UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Moggrey21 on August 22, 2024, 10:20:54 AM
-
All seems to have gone very quiet on this topic..i keep checking. Was the common consensus finally that he's guilty as sin and we can move on :-)
-
The prosecution asks the public to believe in certain things. One, that a fourteen year old boy can cleanse himself of all forensic traces and do so in an extremely short time. Two, that the many...irregularities...in gathering the eywitness evidence should be overlooked. Three, that intimidating potential defense witnesses is acceptable. Four, that failing to collect objective evidence (evidence that is not malleable in the way that eyewitness evidence is) regarding this case is unworthy of its attention. I am skeptical on all four counts.
-
Not got as much time to post these days, but, coincidentally, I have a week off work starting from today, so I might make a few contributions to the boards during this time (if you can call it that). The transcripts have reinforced my belief that he is guilty, but interestingly enough, the most recent transcripts that have been uploaded -- that of pushbike boys DH and GE -- have thrown a little sneaky cat amongst the pigeons. Why? Cos it means the 3 pushbike boys' (AH's transcript was uploaded a few months ago) testimonies all differ from each other: AH was adamant that LM was wearing a waist-length German army shirt; DH was sure LM was wearing a shiny green bomber jacket with orange lining (though he did concede it was possible he was getting said bomber jacket mixed up because he had seen LM wearing it at school before); and GE said he was 100% certain that LM was wearing the shiny green bomber jacket with the orange lining. These 3 boys' testimonies are a bit anomalous, but don't sway my opinion. Guilty.
-
It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline.
-
Not got as much time to post these days, but, coincidentally, I have a week off work starting from today, so I might make a few contributions to the boards during this time (if you can call it that). The transcripts have reinforced my belief that he is guilty, but interestingly enough, the most recent transcripts that have been uploaded -- that of pushbike boys DH and GE -- have thrown a little sneaky cat amongst the pigeons. Why? Cos it means the 3 pushbike boys' (AH's transcript was uploaded a few months ago) testimonies all differ from each other: AH was adamant that LM was wearing a waist-length German army shirt; DH was sure LM was wearing a shiny green bomber jacket with orange lining (though he did concede it was possible he was getting said bomber jacket mixed up because he had seen LM wearing it at school before); and GE said he was 100% certain that LM was wearing the shiny green bomber jacket with the orange lining. These 3 boys' testimonies are a bit anomalous, but don't sway my opinion. Guilty.
“ Cos it means the 3 pushbike boys' (AH's transcript was uploaded a few months ago) testimonies all differ from each other:”
Not true. Two of the boys absolutely agree with each other and those are the boys who knew Luke best.
Their testimony is interesting in that it clearly displays the manipulation of rather naive teenagers by Turnbull’s questioning.
-
All seems to have gone very quiet on this topic..i keep checking. Was the common consensus finally that he's guilty as sin and we can move on :-)
What's changed? - Confirmation that SM had not seen nor heard his brother. Confirmation that he had been influenced into telling lies by his own mother. Confirmation that SM had not left home around 5:30pm but after 6:20pm. Where he still didn't see his brother around the entrance of the estate. Confirmation that it was after 6:30pm when LM was seen by the cyclist on his return journey. Confirmation that LM had not been seen sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate, at any time. Though he claimed to be there for the best part of 80mins. Only walking to and from Barondale Cottages (claimed) twice he said. No evidence at all of him walking to and from there.
Confirmation that all the sightings of him had not been of him wearing his bomber jacket. Confirmation in everything put forward by F&W that the sighting took place at the wooden gate. Seeing the jogger 'further down the hill' Confirmation that the two boys who knew him may possibly have confused his jacket for the one they were familiar with. Confirmation that we are still left with no sightings of LM for the best part of 70mins, where he claimed to be. Confirmation that 5 people saw LM wearing something other than his bomber jacket. 3 (so far) in places he claimed not to have been.
Confirmation that LM had lied, that his dog had not alerted him to where the victims body lay, direction of. Confirmation that the only time the dog was up at the wall was the Gino break, then directly to and at the V break. Confirmation that no alert took place past this point, confirmation that LM did not double back to anywhere. Confirmation that he had lied when claiming he knew nothing of those breaks until with the others searching. Confirmation that he had walked down into that woodland towards the V break before with others. He was familiar with the woodland. Confirmation that in excess of 8 people testified to LM wearing a khaki green, parka style jacket pre the murder. Confirmation of LM carrying knives frequently, confirmation of a missing knife. Confirmation that a fire was taken place in the Mitchell garden at different intervals that evening.
Confirmation that LM went home around 10pm and not just after 9pm. Confirmation of his many multiple missing time frames. Confirmation of his changing accounts. Confirmation of his compulsive lies. Confirmation that that he did not meet with the others at the junction of the paths. Confirmation that he had not rushed up any path. Confirmation that there is a missing time frame again, from his arrival at the path (claimed by him), to his meeting the others after 11:20pm. Confirmation that it took approx 5 1/2 mins from heading off together, to LM entering the woodland and calling out he had found his "something" Seconds in the woodland to find and identify a body, through trees, overgrowth, name tree by type the victim lay behind, her hair fastener etc.
Confirmation that LM had not borrowed a torch from his brother, SM knew nothing was amiss until awakened (claimed) by his mother in the early hours of July 1st. Confirmation that LM had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of his mothers arrival at the police station. Confirmation that she was with her son when handing over that first account. Confirmation that LM asked if SM were home? Confirmation that he deleted the data from his phone and not the police. Confirmation he omitted the contact to the Jones house, being told Jodi had left already ("a wee while ago"), Conflicting accounts as to why he did nothing.
So, yes. Nothing much changed. Alibi exposed as false. Sightings still firmly in place elsewhere. The dog did not alert and show him where the victims body was, he made up position, reason and so forth, in his attempt to make it appear so. Still missing clothing, knife. Still fuelled to the brim with lies. But all in all, what has been exposed is a farce of a campaign overflowing with dishonesty. Where multiple innocents have been used as fodder to bring favour for LM. Is he innocent? I don't believe so. Was the evidence sufficient for a conviction? That will always be up for debate. It in no way shows nor proves in the slightest, that LM did not and could not have murdered Jodi Jones, imo.
-
What's changed? - Confirmation that SM had not seen nor heard his brother. Confirmation that he had been influenced into telling lies by his own mother. Confirmation that SM had not left home around 5:30pm but after 6:20pm. Where he still didn't see his brother around the entrance of the estate. Confirmation that it was after 6:30pm when LM was seen by the cyclist on his return journey. Confirmation that LM had not been seen sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate, at any time. Though he claimed to be there for the best part of 80mins. Only walking to and from Barondale Cottages (claimed) twice he said. No evidence at all of him walking to and from there.
Confirmation that all the sightings of him had not been of him wearing his bomber jacket. Confirmation in everything put forward by F&W that the sighting took place at the wooden gate. Seeing the jogger 'further down the hill' Confirmation that the two boys who knew him may possibly have confused his jacket for the one they were familiar with. Confirmation that we are still left with no sightings of LM for the best part of 70mins, where he claimed to be. Confirmation that 5 people saw LM wearing something other than his bomber jacket. 3 (so far) in places he claimed not to have been.
Confirmation that LM had lied, that his dog had not alerted him to where the victims body lay, direction of. Confirmation that the only time the dog was up at the wall was the Gino break, then directly to and at the V break. Confirmation that no alert took place past this point, confirmation that LM did not double back to anywhere. Confirmation that he had lied when claiming he knew nothing of those breaks until with the others searching. Confirmation that he had walked down into that woodland towards the V break before with others. He was familiar with the woodland. Confirmation that in excess of 8 people testified to LM wearing a khaki green, parka style jacket pre the murder. Confirmation of LM carrying knives frequently, confirmation of a missing knife. Confirmation that a fire was taken place in the Mitchell garden at different intervals that evening.
Confirmation that LM went home around 10pm and not just after 9pm. Confirmation of his many multiple missing time frames. Confirmation of his changing accounts. Confirmation of his compulsive lies. Confirmation that that he did not meet with the others at the junction of the paths. Confirmation that he had not rushed up any path. Confirmation that there is a missing time frame again, from his arrival at the path (claimed by him), to his meeting the others after 11:20pm. Confirmation that it took approx 5 1/2 mins from heading off together, to LM entering the woodland and calling out he had found his "something" Seconds in the woodland to find and identify a body, through trees, overgrowth, name tree by type the victim lay behind, her hair fastener etc.
Confirmation that LM had not borrowed a torch from his brother, SM knew nothing was amiss until awakened (claimed) by his mother in the early hours of July 1st. Confirmation that LM had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of his mothers arrival at the police station. Confirmation that she was with her son when handing over that first account. Confirmation that LM asked if SM were home? Confirmation that he deleted the data from his phone and not the police. Confirmation he omitted the contact to the Jones house, being told Jodi had left already ("a wee while ago"), Conflicting accounts as to why he did nothing.
So, yes. Nothing much changed. Alibi exposed as false. Sightings still firmly in place elsewhere. The dog did not alert and show him where the victims body was, he made up position, reason and so forth, in his attempt to make it appear so. Still missing clothing, knife. Still fuelled to the brim with lies. But all in all, what has been exposed is a farce of a campaign overflowing with dishonesty. Where multiple innocents have been used as fodder to bring favour for LM. Is he innocent? I don't believe so. Was the evidence sufficient for a conviction? That will always be up for debate. It in no way shows nor proves in the slightest, that LM did not and could not have murdered Jodi Jones, imo.
Shall we start at the beginning and correct your misinformation?
You said : ‘ Only walking to and from Barondale Cottages (claimed) twice he said. No evidence at all of him walking to and from there’
From Dean Houston’s testimony:
“As you go down Newbattle Road you eventually come to an opening on your left which is to Newbattle Abbey Crescent-Yes
Do you know where that is?- Yes
And just before there is another opening, do you know that one also? -Yes
I think it is signposted for Barndale Cottages-Yes
And further
On the evening of Monday 30th of June then after going to the Morning, Noon and Nighy shop you and two friends cycled along Newbattle Road in the direction which would take you past the opening?- Yes
As you passed the opening did you see anyone? -Yes
Who did you see?-Luke Mitchell
-
Shall we start at the beginning and correct your misinformation?
You said : ‘ Only walking to and from Barondale Cottages (claimed) twice he said. No evidence at all of him walking to and from there’
From Dean Houston’s testimony:
“As you go down Newbattle Road you eventually come to an opening on your left which is to Newbattle Abbey Crescent-Yes
Do you know where that is?- Yes
And just before there is another opening, do you know that one also? -Yes
I think it is signposted for Barndale Cottages-Yes
And further
On the evening of Monday 30th of June then after going to the Morning, Noon and Nighy shop you and two friends cycled along Newbattle Road in the direction which would take you past the opening?- Yes
As you passed the opening did you see anyone? -Yes
Who did you see?-Luke Mitchell
Would you like it slowly? No evidence of LM walking to and from BC. No evidence of LM sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate. Then familiarize yourself with the entrances. There are 5 between the wooden gate (F&W) and entrance to the estate. 1st into the woodland, second BC? 3rd house, 4th walkway that takes you along by the river, alternate, more hidden route into the housing estate, then the entrance to Newbattle Abbey Cres. The wall at the entrance of his estate, nice and low for sitting on (claimed). Others, leaning against. There is a further clue in the testimony, I'll leave you to try and spot it? Again, absolutely no sightings (yet) on the wall sitting at estate entrance, no sightings of him walking up or down from anywhere. At a standstill?
-
Would you like it slowly? No evidence of LM walking to and from BC. No evidence of LM sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate. Then familiarize yourself with the entrances. There are 5 between the wooden gate (F&W) and entrance to the estate. 1st into the woodland, second BC? 3rd house, 4th walkway that takes you along by the river, alternate, more hidden route into the housing estate, then the entrance to Newbattle Abbey Cres. The wall at the entrance of his estate, nice and low for sitting on (claimed). Others, leaning against. There is a further clue in the testimony, I'll leave you to try and spot it? Again, absolutely no sightings (yet) on the wall sitting at estate entrance, no sightings of him walking up or down from anywhere. At a standstill?
The same old Parky!
Don’t believe your lying eyes!
Turnbull tells you the sequence of openings. First Barondale Cottages then Newbattle Abbey Crescent. As to Luke not being seen walking to the turning to Barondale Cottages, how do you think that he got there?
-
The same old Parky!
Don’t believe your lying eyes!
Turnbull tells you the sequence of openings. First Barondale Cottages then Newbattle Abbey Crescent. As to Luke not being seen walking to the turning to Barondale Cottages, how do you think that he got there?
A simple admission of your wrong would have sufficed Faith. Now toddle off (again) on to Google maps, familiarize yourself (again), with those 5 entry points. Then be a good girl and pop up evidence of LM sitting on the wall, where he claimed to be for the best part of 80mins. Handy however, don't you think, that entry point that keeps you away from those other obtuse claims, you know, where one could not possibly get passed all those big windows without being seen? Possibly correct, he wasn't seen walking to the entrance of his estate either - Oops.
-
A simple admission of your wrong would have sufficed Faith. Now toddle off (again) on to Google maps, familiarize yourself (again), with those 5 entry points. Then be a good girl and pop up evidence of LM sitting on the wall, where he claimed to be for the best part of 80mins. Handy however, don't you think, that entry point that keeps you away from those other obtuse claims, you know, where one could not possibly get passed all those big windows without being seen? Possibly correct, he wasn't seen walking to the entrance of his estate either - Oops.
You are quite right Parky. The entrance to Barondale Cottages wasn’t the next opening from Newbattle Abbey Crescent but the second, so actually Luke walked further than I thought.
Luke’s defence claimed that he walked as far as Barondale Cottages so I’m not sure why you keep on insisting that
it was claimed Luke sat on the wall for 80 minutes?
From Grant Elliot’s testimony.
And as you go down NB Road and you come eventually to some houses on the left called NB Abbey Crescent? Yes
And just before there is an opening and a sign that says Barndale Cottages, did you know that (inaudible) ( Inaudible’
Further
You will recognise that as the opening that I have just mentioned? Yes
As you cycled down NB Road did you see anybody you knew near that opening? Yes
Who was that? Luke Mitchell.
Now hopefully that’ll put the silliness to bed that Luke didn’t walk as far as Barondale Cottages.
And as to Luke’s apparel, Maureen O’Sullivan and her partner testified:
“Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 1800 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.”
“Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”
So 4 people described the male they saw, obviously Luke, wearing a bomber jacket. Two wouldn’t have known the jacket from school so bang goes Turnbull’s theory.
Only Walsh and Fleming, of all the individuals who passed along NB Road that night, describe seeing a male in a parka.
Lastly if Shane left NB Abbey Crescent and turned left at 6.20 and Luke was at Barondale Cottages at that time as Grant Elliot testified to then it wouldn’t be suspicious at all that he didn’t see his brother.
-
You are quite right Parky. The entrance to Barondale Cottages wasn’t the next opening from Newbattle Abbey Crescent but the second, so actually Luke walked further than I thought.
Luke’s defence claimed that he walked as far as Barondale Cottages so I’m not sure why you keep on insisting that
it was claimed Luke sat on the wall for 80 minutes?
From Grant Elliot’s testimony.
And as you go down NB Road and you come eventually to some houses on the left called NB Abbey Crescent? Yes
And just before there is an opening and a sign that says Barndale Cottages, did you know that (inaudible) ( Inaudible’
Further
You will recognise that as the opening that I have just mentioned? Yes
As you cycled down NB Road did you see anybody you knew near that opening? Yes
Who was that? Luke Mitchell.
Now hopefully that’ll put the silliness to bed that Luke didn’t walk as far as Barondale Cottages.
And as to Luke’s apparel, Maureen O’Sullivan and her partner testified:
“Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on Newbattle Road, Dalkeith, just before 1800 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.”
“Her partner Derek Hamilton, 31, who had been driving the car with MsO'Sullivan past the spot in question, also gave a similar description of the male he saw.”
So 4 people described the male they saw, obviously Luke, wearing a bomber jacket. Two wouldn’t have known the jacket from school so bang goes Turnbull’s theory.
Only Walsh and Fleming, of all the individuals who passed along NB Road that night, describe seeing a male in a parka.
Lastly if Shane left NB Abbey Crescent and turned left at 6.20 and Luke was at Barondale Cottages at that time as Grant Elliot testified to then it wouldn’t be suspicious at all that he didn’t see his brother.
"The opening is obviously created by a gap between the stone wall and the left hand corner we can see is painted white. You may know the right hand one is also painted white" From the boys testimony. But you knew that anyway. Playing silly beggars as per.
SM easily seeing to there from the estate entrance when leaving that day.
Again - No evidence of LM walking to the estate entrance at any time. No evidence of LM sitting on the wall at the entrance, did SL not mention the bus stop also? ( I know, damn). No evidence of LM walking back and forth to Barondale cottages at any time, from where he claimed to have been waiting for the best part of 80mins.
-
"The opening is obviously created by a gap between the stone wall and the left hand corner we can see is painted white. You may know the right hand one is also painted white" From the boys testimony. But you knew that anyway. Playing silly beggars as per.
SM easily seeing to there from the estate entrance when leaving that day.
Again - No evidence of LM walking to the estate entrance at any time. No evidence of LM sitting on the wall at the entrance, did SL not mention the bus stop also? ( I know, damn). No evidence of LM walking back and forth to Barondale cottages at any time, from where he claimed to have been waiting for the best part of 80mins.
There are two openings after NB Abbey Cresent. Both seem to lead to Barondale Cottages. Both are just feet apart. One now has white painted ends…I don’t know if it was like that in 2003. The pertinent point was that where the boys saw Luke was at the opening signposted Barondale Cottages. Further if Luke had been standing a little back into the opening it is quite possible that Shane wouldn’t have seen him as he turned left coming out of the street.
For the moment let’s put Dr Lean’s book aside and concentrate on the court testimony. BTW who saw Jodi walk to the entrance to RDP?
-
There are two openings after NB Abbey Cresent. Both seem to lead to Barondale Cottages. Both are just feet apart. One now has white painted ends…I don’t know if it was like that in 2003. The pertinent point was that where the boys saw Luke was at the opening signposted Barondale Cottages. Further if Luke had been standing a little back into the opening it is quite possible that Shane wouldn’t have seen him as he turned left coming out of the street.
For the moment let’s put Dr Lean’s book aside and concentrate on the court testimony. BTW who saw Jodi walk to the entrance to RDP?
And again, playing silly beggars - It is AT who is describing the white painted entrance. There are 4 entrances after NAC, and before the wooden gate of the F&W sighting. I have no idea why you continuously wish to make a fool of yourself, but do so anyway. Excellent as that may be, do it with someone else. You were wrong, stop playing the part of your wounded alter ego.
-
And again, playing silly beggars - It is AT who is describing the white painted entrance. There are 4 entrances after NAC, and before the wooden gate of the F&W sighting. I have no idea why you continuously wish to make a fool of yourself, but do so anyway. Excellent as that may be, do it with someone else. You were wrong, stop playing the part of your wounded alter ego.
It matters not a jot whether there are four or four hundred openings before the wooden gate alleged sighting. The opening Turnbull was talking about, and he specifically mentioned the signpost, was to Barondale Cottages. From Google earth the sign post seems to no longer be there.
If Luke was not at the Barondale Cottage opening who did the 3 boys, Caroline Heatlie, Maureen O’Sullivan et al see standing at the opening?
-
What's changed? - Confirmation that SM had not seen nor heard his brother. Confirmation that he had been influenced into telling lies by his own mother. Confirmation that SM had not left home around 5:30pm but after 6:20pm.
I have been re-reading DF's cross-examination of SM, and what you wrote is incorrect. He said that he could not remember a great many things and that he has a tendency to agree with what is put to him, including what is put to him by the police.
-
I have been re-reading DF's cross-examination of SM, and what you wrote is incorrect. He said that he could not remember a great many things and that he has a tendency to agree with what is put to him, including what is put to him by the police.
No, what I put is bang on correct. The AD swiftly showing the Jury just how selective SM's claimed, amnesia was. Don't blame the police for SM's selective memory. He lied, full stop. He had not seen any brother mashing tatties. But he certainly remembered, no problem at all, what he had never said to the police - Aye, ok then Chris! And he lied, changed his account, because his mother had helpfully filled in the blanks for him. Doesn't matter which way you swing it, or who you want to blame. He lied, he had not seen his brother.
