Alleged Miscarriages of Justice > Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003.
"Laughable eyewitness testimony"
Parky41:
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.
Parky41:
--- Quote from: Parky41 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 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Nicholas:
--- Quote from: Parky41 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 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.
--- End quote ---
8((()*/
Mr Apples:
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.
faithlilly:
--- Quote from: Mr Apples 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version