate. Sure, it only would’ve taken approx 2-5 mins to reach his front door from the woodland, but it was a busy time and Lady Luck must’ve been on his side for him not to have been seen by his neighbours and people in the adjacent houses and streets.

It is possibly is a surprise. But it is very possible, though. I think you are being kind on your 2/5 minutes. It is only 250 yards, from this woodland to front door. IMO he could have done this in less than a minute with a brisk walk. Being exposed for a minute max, without being seen, is very possible. It was tea-time, people more likely in the back side of their houses in the kitchen. 7/8 house to pass, A lot of those houses also have brushes/trees covering any decent view to the main street. The opposite side of the street, had an 8-foot fence covering any decent view from the first floor of their houses.

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2021, 08:14:52 PM »

At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there were already people aware that they are supposed to be together. The real possibility he knew they had been seen together in that lane, not only with Jodi but in that clothing. The murder, the phone call putting that first stage of alibi in motion, inferring no meet had happened by this point. Then for want of a better phrase 'the icing on the cake'- he was seen again by F&W when their car approaching brought him to a standstill, pretty much that deer in the headlight type scenario. Quite literally stopped in his tracks. That attempt to get over that road and out of sight again, thwarted. He had just came away from the scene of that murder, fully aware and conscious of being seen. This sighting massively adding to the haste in which he needed changed and back onto that road at a different point to be seen again, in different clothing. - He had little choice but to be at haste, to cover these factors, to cover his back.


What absolute nonsense. The youth F and W saw was standing nonchalantly, leaning on a gate, looking like he had all the time in the world. He looked neither rattled nor out of breath…just a little bored. He didn’t try to hide his face and  wouldn’t that parka hood he was allegedly wearing have been handy at that point to obscure his features? Two seconds more and he would have been totally obscured by the trees beyond the gate yet not one step further did he take, rejecting self preservation for a bit of a rest. Is that really believable? Would you act in that way, at that time?

 What is notable is that ‘deer in the headlight’ was not seen by one other member of the public darting across that road which lead to the refuge of the woodland. That busy road, that peak time traffic…how difficult must it have been to dart between those cars, how conspicuous must anyone trying to cross that road at that time have been? Yet not one member of the public came forward who actually saw a boy like Luke darting between those cars…not one.

Of course there is a more coherent narrative and one that possibly fits what is known better. The jogger who put herself much further up the Newbattle road, towards the Abbey, than F and W claimed holds the key. They saw the youth and then a little further up the jogger…which would have put the youth at exactly the place Luke claimed at exactly the time he claimed. Of course there was also the witness who offered to provide a statement that RW had told people before her first statement that the youth that she had seen had been ‘at the entrance to the Abbey’ which ties in with not only other witness statements but also the position of the jogger.


A fitness test for some forms of employment have an expectation of being able to run a mile in less than 6mins. A young lad full of adrenalin, how much time does one imagine it takes to cover this much shorter distance? That 7mins at a walking pace, easily cut by at least half, that is at an average paced run. And he is not doing this along Newbattle Road, he is out of sight. Why on earth would someone keep themselves in sight? When there is an area of woodland right next to his estate, that there can be no doubt he knew intimately, every nook and cranny. And then we can add in that river. Why on earth would someone, more so being forensically aware, not use this to have that initial clean. Remembering here also, that it is mostly his clothing that will have trace upon it. Very little of his actual self exposed.

We do not know if he took that coat home at this point, wearing it however out of the cover of that woodland, that short distance to his house, is unlikely. But does not alter the time he had/took. Therefore outwith the time from A-B and back onto Newbattle Road left in reality around 7-8mins for that initial brief clean and into different clothing. And he hangs around for approx: 15-20mins. Making sure he is seen and it could not be better, he knows the people who seen him. And he is gone again, out of sight from around 6.15pm.