-
It matters not a jot whether there are four or four hundred openings before the wooden gate alleged sighting. The opening Turnbull was talking about, and he specifically mentioned the signpost, was to Barondale Cottages. From Google earth the sign post seems to no longer be there.
If Luke was not at the Barondale Cottage opening who did the 3 boys, Caroline Heatlie, Maureen O’Sullivan et al see standing at the opening?
I suggest you read, then re read, then keep on reading all of their testimony. Then tell me that this signpost was doubled up to give your 'two entry points' to BC? All because I pointed out to you that you were wrong, the opening prior to the estate is not for BC. I gave you a clue and led you to the white painted wall, as also mentioned by the AD. I highlighted all of the entry points to help you on your way.
Where on earth did I say anything of not being seen at BC in my post? I didn't. I was very clear in what I said. There is no evidence of LM sitting on the wall, around the bus stop, entrance to his estate (yet). No evidence therefore of LM having walked from there up and down, from BC's (twice) That is what I said. You decided to jump in with you usual nonsense. To deflect from the absolute fact, that the evidence still supports LM walking down into that vicinity and not up to it. Down after the sighting by F&W. That the evidence supports, that LM had not walked up to BC to see if he could see Jodi in sight at all. He had not been home, he had not walked to the estate entrance from 5:30pm. He had not then walked up to BC, and on it goes.
But and again, you knew that anyway, very much why you plodded in with your size 9's. Possibly still attempting to deflect away from that entry point? Because is is absolute confirmation, that LM did not have to walk past all those big windows as has been claimed. It runs all the way along the outskirts of the housing estate, entry points in to it. Into the area where the Tarzan swing is also?
-
I suggest you read, then re read, then keep on reading all of their testimony. Then tell me that this signpost was doubled up to give your 'two entry points' to BC? All because I pointed out to you that you were wrong, the opening prior to the estate is not for BC. I gave you a clue and led you to the white painted wall, as also mentioned by the AD. I highlighted all of the entry points to help you on your way.
Where on earth did I say anything of not being seen at BC in my post? I didn't. I was very clear in what I said. There is no evidence of LM sitting on the wall, around the bus stop, entrance to his estate (yet). No evidence therefore of LM having walked from there up and down, from BC's (twice) That is what I said. You decided to jump in with you usual nonsense. To deflect from the absolute fact, that the evidence still supports LM walking down into that vicinity and not up to it. Down after the sighting by F&W. That the evidence supports, that LM had not walked up to BC to see if he could see Jodi in sight at all. He had not been home, he had not walked to the estate entrance from 5:30pm. He had not then walked up to BC, and on it goes.
But and again, you knew that anyway, very much why you plodded in with your size 9's. Possibly still attempting to deflect away from that entry point? Because is is absolute confirmation, that LM did not have to walk past all those big windows as has been claimed. It runs all the way along the outskirts of the housing estate, entry points in to it. Into the area where the Tarzan swing is also?
The court transcripts haven’t been good for you and your ilk have they Parky?
From the testimony of various witnesses Luke spent much more time around the opening to Barondale cottages than sitting on the wall at the end of his road. Of course extrapolating from your point about Luke not being seen on the wall, he wasn’t seen leaving the house at the time he must have done to commit the murder yet, if you are right he must have done. Further if you discount the witness who allegedly saw Jodi leaving the house after 5pm and those who saw her being followed by Stock Man, as you obviously do, is there any proof Jodi actually left the house?
Of course we know she did and that’s the paradox in your argument. While discarding the dearth of witnesses for points you wish to hammer home you illuminate beyond reason the absence of witnesses for the opposite argument. You really are too clever to be this silly. While there are at least 6 witnesses who saw Luke at or near the opening to Barondale Cottages only two, of all the cars and people on the road that night, allegedly saw Luke at that gate. Further if he went straight from murdering Jodi to home to change to be back out on the Newbattle Road by around 6pm by your logic there must be someone who saw him as you can’t get to Luke’s house without breaking cover at some point. If there’s no witnesses then it didn’t happen. Isn’t that your position?
As to your 80 minute timeline it’s bumpkin. You know it and I do.
BTW what do you think of this snippet from the testimony of Lorraine Fleming?
“Lord Nimmo Smith: And you think that was in some way similar to something that you'd seen?
Lorraine Fleming: Yes.
Lord Nimmo Smith: Similar to what?
Lorraine Fleming: The person that I'd seen down NEWBATTLE ABBEY.”
Surely it should have been RDP? Some leakage perhaps?
Kind of adds proof to the claim in Dr Lean’s book that a witness came to her to say that Fleming and Walsh first claimed to see a youth near Newbattle Abbey. Don’t you think?
-
The court transcripts haven’t been good for you and your ilk have they Parky?
From the testimony of various witnesses Luke spent much more time around the opening to Barondale cottages than sitting on the wall at the end of his road. Of course extrapolating from your point about Luke not being seen on the wall, he wasn’t seen leaving the house at the time he must have done to commit the murder yet, if you are right he must have done. Further if you discount the witness who allegedly saw Jodi leaving the house after 5pm and those who saw her being followed by Stock Man, as you obviously do, is there any proof Jodi actually left the house?
Of course we know she did and that’s the paradox in your argument. While discarding the dearth of witnesses for points you wish to hammer home you illuminate beyond reason the absence of witnesses for the opposite argument. You really are too clever to be this silly. While there are at least 6 witnesses who saw Luke at or near the opening to Barondale Cottages only two, of all the cars and people on the road that night, allegedly saw Luke at that gate. Further if he went straight from murdering Jodi to home to change to be back out on the Newbattle Road by around 6pm by your logic there must be someone who saw him as you can’t get to Luke’s house without breaking cover at some point. If there’s no witnesses then it didn’t happen. Isn’t that your position?
As to your 80 minute timeline it’s bumpkin. You know it and I do.
BTW what do you think of this snippet from the testimony of Lorraine Fleming?
“Lord Nimmo Smith: And you think that was in some way similar to something that you'd seen?
Lorraine Fleming: Yes.
Lord Nimmo Smith: Similar to what?
Lorraine Fleming: The person that I'd seen down NEWBATTLE ABBEY.”
Surely it should have been RDP? Some leakage perhaps?
Kind of adds proof to the claim in Dr Lean’s book that a witness came to her to say that Fleming and Walsh first claimed to see a youth near Newbattle Abbey. Don’t you think?
'Let's stick to transcripts and leave Dr Leans book out of it -----' Unless?
It's interesting and a breath of fresh air. To have you, to have JE and so forth, accept fully that F&W did indeed see LM and no one else. Poor MK, all those yrs of being hounded because of the enablers. DF even attempting an appeal. Makes you wonder why?
So, 'one' says they saw a male down Newbattle Abbey in their 1st statement. Where down NA? Were you in the grounds? No silly, I meant on NR. Ah, so was he standing at the entrance, no I saw him further up than that. Can you tell us where? Yes. And on goes the clarification of where exactly on NR they saw LM, as with their fellow traveller. It is as you say, you're cleverer than that, you know how it goes, don't you?
NR is approx a mile long, split really into 3 sections for those local. NG area, Newbattle Abbey area and Eskbank. F&W into the Newbattle Abbey area.
CH next? I saw a male standing at a driveway on NR. That's it, the police didn't do a damn thing to determine where that sighting took place, they just accepted it was a driveway out of several on that R'd in the Newbattle area? Of course not, you're cleverer than that. You know the procedure, determining where these sightings had taken place.
We don't swap low wooden gate for high stone pillars. We don't swap looking over to trees for into Newbattle Abbey Cres. Enclosed to out in the open. We don't swap kerb side to far side, passenger side to driver side. JE who has placed F&W travelling in the opposite direction? Jogger further down the hill. We don't swap down a hill to on the flat. And on it goes, scraping and scraping away, because you know it was LM they saw. But I guess the were both "cajoled" by the police into that 100% change of damn well everything, eh?
It shows how the witness generally described that middle area, as others do. They refer to it as Newbattle Abbey because that section is renowned for the Abbey.
-
'Let's stick to transcripts and leave Dr Leans book out of it -----' Unless?
It's interesting and a breath of fresh air. To have you, to have JE and so forth, accept fully that F&W did indeed see LM and no one else. Poor MK, all those yrs of being hounded because of the enablers. DF even attempting an appeal. Makes you wonder why?
So, 'one' says they saw a male down Newbattle Abbey in their 1st statement. Where down NA? Were you in the grounds? No silly, I meant on NR. Ah, so was he standing at the entrance, no I saw him further up than that. Can you tell us where? Yes. And on goes the clarification of where exactly on NR they saw LM, as with their fellow traveller. It is as you say, you're cleverer than that, you know how it goes, don't you?
NR is approx a mile long, split really into 3 sections for those local. NG area, Newbattle Abbey area and Eskbank. F&W into the Newbattle Abbey area.
CH next? I saw a male standing at a driveway on NR. That's it, the police didn't do a damn thing to determine where that sighting took place, they just accepted it was a driveway out of several on that R'd in the Newbattle area? Of course not, you're cleverer than that. You know the procedure, determining where these sightings had taken place.
We don't swap low wooden gate for high stone pillars. We don't swap looking over to trees for into Newbattle Abbey Cres. Enclosed to out in the open. We don't swap kerb side to far side, passenger side to driver side. JE who has placed F&W travelling in the opposite direction? Jogger further down the hill. We don't swap down a hill to on the flat. And on it goes, scraping and scraping away, because you know it was LM they saw. But I guess the were both "cajoled" by the police into that 100% change of damn well everything, eh?
It shows how the witness generally described that middle area, as others do. They refer to it as Newbattle Abbey because that section is renowned for the Abbey.
Do you mean like ignoring the multitude of witnesses who saw LM wearing that type of jacket pre - murder? Lovely, all those cars, adding that hype, no one else saw LM at the gate, yet several saw him in a small time frame around 6pm? You know where this is going, don't you?
Like the hype of those giant windows, can't possibly not be seen. Yet nothing, nada, zilch of LM sitting on that wall, around the bus stop, directly at the entrance of his estate. Nothing of him for 25mins from CH to the boys return on the cycle. Goodness me Faith, where the hell was he? Cars in and out the Abbey, cars in and out the estate. Calls his mother, claims it was to ask if Jodi had been to the house, how odd. Did she fly past him then? You know and I know, because you are cleverer than that, he was waiting on no girlfriend. Not for 5mins and not for 80mins.
-
Talking of the transcripts, has the lesser spotted Lean ever addressed why she distorted and omitted key facts in her book? She claimed to have all the transcripts even though many had not been transcribed and as far as I can see has gone into hiding since they were published unable even to update on the update.
-
'Let's stick to transcripts and leave Dr Leans book out of it -----' Unless?
It's interesting and a breath of fresh air. To have you, to have JE and so forth, accept fully that F&W did indeed see LM and no one else. Poor MK, all those yrs of being hounded because of the enablers. DF even attempting an appeal. Makes you wonder why?
So, 'one' says they saw a male down Newbattle Abbey in their 1st statement. Where down NA? Were you in the grounds? No silly, I meant on NR. Ah, so was he standing at the entrance, no I saw him further up than that. Can you tell us where? Yes. And on goes the clarification of where exactly on NR they saw LM, as with their fellow traveller. It is as you say, you're cleverer than that, you know how it goes, don't you?
NR is approx a mile long, split really into 3 sections for those local. NG area, Newbattle Abbey area and Eskbank. F&W into the Newbattle Abbey area.
CH next? I saw a male standing at a driveway on NR. That's it, the police didn't do a damn thing to determine where that sighting took place, they just accepted it was a driveway out of several on that R'd in the Newbattle area? Of course not, you're cleverer than that. You know the procedure, determining where these sightings had taken place.
We don't swap low wooden gate for high stone pillars. We don't swap looking over to trees for into Newbattle Abbey Cres. Enclosed to out in the open. We don't swap kerb side to far side, passenger side to driver side. JE who has placed F&W travelling in the opposite direction? Jogger further down the hill. We don't swap down a hill to on the flat. And on it goes, scraping and scraping away, because you know it was LM they saw. But I guess the were both "cajoled" by the police into that 100% change of damn well everything, eh?
It shows how the witness generally described that middle area, as others do. They refer to it as Newbattle Abbey because that section is renowned for the Abbey.
Absolutely it was Luke Fleming and Walsh saw, just not where they said.
As to the Newbattle Abbey thing, quite a coincidence then that a witness told Dr Lean exactly what Fleming told Turnbull on the stand.
-
Do you mean like ignoring the multitude of witnesses who saw LM wearing that type of jacket pre - murder? Lovely, all those cars, adding that hype, no one else saw LM at the gate, yet several saw him in a small time frame around 6pm? You know where this is going, don't you?
Like the hype of those giant windows, can't possibly not be seen. Yet nothing, nada, zilch of LM sitting on that wall, around the bus stop, directly at the entrance of his estate. Nothing of him for 25mins from CH to the boys return on the cycle. Goodness me Faith, where the hell was he? Cars in and out the Abbey, cars in and out the estate. Calls his mother, claims it was to ask if Jodi had been to the house, how odd. Did she fly past him then? You know and I know, because you are cleverer than that, he was waiting on no girlfriend. Not for 5mins and not for 80mins.
Who are you trying to convince?
Luke is seen by a youth by Barondale Cottages. 40 minutes later he’s still in the exact same spot as before. So…..he does what? Goes where in the time? In the same clothes.
No one sees him leave the house but we know he did.
No one sees Jodi leave the house but we know she did.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Surely you know that?
-
Talking of the transcripts, has the lesser spotted Lean ever addressed why she distorted and omitted key facts in her book? She claimed to have all the transcripts even though many had not been transcribed and as far as I can see has gone into hiding since they were published unable even to update on the update.
Kenmair - I know JE has been pushing massively for her to address her wrongs, as have others. No doubt one will in some way play the victim? Ironic as that may be, considering the many people that have been victimized because of her/their actions? Long may the exposure of their wrongs continue.
-
Do you mean like ignoring the multitude of witnesses who saw LM wearing that type of jacket pre - murder?
Testimony from witnesses who made this claim after a photograph of LM was published wearing a parka has almost no probative value. A sales receipt for a pre-murder parka would be far less open to interpretation. CCTV footage or a photograph of LM would also be good evidence.
-
Testimony from witnesses who made this claim after a photograph of LM was published wearing a parka has almost no probative value. A sales receipt for a pre-murder parka would be far less open to interpretation. CCTV footage or a photograph of LM would also be good evidence.
Yawn.
-
Kenmair - I know JE has been pushing massively for her to address her wrongs, as have others. No doubt one will in some way play the victim? Ironic as that may be, considering the many people that have been victimized because of her/their actions? Long may the exposure of their wrongs continue.
I didn't know that. Mind you, JE never cared much for facts and was happy to go along with it. I doubt we'll see much of Lean now she's been ousted as leader and no doubt in "early retirement".
-
Testimony from witnesses who made this claim after a photograph of LM was published wearing a parka has almost no probative value. A sales receipt for a pre-murder parka would be far less open to interpretation. CCTV footage or a photograph of LM would also be good evidence.
Didn’t you know? There is a picture of Luke wearing the parka…at a concert. Trouble is no one’s seen it and there’s no evidence of its existence in any of the already published trial transcripts. Perhaps it was found after the trial? Okay but you’d have to been an absolute fool to believe that a photograph like that wouldn’t fetch a pretty high price from some tabloid or other.
I believe the concert story has the same source as the judge’s directions nonsense. Neither has there ever been a smidgen of evidence for.
-
Didn’t you know? There is a picture of Luke wearing the parka…at a concert. Trouble is no one’s seen it and there’s no evidence of its existence in any of the already published trial transcripts. Perhaps it was found after the trial? Okay but you’d have to been an absolute fool to believe that a photograph like that wouldn’t fetch a pretty high price from some tabloid or other.
I believe the concert story has the same source as the judge’s directions nonsense. Neither has there ever been a smidgen of evidence for.
It's possible the photographic evidence of the parka will eventually emerge amongst the deluge of transcripts still to be uploaded. It's early days. You say that the Prosecution and the press would have been all over the aforementioned photographic evidence due to how incriminating it would've been, but, the press never reported on this very complex 42-day trial every single day; and, to compound the press's problems, different reporters and journalists would have been assigned to the trial regularly, inevitably resulting in reports and articles that were not consistent or accurate (and, of course, some journalists are better than others -- so I suspect a few of them were out of their depth with this trial). It's definitely possible the photograph, as valuable as it was to the Prosecution, wasn't reported on. As for the Prosecution gobbling up such an extremely damning piece of evidence, maybe they did -- but maybe the Jury (or some of them) didn't register just how significant it was. Of course, perhaps they did, and it played an important role in securing that guilty verdict.
Don't forget, Faithlilly, there allegedly was also cctv footage of LM wearing the parka pre-murder at St David's High school shown in court. That still might show up in the transcripts, too (maybe a big deal was not made out of this piece of evidence either, for the same reasons as I highlighted with the photo).
-
I believe the concert story has the same source as the judge’s directions nonsense. Neither has there ever been a smidgen of evidence for.
I am still waiting for evidence of an agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning DNA evidence. I have never heard of such a thing in any other trial.
-
I am still waiting for evidence of an agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning DNA evidence. I have never heard of such a thing in any other trial.
A trial runs in sequence Chris. Funding I understand is limited. Which explains why the aim is to get what they want first and foremost, before the limit is reached, funding runs out. No one can expect anything else, it's not their money being used.
But let's apply no limit to the funds. The logical application would have been to acquire testimony, day by day in sequence. Lay it out exactly as had taken place. Because that is what the case was put together with. In doing so, and, 'if' everything was able to be acquired, it would mean certain things were not missed, such as that agreement.
In the meantime it is a fishing expedition. Messy to boot. But how does one source that agreement? You would have to know which day, what it was in line with, where it came in respect of any evidence heard from a witness. The person being asked, would find it pretty difficult to source something of a recording, labelled agreement? I'm not entirely sure that is how it works? SM is a good example of this.
IB, that messy application, carefully manipulated? Where it tells you that LM and his mother learnt of an agreement, she then prattles on about it making no sense. The application of 'if they had all of that DNA evidence, surely they would have used it?' Where you do similar here, ludicrous notion inference, never heard of, agreeing not to use DNA evidence. But, if that DNA Chris is not evidence of a crime, only of existence, it changes meaning entirely.
We can revisit this, once every minute of every day of that trial is put out publicly.
-
It's possible the photographic evidence of the parka will eventually emerge amongst the deluge of transcripts still to be uploaded. It's early days. You say that the Prosecution and the press would have been all over the aforementioned photographic evidence due to how incriminating it would've been, but, the press never reported on this very complex 42-day trial every single day; and, to compound the press's problems, different reporters and journalists would have been assigned to the trial regularly, inevitably resulting in reports and articles that were not consistent or accurate (and, of course, some journalists are better than others -- so I suspect a few of them were out of their depth with this trial). It's definitely possible the photograph, as valuable as it was to the Prosecution, wasn't reported on. As for the Prosecution gobbling up such an extremely damning piece of evidence, maybe they did -- but maybe the Jury (or some of them) didn't register just how significant it was. Of course, perhaps they did, and it played an important role in securing that guilty verdict.
Don't forget, Faithlilly, there allegedly was also cctv footage of LM wearing the parka pre-murder at St David's High school shown in court. That still might show up in the transcripts, too (maybe a big deal was not made out of this piece of evidence either, for the same reasons as I highlighted with the photo).
I kind of like you MA. You have a sweet naivety rarely found in adults.
-
It had been thought by some that Luke found Jodi's body without Mia's help, but the trial transcripts holed this assertion below the waterline.
It's been a while since I read the search trio's testimony, but I distinctly remember that all 3 of them were unambiguous in court about Luke not walking some distance past the V in the wall with Mia as he had claimed; rather, all 3 said he went straight to the V with the dog. Interestingly, in IB, SL indicated that SK & JANJ in their statements said LM walked past the V with Mia and then the dog alerted, but I don't recall reading that in their testimony or DF saying anything about them saying in their statements that LM walked past it and then the dog reacting and alerting; I think DF tried to imply that Luke probably did as he was always in front of the others as they walked down the RDP west, but I don't think any of the others did actually ever say that in their statements. Was SL lying or being misleading? DF also tried to argue that the trio indicated in their statements that the dog reacted at the V in the wall (paws on the wall, jumping up and down and sniffing the air), but they denied this and said the dog was just being a dog and sniffing the foilage at the V, and that LM had guided the dog there (without ever walking past the V). DF also argued that the trio also said in their statements that LM was showing emotion and was in 'a bit if a panic/state', but all 3 said that they may have said that initially but this wasn't actually the case and that their initial recall was not accurate as they were all affected by trauma and shock. Maybe someone can elaborate or explain better, as my recollection is foggy.
