The less talked about sighting on N’battle Rd by M O’Sullivan & D Hamilton...

[Mr Apples]

seems to be a less salient point of discussion in this case (well, from my 2 months of looking into the case):

This couple (Marion O’Sullivan and her partner Derek Hamilton), whilst driving home to Newtongrange from Dalkeith High  Street after some shopping, noticed a suspicious looking youth at a gate on the Newbattle Road, just before 1800 hrs (the gate at the path entrance to RDP, presumably). Anyway, these two defence witnesses said in court, unequivocally, that it wasn’t Luke they saw (they even admitted to having seen images of Luke numerous times in the media after the murder). So, while these testimonies work in Luke’s favour, they also cast doubt as well. Why? Because, unlike the all the other eyewitnesses, this couple stated that the youth they saw that evening was wearing a green bomber jacket — the green bomber jacket that Luke said he had on at school that day and the same jacket he wore all that evening, until he was questioned by police at Dalkeith police station on the early hours of 01.07.03 where it was taken from him and never returned to this day. They seem unique in this respect, as every other witness in the case says Luke was wearing a hip-length green parka/fisherman’s jacket.

What this sighting proves, imo, is that case is messy and extremely complex, forever to remain a mystery. Having said that, I’m fairly new to this case (only began taking an interest about 2 months ago, after the C5 doco), so perhaps when I eventually finish reading Sandra’s book and read more forums that discuss this case, I might have a better idea as regards who I think the killer was/is.

Anyway, what did you take from MO & DH’s sighting?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-defence-2509118

[faithlilly]

seems to be a less salient point of discussion in this case (well, from my 2 months of looking into the case):

This couple (Marion O’Sullivan and her partner Derek Hamilton), whilst driving home to Newtongrange from Dalkeith High  Street after some shopping, noticed a suspicious looking youth at a gate on the Newbattle Road, just before 1800 hrs (the gate at the path entrance to RDP, presumably). Anyway, these two defence witnesses said in court, unequivocally, that it wasn’t Luke they saw (they even admitted to having seen images of Luke numerous times in the media after the murder). So, while these testimonies work in Luke’s favour, they also cast doubt as well. Why? Because, unlike the all the other eyewitnesses, this couple stated that the youth they saw that evening was wearing a green bomber jacket — the green bomber jacket that Luke said he had on at school that day and the same jacket he wore all that evening, until he was questioned by police at Dalkeith police station on the early hours of 01.07.03 where it was taken from him and never returned to this day. They seem unique in this respect, as every other witness in the case says Luke was wearing a hip-length green parka/fisherman’s jacket.

What this sighting proves, imo, is that case is messy and extremely complex, forever to remain a mystery. Having said that, I’m fairly new to this case (only began taking an interest about 2 months ago, after the C5 doco), so perhaps when I eventually finish reading Sandra’s book and read more forums that discuss this case, I might have a better idea as regards who I think the killer was/is.

Anyway, what did you take from MO & DH’s sighting?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-defence-2509118

At the time this young man, whoever he was, was seen Luke was seen by people who knew him sitting at the end of his road.

Some more about the sighting from the Herald.

‘Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial that she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.

She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.

Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw, the witness replied:

"No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.

Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the carwith Ms O'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.

Mr Findlay asked whether the accused was the person he had sighted.

"No, it wasn't, no, " Mr Hamilton replied. "How sure are you?" the lawyer went on.

"Positive, " the witness’

[Parky41]

At the time this young man, whoever he was, was seen Luke was seen by people who knew him sitting at the end of his road.

Some more about the sighting from the Herald.

‘Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial that she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 6pm on the day Jodi died.

She said the man, who was in his "late teens or early 20s", was wearing a green bomber jacket and dark jeans.

Asked by Mr Findlay whether his client was the male she saw, the witness replied:

"No, it's not", adding she was "positive" about that.

Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the carwith Ms O'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.

Mr Findlay asked whether the accused was the person he had sighted.

"No, it wasn't, no, " Mr Hamilton replied. "How sure are you?" the lawyer went on.

"Positive, " the witness’

Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?

I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?

[faithlilly]

Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?

I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?

The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !

Of course there is also the other witness sighting not often talked about, that of the male and female witnesses ( one who knew Jodi ) who saw someone of Jodi’s description walking, alone, down towards Morris Road around 5.05. There was also a man seen walking behind her.

[Parky41]

The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !

Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:

 Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.

So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd. 

We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.

[Mr Apples]

Messy indeed - So they saw this male at a gate and an entrance to a path on Newbattle R'd. (Mr Apples) They did not however see any other male at the entrance of the housing estate, or on Newbattle R'd, someone else with a green bomber jacket on? Also, we have F&W who did see someone at a gate, who also did not see anyone else at the entrance or on Newbattle R'd that was the guy at the gates twin?

I see another hole being dug here? -Can we see the questioning of these witness's by AT (AD) please?

Do you have any links to what QC Alan Turnbull’s line of questioning was when he cross examined these two witnesses? Can you recollect what he was meant to have said to MO & DH?

