Author Topic: LM & Jodiís texts between 1634-1638 & LMís call to the Speaking Clock at 1654.  (Read 6462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

His hair and fingernails were examined.  The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers.  There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken.  Maybe you can be a bit more specific about what you claim is true and what you claim is a lie.

Indeed - A hair sample was taken, fingers nails and his appearance noted. He was not forensically examined all over. Whatever took place did not do so within an hour of him leading people directly to the victims body. Another lie, of being tested for drugs and having nothing in his system. LM had been taken drugs over the course of the evening. The lie put out to claim that it could not have been him that shared drugs with the victim before her death - They really do pile on top of each other (the lies), and again, how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?

Offline faithlilly

They really do pile on top of each other (the lies), and again, how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?

IndeedÖ.and your sources for your claims are?

Donít worry Iíll wait.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Chris_Halkides

...how does one even begin to sort fact from fiction?
Can you provide some citations?  That would be a good start.

Offline faithlilly

Can you provide some citations?  That would be a good start.

Unfortunately Parky knows, on the whole, that heís preaching to the converted and theyíll simply gobble up anything he serves up.

Of course ambiguous sources make for a frustrating discourse but Iím afraid thatís all that Parky has to offer.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline KenMair

Unfortunately Lean knows, on the whole, that sheís preaching to the converted and theyíll simply gobble up anything she serves up.

Of course ambiguous sources make for a frustrating discourse but Iím afraid thatís all that Lean has to offer.

Parky offers an interesting argument compared to Lean's lies.

Offline faithlilly

Parky offers an interesting argument compared to Lean's lies.

Parkyís argument may be interesting but itís totally unsourced.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Apples

It appears L&BP did contact the carriers of LM's and Judith's phones and managed to ascertain that text exchanges did take place between 1634 & 1638, though the contents were never retrieved. Concerning the retrieval of the contents of text messages -- it seems to be a grey area in the realm of telecomnunications . Some sources suggest they aren't retrievable at all, while others say they can be recovered with a court order, and others say that they can be recovered with a court order -- as long as 12 months hasn't elapsed between the times the texts were exchanged and the date on which a court order is made. I would be surprised if L&BP didn't try and recover the contents via a court order. So, what was the upshot of their application? They were too late with the application? The contents had disappeared forever and weren't able to be traced or recovered? Or they were recovered, but nothing incriminating was found (meaning LM got lucky or he, perhaps, deliberately omitted a time of their meeting because he had made up his mind that he was going to kill Jodi, consciously & cunningly protecting his own back from the inevitable murder investigation)?

As for no incriminating DNA being found on LM's phone, well, he either got lucky that no incriminating DNA transferred on to his phone (eg, his phone was well shielded and protected in one of the pockets of his army parka) or he had access to many phones and swapped the sim cards.

Offline faithlilly

It appears L&BP did contact the carriers of LM's and Judith's phones and managed to ascertain that text exchanges did take place between 1634 & 1638, though the contents were never retrieved. Concerning the retrieval of the contents of text messages -- it seems to be a grey area in the realm of telecomnunications . Some sources suggest they aren't retrievable at all, while others say they can be recovered with a court order, and others say that they can be recovered with a court order -- as long as 12 months hasn't elapsed between the times the texts were exchanged and the date on which a court order is made. I would be surprised if L&BP didn't try and recover the contents via a court order. So, what was the upshot of their application? They were too late with the application? The contents had disappeared forever and weren't able to be traced or recovered? Or they were recovered, but nothing incriminating was found (meaning LM got lucky or he, perhaps, deliberately omitted a time of their meeting because he had made up his mind that he was going to kill Jodi, consciously & cunningly protecting his own back from the inevitable murder investigation)?

As for no incriminating DNA being found on LM's phone, well, he either got lucky that no incriminating DNA transferred on to his phone (eg, his phone was well shielded and protected in one of the pockets of his army parka) or he had access to many phones and swapped the sim cards.

Or perhaps heís simply innocent?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Mr Apples

Or perhaps heís simply innocent?

Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, ŗ la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, ŗ la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
And doing daft things like requesting books on Satanism as his right to practice his religion hasnít exactly helped his public image either.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, ŗ la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.

I am neither related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from this case so another theory bites the dust.

Did Campbell, Steeleís alleged partner in crime, also go to drastic measures to show his innocence? Was his conviction also quashed?

Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline Chris_Halkides

Perhaps the sun rises in the west? The deluge of circumstantial evidence says otherwise, imo. The only reasons that someone would think he's innocent, imo, are if one was related, a friend of the family or benefitting financially from the case. Btw, LM has been decidedly reticent since his incarceration in 2005 -- the antithesis of what you would expect from an innocent person, not least from a known lippy lad who was certainly no shrinking violet. Innocent men go to drastic measures to show their innocence, ŗ la Joe Steele of the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars.
The "deluge" of eyewitness evidence in this case is incoherent and riddled with problems.  I spent several pages in a different thread contrasting good ways to collect eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.  David Wilson described the testimony with similarly unflattering terms.  I have seen no evidence that Professor Wilson is benefitting financially from this case, and nor am I.

In the second half of the 2021 documentary Luke Mitchell said, "I can't be more clear.  I absolutely did not kill Jodi.  I want to clear my name."  Sounds pretty clear, and his willingness to take a lie detector test and to maintain his innocence are also clear indications.  I also object to your characterization of him as "lippy."  He was fifteen and subjected to question that was undisputedly outrageous. 

Those points having been noted, I am not a big fan of arguments about someone's demeanor as a sign of much of anything.  Mark Lundy (a possible wrongful conviction) fainted at the funeral of his wife and daughter, and people said he was faking it and was guilty.  Luke Mitchell did not show enough emotion at the time for some people, who concluded he was guilty.  There is a Goldilocks standard I guess: show some grief but not too much.

The final episode of Through the Wall has extensive commentary from Luke Mitchell.  He sounds intelligent and articulate.  I suggest that one listen with an open mind.
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/his-name-was-stuart-lubbock/bonus-episode-in-luke-s-own-words/
« Last Edit: September 21, 2023, 12:02:55 AM by Chris_Halkides »

Offline Mr Apples


The "deluge" of eyewitness evidence in this case is incoherent and riddled with problems.  I spent several pages in a different thread contrasting good ways to collect eyewitness testimony versus what was done in this case.  David Wilson described the testimony with similarly unflattering terms.  I have seen no evidence that Professor Wilson is benefitting financially from this case, and nor am I.

In the second half of the 2021 documentary Luke Mitchell said, "I can't be more clear.  I absolutely did not kill Jodi.  I want to clear my name."  Sounds pretty clear, and his willingness to take a lie detector test and to maintain his innocence are also clear indications.  I also object to your characterization of him as "lippy."  He was fifteen and subjected to question that was undisputedly outrageous. 

Those points having been noted, I am not a big fan of arguments about someone's demeanor as a sign of much of anything.  Mark Lundy (a possible wrongful conviction) fainted at the funeral of his wife and daughter, and people said he was faking it and was guilty.  Luke Mitchell did not show enough emotion at the time for some people, who concluded he was guilty.  There is a Goldilocks standard I guess: show some grief but not too much.

The final episode of Through the Wall has extensive commentary from Luke Mitchell.  He sounds intelligent and articulate.  I suggest that one listen with an open mind.
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/his-name-was-stuart-lubbock/bonus-episode-in-luke-s-own-words/

Thanks for the link. Clearly intelligent and articulate, but so are many psychopaths, narcissists and extremely violent & dangerous offenders. He can use those qualities to deceive, mislead and lie very convincingly. A relative of mine got to know him well whilst working in Shotts Prison for several years. She said he was likeable, well-mannered, had a nervous stutter and was very short in height. Interestingly, my relative referred to him as 'my pal' (meaning HER pal) and doubted he was guilty. I know my relative doesn't know the case well, and it was obvious that she was seduced by his eloquence and charm -- to the extent that it made her suggest he may be innocent.

The CJS is imperfect worldwide and utilises tools & methods that are not an exact science, but, like I've said numerous times in the past on here, the circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming, robust, strong and compelling in this case that it doesn't matter how imperfect the system was and still is.

Offline Mr Apples

During that interview, LM said absolutely nothing about why he was innocent of the crime, or offered any explanation of why it could not have been him who murdered Jodi (the best he could offer is that he was 'shut down' during the original investigation and done as he was told and acquiesced).  He merely harped on about the shortcomings and flaws in the prison and CJS which he feels he's facing currently and which could hinder his release.

Offline Chris_Halkides

Mr Apples,

You keep talking about how robust the evidence against LM is.  On 13 September in another thread I gave a short summary of the problems in the Fleming/Walsh sighting, but I don't have time today to do the same regarding Ms. Bryson.  However, one point may be worth examining.  Ms. Bryson declined to identify LM at the trial.  In these threads, it was suggested that Luke looked different because he was 17-18 months older during the trial.  Yet Ms. Bryson's initial description was of someone in his early 20s, putting him somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 years older than LM was at the time.  Think of how much greater is the difference in looks between, say 14 and 22 versus 14 and 16.  So how can one ignore the difference between LM's age and the person that she saw?  I cannot.