Anyway, I think it's absurd to suggest that the trio knew [Name removed] or SK (or anyone else in their circle of friends) had killed Jodi and were out to fit LM up for it.
-
I kind of like you MA. You have a sweet naivety rarely found in adults.
Lol!
I know it's unlikely re the photo and cctv footage, but not impossible. As I said, you just never know.
-
Lol!
I know it's unlikely re the photo and cctv footage, but not impossible. As I said, you just never know.
Unlikely. It’s not impossible that I’ll win the lottery on Friday but the odds suggest I’ll still be poor on Saturday. The odds against the existence of the photo and cctv footage having any veracity are similar I’d wager.
-
This is my attempt to type a small portion of Professor Busuttil's testimomy, which is available on-line. The part below comes from the second day. DF is Donald Findlay.
DF: Could you just describe what you’re doing please?
PB: Yes. If I’m holding it tightly, it can be, there might be enough pressure holding the knife-perpendicular almost to the mouth-to be able to reach as far as the tonsil.
DF: Yes. You’re showing it grasped between your thumb and two fingers, or mab the end approximately one inch of the handle; is that right?
PB: That’s correct. That would be so, yes.
This portion of the cross examination concerned the wounds to Jodi Jones' tonsils versus the size of a knife (I believe label 589). I am no expert, but I have to wonder whether it is likely to hold a knife in this way during an attack.
-
This is my attempt to type a small portion of Professor Busuttil's testimomy, which is available on-line. The part below comes from the second day. DF is Donald Findlay.
DF: Could you just describe what you’re doing please?
PB: Yes. If I’m holding it tightly, it can be, there might be enough pressure holding the knife-perpendicular almost to the mouth-to be able to reach as far as the tonsil.
DF: Yes. You’re showing it grasped between your thumb and two fingers, or mab the end approximately one inch of the handle; is that right?
PB: That’s correct. That would be so, yes.
This portion of the cross examination concerned the wounds to Jodi Jones' tonsils versus the size of a knife (I believe label 589). I am no expert, but I have to wonder whether it is likely to hold a knife in this way during an attack.
None of us are experts. Perhaps if we swap attack with intent. The evidence spoke of a killer who had went from frenzy to calm. His intent changed, his aim clearly to disfigure?
Smaller knife, where the advantages are rarely discussed re the killers intent. Many injuries, the type of precision and handling required, made easier by its size. Then we are drawn again to that one injury. What changed? His intent had not changed, only the way in which he had to handle his implement changed to see his intent through.
It was therefore more difficult than the rest, not that it was impossible. Thus the likelihood of holding his 'smaller' knife a different way for intended purpose was met.
-
No one holds a knife in the way that Professor Busuttil described.
-
No one holds a knife in the way that Professor Busuttil described.
You may wish to rephrase that Chris.
-
You may wish to rephrase that Chris.
And you this Parky?
June 29 2021
‘And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13.’
And July 22 2021
‘ That direction from the Judge, of a strong majority.’
And January 21 2023
‘ That direction of the Judge around accepting a strong majority saw the Jury return in no time. ’
Thankfully the transcripts have exposed that misdirection in much the same way that they did with the misdirections of Dr Lean.
From the judge’s charge.
‘Your verdict can be given unanimously or by a majority, but if the verdict is to be guilty there must be at least eight of your number in favour of that view, before any guilty verdict can be returned. That of course is an overall majority out of fifteen. You cannot convict unless there are eight of you in favour of a guilty verdict. If you don’t have eight votes for a guilty verdict then you must acquit on that charge.
It would of course explain the jury bringing back the verdict “ in no time”. One flip from innocent to guilty and you have yourself a majority verdict.
‘
-
And your slight towards another poster for not sticking to the topic at hand. But alas, bog standard hypocrisy as you dive in with your size 9's.
Now be a good girly and put up the transcripts from the following morning. Have they been requested or transcribed yet? If so I must have missed them, off you trot then, you know what a stickler you are for links, where suits of course.
However good to see you continuously acknowledge the blatant, wilful, manipulative deception from your ego. Yet to see her hold her hands up of course. smh. But, as stated many times, should my source be wrong around the judges words on the day of the verdict. I will happily amend, not so much yourself or your ego.
-
And your slight towards another poster for not sticking to the topic at hand. But alas, bog standard hypocrisy as you dive in with your size 9's.
Now be a good girly and put up the transcripts from the following morning. Have they been requested or transcribed yet? If so I must have missed them, off you trot then, you know what a stickler you are for links, where suits of course.
However good to see you continuously acknowledge the blatant, wilful, manipulative deception from your ego. Yet to see her hold her hands up of course. smh. But, as stated many times, should my source be wrong around the judges words on the day of the verdict. I will happily amend, not so much yourself or your ego.
I’m not sure why you are suggesting that the judge said anything further about the verdict other than that which has been transcribed. Could you please explain?
Why after only a few hours would the judge see fit to disrupt the jury’s deliberations and actually make their job harder? Why would he change his mind after telling them that he’d accept a majority verdict of 8 and raise it to 13?
It really doesn’t make sense, does it?
-
Pages 702 & 703 from Patricia Frankland's transcript, uploaded on March 3rd 2025, seem to be the pages from some other witness's transcript. I wonder whose, though. The reference to 'Barondale Cottages' would indicate someone very local. I can't recall ever reading it before on any of the transcripts that have already been uploaded.
Any ideas?
-
Why didn't the Franklands notice a different smell that day if the parka was being burned?
No mention of this was there? Just the usual 'pleasant' smell wafting in the kitchen window!
Did Findlay point this out? I didn't notice!
Why weren't the Franklands made to witness a parka being burned and asked if that was the smell they witnessed on the day of the murder? Was this done?
No unusual smell=no parka or other items being burned on the day of the murder surely?
Isn't that basic common sense?
The Franklands seemed to be used to a particular pleasant aroma! Used to it!! They would have known if something unusual was being burned!
Hence, no parka nor other items were burned in the Mitchells garden on the day of the murder!
No brainer!
-
Why didn't the Franklands notice a different smell that day if the parka was being burned?
No mention of this was there? Just the usual 'pleasant' smell wafting in the kitchen window!
Did Findlay point this out? I didn't notice!
Why weren't the Franklands made to witness a parka being burned and asked if that was the smell they witnessed on the day of the murder? Was this done?
No unusual smell=no parka or other items being burned on the day of the murder surely?
Isn't that basic common sense?
The Franklands seemed to be used to a particular pleasant aroma! Used to it!! They would have known if something unusual was being burned!
Hence, no parka nor other items were burned in the Mitchells garden on the day of the murder!
No brainer!
Another neighbour of the Mitchells, George Ramage -- whose garden backed on to theirs (the Mitchells' back garden) -- was the one who said there was 'funny smell' coming from the Mitchells' back garden (see the link below). Different folks have different senses, reactions and recollections to things. While the whole back garden fire aspect of this case is not as compelling or as damning as the other strands of circumstantial evidence that were used to convict LM, it is still noteworthy that a neighbour noticed a strange smell on the night of the murder -- particularly as it was not out of the ordinary for people in that street, not least CM (as per the Franklands' testimonies), to use their log burners in the dry/summer months. Another coincidence amongst many other coincidences? I don't think so. Save all that for the birds!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
-
Another neighbour of the Mitchells, George Ramage -- whose garden backed on to theirs (the Mitchells' back garden) -- was the one who said there was 'funny smell' coming from the Mitchells' back garden (see the link below). Different folks have different senses, reactions and recollections to things. While the whole back garden fire aspect of this case is not as compelling or as damning as the other strands of circumstantial evidence that were used to convict LM, it is still noteworthy that a neighbour noticed a strange smell on the night of the murder -- particularly as it was not out of the ordinary for people in that street, not least CM (as per the Franklands' testimonies), to use their log burners in the dry/summer months. Another coincidence amongst many other coincidences? I don't think so. Save all that for the birds!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
The reference to the "pleasant" smell appears to be in respect of fires that had maybe taken place in the woodland to the front of the houses. I'll read it again when have more time. Mrs F didn't do anything about those if had noticed them, wood smoke etc. Not "thick" smoke.
I see what you mean with the two transcripts merged together Mr A, I wonder if that is the couple who could not ID LM, stating it wasn't him, I don't think theirs have been put up yet?
-
Another neighbour of the Mitchells, George Ramage -- whose garden backed on to theirs (the Mitchells' back garden) -- was the one who said there was 'funny smell' coming from the Mitchells' back garden (see the link below). Different folks have different senses, reactions and recollections to things. While the whole back garden fire aspect of this case is not as compelling or as damning as the other strands of circumstantial evidence that were used to convict LM, it is still noteworthy that a neighbour noticed a strange smell on the night of the murder -- particularly as it was not out of the ordinary for people in that street, not least CM (as per the Franklands' testimonies), to use their log burners in the dry/summer months. Another coincidence amongst many other coincidences? I don't think so. Save all that for the birds!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
What were the Mitchells’ explanation for what they were burning that night?
-
Another neighbour of the Mitchells, George Ramage -- whose garden backed on to theirs (the Mitchells' back garden) -- was the one who said there was 'funny smell' coming from the Mitchells' back garden (see the link below). Different folks have different senses, reactions and recollections to things. While the whole back garden fire aspect of this case is not as compelling or as damning as the other strands of circumstantial evidence that were used to convict LM, it is still noteworthy that a neighbour noticed a strange smell on the night of the murder -- particularly as it was not out of the ordinary for people in that street, not least CM (as per the Franklands' testimonies), to use their log burners in the dry/summer months. Another coincidence amongst many other coincidences? I don't think so. Save all that for the birds!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
Yes, I thought someone mentioned a funny smell!
Will see what Mr Ramage said!
-
Another neighbour of the Mitchells, George Ramage -- whose garden backed on to theirs (the Mitchells' back garden) -- was the one who said there was 'funny smell' coming from the Mitchells' back garden (see the link below). Different folks have different senses, reactions and recollections to things. While the whole back garden fire aspect of this case is not as compelling or as damning as the other strands of circumstantial evidence that were used to convict LM, it is still noteworthy that a neighbour noticed a strange smell on the night of the murder -- particularly as it was not out of the ordinary for people in that street, not least CM (as per the Franklands' testimonies), to use their log burners in the dry/summer months. Another coincidence amongst many other coincidences? I don't think so. Save all that for the birds!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MITCHELLS+HELD+BACK+GARDEN+FIRE+NIGHT+JODI+DIED%3B+Death+trial+told+of...-a0125859091
OK, read your article regarding Mr Ramage, Mr Apples!
Agaiin, why didn't the police burn a parka with all the witnesses present?
Anyhow, it seems strange that the Franklands didn't notice such a funny overpowering smell, they seemed to think it was the normal pleasant smell that they were accustomed to!
I presume they meant the pampas grass that Corinne said she may have been burning that day!
-
What were the Mitchells’ explanation for what they were burning that night?
Wasn't there mention of pampas grass, Vertigo?
Whatever that is when its at home!
-
You may wish to rephrase that Chris.
No one holds a knife like this in an attack.
-
Wasn't there mention of pampas grass, Vertigo?
Whatever that is when its at home!
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass. Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?
-
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass. Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?
Not really, I burned mine annually in-situ, not in a brick barbie/wood-burner. That is until I learned pampas in your garden was the sign of a household used as a regular venue for orgies, so had to dig it up and get rid... didn't want to give neighbours the wrong impression! But when bone-dry it does make good kindling to start off other items such as...... blood-stained parkas?
-
Wasn't there mention of pampas grass, Vertigo?
Whatever that is when its at home!
Yer 'avin a larf! An ejucated wumman like you who acts dumb and never learned to google.
-
Yer 'avin a larf! An ejucated wumman like you who acts dumb and never learned to google.
I have been googling pampas grass today Myster, mainly to see if it has a distinctive pleasant smell when burned!
Can you help at all?
-
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass. Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?
Well it seems that the Mitchells log burner was used regularly in the summer, Vertigo!
Whether ten o'clock was an unusual time to use the burner, I do not know!
But remember, that is when the Franklands noticed the smell, the fire may have been started much earlier?
The wind can change direction of the smoke too I would imagine?
Not sure if Mr Ramage's trial testimony has been transcribed yet, it may shed some more light on the log burner issue!
One things for sure, no remnants of clothing were recovered from the burner, although guilters will say there was plenty of time to get rid of any evidence and clean the burner!
As ever with the LM case, its all speculation and circumstantial, no direct tangible evidence whatsoever!
-
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass. Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?
Denial of having a fire is what took place from the mother. When faced with evidence from different neighbours who's gardens connected in different ways, still denial. But 'if' there had have been a fire then it may have been pampas grass was pretty much the end result? Fire taken place at different intervals inclusive of after heavy rainfall. Therefore not simply, yes I had a fire which may have been burning pampas grass.
-
Yer 'avin a larf! An ejucated wumman like you who acts dumb and never learned to google.
8((()*/
-
No one holds a knife like this in an attack.
Which brings us back to intent. He didn't just randomly, wildly attack, without need to handle that knife differently. Clearly a purpose to his intended disfigurement of certain areas.
-
Which brings us back to intent. He didn't just randomly, wildly attack, without need to handle that knife differently. Clearly a purpose to his intended disfigurement of certain areas.
Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.
I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?
-
Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.
I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?
Why you’re waiting on that, perhaps now would also be a good time for you to answer the numerous questions I’ve put to you on a different part of the forum in thr last couple of months that you repeatedly ignored…?
-
Why you’re waiting on that, perhaps now would also be a good time for you to answer the numerous questions I’ve put to you on a different part of the forum in thr last couple of months that you repeatedly ignored…?
What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?
-
Then bring a larger knife….if disfigurement of that particular area was the murderer’s intent.
I notice you failed to reply to my last question about the judge’s charge. Perhaps now might be a good time?
Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?
-
What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?
Is one forgetting which ego they are playing?
-
What questions would they be now, Vertigo?
Can you list them?
Not relevant to this specific discussion but Faithlily has a habit of demanding people answer her questions whilst repeatedly ignoring questions put to her.
-
Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?
There’s about the same amount of evidence for that as there is for the verdict being 14-1 imo.
-
There’s about the same amount of evidence for that as there is for the verdict being 14-1 imo.
I see, Vertigo! I wouldn't know!
-
Is one forgetting which ego they are playing?
No egos here, Peter!
I'm about as down to earth, modest and respectful to others as its possible to be my friend!
-
Do you think there is evidence that the verdict was 8-7 , Faith?
I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.
-
I see, Vertigo! I wouldn't know!
Best you don’t Joe.
-
Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.
Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.
-
I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.
No you can’t extrapolate that. Equally It could have been 14-1 after 5 hours and they took it over to the next day hoping to get a unanimous verdict and as soon as it became apparent that one stubborn juror was sticking to their guns they decided to return a majority verdict.
-
I don’t think there’s evidence per se Joe but I think we can extrapolate from the quickness of the verdict that it was close. Jury deliberations lasted 5 hours, most of that on the first day. We can extrapolate from that therefore that there was less than 8 jury members who thought Luke guilty at close of play. Within a very short time on the following morning the verdict came in. This leaves little time for a large number of jury members to have changed their vote. Therefore it’s entirely possible that the guilty vote was very close.
Ah! Gotya Faith!
Thank you very much for explaining!
-
Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.
I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.
‘Your verdict can be given unanimously or by a majority, but if the verdict is to be guilty there must be at least eight of your number in favour of that view, before any guilty verdict can be returned. That of course is an overall majority out of fifteen. You cannot convict unless there are eight of you in favour of a guilty verdict. If you don’t have eight votes for a guilty verdict then you must acquit on that charge.’
The judge asked for no more than a simple majority. Nowhere does he mention a ‘strong majority’ because there is no need. 8 jurors were enough to bring back a guilty verdict…and it goes without saying that the jurors who voted guilty must be convinced that the prosecution proved the case ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’.
From your first question can I assume that you think the jury count being close is a ground for an appeal? It isn’t.
To your second question I have no idea but it will certainly have nothing to do with how the jury voted.
-
I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.
I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.
-
I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.
‘Your verdict can be given unanimously or by a majority, but if the verdict is to be guilty there must be at least eight of your number in favour of that view, before any guilty verdict can be returned. That of course is an overall majority out of fifteen. You cannot convict unless there are eight of you in favour of a guilty verdict. If you don’t have eight votes for a guilty verdict then you must acquit on that charge.’
The judge asked for no more than a simple majority. Nowhere does he mention a ‘strong majority’ because there is no need. 8 jurors were enough to bring back a guilty verdict…and it goes without saying that the jurors who voted guilty must be convinced that the prosecution proved the case ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’.
From your first question can I assume that you think the jury count being close is a ground for an appeal? It isn’t.
To your second question I have no idea but it will certainly have nothing to do with how the jury voted.
Yes, having just read Nimmos closing speech again, you are correct with what you say Faith!
Nimmo made it perfectly clear that 8-7 was enough to convict before the jury retired, and that the jury would not be asked how many voted guilty, but would be asked if the vote was unanimous or by a majority!
-
I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.
Ha ha! You're amusing, Ken!
I'll give you that!
-
I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.
Then that is your prerogative KM but don’t then make yourself look silly by claiming something that has already been found not to be true.
Further I don’t demand answers I merely ask questions. Of course if those questions go unanswered a great deal can be gauged from that.
Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.
-
Then that is your prerogative KM but don’t then make yourself look silly by claiming something that has already been found not to be true.
Further I don’t demand answers I merely ask questions. Of course if those questions go unanswered a great deal can be gauged from that.
Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.
The reason given most recently was that he was deemed to pose a sexual danger to women, yet you want him released - why?
-
Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.
What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.
-
I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.
Well said. It's not at all difficult KM is it? Nothing of the Judges direction the morning of the verdict has been put out yet, therefore incomplete. The Judge not the only one who's transcripts that are incomplete either It would seem. Those heavily involved personally in this will just have to learn some patience, wait like the rest of us on further transcripts going up. But as you clarify, it really is all about some form of childish entertainment looking to score some imaginary, childish points. smh.
-
What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.
His lawyer (cough) which in itself speaks volumes, never qualified, kicked out his traineeship? There has been no proper legal team involved in his case for some time which tells those with a little sense that the multitude of claims have been just that claims. Endless claims where most have been proven to be false. Is it true that his only support at the review was Lean? The person that it is claimed he sacked (again).
-
What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.
I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.
I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.
-
Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.
Mitchell had clearly fed his minions BS (nothing new there), that they in turn fed the media pre/post his hearing last year. I do wonder if the parole board takes note of such things when assessing risk? Clearly going by the reasons for his refusal his dishonesty played a part when being assessed and refused. How can someone not be a risk when they compulsively lie? When the little active support he has for him are also compulsive liars?
-
His lawyer (cough) which in itself speaks volumes, never qualified, kicked out his traineeship? There has been no proper legal team involved in his case for some time which tells those with a little sense that the multitude of claims have been just that claims. Endless claims where most have been proven to be false. Is it true that his only support at the review was Lean? The person that it is claimed he sacked (again).
Then again, it was also claimed that Jodi's deceased aunt also attended his review. According to the lawyer that wasn't who was he claimed fed that information from Lean? Scary stuff, hallucinations, seeing dead people?
-
Well said. It's not at all difficult KM is it? Nothing of the Judges direction the morning of the verdict has been put out yet, therefore incomplete. The Judge not the only one who's transcripts that are incomplete either It would seem. Those heavily involved personally in this will just have to learn some patience, wait like the rest of us on further transcripts going up. But as you clarify, it really is all about some form of childish entertainment looking to score some imaginary, childish points. smh.
Well those points have certainly been scored as you don’t seem to be able to rebut them.
Do you really believe that Lord Nimmo would ask for a simple majority, think about it overnight then insist the next morning that he’d changed his mind and now ‘wanted a strong majority of at least 13’? Surely not because that would just be ridiculous. Would he waste the court’s time like this? Of course not.
Surely just admitting that you were wrong would do your credibility, or what’s left of it, less harm than this silly pantomime? You won’t answer me directly because you have no answers that will satisfy anyone but your flying monkeys. I get it that this issue makes you appear either dishonest or gullible but adding simple-minded to the tally really doesn’t help.
-
I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.
I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.
According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.
If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.
-
According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.
If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.
Then perhaps it’s time to stop them living rent free in your mind?