So complete fallacy. That he did not have enough time. Only if one is adding on, as they have been doing, that: - He had to go down Newbattle Road and in sight of commuters. That he had to spend ages getting cleaned, this nonsense of long hot showers. That he had time on his side, he had the exact opposite of this. Time was very much of the essence. So in short:

Covering being seen and with Jodi, in that clothing. Covering the time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 12:28:04 AM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2021, 12:42:51 AM »


I refer you to a very telling quote from one of the ladies’ statements: “Oh my god, it’s him!” She was unequivocal and unambiguous that it was him once she saw his photograph in the newspaper. She effectively positively identified him; she was almost incredulous when she saw that picture. Very incriminating (and then the uneasiness and alarm that washes over you when you read and consider the rest of the circumstantial evidence that was led). Try as you might to deflect and nit-pick, FL, but crux of the matter here is that boy was acting odd, whichever way you slice it; simultaneously trying to act nonchalantly and also trying to mask his panic and guilt; a difficult task which evidently caught him out (not making eye contact, looking angry — it all made him look peculiar and the ladies’ attention was drawn to it like a magnet). As regards ‘dodging cars’ and looking ‘conspicuous’, well, as busy a road as it might’ve been, I don’t think it was that busy; a steady stream of traffic, sure, but not the ‘whacky races’ that you are trying to portray. Providence did not work in LM’s favour on the N’battle rd that day (and, let’s face it, the chances of him not being spotted on N’battle rd were slim at that time of day, though not impossible or highly unlikely). As I said, he must have been cussing F&W under his breath. The Scottish executive employee — who spotted him with the bomber jacket on at just after 1800 on N’battle rd — also noted his strange behaviour. The not making eye contact and looking suspicious as she slowed down to get a look at this. So he’d obviously changed the jacket by the time of her sighting, but still he was on tenterhooks. The guilt was still evident no matter how hard this drug-fuelled boy tried to disguise it; murder is hard work, after all.

So, yeah, from AB’s sighting, the beginning of their dispute witnessed by her at five to five, then it, presumably, escalating, until it reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall and heard by Leonard Kelly. The subsequent phone calls to the Joneses’ landline at 1738 (the setting of the alibi, just after he’d killed and mutilated her) and then, very likely, he proceeded down that stretch of woodland west until he emerged on to the N’battle rd, crossed the road to that wooden gate where, unlucky for him, he was spotted by F&W at 1745. Admittedly, there were flaws in this investigation, but, not to the extent where you can arrive at any other conclusion than guilty, imo. Logic tells you that Luke is guilty, imo.

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2021, 09:57:24 AM »
Approx 15mins. If we look at the reality around the sequence of events we can see why he was at haste to be back onto that road, to be seen in different clothing at a different place. But simple time factors. 7mins to walk from the Mitchell home onto RDP. This lad was walking nowhere, he needed out of sight and out of that clothing. An accumulation of factors as to why.
At the time of the murder there can be no doubt that there he time of the murder and of being seen again in that clothing next to RDW/P.

Thanks

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2021, 03:40:00 PM »
It really pays to work in reverse from Mitchells own evidence. That first account of leaving home around 5.45 to walk out and meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm, after dinner being over with. People repeat often that the only statements to remain consistent without change, were Luke's and his mother. Simply not the case at all. And neither did they change with memory or clarity - they changed because they had to, after outside factors came to light, which in turn opened up further problems. We know  that first alibi was from five past five until 5.45 then had to change from 5.15 until 5.30pm.

Now once those calls came to light, that story changed from simply going out to meet, on time, his girlfriend coming to Newbattle for 6pm. As stated, after dinner. But this took fifteen minutes off that time, the story was then that he had phoned, to let her know he was out earlier. Which did not fit at all. He only went to the entrance, to Barondale cottage on the proviso that she would appear any second. To then as he claimed, to be out much earlier yet walked no further to meet with her, even after learning in the call, that she had left to meet with him. And not just that, there were in fact 6 mins between those calls. Why hang up that first time then wait six minutes? If as he says, it was to let her know he was out earlier. Where the truth is, is it not? - That he had made both those calls from the RDW/P. Beginning to put that alibi in place.

I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!

Offline Parky41

Re: "Laughable eyewitness testimony"
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2021, 05:11:20 PM »
I believe LM murdered and mutilated Jodi but for someone to have that presence of mind, changing clothes, putting an alibi in place etc. so soon after what he had done and then to carry on as normal is so surreal to me. It's like a horror movie. I believe he murdered Jodi but I don't know what could have happened to a person that would make a person capable of that. I don't buy the, he was only fourteen stuff. Regardless of age I'm at a loss how anyone could do that. Maybe some people are born like that or maybe their upbringing gives them a sense of entitlement over and above anything else? I don't know. Maybe an unfortunate combination of both. It doesn't matter now. Jodi has missed out on a lifetime of great things and LM will be locked up for a long time and thank goodness for those.ridiculed witnesses!