[mrswah]

Not at all - I am more interested in why this witness was called. Also:

 Interested in all of these people, duplicates of each other to boot - wearing heavier outer garments on what was (claimed to be) a warm summers evenings?/ Where not one but the two heads of this campaign - were both enjoying the summer sunshine out on the patio? An author who uses this warm summers evening as an intro to her book? And of the arms and legs that get added to information - a path entrance or a gate? A green thick padded bomber jacket from around 6pm or parka at 5.40pm - So do we have 4 people on Newbattle R'd - That one sighting in the parka by F&W at the gate around 5.40pm, the twin further down - Then we jump to 6pm when he put himself on Newbattle R'd and we have two males on this R'd at the same time with this green padded bomber jacket on. -This sighting not quite where LM admitted to walking - used to show yet again he was lying? and DF saying, well, wait a minute, it was not my client, as they did not ID him, Just his jacket? - It pays to add all of the information, does it not? - of course not, why would one. For LM was yet again lying.

So whilst this witness was called by the Crown, to show that the likelihood of two males, both wearing the same jacket around 6pm on the same stretch of road - was in fact LM, and he had lied as to how far he had walked on this R'd. 

We all know that the jacket was disposed of after the sighting by F&W. We know LM was just minutes from his home. We know he needed an alibi, we know he needed to be seen and he was from approx 6pm until just after 6.15pm. - And we know he vanished completely from this time until he met with the boys at 7.30pm.

IMO, we don't "all know" anything regarding the disposal of a jacket belonging to LM. How can we "all know" that it was this that was being burned in the Mitchells' back garden? There was no evidence found, just evidence that the Mitchells lit their woodburner.

We certainly don't know whether the various sightings of Luke WERE of Luke, apart from the one sighting by someone who actually knew him.

[Mr Apples]

The couple both said that the person that they saw was not Luke. Doesn’t this throw doubt on F&W’s sighting for you?
It’s obvious that they saw the individual’s face...A&W however did not....though in court one did say that they recognised the shape of Luke’s head !

Of course there is also the other witness sighting not often talked about, that of the male and female witnesses ( one who knew Jodi ) who saw someone of Jodi’s description walking, alone, down towards Morris Road around 5.05. There was also a man seen walking behind her.

Were the couple called to give evidence in court? Also, at what time was MK spotted on NB rd? And how does CCTV footage, even when enlarged, rule out one having scratch marks on one’s face?

[Brietta]

IMO, we don't "all know" anything regarding the disposal of a jacket belonging to LM. How can we "all know" that it was this that was being burned in the Mitchells' back garden? There was no evidence found, just evidence that the Mitchells lit their woodburner.

We certainly don't know whether the various sightings of Luke WERE of Luke, apart from the one sighting by someone who actually knew him.

It was accepted by the court that the woodburner had been used to dispose of Mitchell's jacket.  And although it was never determined what had happened to Mitchell's skunking knife in the absence of explanation what happened to it, that was accepted too.

It was accepted that the sightings of Luke introduced by the prosecution were evidence that it was him.  I believe because different sightings fitted the jigsaw of timeframe evidence.


Isn't it odd that two vital pieces of evidence vanished to be replaced by Corrine Mitchell with two identical items.

[mrswah]

It was accepted by the court that the woodburner had been used to dispose of Mitchell's jacket.  And although it was never determined what had happened to Mitchell's skunking knife in the absence of explanation what happened to it, that was accepted too.

It was accepted that the sightings of Luke introduced by the prosecution were evidence that it was him.  I believe because different sightings fitted the jigsaw of timeframe evidence.


Isn't it odd that two vital pieces of evidence vanished to be replaced by Corrine Mitchell with two identical items.

The matter of the jacket being burned and the sightings may have been accepted in court, but not everything that is accepted in court is accurate.

[Brietta]

The matter of the jacket being burned and the sightings may have been accepted in court, but not everything that is accepted in court is accurate.

The denial that the woodburner had been lit was outweighed by the evidence of witnesses that it had - one of whom I believe was Luke Mitchell.

[mrswah]

The denial that the woodburner had been lit was outweighed by the evidence of witnesses that it had - one of whom I believe was Luke Mitchell.

It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.

But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.

Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?

[faithlilly]

It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.

But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.

Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?

And burn it to obliteration with absolutely no material reside on the bricks of the wood burner.

That’s some feat.

[Brietta]

It was indeed, and I don't deny that the woodburner had been lit.

But, what we don't know for sure, is what was burned on it. There was, as far as I know, no firm evidence that a parka was burned.

Wouldn't it be difficult to burn a large coat in a woodburner?

The point is that a material witness denied that anything had been burned in it.

No it would not be difficult to carefully burn the type of jacket Mitchell was wearing - to collect the detritus after and to remove all trace of it. 

[Nicholas]

And burn it to obliteration with absolutely no material reside on the bricks of the wood burner.

That’s some feat.

Maybe there were two fires in the Mitchell garden that evening

‘Mrs Mitchell said she might have burnt some grass at the time but did not use the burner.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4174661.stm