With the transcripts, newspaper reports and reliable media and professional sources research into this case need not now rely on either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes.
Now that’s some good news, isn’t it?
-
Then perhaps it’s time to stop them living rent free in your mind?
With the transcripts, newspaper reports and reliable media and professional sources research into this case need not now rely on either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes.
Now that’s some good news, isn’t it?
Aye, can't wait til LM gets refused parole next month. Even if he were ever released, it would be under licence and strict MAPPA conditions.
Forbes & Lean are con artists who you have endorsed over the years.
-
Aye, can't wait til LM gets refused his parole next month. Even if he were ever released, it would be under licence and strict MAPPA conditions.
Living rent free is up there with 'from the get go' & 'lets do this' as meaningless shite. Forbes & Lean are con artists who you have endorsed over the years.
Not endorsed….used Dr Lean’s research, much of which was borne out in the transcripts.
Who conned you with the ‘strong majority’ nonsense?
-
According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.
If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.
Correct. They are still the 'only' people actively campaigning. Toss in some other shady characters to the mix, aiding and abetting them. Convicted murderer, rapist, thieves, class A drug dealers, disgraced cops. Who have lied, still blatantly lie to bring attention to this case whilst lining their pockets to boot. Mitchell is doing a great job of keeping himself in prison. He knows best, he is his own voice by his own admission. No one puts Mitchell in the corner, not since his failed trial. DF has also been added to the mix in the conspiracy to get the boy sent down. And of the latter, whilst they bleat of conspiracy, of a defence who believed their client to be guilty? They don't stop to think, why on earth would that be then?
-
Correct. They are still the 'only' people actively campaigning. Toss in some other shady characters to the mix, aiding and abetting them. Convicted murderer, rapist, thieves, class A drug dealers, disgraced cops. Who have lied, still blatantly lie to bring attention to this case whilst lining their pockets to boot. Mitchell is doing a great job of keeping himself in prison. He knows best, he is his own voice by his own admission. No one puts Mitchell in the corner, not since his failed trial. DF has also been added to the mix in the conspiracy to get the boy sent down. And of the latter, whilst they bleat of conspiracy, of a defence who believed their client to be guilty? They don't stop to think, why on earth would that be then?
Not forgetting his birthday card from Uncle Pete (Tobin). The current LM campaigners are behind, Letby, [Name removed], Sheridan, Ben Geen etc - anyone they think can get publicity without looking too much into why they were convicted. It's all a conspiracy.
-
name removed = Paul F
-
Not endorsed….used Dr Lean’s research, much of which was borne out in the transcripts.
Who conned you with the ‘strong majority’ nonsense?
You have certainly praised Sandra Lean to the hilt on this forum and described her as a dear friend if I’m not mistaken, so I think endorsed is certainly the correct word to use. It is of course understandable that you now wish to distance yourself from her since she turned out to be a purveyor of bs.
-
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass. Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?
As has been mentioned, CM denied having a fire on the evening of the murder (30.06.03), but LM said she did have a fire (along with his brother SM). Bit of a red flag that their version of events regarding the fire differ, imo. Witness and neighbour Mr Frankland said in a statement to police on Thursday 3rd July 2003 that he could smell the smoke from fire (in the Mitchells' back garden) coming through his windows when he was putting his kids to bed at just after 2100 hrs and that he liked the smell. Interestingly, he indicated during his testimony that he first became aware of the smell at 2200 hrs or just before it, but conceded that he could have become aware of it before then. Also interestingly, he said during his testimony that he couldn't hear anything coming from the Mitchells' back garden when the fire was lit at 2100-2200 hrs, yet said clearly in that statement to police on July 3rd 2003 that he could hear 'voices' in their back garden at those times (though couldn't tell who the people were). My instinct tells me it was all 3 of the Mitchells -- destroying what would have been extremely incriminating evidence (i.e., blood-stained clothing and boots), and hence, imo, the 'funny smell' that witness and neighbour George Ramage mentioned during his testimony (the transcript of which has still to be uploaded).
Witness and neighbour Patricia Frankland (Mr Frankland's wife) said she became aware of the burning smell between 1830 and 1930 hrs (times when LM was not seen at all), indicating that her young children were still out playing. Interestingly, she indicated that there was a 'change' in the smell from the fire later on in the evening (though the later time isn't mentioned in the transcript as the transcriber at the time couldn't make out what she was saying, hence it's put down as 'incomprehensible' in parenthesis).
And, of course, like I mentioned in my previous post, witness and neighbour George Ramage jokingly remarked to his wife at approx 2200 hrs that "if it was a barbecue, he wouldn't be eating from it!" And, like I also said previously, isn't it odd that a neighbour never mentioned a funny smell coming from the Mitchells' log burner before (and all neighbours said it was quite common for CM to be using the log burner in summer, and had seen her doing so on a few previous occasions), yet when LM's girlfriend is murdered that very evening, he says he could smell a funny and unusual smell from their burner!!?
So, there were strange goings on in the Mitchell back garden that night. Another coincidence? I don't think so!
-
Mrs Frankland became aware of the fire between 1830 and 1930 -- times when Luke Mitchell hadn't been seen by anyone, yet had been seen by 8 separate witnesses (if you include witnesses D Hamilton & Marion O'Sullivan) between 1740 and 1815 on that fairly busy Newbattle Road (the B703 road - a reasonably busy road in accessible rural Dalkeith). Did LM himself start the fire between 1830-1930 and rope his mother and brother into helping him destroy/burn his blood-stained clothing? Did he get a quick wash and change his clothes during this period of time as well? She said that there was a change in the smell of the smoke later on (unfortunately the transcript doesn't state the later time as the transcriber couldn't hear her properly). Was this 'change' in the smell the same funny smell that Mr Ramage had smelled at 2200? Could said funny smell be attributed to the Mitchells desperately trying to burn the incriminating evidence (ie, blood-stained clothing and boots) before the inevitable call from Judith to LM at 2200 hrs (ie, Jodi's curfew time) came through? The same time when the police would naturally have to become involved in Jodi's disappearance?
Mr Frankland said he heard voices coming from the Mitchells' back garden that evening between 2100-2200 hrs, so there was activity taking place at the log burner by at least 2 people from the 3 people living at that house at the time. Had it been LM & SM, I doubt CM wasn't aware of it, particularly as she was the person neighbours said had used it the most. It's very odd that CM denied there was a fire in her back garden that night. Or did CM merely say she never started the fire? Or simply say that she wasn't aware of one (which would be, as I already said, bizarre if she did claim this)?
Also, I wonder if LBP thought to carry out an experiment involving burning the same parka as LM's (or any of the same clothing he was wearing that evening) with the witnesses and neighbours present , to see if it was the same unusual smell they had smelled? Just a thought. The probably didn't do this, imo.
-
Mrs Frankland became aware of the fire between 1830 and 1930 -- times when Luke Mitchell hadn't been seen by anyone, yet had been seen by 8 separate witnesses (if you include witnesses D Hamilton & Marion O'Sullivan) between 1740 and 1815 on that fairly busy Newbattle Road (the B703 road - a reasonably busy road in accessible rural Dalkeith). Did LM himself start the fire between 1830-1930 and rope his mother and brother into helping him destroy/burn his blood-stained clothing? Did he get a quick wash and change his clothes during this period of time as well? She said that there was a change in the smell of the smoke later on (unfortunately the transcript doesn't state the later time as the transcriber couldn't hear her properly). Was this 'change' in the smell the same funny smell that Mr Ramage had smelled at 2200? Could said funny smell be attributed to the Mitchells desperately trying to burn the incriminating evidence (ie, blood-stained clothing and boots) before the inevitable call from Judith to LM at 2200 hrs (ie, Jodi's curfew time) came through? The same time when the police would naturally have to become involved in Jodi's disappearance?
Mr Frankland said he heard voices coming from the Mitchells' back garden that evening between 2100-2200 hrs, so there was activity taking place at the log burner by at least 2 people from the 3 people living at that house at the time. Had it been LM & SM, I doubt CM wasn't aware of it, particularly as she was the person neighbours said had used it the most. It's very odd that CM denied there was a fire in her back garden that night. Or did CM merely say she never started the fire? Or simply say that she wasn't aware of one (which would be, as I already said, bizarre if she did claim this)?
Also, I wonder if LBP thought to carry out an experiment involving burning the same parka as LM's (or any of the same clothing he was wearing that evening) with the witnesses and neighbours present , to see if it was the same unusual smell they had smelled? Just a thought. The probably didn't do this, imo.
I asked the same question that you did in your last paragraph there, Mr Apples!
-
Joe Bloggs Lean.. a question about your incessant use of exclamation marks!!!!!! Why???????????????????????????????? &^&*%
-
Joe Bloggs Lean.. a question about your incessant use of exclamation marks!!!!!! Why???????????????????????????????? &^&*%
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!
-
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!
@)(++(*!
-
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!
I admire your restraint.
-
I admire your restraint.
Ha ha!
Its hard to explain Faith, it stems from Twitter I suppose where there is very little moderation or restraint!
I decided on 'X' early on just to ignore the cheek and abuse and simply plough on asking questions!
Otherwise, you just end up calling each other names and arguing about things that have nothing to do with the case!
Getting no where really, as it were!
It doesn't really bother me being accused of being Dr Lean along with all the abuse that goes along with it, its quite amusing really!
No, I simply plough on, hoping to find something that may help crack the case!
After all Faith, a bit of silly on line impudence is nothing compared to being the victim of a MOJ!
Imagine what Loke Mitchell would give to be on the outside and pardoned, I dont think all the cheek in the world would bother him!
No, I count my blessings!
-
I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.
I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.
I only recently found out that Forbes has never even met LM and everything he's ever said is fantasist nonsense, yet there are posters on here who have supported him as a credible source.
Cue the pedants.
-
I only recently found out that Forbes has never even met LM and everything he's ever said is fantasist nonsense, yet there are posters on here who have supported him as a credible source.
Cue the pedants.
Then don’t they look foolish?
Now can we move on?
-
Couple of small points re the George Ramage transcript (uploaded to the blog on March 8th, 2025) and Donald Findlay's cross-examination:
Why did the defence make such a big deal about George Ramage's recollection of seeing LM on his garage roof, apparently locked out of his house, before the murder? I get that the prosecution (ADT) during his examination-in-chief and re-examination was trying to -- in addition to leading GR's main evidence of him being aware of a fire being lit that night and the strange smell wafting from it -- further establish that LM did own a parka jacket prior to the murder (though GR said it was beige and not khaki like the prosecution would have hoped) and a certain general style of army/grunge clothing prior to the murder, but I didn't understand what point DF was trying to make here; it was as if he thought GR was trying to make out that LM being on top of his garage roof trying to get into his own house due to being locked out was somehow strange, when, let's face it, it really wasn't. It seemed to me like DF thought that this evidence was being led to try and paint LM in a not so good light, when it really wasn't (imo). I didn't understand what point DF was trying to make. I know DF was hammering home the point about people (including GR) having negative preconceptions/unconscious bias/prejudices, etc, about LM because he was being investigated for the most serious crime of all and that these preconceptions would be bolstered by the fact that there was wide media coverage between 2003-2005 and often a heavy police presence at Newbattle Abbey Crescent at the time, but, I still fail to see what DF was trying to achieve with the cross-examination of LM climbing on top of his garage pre-murder. Was he questioning the reliability of GR's memory?
Also, it was inferred that GR had said something derogatory about CM ('ungallant' was the word DF used). Anyone know what it was he said? How did DF know he said this? Was it in one of GR's statements? Or just hearsay from the Mitchells?
-
Not forgetting his birthday card from Uncle Pete (Tobin). The current LM campaigners are behind, Letby, [Name removed], Sheridan, Ben Geen etc - anyone they think can get publicity without looking too much into why they were convicted. It's all a conspiracy.
Earlier you wrote, "The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander." Does that mean that in a pub you would avoid yourself?
-
Earlier you wrote, "The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander." Does that mean that in a pub you would avoid yourself?
What conspiracies does Ken promote? I wasn’t aware of any.
-
What conspiracies does Ken promote? I wasn’t aware of any.
KenMair wrote, " It's all a conspiracy."
-
KenMair wrote, " It's all a conspiracy."
If you read the post Chris, I was referring to LM campaigners who tend to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon and listed several cases they are currently behind. I haven't promoted any conspiracies.
-
If you read the post Chris, I was referring to LM campaigners who tend to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon and listed several cases they are currently behind. I haven't promoted any conspiracies.
conspiracy
/kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Isn’t that what you believe Luke, his mum and/or Shane took part in while burning Luke’s alleged murder clothes?
-
Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
-
conspiracy
/kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
Isn’t that what you believe Luke, his mum and/or Shane took part in while burning Luke’s alleged murder clothes?
Hmm, I think you’ll find that Ken was referring to conspiracy theories rather than criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence of a crime. Hope the following helps in your understanding:
“A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation),[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.[3][6][7] The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.[8] A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.[9][10][11]“
-
Hmm, I think you’ll find that Ken was referring to conspiracy theories rather than criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence of a crime. Hope the following helps in your understanding:
“A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.[9][10][11]“
Thanks VS, I thought it was fairly obvious given that I gave some examples the current LM campaign are supporting that I considered conspiracy theories – but as usual, Faith & Chris know what I really meant more than I did.
We all have a bit of back and forth on here as it is a discussion forum but some is blatant trolling.
E.g: what is pampas grass and what does it smell like when burnt.
LM didn't have a parka pre-murder as there isn't a photograph even though 8 people testified in court he did. etc.
-
Thanks VS, I thought it was fairly obvious given that I gave some examples the current LM campaign are supporting that I considered conspiracy theories – but as usual, Faith & Chris know what I really meant more than I did.
We all have a bit of back and forth on here as it is a discussion forum but some is blatant trolling.
E.g: what is pampas grass and what does it smell like when burnt.
LM didn't have a parka pre-murder as there isn't a photograph even though 8 people testified in court he did. etc.
Did the prosecution ask Shane or his dad if Luke had a parka before the murder, Kenneth?
Seems odd if they didn't! Shane and dad would know better than anyone if LM owned a parka surely?
Shane especially!
What about neighbours?
-
I suppose it was just as surprising that Findlay didn't ask Shane or dad about the parka!
If neither dad nor Shane had any knowledge of Luke owning a parka, then surely Findlay could have pointed out that this held more weight than claims from others who barely knew LM that he 'did' own one, or had at least 'seen' LM wearing a parka!
What about the Jones', [Name removed] and [Name removed]? Were they asked? I cant recall!
Of course any of them could have been asked about a parka before trial, and probably were!
Who were the witnesses to the ownership of a parka pre-murder again?
Kenneth said there were eight I believe!
I recall a teacher, his scout master?, the boy who witnessed it in the woods who said 'och, I dinna ken onything', cant remember his name! And a few others who weren't close friends I believe! Will have to check!
But if LM did have a parka, we then have to explain when it was burned, who got rid of the ashes/debris, and when?
And why have two fires? Why not burn all the clothing at 6.30 as soon as LM allegedly returned home from killing Jodi, and dispose of the debris ASAP?
As Findlay pointed out, why burn evidence at 10.00 or go and dispose of the knife at this time? Jodi's body could have been found at any time after the murder and the police called!
It is absolutely absurd to think [if guilty] that the Mitchells believed they had up until 10.00 o'clock at least to dispose of any evidence, absurd!
Worse still, Shane couldn't get rid of anything until he returned home between 9.00-10.00 or when ever??
I mean, according to the prosecution LM didn't get home from the crime scene until roughly 6.30 after Shane had left at 6.20!
Therefore Shane couldn't even have known about the murder until he returned home that evening!!
As for Luke, he had very little time to help burn any evidence before meeting his pals at the Abbey around seven!
Its an absurd scenario from the prosecution! Corrine apparently left to destroy the evidence while Luke has a go on the Tarzy rope and Shane is out for the evening, oblivious of the murder until he returned home!
The claim seems to be that Shane eventually got rid of the evidence from the burner while Luke and Corrine are at the police station, under the pretence of fuelling his car with gas!
Its a wonder Ramage or the Franklands didn't hear the Mitchells cleaning out the burner later on once they were in bed! Or was the burner cleaned out around 10.30 before the neighbours went to bed? If so, no mention of hearing anything!
Of course the guilters will tell you that the Mitchells had a few days to get rid of evidence, which is true!
But is anyone in their right mind going to believe that the Mtchells would risk leaving remains of murder clothing in their back yard for days! Come on people!
No, honestly! The whole prosecution scenario is ridiculous!
-
Did the prosecution ask Shane or his dad if Luke had a parka before the murder, Kenneth?
Seems odd if they didn't! Shane and dad would know better than anyone if LM owned a parka surely?
Shane especially! What about neighbours?
Ken isn't short for Kenneth so no need for first name terms. It's know, as in do ye ken.
The 8 witnesses are discussed in CM's transcripts from p.2307 on - a good cross section of independent witnesses - family are generally considered to be the least reliable witnesses for obvious reasons, ken.
-
Ken isn't short for Kenneth so no need for first name terms. It's know, as in do ye ken.
The 8 witnesses are discussed in CM's transcripts from p.2307 on - a good cross section of independent witnesses - family are generally considered to be the least reliable witnesses for obvious reasons, ken.
Thanks Ken, i'll have a lookie!
Do you mean relatives are more likely to lie under oath to protect a family member?
Is there evidence to back this up?
-
Thanks Ken, i'll have a lookie!
Do you mean relatives are more likely to lie under oath to protect a family member?
Is there evidence to back this up?
I think you've answered your own question. Reading Mrs M's testimony when she denies he had a parka pre-murder despite 8 independent people testifying he had would suggest she is lying under oath.
-
Thanks Ken, i'll have a lookie!
Do you mean relatives are more likely to lie under oath to protect a family member?
Is there evidence to back this up?
Well, first witness to the existance of a parka pre-murder was a boy who saw Luke wearing it while visiting his dad Phil in Livigngston. So, this means Luke's dad should have also seen him wearing the parka if it existed.
So obviously the police would have asked Phil if Luke ever visited him wearing a parka jacket, and he must have anwered either yes or no. If yes, obviously the prosecution would have used this as strong evidence that Luke had a parka pre-murder, if no, then Findlay would have used it to dispel its existence pre-murder.
Do we have Phil Mitchells transcript?
Same goes for Shane, was he asked about the parka? Ken Mair will know, he seems to be good at retaining all the info from the case!
Anyway, there seems to be around eight more witnesses to said parka pre-murder.
The boy in the woods, a young girl, a boy who saw Luke on his bike, another young boy, Lukes platoon commander, maths teacher, chemistry teacher, and lastly Mr George Ramage while Luke was climbing over the garage!
At least Turnbull 'claimed' that Ramage saw Luke in a parka, although if you read Mr Ramages testimony you will find that he didn't actually have a clue what LM was wearing climbing onto the garage, type,length. colour or anything else. Turnbull simply put the words into Mr Ramages ears that he wanted to hear!
Anyway, I still say the likes of Shane and his dad are the most credible witnesses regarding the alleged parka.
-
I think you've answered your own question. Reading Mrs M's testimony when she denies he had a parka pre-murder despite 8 independent people testifying he had would suggest she is lying under oath.
Did Phil Mitchell give evidence Ken?
Was he quizzed about the parka?
-
Did Paul Mitchell give evidence Ken?
Was he quizzed about the parka?
Who's Paul? I take it you mean Phil. Why would SM/PM testimony over-rule that of 8 other witnesses. Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just trolling? CM has already claimed he didn't have one and the jury ultimately didn't believe her version of events.
-
Who's Paul? I take it you mean Phil. Why would SM/PM testimony over-rule that of 8 other witnesses. Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just trolling? CM has already claimed he didn't have one and the jury ultimately didn't believe her version of events.
Sorry, I thought the dads name was Paul, will modify.
Shane and dad could always do a lie detector re parka to help Luke, Ken. just as Corrine did.
Corrine was asked by Terry Mullins if she burned any clothing I believe!
-
If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record. Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?
-
If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record. Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?
Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy? If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.
-
Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy? If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.
One would surely be disposing of a receipt for such an item anyway. So many things that could have been destroyed in the fire taken place that evening?
-
If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record. Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?
Good point Chris.
-
Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy? If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.
The store would have a record of the sale. What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?
-
Sorry, I thought the dads name was Paul, will modify.
Shane and dad could always do a lie detector re parka to help Luke, Ken. just as Corrine did.
Corrine was asked by Terry Mullins if she burned any clothing I believe!