There is that most prominent feed of all towards innocence. And true, we all find it hard to grasp anyone carrying this out, far less someone so young.

This that LM was a child, normal with no worrying past. We move from here onto that Sky Interview and those words "I'm not that kind of guy" - to show one's emotions. Now we step into an area of reality where something happens that wipes out how we may wish to convey ourselves. And we move to that discovery (cough). I have mentioned several times now those recordings, that clear proof of exactly how this lad was emotionally, that flat effect voice. Or of the evidence led, those hysterics (from others) and so forth. And of course that scraping at the pits of the barrel, to show anything at all that may warrant any form of what we perceive as normal. So we take this "child" and we put him exactly in that position he claimed to be: - Only just discovering that mutilated body of his girlfriend. Skip every part of those scrapings to show reaction, the clue is there, those 'scrapings' in an attempt to show something/anything. For here we simply take this claimed gruesome discovery and his mother trying repeatedly to get a hold of him. - blank, zilch, nothing, nada! This is as far from normal as we perceive it, as it gets. No child would have the type of coping mechanism he calmly displayed. Not responding and reaching out to his mother, for help. No adult would have either, as we saw with AW, whom although with her granddaughter (JaJ), reached out to her eldest daughter for help, for her, for them.

We know that Judith was trying to get hold of her mother, the search party, and we know her mother could not answer the phone to her, such was her plight, her upset that she could not bring herself to show her hysterics towards Jodi's mother. She needed her eldest daughter to help, someone a little calmer. But this does not apply to this "child" who was in the company of people he barely knew. Not only did he ignore his mother, he did not reach out to her, his father or his brother. He took control from the moment he was in their company and before:

We have SL pushing out, that the police wanted the only "child" to go over that wall, back to that gruesome discovery, of how wrong this was, really? Now we add in the reality here. They arrive on the scene and the only person calm is that "child," this "child" does not put forth that he was picked on for this reason, he states "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there." Very much he claims his reason for refusing! first and foremost. All and every area gives us insight into the capabilities, the mindset of this lad who had no trouble in the slightest once that rage of murder had subsided - to calmly carry out those post mortem injuries, to set to put that alibi in place, for he not only needed that alibi in it's basic form, he needed it for he was the person whose company she was to be in. There is no logic to applying ourselves into the mindset of someone who was capable of this, only that the rest of his actions displayed those same tendencies. Calm and collective throughout. From the murder, the discovery, the interviews, in the public eye, the trial and it is steadfast - clear sociopathic tendencies, narcistic.

So those areas out of his control, those wheels in motion, were - that meeting with him, being seen at both ends of that woodland. first with being seen with Jodi. And we see clearly that it all fits. The person who was not only capable of murder, but those post mortem injuries would have no trouble at all putting that cover story into place. To be out of that clothing, to not be out at Easthouse's or on that road at the time of the F&W sighting (initially claiming to leave home around 5.45). To know and put in place being seen much further down in different clothes. And we only have to look at that 15-20min period of time, to know that this is the only time (outwith F&W) that he was actually on that road. He was not where he stated from around 5.30 (eventually) or from 6.15 onwards. These times after unaccounted for as they were the times he needed to clean up better, set that alibi and disposal in place and furthered this with his brief time with those boys in the Abbey.

It is not some mastermind criminal we are discussing here, it is someone who had those capabilities, to carry out not only this murder, but the aftermath of this. Is to include how the person was from the murder onwards. Once they had crossed this threshold from fantasy to reality. How was Luke Mitchell in reality from the 30th of June 2003? Then we can add this to any behavioural problems beforehand. Looking at everything as a whole is important. It is not simply good enough nor explanatory in the slightest to say, he was but a child, only 14 years old. He had no previous dealings with the police.  These mindsets do not come with clear warnings, do they? No crystal ball to see into the future. All those hidden reports that came through of acts carried out pre murder, only a % that came to light via the trial. This describing "the best way to kill someone" Holding knives to others. Referrals from teachers and so forth. Nothing that can make us recognize and treat, until it is often too late for those first victims. Hindsight as they say, extremely apt here. No doubt many If only's.

For me, as stated it was looking at reasons as to why that suspicion fell upon him and remained there, why he could not be eliminated. Was there any weight to these claims of singling this child out, just because they could, because they needed to finger someone?! And I found the complete opposite, most of it directly from Mitchell himself, his actions, his concoctions and lies.