Why would SM/PM take a lie detector test about a parka when they don't even support LM? A simple written statement of support and asking for privacy could easily have been issued, but not a peep in 20 years. Whether there is a receipt or not does not disprove that 8 independent people witnessed him wearing it pre-murder.
The parkas were second hand military issue so most likely from a vintage shop.
-
The store would have a record of the sale. What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?
Easily paid for by cash which would have no record of the buyer. Easily bought in Edinburgh, on holiday up north, anywhere they may have been over the years previously. As it stands the evidence is that he clearly did wear that army style jacket pre murder, never recovered.
-
Why would SM/PM take a lie detector test about a parka when they don't even support LM? A simple written statement of support and asking for privacy could easily have been issued, but not a peep in 20 years. Whether there is a receipt or not does not disprove that 8 independent people witnessed him wearing it pre-murder.
The parkas were second hand military issue so most likely from a vintage shop.
I dont know if SM/PM support Luke or not, Ken, but surely they must have known if LM had a parka before the murder.
Therefore, if we take it that the parka is proof of innocence/guilt then we must take it that Shane and dad must know for sure one way or the other,if you see what I mean?
-
The store would have a record of the sale. What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?
Do you think shops record the names of every customer and the details of exactly what they purchased? As for where the item was purchased I’ve no idea, but I do know it’s unlikely that a receipt would show a full description of the item purchased that would prove anything. Anyway, as the lovely Mitchell family denied that Luke ever had such a garment where do you suppose the police should have gone looking for this receipt?
-
I dont know if SM/PM support Luke or not, Ken, but surely they must have known if LM had a parka before the murder.
Therefore, if we take it that the parka is proof of innocence/guilt then we must take it that Shane and dad must know for sure one way or the other,if you see what I mean?
I surmise both PM and SM were probably asked about the parka at some point during the investigation and this would be documented and in the case files; SL will likely know, as she has access to said case files. SM likely either fully denied the existence of any parka pre-murder or reverted to the safety of his favourite ambiguous, evasive default answers: "I don't know" or "I can't remember"; any time the Mitchells were asked difficult questions, they conveniently got amnesia and gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers . SM certainly wasn't asked about the parka during his 3-day testimony. I don't know if PM was called as a witness to court ... his transcript has yet to be uploaded if he did. In fact, the only thing I've read officially about PM and his involvement with this case is an old newspaper article from 2004/05, which mentioned him accompanying CM to a visit at a secure unit or prison (along with LM's lady friend ... LW?). I heard that PM did say that LM owned a parka pre-murder (SL will likely know if this is true, from the case files). There is still a considerable amount yet to be uploaded about this case and many transcripts. As I said before, it will be interesting if certain transcripts mention a photograph of PM & LM at a Rock music concert on early June 2003 with the latter wearing the parka before the murder (supposedly, PM had the exact same jacket as his son). And likewise, it will be interesting if the transcripts mention cctv footage of LM in his parka at St David's High School pre-murder. The parka jacket is a very significant piece of circumstantial evidence, along with LM finding the body so quickly, SM not corroborating the alibi and the eyewitnesses spotting LM between 1655 -1815.
-
I suppose it was just as surprising that Findlay didn't ask Shane or dad about the parka!
If neither dad nor Shane had any knowledge of Luke owning a parka, then surely Findlay could have pointed out that this held more weight than claims from others who barely knew LM that he 'did' own one, or had at least 'seen' LM wearing a parka!
What about the Jones', [Name removed] and [Name removed]? Were they asked? I cant recall!
Of course any of them could have been asked about a parka before trial, and probably were!
Who were the witnesses to the ownership of a parka pre-murder again?
Kenneth said there were eight I believe!
I recall a teacher, his scout master?, the boy who witnessed it in the woods who said 'och, I dinna ken onything', cant remember his name! And a few others who weren't close friends I believe! Will have to check!
But if LM did have a parka, we then have to explain when it was burned, who got rid of the ashes/debris, and when?
And why have two fires? Why not burn all the clothing at 6.30 as soon as LM allegedly returned home from killing Jodi, and dispose of the debris ASAP?
As Findlay pointed out, why burn evidence at 10.00 or go and dispose of the knife at this time? Jodi's body could have been found at any time after the murder and the police called!
It is absolutely absurd to think [if guilty] that the Mitchells believed they had up until 10.00 o'clock at least to dispose of any evidence, absurd!
Worse still, Shane couldn't get rid of anything until he returned home between 9.00-10.00 or when ever??
I mean, according to the prosecution LM didn't get home from the crime scene until roughly 6.30 after Shane had left at 6.20!
Therefore Shane couldn't even have known about the murder until he returned home that evening!!
As for Luke, he had very little time to help burn any evidence before meeting his pals at the Abbey around seven!
Its an absurd scenario from the prosecution! Corrine apparently left to destroy the evidence while Luke has a go on the Tarzy rope and Shane is out for the evening, oblivious of the murder until he returned home!
The claim seems to be that Shane eventually got rid of the evidence from the burner while Luke and Corrine are at the police station, under the pretence of fuelling his car with gas!
Its a wonder Ramage or the Franklands didn't hear the Mitchells cleaning out the burner later on once they were in bed! Or was the burner cleaned out around 10.30 before the neighbours went to bed? If so, no mention of hearing anything!
Of course the guilters will tell you that the Mitchells had a few days to get rid of evidence, which is true!
But is anyone in their right mind going to believe that the Mtchells would risk leaving remains of murder clothing in their back yard for days! Come on people!
No, honestly! The whole prosecution scenario is ridiculous!
Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.
Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?
-
Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.
Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?
This is the world you’d like to exist MA, not the one that actually does.
If green fibres had been retrieved from the burner they would have been forensically examined to analysis their construction. The resulting analysis, if positive for fibres, would have been presented in court. It wasn’t that that’s why over 20 years later there is no definite proof that Luke had a parka before the murder.
-
Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.
Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?
The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?
-
This is the world you’d like to exist MA, not the one that actually does.
If green fibres had been retrieved from the burner they would have been forensically examined to analysis their construction. The resulting analysis, if positive for fibres, would have been presented in court. It wasn’t that that’s why over 20 years later there is no definite proof that Luke had a parka before the murder.
I'll need to go back to IB and re-read the part about the green fibres as I'm sure SL mentions the fibres in one of the chapters very briefly. I read about the fibres on another forum as well, but that's hardly compelling evidence.
Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what the remaining transcripts uncover -- that elusive photo and cctv footage may not have been figments of people's imagination after all.
-
The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?
Yeah, exactly. Would be good to read exactly what the reports said.
-
The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?
So we are believing Dr Lean and Forbes now?
I wish that you’d make your mind up.
-
I surmise both PM and SM were probably asked about the parka at some point during the investigation and this would be documented and in the case files; SL will likely know, as she has access to said case files. SM likely either fully denied the existence of any parka pre-murder or reverted to the safety of his favourite ambiguous, evasive default answers: "I don't know" or "I can't remember"; any time the Mitchells were asked difficult questions, they conveniently got amnesia and gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers . SM certainly wasn't asked about the parka during his 3-day testimony. I don't know if PM was called as a witness to court ... his transcript has yet to be uploaded if he did. In fact, the only thing I've read officially about PM and his involvement with this case is an old newspaper article from 2004/05, which mentioned him accompanying CM to a visit at a secure unit or prison (along with LM's lady friend ... LW?). I heard that PM did say that LM owned a parka pre-murder (SL will likely know if this is true, from the case files). There is still a considerable amount yet to be uploaded about this case and many transcripts. As I said before, it will be interesting if certain transcripts mention a photograph of PM & LM at a Rock music concert on early June 2003 with the latter wearing the parka before the murder (supposedly, PM had the exact same jacket as his son). And likewise, it will be interesting if the transcripts mention cctv footage of LM in his parka at St David's High School pre-murder. The parka jacket is a very significant piece of circumstantial evidence, along with LM finding the body so quickly, SM not corroborating the alibi and the eyewitnesses spotting LM between 1655 -1815.
Wow, you certainly know your stuff, Mr Apples.
-
Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.
Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?
I have heard of these fibres before, Mr Apples, but never got the full story. Where can I read up on then?
-
I'll need to go back to IB and re-read the part about the green fibres as I'm sure SL mentions the fibres in one of the chapters very briefly. I read about the fibres on another forum as well, but that's hardly compelling evidence.
Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what the remaining transcripts uncover -- that elusive photo and cctv footage may not have been figments of people's imagination after all.
The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!
-
The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!
Blood is thicker than water, JB (pun definitely not intended). I think the transcripts emphasized that CM was guilty of perjury and, in turn, showed clearly the lengths a mother would go to to protect her youngest and favourite son (and, regardless of what some people may say or think, the Crown had every right to lead/introduce the tattoo parlour id evidence, as it was apposite and to a certain extent showed LM & CM's deceit, and how CM would lie so that her son could get what he wanted). SM evidently was roped into aiding and abetting his brother and he even admitted to the police he was coached by his mother about what to say to police regarding LM's alibi/whereabouts that day. SM during his testimony gave deliberately ambiguous evidence so as to protect his brother (ie, many 'I don't know" & "I can't remember" answers), but his instinct to shield his brother from harm wasn't as acute or as strong as CM's (not many things in life are as potent as a mother's maternal instincts). As regards PM, well, like said, he seems to have been reticent from day 1 and not much is known about his statements, evidence and thoughts on his son's case. I don't even know if he was summoned to court as a witness. Time will tell.
-
The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!
And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.
-
And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.
If Phil and Corinne had still been together when Jodi was murdered, I firmly believe there wouldn't have been a court case and LM would have been forced to admit to what he had done, by his father. After their divorce, LM was spoiled, got his own way and left to his own devices and do as he pleased; he was very much the man about the house, even though his older brother Shane was living there, too (eg, allowed to smoke cannabis and drink alcohol at home, deal cannabis, have sex at home, use the family car, given large amounts of cash by his mother for weekend work at her caravan sales site). All of this was a bad combination, especially as LM was very intelligent, independent and a self-confessed hothead (inherited from CM). There were signs LM was a troubled kid from an early age: he had to literally be pulled off another primary school pupil when he was only 11 (and referred to seek professional help for 'throttling' the other pupil). Then we can also factor in his other attacks on young girls, his fascination with knives, death and the macabre -- and his excessive cannabis use. He was also referred to seek psychological help in high school by his English teacher for his fascination with Satan and his Satanic essays. So, yeah, it seems his parents' separation had a negative effect and had gotten progressively worse. With no father figure to discipline him, it added fuel to the fire and tragically culminated in a young teenager losing her life in the most savage way.
-
And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.
Where did this monstrous theory originate from? Was it Lean or Forbes first, and most likely suggested by LM imo.
-
Where did this monstrous theory originate from? Was it Lean or Forbes first, and most likely suggested by LM imo.
It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.
-
And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.
Yes, i'm aware of all the different theories and suspects, Vertigo.
How preposterous they are, I do not know.
-
It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.
Since SL has been ousted as head honcho, LM's new campaign 'manager'/and on-off gf (GC) has recently been cautioned by Police for threatening to "mow down anyone who gets in her way" and threatening to burn down a journalist who wrote about the case many years ago. It's an even more insular campaign now and seems to be focusing on tagging onto various other perceived MOJ's for publicity.
-
And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.
Even though blood is thicker than water, most people wouldn't lie and protect a brutal murderer. But, judging from what I've researched, CM isn't most people. I think the evidence showed categorically that she was lying. Not only lying during the investigation, but lying on the stand as well (and even warned about perjury by ADT). I know CM was adopted. And raised by travelling people (the Guettas) -- who are known to be notoriously deceitful and anti-authoritarian -- but wonder if her biological parents have traits making them susceptible to disorders, mental illness, criminality, and so on? Likewise with PM -- what sort of person was he and his immediate family?
Anyway, the crux of the matter is this: everything the Mitchells did between 30.06.03 and January 2005 was highly suspicious, whereas everything the Jones family did was normal (with the odd transgression of smoking some cannabis).
-
Since SL has been ousted as head honcho, LM's new campaign 'manager'/and on-off gf (GC) has recently been cautioned by Police for threatening to "mow down anyone who gets in her way" and threatening to burn down a journalist who wrote about the case many years ago. It's an even more insular campaign now and seems to be focusing on tagging onto various other perceived MOJ's for publicity.
The futility of it all.
-
Since SL has been ousted as head honcho, LM's new campaign 'manager'/and on-off gf (GC) has recently been cautioned by Police for threatening to "mow down anyone who gets in her way" and threatening to burn down a journalist who wrote about the case many years ago. It's an even more insular campaign now and seems to be focusing on tagging onto various other perceived MOJ's for publicity.
Sounds like they’re made for each other those two!
-
If Phil and Corinne had still been together when Jodi was murdered, I firmly believe there wouldn't have been a court case and LM would have been forced to admit to what he had done, by his father. After their divorce, LM was spoiled, got his own way and left to his own devices and do as he pleased; he was very much the man about the house, even though his older brother Shane was living there, too (eg, allowed to smoke cannabis and drink alcohol at home, deal cannabis, have sex at home, use the family car, given large amounts of cash by his mother for weekend work at her caravan sales site). All of this was a bad combination, especially as LM was very intelligent, independent and a self-confessed hothead (inherited from CM). There were signs LM was a troubled kid from an early age: he had to literally be pulled off another primary school pupil when he was only 11 (and referred to seek professional help for 'throttling' the other pupil). Then we can also factor in his other attacks on young girls, his fascination with knives, death and the macabre -- and his excessive cannabis use. He was also referred to seek psychological help in high school by his English teacher for his fascination with Satan and his Satanic essays. So, yeah, it seems his parents' separation had a negative effect and had gotten progressively worse. With no father figure to discipline him, it added fuel to the fire and tragically culminated in a young teenager losing her life in the most savage way.
Many are spoiled, Mr Apples, But can that really turn you into a deranged psychopath, is that how it works?
-
And raised by travelling people (the Guettas) -- who are known to be notoriously deceitful and anti-authoritarian -- but wonder if her biological parents have traits making them susceptible to disorders, mental illness, criminality, and so on? Likewise with PM -- what sort of person was he and his immediate family?
Good point. Does SL have connections to the travelling community? Apart from selling her candles, could that be the link between CM & SL. Why else would a murder suspect's mum ask someone with zero experience to be her son's advocate?
-
Good point. Does SL have connections to the travelling community? Apart from selling her candles, could that be the link between CM & SL. Why else would a murder suspect's mum ask someone with zero experience to be her son's advocate?
Now now, Ken!
I think you and Mr Apples have gone from posting some reasonable speculation about the case, to getting completely carried away now.
Come back down to Earth, please.
-
Now now, Ken!
I think you and Mr Apples have gone from posting some reasonable speculation about the case, to getting completely carried away now.
Come back down to Earth, please.
It's a fair point that deserves discussion especially as you seem to know everything about Dr L, and have introduced endless speculation about insignificant issues.
I'm very down to earth as Major Tom will confirm.
-
Even though blood is thicker than water, most people wouldn't lie and protect a brutal murderer. But, judging from what I've researched, CM isn't most people. I think the evidence showed categorically that she was lying. Not only lying during the investigation, but lying on the stand as well (and even warned about perjury by ADT). I know CM was adopted. And raised by travelling people (the Guettas) -- who are known to be notoriously deceitful and anti-authoritarian -- but wonder if her biological parents have traits making them susceptible to disorders, mental illness, criminality, and so on? Likewise with PM -- what sort of person was he and his immediate family?
Anyway, the crux of the matter is this: everything the Mitchells did between 30.06.03 and January 2005 was highly suspicious, whereas everything the Jones family did was normal (with the odd transgression of smoking some cannabis).
“ And raised by travelling people (the Guettas) -- who are known to be notoriously deceitful and anti-authoritarian -- but wonder if her biological parents have traits making them susceptible to disorders, mental illness, criminality, and so on?”
You do know that statement is racist don’t you?
-
It's a fair point that deserves discussion especially as you seem to know everything about Dr L, and have introduced endless speculation about insignificant issues.
I'm very down to earth as Major Tom will confirm.
It’s not a fair point, it’s a racist trope.
Several posters showing their true colours tonight.
-
Easily paid for by cash which would have no record of the buyer. Easily bought in Edinburgh, on holiday up north, anywhere they may have been over the years previously. As it stands the evidence is that he clearly did wear that army style jacket pre murder, never recovered.
Why go all the way to Edinburgh? Also there was a receipt for the parka bought after the murder.
-
It’s not a fair point, it’s a racist trope.
Several posters showing their true colours tonight.
How is it racist more than:
Scot's are mean (especially Aberdonians)
Irish like a drink.
Welsh are whatever...
English are hooligans who like to invade other countries and impose their values.
The travelling community are notorious for being anti-authority and often dishonest, which sums up CM & SL. Not sure what your point is.
-
How is it racist more than:
Scot's are mean (especially Aberdonians)
Irish like a drink.
Welsh are whatever...
English are hooligans who like to invade other countries and impose their values.
The travelling community are notorious for being anti-authority and often dishonest, which sums up CM & SL. Not sure what your point is.
It isn’t more racist but it is racist but if you’re prepared to appear a rather simpleminded racist don’t let me stop you.
-
It isn’t more racist but it is racist but if you’re prepared to appear a rather simpleminded racist don’t let me stop you.
The fact you've ignored 99% of the recent posts suggests you are as much as troll than interested in anything else as there's nothing you can debate without resorting to "protected characteristics".
The only people who have have defended LM 100% are CM & SL - both from similar backgrounds.
-
The fact you've ignored 99% of the recent posts suggests you are as much as troll than interested in anything else as there's nothing you can debate without resorting to "protected characteristics".
The only people who have have defended LM 100% are CM & SL - both from similar backgrounds.
I would say Scott Forbes is also 100% sure that LM is innocent, Ken.
-
Why go all the way to Edinburgh? Also there was a receipt for the parka bought after the murder.
"Why go all the way to Edinburgh?" Surely not a serious question Chris. I'll let you refresh yourself on some geography and places where he got his tattoo amongst other things. A place he hung out with his mates, his girlfriend also shortly before the murder. Their main town with many suburbs, one of which the Mitchells stayed in. The Capital, teaming with all sorts of shops, namely ones that sold army surplus and the likes.
Tell me Chris, who was there when they arrived home from their shopping trip, checking purchases and receipts? All rather different from one purchased in whatever time frame pre the murder. As stated, something easily gotten rid of in a fire (if still had the receipt for an older purchase) and so much more besides.
-
The fact you've ignored 99% of the recent posts suggests you are as much as troll than interested in anything else as there's nothing you can debate without resorting to "protected characteristics".
The only people who have have defended LM 100% are CM & SL - both from similar backgrounds.
I haven’t ignored recent posts. I’ve simply got tired of debunking the lies.
Racism, however, is something that sticks very much in my craw. Debate the facts by all means but if you chose to resort to nasty, racist tropes to win the argument then be prepared to be called out on them.
It is interesting that you speak so disparaging of Corrine who ran a family business while not applying the same standards to the Jones family who were, by any measure, feckless and rather dysfunctional.
I have defended Luke for well over 15 years but do not come from a similar background to either Corrine or Dr Lean.
Did your psychology 101 course cover that eventuality?
-
"Why go all the way to Edinburgh?" Surely not a serious question Chris. I'll let you refresh yourself on some geography and places where he got his tattoo amongst other things. A place he hung out with his mates, his girlfriend also shortly before the murder. Their main town with many suburbs, one of which the Mitchells stayed in. The Capital, teaming with all sorts of shops, namely ones that sold army surplus and the likes.
Tell me Chris, who was there when they arrived home from their shopping trip, checking purchases and receipts? All rather different from one purchased in whatever time frame pre the murder. As stated, something easily gotten rid of in a fire (if still had the receipt for an older purchase) and so much more besides.
It appears that Luke was a frequent visitor to Flip. Bit of a silly move then to buy a new parka from somewhere where he may have been recognised.
Those awful Mitchell’s…..criminal geniuses one minute and little better than novices the next.
-
Why go all the way to Edinburgh? Also there was a receipt for the parka bought after the murder.
I've had a few drinks tonight, Chris, so bear with me. Hope this makes sense. Here goes ........
Luke lived in Newbattle -- a mere settlement with a population of literally a few hundred people (or less). Not exactly a place where one could buy trendy teenage clothing & parka jackets. The nearest town to Newbattle is Dalkeith, which has a mere population of 15 thousand (or less) and a town centre that is very limited in terms of clothes shops for teenagers, etc. So, in actual fact, Edinburgh was -- and still is -- the nearest major town/city for people living in Dalkeith to go shopping (outwith online shopping, of course).
Was there a receipt for the parka bought on 08.07.03? If there was a receipt for the parka bought after the murder, it was, in all likelihood, simply because the Mitchells were caught off guard by the phone call by the Flip Clothing manager (Colin) to police, tipping them off about the Mitchell purchases that day in their shop; it was by pure chance they got caught buying a parka on 08.07.03. And I doubt it was a credit card/debit card purchase, since an intelligent woman like CM would be aware that the police would able to trace all electronic transactions (assuming, of course, that their intention was to replace the old parka destroyed in the fire with a new one, without anyone finding out). Or maybe CM was short-sighted and lacked perception, relying on lack of DNA and eyewitness testimony getting her son off. Maybe she wasn't actually too concerned about the original parka or the new one, since she knew that the old one with the (likely) incriminating DNA on it (ie, Jodi's blood) was destroyed completely? I think the Mitchells underestimated how perceptive and thorough the police actually were, and it led to their downfall (along with other circumstantial evidence that arose by mere chance/luck).
-
It appears that Luke was a frequent visitor to Flip. Bit of a silly move then to buy a new parka from somewhere where he may have been recognised.
Those awful Mitchell’s…..criminal geniuses one minute and little better than novices the next.
Even you can do better than that. Sheesh!
-
Has anyone ever claimed that the Mitchells were criminal geniuses? I mean criminal geniuses don’t usually end up in prison for their first murder do they…?
-
Even you can do better than that. Sheesh!
Which part?
-
Even you can do better than that. Sheesh!
No, Faith is quite right, Mr Apples.
If the Mitchells were trying to sneakily replace the 'alleged' parka that was destroyed, then it was stupidity to go to a shop where they were known, definately risky.
Why not send Shane into Edinburgh to buy a parka at a random shop somewhere?
Or at least take Luke to a shop where they were unknown.
Far more sensible.
No, you have to admit that the Mitchells didn't act like they cared who knew that they bought a parka that day.
-
No, Faith is quite right, Mr Apples.
If the Mitchells were trying to sneakily replace the 'alleged' parka that was destroyed, then it was stupidity to go to a shop where they were known, definately risky.
Why not send Shane into Edinburgh to buy a parka at a random shop somewhere?
Or at least take Luke to a shop where they were unknown.
Far more sensible.
No, you have to admit that the Mitchells didn't act like they cared who knew that they bought a parka that day.
If you bought a coat in a big city shop six or twelve months ago would you expect the staff there to remember that you’d been in many months previously bought a similar coat? I certainly wouldn’t. Fact of the matter is, the staff there DID recognise him off the telly/newspapers anyway and told the police he’d been in. And - there’s more than one army surplus / vintage type shop in Edinburgh anyway or st least there certainly used to, in fact (I may be wrong here) but I think back in the late 90s there used to be 2 Flips in Edinburgh on the same street or very near each other. Perhaps one was a copycat version.
-
If you bought a coat in a big city shop six or twelve months ago would you expect the staff there to remember that you’d been in many months previously bought a similar coat? I certainly wouldn’t. Fact of the matter is, the staff there DID recognise him off the telly/newspapers anyway and told the police he’d been in. And - there’s more than one army surplus / vintage type shop in Edinburgh anyway or st least there certainly used to, in fact (I may be wrong here) but I think back in the late 90s there used to be 2 Flips in Edinburgh on the same street or very near each other. Perhaps one was a copycat version.
But thats the point Faith was makng, Vertigo. Why go to a shop you may be known in to replace the 'allegedy' burned parka?
Especially if the papers had drawn attention to the Mitchells by raiding their house by then.
As I said, why not send Shane to buy a parka if it was a furtive mission to replace the parka before anyone knew it was missing, as Mr Apples suggests?
Hardly a furtive, sneaky mission simply going to Flip surely, especially when it was Luke and mum buying it.
According to Mr Apples, the Mitchells would have had to change their plan from replacing the parka before anyone noticed to denying point blank that Luke owned a parka before the murder.
All because the Mitchells were simply upfront buying the parka, no covert action taken at all.
Thats what Faith is talking about.
And remember, it is a fact that LM clothing had just been taken by police which needed replacing, including his Bomber and other clothing taken on the night of the murder.
-
But thats the point Faith was makng, Vertigo. Why go to a shop you may be known in to replace the 'allegedy' burned parka?
Especially if the papers had drawn attention to the Mitchells by raiding their house by then.
As I said, why not send Shane to buy a parka if it was a furtive mission to replace the parka before anyone knew it was missing, as Mr Apples suggests?
Hardly a furtive, sneaky mission simply going to Flip surely, especially when it was Luke and mum buying it.
According to Mr Apples, the Mitchells would have had to change their plan from replacing the parka before anyone noticed to denying point blank that Luke owned a parka before the murder.
All because the Mitchells were simply upfront buying the parka, no covert action taken at all.
Thats what Faith is talking about.
And remember, it is a fact that LM clothing had just been taken by police which needed replacing, including his Bomber and other clothing taken on the night of the murder.
Did the Mitchells know at this point about the numerous sightings of him suggesting he was wearing a parka that night? Do you think it’s simply coincidence that they bought a new parka that matched the description of some of the witnesses?
-
But thats the point Faith was makng, Vertigo. Why go to a shop you may be known in to replace the 'allegedy' burned parka?
Especially if the papers had drawn attention to the Mitchells by raiding their house by then.
As I said, why not send Shane to buy a parka if it was a furtive mission to replace the parka before anyone knew it was missing, as Mr Apples suggests?
Hardly a furtive, sneaky mission simply going to Flip surely, especially when it was Luke and mum buying it.
According to Mr Apples, the Mitchells would have had to change their plan from replacing the parka before anyone noticed to denying point blank that Luke owned a parka before the murder.
All because the Mitchells were simply upfront buying the parka, no covert action taken at all.
Thats what Faith is talking about.
And remember, it is a fact that LM clothing had just been taken by police which needed replacing, including his Bomber and other clothing taken on the night of the murder.
Why not replace the parka before the house was searched? Why wait until the police knew that it was missing? Surely it would have been better to have the parka taken away with the rest of Luke’s clothes than drawing attention to it’s absence?
Why buy the same jacket Luke had allegedly been wearing during the murder? He certainly knew that he’d been seen by several witness so it makes no sense to tie himself to the scene in such a way.
-
It is interesting that you speak so disparaging of Corrine who ran a family business while not applying the same standards to the Jones family who were, by any measure, feckless and rather dysfunctional.
Why would I apply anything to the Jones family? Their daughter being murdered had nothing to do with them but it had a lot to do with CM's dishonesty and encouraged a hate campaign against them.
In a YT podcast a few years ago (James English?), CM was asked how she knew for sure LM wasn't the killer and replied that she knows her son and what he's like. Why not say she saw him in the kitchen?
At least 8 people witnessed him with a parka pre-murder but she lied that he didn't. She lied to get him a tattoo etc. which Turnbull made a point of. Her court testimony is all over the place - she lied.
-
Did the Mitchells know at this point about the numerous sightings of him suggesting he was wearing a parka that night? Do you think it’s simply coincidence that they bought a new parka that matched the description of some of the witnesses?
Thats a good question, Vertigo.
Although it wouldn't really matter would it, if they had decided to replace it anyway.
Dont know when a parka jacket was finally decided on by the police?
Bryson had mentioned a fishing jacket of course, then there was Flem/Walsh, Heatlie, O'sullivans and bike boys.
All with varying accounts of the jacket Luke was wearing.
Even an army shirt was mentioned of course. Only thing they seemed to agree on roughly was the colour.
I suppose it was around this time that the police tried to find out what kind/s of jacket LM owned in order to work out what the witnesses actually saw.
The Bomber jacket which we know for a fact LM owned and claimed to be wearing the whole day of the murder was dismissed of course.
Obviously the police couldn't accept the obvious [Bomber], because the Bomber was seized that night and didn't have any blood on it!
Hence the police had to claim that all the witnesses had actually seen LM in a long parka jacket which he wandered up and down Newbattle Road in for the most of an hour before going home and burning it sometime between 6.30-10.00.
Again, obviously the police had to claim that all the murder clothing had been destroyed due to the fact that they couldn't find anything blood stained.Without the 'invention' of the parka and its destruction there was no case against LM obviously,
-
Why not replace the parka before the house was searched? Why wait until the police knew that it was missing? Surely it would have been better to have the parka taken away with the rest of Luke’s clothes than drawing attention to it’s absence?
Why buy the same jacket Luke had allegedly been wearing during the murder? He certainly knew that he’d been seen by several witness so it makes no sense to tie himself to the scene in such a way.
Exactly Faith, the Mitchells should have replaced the parka ASAP.
-
Did the Mitchells know at this point about the numerous sightings of him suggesting he was wearing a parka that night? Do you think it’s simply coincidence that they bought a new parka that matched the description of some of the witnesses?
Which witness described or mentioned the word parka, Vertigo?
Only the two bike boys told the police what Luke was wearing without any prompting or looking at photos I believe.
Yet the bike boys evidence was ignored and swept aside.
-
Which witness described or mentioned the word parka, Vertigo?
Only the two bike boys told the police what Luke was wearing without any prompting or looking at photos I believe.
Yet the bike boys evidence was ignored and swept aside.
If I am not mistaken numerous witnesses mentioned that prior to the murder Luke used to wear a knaki coat or jacket closely resembling the parka that he subsequently went out and purchased. Was this garment ever located and if not why do you think that was?
-
Why not replace the parka before the house was searched? Why wait until the police knew that it was missing? Surely it would have been better to have the parka taken away with the rest of Luke’s clothes than drawing attention to it’s absence?
Why buy the same jacket Luke had allegedly been wearing during the murder? He certainly knew that he’d been seen by several witness so it makes no sense to tie himself to the scene in such a way.
The parka he bought would have had no trace of Jodie’s dna on it so would have potentially absolved him of the crime if he intended to pass it off as the jacket that he had prior to the murder.
-
Has anyone ever claimed that the Mitchells were criminal geniuses? I mean criminal geniuses don’t usually end up in prison for their first murder do they…?
Someone on this board, possibly MA, suggested that he was forensically aware. He was forensically examined from head to toes shins, and this did not produce anything. That would be a remarkable clean up.
-
"Why go all the way to Edinburgh?" Surely not a serious question Chris. I'll let you refresh yourself on some geography and places where he got his tattoo amongst other things. A place he hung out with his mates, his girlfriend also shortly before the murder. Their main town with many suburbs, one of which the Mitchells stayed in. The Capital, teaming with all sorts of shops, namely ones that sold army surplus and the likes.
Tell me Chris, who was there when they arrived home from their shopping trip, checking purchases and receipts? All rather different from one purchased in whatever time frame pre the murder. As stated, something easily gotten rid of in a fire (if still had the receipt for an older purchase) and so much more besides.
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
IIRC Corinne tried destroying a parka in a log burner and found that metal fittings (presumably zippers, snaps, etc.) remained. This is the sort of experiment that a competent, objective investigation should have performed.
-
It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.
Most people (myself included) want guilty individuals to be punished in a way that is commensurate with their crimes and want innocent individuals to be exonerated. If Luke Mitchell's conviction were a wrongful one, then a second family was destroyed.
-
If I am not mistaken numerous witnesses mentioned that prior to the murder Luke used to wear a knaki coat or jacket closely resembling the parka that he subsequently went out and purchased. Was this garment ever located and if not why do you think that was?
Yes, there was about nine people who testified to LM owning a parka before the murder, Vertigo, I was refering more to the witnesses on Newbattle Road on the day of the murder however.
Anyway, thinking about it, the parka jacket isn't just part of the LM case, the parka jacket 'IS' the LM case, from the prosecution side anyway.
Without the parka, or to be precise 'murder clothing with DNA linked to the murder scene' beloging to LM there could be no case against him, no case at all!
Lets look at the facts. On the day of the murder Luke Mitchell claimed he wore the same clothing all day, and he was certainly seen at school, by the boys at the Abbey and later on by the search party and police in those clothes.
Therefore, the prosecution case is that LM changed clothing before and after the murder, ie., from school clothes to parka, then back to school clothes. Does this mean the murder was pre-medditated if LM was the killer?
No fit of rage over girl friends then?
No matter!
Anyway, I will ask again, how many who met LM on a regular basis testified that he owned a parka pre-murder?
What about any of the Jones's, the moped boys, Alice Walker, [where Jodi/Luke often met or mucked about I believe] ? Why didn't any of them recall a parka?
Are any of the parka witnesses credible? Mr Ramage certainly wasn't sure, he didn't even get the colour right. The boy in the woods wasn't much cop either.
Anyway, the thing is, if you believe for one moment that the two bike boys who testified that they saw LM standing by Barondale cottages while wearing his Bomber jacket were correct, then you more or less believe in Luke Mitchells innocence!
You see, if the two bike boys saw Luke in his Bomber, then Flem/Walsh, Heatlie, and the o'sullivans almost certainly saw Luke in said Bomber too!
You see,realistically there was no time for Luke to go home and change between any of the sightings on Newbattle Road, hence all the witnesses saw LM in the same clothing, yes?
Hence, if you think the bike boys, who incidentally were the only witnesses on NB Road who knew Luke, did see LM in his Bomber then logically you must have reasonable doubt of his guilt!
It also follows that if the bike boys saw LM in Bomber, then Andrina Bryson saw someone else at the other end of the path in a fishing style jacket, and not Luke!
So, if the bike boys saw LM in Bomber, then the only other guilt scenario available is that LM had already been home and changed after the murder before being seen on Newbattle Road around 5.40 by Flem/Walsh.
Is that possible?
Have you any doubt of Luke's guilt yet, Vertigo?
-
No, Faith is quite right, Mr Apples.
If the Mitchells were trying to sneakily replace the 'alleged' parka that was destroyed, then it was stupidity to go to a shop where they were known, definately risky.
Why not send Shane into Edinburgh to buy a parka at a random shop somewhere?
Or at least take Luke to a shop where they were unknown.
Far more sensible.
No, you have to admit that the Mitchells didn't act like they cared who knew that they bought a parka that day.
You make some valid points, but I would've thought that there was more of a chance of LM being noticed in smaller towns and villages that were nearer or within travelling distance to his home in Newbattle (eg, Dalkeith, Newtongrange, Bonnyrigg, Livingston). Surely there was a greater chance of refuge and anonymity in a big city such as Edinburgh? For example, when people go on the run, aren't they more likely to flee to big cities such as London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and so on? These big cities offering a better chance of a fugitive not being found, a better chance of integrating without drawing attention to themselves, a better chance of employment, and so on? With a complex circumstantial case such as this one, there will always be supposition, if, buts or maybes, and that to me (and, I suspect, to a lot of people) is very interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought LM, regardless of how regular a customer he was at certain shops in a big city, would have been noticed; shops in big cities have more staff, bigger rotas, more changes in staff, and so on? How does SL know how often LM shopped in Flip? How many visits to a shop constitutes being regarded as a regular customer? The only reason LM was spotted in Flip on 08.07.03 was down to pure chance: a staff member who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at, spotted him in the shop with CM on 08.07.03. She told her manager (a guy called Colin) and he called the police, and hence why the FLO Michelle Lindsay and police were waiting at the Mitchell family home when they returned from their shopping trip in Edinburgh on 08.07.03; it seems the staffmember who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at (LM didn't know who she was either) scuppered the Mitchells' insidious plan to replace the old parka with a new one and make out that the new one was the old one and that there only ever was one parka all along. How very crafty, eh? But, by sheer chance and luck, a Flip staff member recognised LM and her evidence was part of the prosecution's circumstantial case that got LM convicted for murder.
And why would the Mitchells hide away and walk on egg shells immediately after the murder? Surely, that would make them appear suspicious? The Mitchells had to act as normal as possible so people would not suspect them of anything, and LM was a psychopath and narcissist, swanning around loving the attention as a murder suspect (literally boasting to his mates that he was a murder suspect) and out partying in night clubs in Edinburgh mere days after the murder with not a care in the world, having new girlfriends within weeks of the murder. The Mitchells were forensically aware and knew that they had destroyed the one item that could tie LM to the murder: the khaki green army parka with German army badges on the sleeves. The Mitchells thought they'd gotten away with murder -- until that very rude awakening on the morning of 14.04.04.
-
In a YT podcast a few years ago (James English?), CM was asked how she knew for sure LM wasn't the killer and replied that she knows her son and what he's like. Why not say she saw him in the kitchen?
Exactly, KM. Why didn't she say that?
-
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
IIRC Corinne tried destroying a parka in a log burner and found that metal fittings (presumably zippers, snaps, etc.) remained. This is the sort of experiment that a competent, objective investigation should have performed.
Yes Chris, a short car journey away, little more by bus from Dalkeith/Eskbank. You were applying it as being a strange thing to do, for what reason? Because Dalkeith had shops but you don't know what kind of shops anyway, conjecture indeed. Yet he went up town to make that very purchase after the murder, why? Surely if desperate for clothes Dalkeith would have sufficed, it didn't, what does that tell you? Why did he so desperately need to go to a certain shop to buy that army style coat and army shirt Chris? - But yes, we certainly are all applying some conjecture here, the stark reality is he could have purchased it from anywhere, as stated before, even when off on his holidays. Snowboarding holidays and the like, treated himself even with the sale of his horse, as youngsters do.
You are the one applying there just has to have been proof of that purchase with a big arrow pointing right at him, utter nonsense. I easily counteract that with a cash sale Chris which was far from being an odd thing to do. I applied, 'if' there had been a receipt in the house somewhere, unlikely for some older purchase anyway, easily gotten rid of. All this conjecture, waffle anyway, does not negate the absolute fact that several people testified to him wearing such a garment pre murder, that those were chosen from a selection of more and not stand alone.
Zips and the like. Behave Chris, for goodness sake, its a ridiculous application. One would not be leaving the zips etc behind. They may not have been criminal masterminds but do credit them with some common sense.
-
Why not replace the parka before the house was searched? Why wait until the police knew that it was missing? Surely it would have been better to have the parka taken away with the rest of Luke’s clothes than drawing attention to it’s absence?
Why buy the same jacket Luke had allegedly been wearing during the murder? He certainly knew that he’d been seen by several witness so it makes no sense to tie himself to the scene in such a way.
I suspect they didn't anticipate the house being searched so quickly. I suspect that, especially during the first few weeks after the murder, the Mitchells would be playing things by ear before they decided what to do next in order to cover their tracks. I think they bought the same parka because LM had been spotted in it often, not just on the day of the murder but before it too.
-
Someone on this board, possibly MA, suggested that he was forensically aware. He was forensically examined from head to toes shins, and this did not produce anything. That would be a remarkable clean up.
You don’t need to be a genius to be forensicsally aware.
-
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
IIRC Corinne tried destroying a parka in a log burner and found that metal fittings (presumably zippers, snaps, etc.) remained. This is the sort of experiment that a competent, objective investigation should have performed.
” I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases” Isn’t that conjecture?
-
Most people (myself included) want guilty individuals to be punished in a way that is commensurate with their crimes and want innocent individuals to be exonerated. If Luke Mitchell's conviction were a wrongful one, then a second family was destroyed.
That’s immaterial to the point I was making.
-
Yes, there was about nine people who testified to LM owning a parka before the murder, Vertigo, I was refering more to the witnesses on Newbattle Road on the day of the murder however.
Anyway, thinking about it, the parka jacket isn't just part of the LM case, the parka jacket 'IS' the LM case, from the prosecution side anyway.
Without the parka, or to be precise 'murder clothing with DNA linked to the murder scene' beloging to LM there could be no case against him, no case at all!
Lets look at the facts. On the day of the murder Luke Mitchell claimed he wore the same clothing all day, and he was certainly seen at school, by the boys at the Abbey and later on by the search party and police in those clothes.
Therefore, the prosecution case is that LM changed clothing before and after the murder, ie., from school clothes to parka, then back to school clothes. Does this mean the murder was pre-medditated if LM was the killer?
No fit of rage over girl friends then?
No matter!
Anyway, I will ask again, how many who met LM on a regular basis testified that he owned a parka pre-murder?
What about any of the Jones's, the moped boys, Alice Walker, [where Jodi/Luke often met or mucked about I believe] ? Why didn't any of them recall a parka?
Are any of the parka witnesses credible? Mr Ramage certainly wasn't sure, he didn't even get the colour right. The boy in the woods wasn't much cop either.
Anyway, the thing is, if you believe for one moment that the two bike boys who testified that they saw LM standing by Barondale cottages while wearing his Bomber jacket were correct, then you more or less believe in Luke Mitchells innocence!
You see, if the two bike boys saw Luke in his Bomber, then Flem/Walsh, Heatlie, and the o'sullivans almost certainly saw Luke in said Bomber too!
You see,realistically there was no time for Luke to go home and change between any of the sightings on Newbattle Road, hence all the witnesses saw LM in the same clothing, yes?
Hence, if you think the bike boys, who incidentally were the only witnesses on NB Road who knew Luke, did see LM in his Bomber then logically you must have reasonable doubt of his guilt!
It also follows that if the bike boys saw LM in Bomber, then Andrina Bryson saw someone else at the other end of the path in a fishing style jacket, and not Luke!
So, if the bike boys saw LM in Bomber, then the only other guilt scenario available is that LM had already been home and changed after the murder before being seen on Newbattle Road around 5.40 by Flem/Walsh.
Is that possible?
Have you any doubt of Luke's guilt yet, Vertigo?
I’m sorry but I found that virtually impossible to follow, and you lost me when you claimed he changed out of school clothes to parka and back again.
-
Someone on this board, possibly MA, suggested that he was forensically aware. He was forensically examined from head to toes shins, and this did not produce anything. That would be a remarkable clean up.
He was covered from head to toe in baggy clothing, the army parka with hood covering about 70% of his body. The forensics in this case concluded that Jodi had had her throat slit from behind and that the blood spurted forward, away from the assailant. Therefore, no, LM wouldn't necessarily have been covered in blood like many people erroneously conclude. However, the Mitchells knew that there were likely blood traces from Jodi on that big parka jacket and so had to destroy it. The parka took the brunt of any DNA traces due to its size and volume, so LM would not have had to wash his body at all. Interestingly, one of the boys he met with at the abbey that night said he was more cleaner and less unkempt than normal, suggesting he had cleaned himself up (their transcript has yet to be uploaded, so it will be interesting to read what exactly they said about LM's appearance that night).
-
You make some valid points, but I would've thought that there was more of a chance of LM being noticed in smaller towns and villages that were nearer or within travelling distance to his home in Newbattle (eg, Dalkeith, Newtongrange, Bonnyrigg, Livingston). Surely there was a greater chance of refuge and anonymity in a big city such as Edinburgh? For example, when people go on the run, aren't they more likely to flee to big cities such as London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and so on? These big cities offering a better chance of a fugitive not being found, a better chance of integrating without drawing attention to themselves, a better chance of employment, and so on? With a complex circumstantial case such as this one, there will always be supposition, if, buts or maybes, and that to me (and, I suspect, to a lot of people) is very interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought LM, regardless of how regular a customer he was at certain shops in a big city, would have been noticed; shops in big cities have more staff, bigger rotas, more changes in staff, and so on? How does SL know how often LM shopped in Flip? How many visits to a shop constitutes being regarded as a regular customer? The only reason LM was spotted in Flip on 08.07.03 was down to pure chance: a staff member who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at, spotted him in the shop with CM on 08.07.03. She told her manager (a guy called Colin) and he called the police, and hence why the FLO Michelle Lindsay and police were waiting at the Mitchell family home when they returned from their shopping trip in Edinburgh on 08.07.03; it seems the staffmember who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at (LM didn't know who she was either) scuppered the Mitchells' insidious plan to replace the old parka with a new one and make out that the new one was the old one and that there only ever was one parka all along. How very crafty, eh? But, by sheer chance and luck, a Flip staff member recognised LM and her evidence was part of the prosecution's circumstantial case that got LM convicted for murder.
And why would the Mitchells hide away and walk on egg shells immediately after the murder? Surely, that would make them appear suspicious? The Mitchells had to act as normal as possible so people would not suspect them of anything, and LM was a psychopath and narcissist, swanning around loving the attention as a murder suspect (literally boasting to his mates that he was a murder suspect) and out partying in night clubs in Edinburgh mere days after the murder with not a care in the world, having new girlfriends within weeks of the murder. The Mitchells were forensically aware and knew that they had destroyed the one item that could tie LM to the murder: the khaki green army parka with German army badges on the sleeves. The Mitchells thought they'd gotten away with murder -- until that very rude awakening on the morning of 14.04.04.
Yes, a very good informative post again, Mr Apples! But again,mainly speculation as to LM being the killer.
-
I’m sorry but I found that virtually impossible to follow, and you lost me when you claimed he changed out of school clothes to parka and back again.
Ha ha! I do my best, Vertigo!
The changing clothes part is easy, he went home from school on the day of the murder in his 'school clothes' including Bomber jacket. He must then have changed into parka [ and other clothing?] before setting off to kill Jodi, then once he got home around 6.30 he burned the parka[and other clothing?] then Luke changed back into school clothing and Bomber before meeting the boys at the Abbey around 7.00.
Make any sense, Vertigo?
Its the prosecution claim surely?
-
Ha ha! I do my best, Vertigo!
The changing clothes part is easy, he went home from school on the day of the murder in his 'school clothes' including Bomber jacket. He must then have changed into parka [ and other clothing?] before setting off to kill Jodi, then once he got home around 6.30 he burned the parka[and other clothing?] then Luke changed back into school clothing and Bomber before meeting the boys at the Abbey around 7.00.
Make any sense, Vertigo?
Its the prosecution claim surely?
Sounds plausible though I doubt he had time to burn the parka early evening. That happened later according to witnesses did it not?
-
Sounds plausible though I doubt he had time to burn the parka early evening. That happened later according to witnesses did it not?
Well obviously I dont think any clothing was burned at all, Vertigo.
But if I was burning incriminating evidence, it would be as quick as possible, I know that!
-
That’s immaterial to the point I was making.
My second sentence maybe, but my first sentence? Please explain.
-
” I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases” Isn’t that conjecture?
No.
-
Well obviously I dont think any clothing was burned at all, Vertigo.
But if I was burning incriminating evidence, it would be as quick as possible, I know that!
But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?
-
My second sentence maybe, but my first sentence? Please explain.
My point I thought was self-explanatory. Mitchell fans have no coherent alternative suspect but throw accusations out willy nilly on any number of other individuals linked to the family or the area, it doesn’t seem to matter who just so long as it diverts the discussion away from their man and sows seeds of suspicion elsewhere (despite the absence of any actual concrete evidence of their involvement).
-
No.
So when you say you suspect something what you mean is you’re actually making a statement of fact?
-
But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?
Fire reported at different times of the evening.
-
Someone on this board, possibly MA, suggested that he was forensically aware. He was forensically examined from head to toes shins, and this did not produce anything. That would be a remarkable clean up.
Fallacy, he was not "forensically examined from head to shins" As MA points out, as have others, as did the prof. If someone is covered it's what they have on that takes the brunt of any contamination. But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.
-
You make some valid points, but I would've thought that there was more of a chance of LM being noticed in smaller towns and villages that were nearer or within travelling distance to his home in Newbattle (eg, Dalkeith, Newtongrange, Bonnyrigg, Livingston). Surely there was a greater chance of refuge and anonymity in a big city such as Edinburgh? For example, when people go on the run, aren't they more likely to flee to big cities such as London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and so on? These big cities offering a better chance of a fugitive not being found, a better chance of integrating without drawing attention to themselves, a better chance of employment, and so on? With a complex circumstantial case such as this one, there will always be supposition, if, buts or maybes, and that to me (and, I suspect, to a lot of people) is very interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought LM, regardless of how regular a customer he was at certain shops in a big city, would have been noticed; shops in big cities have more staff, bigger rotas, more changes in staff, and so on? How does SL know how often LM shopped in Flip? How many visits to a shop constitutes being regarded as a regular customer? The only reason LM was spotted in Flip on 08.07.03 was down to pure chance: a staff member who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at, spotted him in the shop with CM on 08.07.03. She told her manager (a guy called Colin) and he called the police, and hence why the FLO Michelle Lindsay and police were waiting at the Mitchell family home when they returned from their shopping trip in Edinburgh on 08.07.03; it seems the staffmember who knew Jodi but didn't know LM other than to look at (LM didn't know who she was either) scuppered the Mitchells' insidious plan to replace the old parka with a new one and make out that the new one was the old one and that there only ever was one parka all along. How very crafty, eh? But, by sheer chance and luck, a Flip staff member recognised LM and her evidence was part of the prosecution's circumstantial case that got LM convicted for murder.
And why would the Mitchells hide away and walk on egg shells immediately after the murder? Surely, that would make them appear suspicious? The Mitchells had to act as normal as possible so people would not suspect them of anything, and LM was a psychopath and narcissist, swanning around loving the attention as a murder suspect (literally boasting to his mates that he was a murder suspect) and out partying in night clubs in Edinburgh mere days after the murder with not a care in the world, having new girlfriends within weeks of the murder. The Mitchells were forensically aware and knew that they had destroyed the one item that could tie LM to the murder: the khaki green army parka with German army badges on the sleeves. The Mitchells thought they'd gotten away with murder -- until that very rude awakening on the morning of 14.04.04.
Why would a shop manager think it at all suspicious that a customer, even Luke, was buying clothes after a murder?
Aren’t individuals close to a murder victim allowed to buy clothes?
It’s funny the only source I can find for the ‘Colin’ episode is from a site called pieandbovril and the source seems to write without paragraphs in precisely the same way as you MA.
-
But we know the fire happened later that evening, prior to the body having been discovered no?
Well apparently Mrs Frankland saw/smelt smoke between 6.30-7.30 for a start, Vertigo.
Then the Franklands smelt smoke coming in at their kitchen window around ten, and Mr Ramage saw smoke/flames around this time too.
-
Fire reported at different times of the evening.
Indeed it was which begs the question why? Surely it would be more prudent to burn the clothes as early as they could? Surely burning anything at 10pm would raise more suspicion than earlier in the evening? Why start burning, stop then start again? Why invite David High to his house while Luke knew that his murder garb was being burned?
So many questions!
-
” I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases” Isn’t that conjecture?
A manager of a Walmart (2000-2018) wrote, "In theory modern accounting and point of sales systems make inventory tracking easier than it ever was in the past. Inventory coming in is scanned and entered into inventory. Then when an item is bought it is scanned and taken out of inventory. Then the system orders more based on how fast each item is selling." I have read that point of sale data is saved for a minimum of twelve months. My experience with cash sales in a second hand store is that they were recorded on a duplicating tablet. I received one of the copies. If one did not record each sale, how would one know whether he or she had taken in the correct amount of revenue?
-
Fallacy, he was not "forensically examined from head to shins" As MA points out, as have others, as did the prof. If someone is covered it's what they have on that takes the brunt of any contamination. But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.
His clothing was confiscated. His hair was examined. His fingernails were scraped and nothing of significance was found. One or more injuries to his shins was described. When Professor Busuttil was later asked about the possibility that blood was not transferred to the murderer, he said that it was highly unlikely that it was not.
-
It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.
Can you provide evidence that Mitchell's supporters are trying to pin the crime on someone without being fussed about who it is? Can you provide evidence that they consider Luke to be a darling? Here is an alternative hypothesis: Luke's supporters think that this was a miscarriage of justice.
-
My point I thought was self-explanatory. Mitchell fans have no coherent alternative suspect but throw accusations out willy nilly on any number of other individuals linked to the family or the area, it doesn’t seem to matter who just so long as it diverts the discussion away from their man and sows seeds of suspicion elsewhere (despite the absence of any actual concrete evidence of their involvement).
There was DNA from someone else on Jodi's body. There was an individual close to Jodi who was rumored to be violent. Yet this misses the bigger question: There does not have to be an alternative suspect, and this conviction may still be unsafe. Referring to people who think that this is, or that this may be, a wrongful conviction as "Mitchell fans" does not advance the discussion, shall we say.
-
His clothing was confiscated. His hair was examined. His fingernails were scraped and nothing of significance was found. One or more injuries to his shins was described. IIRC when Professor Busuttil was asked about the transfer of blood to the murderer, he said that it was quite likely.
See how easily that was exposed, the fallacy that is. The utter nonsense that he was forensically examined from head to shins. Indeed the prof did say that would happen if the person was not covered. One is not going to have areas of themselves contaminated if those areas are not exposed to the elements. That is simple logic.
-
See how easily that was exposed, the fallacy that is. The utter nonsense that he was forensically examined from head to shins. Indeed the prof did say that would happen if the person was not covered. One is not going to have areas of themselves contaminated if those areas are not exposed to the elements. That is simple logic.
"Donald Findlay QC, defending, asked if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Mr Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Mitchell, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. "That is so," agreed the professor." Dr. Kranti Hiremath, a forensic medical examiner, performed the exam.
EDT
Craig Dobbie stated, "I also caused the witness DC Bowsher to be informed that he should, on a voluntary basis, obtain the now accused Luke Mitchell's clothing and mobile telephone and have him medically examined by a Forensic Medical Advisor." It has been said that Luke Mitchell was photographed as part of this examination.
-
He was covered from head to toe in baggy clothing, the army parka with hood covering about 70% of his body. The forensics in this case concluded that Jodi had had her throat slit from behind and that the blood spurted forward, away from the assailant. Therefore, no, LM wouldn't necessarily have been covered in blood like many people erroneously conclude. However, the Mitchells knew that there were likely blood traces from Jodi on that big parka jacket and so had to destroy it. The parka took the brunt of any DNA traces due to its size and volume, so LM would not have had to wash his body at all. Interestingly, one of the boys he met with at the abbey that night said he was more cleaner and less unkempt than normal, suggesting he had cleaned himself up (their transcript has yet to be uploaded, so it will be interesting to read what exactly they said about LM's appearance that night).
My understanding is that there were several injuries to Jodi's body that would have produced blood loss, not just those to her throat. Derek Scrimger indicated that the if the killer removed Jodi's clothing after death, then the killer would likely have been bloodstained. Professor Busuttil said that it would have been quite unlikely for there not to have been blood transfer to the killer. It was not determined whether the killer were right- or left-handed. Can you offer specific testimony that ruled out everything but her throat having been slit from behind?
EDT
From an interview with Professor Busuttil: "This girl would have had in her about 5 to 5.5 litres of blood. Most of which has left the body before she died. Now we are not talking of a few drops. We are talking of litres of blood. Therefore, if there was this intimate contact one would have expected some of the blood of the deceased to have transferred itself onto a person who was assaulting her.”
-
But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.
Citation, please.
-
A manager of a Walmart (2000-2018) wrote, "In theory modern accounting and point of sales systems make inventory tracking easier than it ever was in the past. Inventory coming in is scanned and entered into inventory. Then when an item is bought it is scanned and taken out of inventory. Then the system orders more based on how fast each item is selling." I have read that point of sale data is saved for a minimum of twelve months. My experience with cash sales in a second hand store is that they were recorded on a duplicating tablet. I received one of the copies. If one did not record each sale, how would one know whether he or she had taken in the correct amount of revenue?
Apart from spectacularly missing the point (again!) what Wal-Mart does and what happened in some random second hand shop in America does not actually prove that some random shop in Scotland kept detailed receipt records explicitly stating 1 x green khaki parka sold to Mr Luke Mitchell on it. When I last bought something in a vintage shop I get a bog standard till receipt with the date and the amount on it with a department code, so like I say - conjecture .
-
Can you provide evidence that Mitchell's supporters are trying to pin the crime on someone without being fussed about who it is? Can you provide evidence that they consider Luke to be a darling? Here is an alternative hypothesis: Luke's supporters think that this was a miscarriage of justice.
Just read this forum and you will find the evidence. I have personally interacted with one (highly aggressive) individual on here who was quite happy to pin the blame on anyone else - the boys on mopeds, Jodi’s brother, some dead guy, anyone would do apart from the guy he was furiously defending. You all are extremely protective and defensive of his behaviour prior to the crime and afterwards too, downplaying his a n t i social traits, his acknowledged satanism, bleating about how he was only a child and claiming that kids just don’t do murders like that etc. Of course you all have sympathy and therefore a soft spot for this deeply unpleasant individual. BTW I am expressing my opinions of what I have observed, I don’t have to provide evidence, we are not in a court of law and you are not a defence lawyer so please dial down the interrogations.
-
There was DNA from someone else on Jodi's body. There was an individual close to Jodi who was rumored to be violent. Yet this misses the bigger question: There does not have to be an alternative suspect, and this conviction may still be unsafe. Referring to people who think that this is, or that this may be, a wrongful conviction as "Mitchell fans" does not advance the discussion, shall we say.
“A "fan" in this context refers to a person who is a devoted admirer or supporter of a person, sport, team, hobby, or other interest” - Mitchell has many devoted supporters aka fans.
-
"Donald Findlay QC, defending, asked if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Mr Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Mitchell, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. "That is so," agreed the professor." Dr. Kranti Hiremath, a forensic medical examiner, examined him.
EDT
Craig Dobbie stated, "I also caused the witness DC Bowsher to be informed that he should, on a voluntary basis, obtain the now accused Luke Mitchell's clothing and mobile telephone and have him medically examined by a Forensic Medical Advisor." It has been said that Luke Mitchell was photographed as part of this examination.
Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they? Now I would like you to put up the original forensic reports from the samples taken from Mitchell that morning? If his chief enablers continuously bleat about the same things then that indicates the backbone of what is there. Such as hair sample, nail samples, appearance noted, hair that "appeared" unwashed. But absolutely nothing of what was in the forensic report pertaining to that hair sample? The infamous blood sample, the blatant lie of stating that LM had not been smoking cannabis the evening before, that he could not have been the person smoking cannabis with Jodi Jones around t-time. He had been smoking throughout that day and evening.
Naturally a qualified person would be the one to take any samples, does not equate to having samples taken from all over his person. Were any samples taken from his genitals? I am genuinely interested here, because that would be something taken in an extensive forensic examination, don't you agree? So again, pop up the original reports intact. Rather than just confirming again by the above which you put, that he had not been extensively forensically examined by having samples taken from everywhere.
-
Just read this forum and you will find the evidence. I have personally interacted with one (highly aggressive) individual on here who was quite happy to pin the blame on anyone else - the boys on mopeds, Jodi’s brother, some dead guy, anyone would do apart from the guy he was furiously defending. You all are extremely protective and defensive of his behaviour prior to the crime and afterwards too, downplaying his a n t i social traits, his acknowledged satanism, bleating about how he was only a child and claiming that kids just don’t do murders like that etc. Of course you all have sympathy and therefore a soft spot for this deeply unpleasant individual. BTW I am expressing my opinions of what I have observed, I don’t have to provide evidence, we are not in a court of law and you are not a defence lawyer so please dial down the interrogations.
Chris has also inferred previously of his list of suspects in order of preference. Not just one, but a list of them. Hypocritical to say the least. Very much preaches that which he does not practice himself. The further hypocrisy I thought had well been put to bed, demanding of others what they have never demanded from those they blindly put trust in before and still do?
-
Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they? Now I would like you to put up the original forensic reports from the samples taken from Mitchell that morning? If his chief enablers continuously bleat about the same things then that indicates the backbone of what is there. Such as hair sample, nail samples, appearance noted, hair that "appeared" unwashed. But absolutely nothing of what was in the forensic report pertaining to that hair sample? The infamous blood sample, the blatant lie of stating that LM had not been smoking cannabis the evening before, that he could not have been the person smoking cannabis with Jodi Jones around t-time. He had been smoking throughout that day and evening.
Naturally a qualified person would be the one to take any samples, does not equate to having samples taken from all over his person. Were any samples taken from his genitals? I am genuinely interested here, because that would be something taken in an extensive forensic examination, don't you agree? So again, pop up the original reports intact. Rather than just confirming again by the above which you put, that he had not been extensively forensically examined by having samples taken from everywhere.
Of course these are all samples that should have been taken. Are you saying that the investigators were incompetent from the get go?
-
Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they?
Parky41,
If you want to use an idiosyncratic (and rather silly) definition for a phrase, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
-
Apart from spectacularly missing the point (again!) what Wal-Mart does and what happened in some random second hand shop in America does not actually prove that some random shop in Scotland kept detailed receipt records explicitly stating 1 x green khaki parka sold to Mr Luke Mitchell on it. When I last bought something in a vintage shop I get a bog standard till receipt with the date and the amount on it with a department code, so like I say - conjecture .
Do shops in Scotland not need to keep track of their inventory or their incoming funds? Your argument ignores the obvious.
I am sorry to say that I did get your initial point, which was to bandy unfounded accusations against the bulk of Mitchell's supporters. The parsimonious explanation for their support is that most of Mitchell's defenders believe that this is/may be a wrongful conviction, in which case it is a multiple injustice.
-
Indeed it was which begs the question why? Surely it would be more prudent to burn the clothes as early as they could? Surely burning anything at 10pm would raise more suspicion than earlier in the evening? Why start burning, stop then start again? Why invite David High to his house while Luke knew that his murder garb was being burned?
So many questions!
Yes, so many questions without logical answers, Faith.
And didn't Luke make a call to his mothers landline around 6.40 too?
-
Parky41,
If you want to use an idiosyncratic (and rather silly) definition for a phrase, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
Alas, sarcasm is not for everyone, I get that. His appearance being noted will have been all over Chris, they wouldn't just stop at his shins.
-
Do shops in Scotland not need to keep track of their inventory or their incoming funds? Your argument ignores the obvious.
I am sorry to say that I did get your initial point, which was to bandy unfounded accusations against the bulk of Mitchell's supporters. The parsimonious explanation for their support is that most of Mitchell's defenders believe that this is/may be a wrongful conviction, in which case it is a multiple injustice.
No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts. My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it. The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah” When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of. Here is that part of your post again:
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
Hopefully that clears that point up.
The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal. Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club? They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell, the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.
-
No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts. My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it. The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah” When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of. Here is that part of your post again:
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
Hopefully that clears that point up.
The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal. Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club? They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell, the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.
-
Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.
Do you think a visiting serial killer would have been familiar with this woodland path? Did you have a particular serial killer in mind?
You see, this is an example of what I mean. Throwing in random serial killers into the mix with literally not a smidgeon of evidence to support the theory. Anyone will do just so long as it ain’t Mitchell!
Did you ever consider the possibility that Mitchell murdered Jodi, Joe?
-
Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.
I wonder if the individual who perpetrated the crimes that Andrew Malkinson was convicted of was local? The path was not hidden so I’m not sure why it’s being suggested that only a local would know would have known where it was and while I’m sure that the murderer wished to do harm to a female, I’d wager that’s as far as his plan went.
-
Do you think a visiting serial killer would have been familiar with this woodland path? Did you have a particular serial killer in mind?
You see, this is an example of what I mean. Throwing in random serial killers into the mix with literally not a smidgeon of evidence to support the theory. Anyone will do just so long as it ain’t Mitchell!
Did you ever consider the possibility that Mitchell murdered Jodi, Joe?
It will probably take a number of posts to fully answer your questiond, Vertigo!
Firstly, the reason I mention visiting killer is that the murder has all the hallmarks of an 'experienced looking killer'.
This has been pointed out to me by others on other forums, and to be honest it is always at the back of my mind.
It just seems a very well planned and executed crime for a first time killer as it were.
I mean, we have LM at home getting a number of texts from Jodi between 4,30-4.38 telling him that she can meet up, that her grounding has been lifted, then, according to the police, within 16 minutes he has decided to kill Jodi, changed his clothes and travelled to the Easthouses end of RDP where he is seen by a passing Andrina Bryson at 4.54.
Quite a feat to start with, Vertigo.
So, i'm trying to answer your question, 'did you ever consider the possibility that Luke murdered Jodi'? and the answer is obviously yes! Of cousre I thought LM was guilty like everyone else, but then programmes like 'the devils own' and 'Murder in a small town' made me go, mmmm! thats interesting! And like so many others started to look more closely into the case before deciding which side to take.
And for me, like so many others, there just didn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure that LM was the killer.
Indeed when you looked at what the police were claiming there just didn't seem to be enough time for Luke to carry out the murder, not to mention the lack of bloodied clothing or any other forensic evidence.
And to be honest, the prosecution scenario just doesn't make a lot of sense, claiming that LM loitered about on Newbattle Road in his murder clothes for almost an hour after the murder for all to see before going home, why?
It does however make sense to wonder about on NB Road in his Bomber jacket waiting for Jodi to appear after Luke had his supper.
Anyway, there just isn't enough tangible evidence for me to conclude that LM was the killer, Vertigo.
-
I wonder if the individual who perpetrated the crimes that Andrew Malkinson was convicted of was local? The path was not hidden so I’m not sure why it’s being suggested that only a local would know would have known where it was and while I’m sure that the murderer wished to do harm to a female, I’d wager that’s as far as his plan went.
And it is worth remembering that a school was nearby too, Faith.
Not sure about the killer in the Malkinson case.
-
It will probably take a number of posts to fully answer your questiond, Vertigo!
Firstly, the reason I mention visiting killer is that the murder has all the hallmarks of an 'experienced looking killer'.
This has been pointed out to me by others on other forums, and to be honest it is always at the back of my mind.
It just seems a very well planned and executed crime for a first time killer as it were.
I mean, we have LM at home getting a number of texts from Jodi between 4,30-4.38 telling him that she can meet up, that her grounding has been lifted, then, according to the police, within 16 minutes he has decided to kill Jodi, changed his clothes and travelled to the Easthouses end of RDP where he is seen by a passing Andrina Bryson at 4.54.
Quite a feat to start with, Vertigo.
So, i'm trying to answer your question, 'did you ever consider the possibility that Luke murdered Jodi'? and the answer is obviously yes! Of cousre I thought LM was guilty like everyone else, but then programmes like 'the devils own' and 'Murder in a small town' made me go, mmmm! thats interesting! And like so many others started to look more closely into the case before deciding which side to take.
And for me, like so many others, there just didn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure that LM was the killer.
Indeed when you looked at what the police were claiming there just didn't seem to be enough time for Luke to carry out the murder, not to mention the lack of bloodied clothing or any other forensic evidence.
And to be honest, the prosecution scenario just doesn't make a lot of sense, claiming that LM loitered about on Newbattle Road in his murder clothes for almost an hour after the murder for all to see before going home, why?
It does however make sense to wonder about on NB Road in his Bomber jacket waiting for Jodi to appear after Luke had his supper.
Anyway, there just isn't enough tangible evidence for me to conclude that LM was the killer, Vertigo.
Fair enough and thanks for your repy. I’m not sufficiently au fait with the minute by minute timeline to add any further comment at this stage but I’ll be sure to read up about it.
I would question your conclusion that the murder had to be well planned and executed however or that it had all the hallmarks of an experienced killer. What are the hallmarks of a poorly executed or inexperienced murder?
-
No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts. My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it. The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah” When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of. Here is that part of your post again:
I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be. There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith. I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate. Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.
Hopefully that clears that point up.
The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal. Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club? They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter. Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell, the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.
Your choice of words is imprecise. A conjecture is a statement offered without evidence. A hypothesis is a statement that is open to verification or falsification by evidence. I offered a hypothesis, and I provided evidence. You are free to reject the evidence that I offered, just as I am free to argue that your rejection is poorly reasoned. Now do you see the difference?
It may help to put the issue of a possible receipt into the context of the case. The prosecution does not have objective, incontrovertible evidence of Luke Mitchell having or wearing a parka prior to the murder, such as receipt or CCTV footage. Is it possible that a parka was purchased and no receipt ever generated? Yes, but it is unlikely in my judgement and experience. What it has, eyewitness testimony, is debatable regarding its probative value for reasons which I stated some time ago. The burden to prove its existence prior to the murder falls on the prosecution. The lack of a receipt does not prove Mr. Mitchell's innocence; it means that the case is weaker without it than it would be with it. The defenders of the safety of this conviction would rather engage in pretzel logic, than acknowledge this or other weaknesses in the case.
Of course there are alternative persons of interest, but reasonable minds may list them in different orders. However, let me rephrase something that I said earlier. For some people the case against Luke Mitchell fails to clear the BARD standard with or without alternative suspects. For instance, some commenters elsewhere think that the timeline is too tight for Mr. Mitchell to have done this crime. For this reason alone, your statement is not an accurate depiction of those who are skeptical that this conviction is a safe one. Other reasons may yet occur to you.
-
Your choice of words is imprecise. A conjecture is a statement offered without evidence. A hypothesis is a statement that is open to verification or falsification by evidence. I offered a hypothesis, and I provided evidence. You are free to reject the evidence that I offered, just as I am free to argue that your rejection is poorly reasoned. Now do you see the difference?
It may help to put the issue of a possible receipt into the context of the case. The prosecution does not have objective, incontrovertible evidence of Luke Mitchell having or wearing a parka prior to the murder, such as receipt or CCTV footage. Is it possible that a parka was purchased and no receipt ever generated? Yes, but it is unlikely in my judgement and experience. What it has, eyewitness testimony, is debatable regarding its probative value for reasons which I stated some time ago. The burden to prove its existence prior to the murder falls on the prosecution. The lack of a receipt does not prove Mr. Mitchell's innocence; it means that the case is weaker without it than it would be with it. The defenders of the safety of this conviction would rather engage in pretzel logic, than acknowledge this or other weaknesses in the case.
Of course there are alternative persons of interest, but reasonable minds may list them in different orders. However, let me rephrase something that I said earlier. For some people the case against Luke Mitchell fails to clear the BARD standard with or without alternative suspects. For instance, some commenters elsewhere think that the timeline is too tight for Mr. Mitchell to have done this crime. For this reason alone, your statement is not an accurate depiction of those who are skeptical that this conviction is a safe one. Other reasons may yet occur to you.
1)You’re playing semantics, boring, not interested in playing that game. 2) what evidence have you offered, and of what? 3) a receipt may or may not have proved Mitchell once purchased a parka but you would have be en sending the police on a fool’s errand looking for one. Which shops? In which towns? Going back how far? What if the parka was purchased with cash? Just how much time and resources would you have thrown at this fool’s errand which was quite unnecessary as there were a stack of witnesses prepared to swear on oath that Mitchell owned one prior to the murder? The police secured a successful conviction so point proven. 4) My opinion is based on what I have observed and experienced on this forum. You obviously haven’t read the posts I have read so are in no position to tell me my opinion is inaccurate.
-
Fair enough and thanks for your repy. I’m not sufficiently au fait with the minute by minute timeline to add any further comment at this stage but I’ll be sure to read up about it.
I would question your conclusion that the murder had to be well planned and executed however or that it had all the hallmarks of an experienced killer. What are the hallmarks of a poorly executed or inexperienced murder?
Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house, nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.
-
Why would a shop manager think it at all suspicious that a customer, even Luke, was buying clothes after a murder?
Aren’t individuals close to a murder victim allowed to buy clothes?
It’s funny the only source I can find for the ‘Colin’ episode is from a site called pieandbovril and the source seems to write without paragraphs in precisely the same way as you MA.
Maybe the news reports at the time (and media in general) reported heavily on LM's clothing and missing parka, and the staff member who (by sheer chance) knew Jodi told her boss (Colin Proctor) and they decided to phone the police. There's a very strong chance that the girl who knew Jodi was following the case very closely from day 1 (and there's a good chance Colin the manager was, too; it was obviously a major and internationally notorious case, dominating domestic news for a couple of years continually). Also, LM had a strange aura about him (eg, a lot of his peers claiming he was a weirdo and loner, and the whole business of no emotion emanating from him on the night of the murder when others were screaming and crying in shock & grief, all hell breaking loose at the grim discovery) and perhaps they detected this and it was also a factor in their decision to call the police. I can't recall how I came to know about Colin. I think, initially, the WTF (What They Found) Youtube channel drew my attention to him, and then latterly the Innocence Fraud blog that Nicholas often cited had info on him giving the police the tip-off re the parka. We'll just have to wait until his transcript is uploaded. Not everything about this case is in the public domain (which, alas, can be exploited and manipulated by SL & SF).
Pie and bovril site??? I must profess ignorance on that one! Never heard of it, ol' gal.
-
Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house, nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.
This is a point that has always puzzled me. Luke knew that Jodi’s phone was broken and she was using her mum’s so why text her when the texts could be retrieved? Why not simply phone her? Further what happened to the texts? Were they deleted by Jodi so her mum didn’t find out that she was intending to walk the path alone? Did the police try to receive the texts? How could Luke know that the texts wouldn’t be retrieved and so catching him out in a lie.
Again more questions than answers.
-
This is a point that has always puzzled me. Luke knew that Jodi’s phone was broken and she was using her mum’s so why text her when the texts could be retrieved? Why not simply phone her? Further what happened to the texts? Were they deleted by Jodi so her mum didn’t find out that she was intending to walk the path alone? Did the police try to receive the texts? How could Luke know that the texts wouldn’t be retrieved and so catching him out in a lie.
Again more questions than answers.
I have never seen an explanation why the Texts sent to Luke by Jodi couldn't be retrieved from Judith's phone, Faith.
Could there be the distinct chance that they backed up Lukes version of events and therefore had to be hidden or deleted?
No proof of this of course!
-
Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house, nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.
I've, since I took an interest in this case a few years ago, always thought it wasn't premeditated. Now I'm not so sure. LM had a history of violence from a young age (as previously discussed) and a fascination with knives, Satan, death and the macabre from a young age (he even conceded to a journalist that he 'wasn't your average teenager'). Throw copious amounts of Marijuana-smoking into the mix, and a mother who spoiled him and let him do as he pleased, with no father around to discipline him, then I suggest he was a keg waiting to explode. He had talked to friends pre-murder about how easy it would be to kill someone and could imagine himself doing it just for a laugh when stoned. He also knew Newbattle & Easthouses intimately, rural settlements offering plenty of options to commit and get away with murder. And we can also factor in he was due to meet with KT from Kenmore around the same time -- a girl who testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until the murder -- and Jodi was crying that day in classroom. Something was amiss. Wearing layers of clothing that night, too? To trick and confuse eyewitnesses? I think it's possible and feasible it was premeditated. Not 100% sure it was, though.
-
This is a point that has always puzzled me. Luke knew that Jodi’s phone was broken and she was using her mum’s so why text her when the texts could be retrieved? Why not simply phone her? Further what happened to the texts? Were they deleted by Jodi so her mum didn’t find out that she was intending to walk the path alone? Did the police try to receive the texts? How could Luke know that the texts wouldn’t be retrieved and so catching him out in a lie.
Again more questions than answers.
I put it to you that LM's short temper got the better of him and he lost all control for a few minutes (AB spotted them arguing at 1655, saying in court "it did not look like they were there to meet"). Deep down, I don't think LM did pre-plan killing Jodi, and hence why he sent text messages in their exchanges between 1634-1639. I think, when he regained some kind of composure, after he'd already inflicted fatal/near fatal wounds, he knew he had to kill her and get rid of the body. He probably found out right there and then that he enjoyed killing (as he had fantasized about pre-murder) and hence why he was able to think on his feet and give the police the run-around for so long as he did.
As regards text messages being able to be retrieved by police ... I think most carriers get rid of them automatically after they're sent (or within a few hours that same day after being sent). The reason being that the Carriers' servers would not be able to handle the sheer volume of texts and that the servers would continuously crash. I'm pretty sure the police said (in one of their testimonies) that the texts in this case were not retrievable. So, yes, LM got lucky in the respect that Judith had deleted Jodi's texts from her phone (or else Jodi deleted them herself as simply they were private) and that mobile phone carriers did not retain text messages for any amount of time.
But, the really big question is this: why did LM completely wipe out all of his phone records, call logs and text messages while he was in police custody for 6 hours on the morning of 01.07.03? Did his phone have incriminating text messages on it? For example, text messages showing their intentions to meet up that evening?
-
Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house, nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.
Is Mitchell a psychopath? Well judging by the actions he was convicted of we’d have to say that at the very least he was momentarily psychotic or yes, an actual psychopath. Why is this hard to believe? There are numerous examples of teenage killers planning the murder of someone known to them, seemingly giving little thought to the consequences for themselves post murder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Elizabeth_Olten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Skylar_Neese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Brianna_Ghey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tristyn_Bailey
https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-east/news/killer-teenager-holly-newton-convicted-murder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ellie_Gould
-
I wonder if the individual who perpetrated the crimes that Andrew Malkinson was convicted of was local? The path was not hidden so I’m not sure why it’s being suggested that only a local would know would have known where it was and while I’m sure that the murderer wished to do harm to a female, I’d wager that’s as far as his plan went.
That crime occurred in Manchester and involved rape. The victim was not stabbed, mutilated or posed afaik. Apart from that very similar!
-
I've, since I took an interest in this case a few years ago, always thought it wasn't premeditated. Now I'm not so sure. LM had a history of violence from a young age (as previously discussed) and a fascination with knives, Satan, death and the macabre from a young age (he even conceded to a journalist that he 'wasn't your average teenager'). Throw copious amounts of Marijuana-smoking into the mix, and a mother who spoiled him and let him do as he pleased, with no father around to discipline him, then I suggest he was a keg waiting to explode. He had talked to friends pre-murder about how easy it would be to kill someone and could imagine himself doing it just for a laugh when stoned. He also knew Newbattle & Easthouses intimately, rural settlements offering plenty of options to commit and get away with murder. And we can also factor in he was due to meet with KT from Kenmore around the same time -- a girl who testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until the murder -- and Jodi was crying that day in classroom. Something was amiss. Wearing layers of clothing that night, too? To trick and confuse eyewitnesses? I think it's possible and feasible it was premeditated. Not 100% sure it was, though.
Do you mean premeditated for weeks or months, Mr Apples? It could hardly have been premeditated on the day of the murder, as LM couldn't have known that Jodi would be ungrounded at 4.30 that day.
Thats what I was saying, if LM is guilty then he must have decided on the spur of the moment to kill Jodi that day, albeit having had those thoughts in his mind for weeks or months before hand.
But of course, this takes us back to the sheer stupidity of his alleged actions, rushing to kill Jodi with others knowing they were going to meet at that time, ie, Jodi's family. Does this make sense?
Of course, you cover the other option , Mr Apples, of Luke killing Jodi in an unplanned fit of rage about Kim, but if this is the case, why did Luke 'allegedly' change his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi?
You also say that LM found out on the spot that he enjoyed killing Jodi, but again, only a psychopath could have inflicted the horrific post mortem injuries surely?
I dont think there is actually any evidence of Luke being mentally ill in any way, is there?
Anyway, the prosecution claim that LM and Jodi met at the Easthouses end of RDP as witnessesd by Andrina Bryson, yet Jodi's body was not found in that area.
Jodi's body was actually found at the 'v' break, roughly two thirds along RDP in the Newbattle direction.
So again, you could argue that this backs up LM claim of meeting at his mums house in Newballe.
For want of a better description, you could say that Jodi did indeed appear to be heading to Lukes house in Newbattle when she was attacked behind the 'v' break!
Indeed, why would Jodi end up two thirds along RDP if the claim by Judith was that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses?
Isn't the logical answer, that Luke was telling the truth and Jodi was indeed on her way to his house when she was attacked?
It is suggested that Luke/Jodi were arguing when Andrina Bryson saw them and that a blazing row ensued, but if this is the case, Jodi certainly wouldn't be in any mood to go home with Luke for the evening, so how on earth did Luke manage to persuade Jodi to walk two thirds back along the path heading for Newbattle?
The prosecution case simply fails on a lot of points, Mr Apples.
-
Do you mean premeditated for weeks or months, Mr Apples? It could hardly have been premeditated on the day of the murder, as LM couldn't have known that Jodi would be ungrounded at 4.30 that day.
Thats what I was saying, if LM is guilty then he must have decided on the spur of the moment to kill Jodi that day, albeit having had those thoughts in his mind for weeks or months before hand.
But of course, this takes us back to the sheer stupidity of his alleged actions, rushing to kill Jodi with others knowing they were going to meet at that time, ie, Jodi's family. Does this make sense?
Of course, you cover the other option , Mr Apples, of Luke killing Jodi in an unplanned fit of rage about Kim, but if this is the case, why did Luke 'allegedly' change his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi?
You also say that LM found out on the spot that he enjoyed killing Jodi, but again, only a psychopath could have inflicted the horrific post mortem injuries surely?
I dont think there is actually any evidence of Luke being mentally ill in any way, is there?
Anyway, the prosecution claim that LM and Jodi met at the Easthouses end of RDP as witnessesd by Andrina Bryson, yet Jodi's body was not found in that area.
Jodi's body was actually found at the 'v' break, roughly two thirds along RDP in the Newbattle direction.
So again, you could argue that this backs up LM claim of meeting at his mums house in Newballe.
For want of a better description, you could say that Jodi did indeed appear to be heading to Lukes house in Newbattle when she was attacked behind the 'v' break!
Indeed, why would Jodi end up two thirds along RDP if the claim by Judith was that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses?
Isn't the logical answer, that Luke was telling the truth and Jodi was indeed on her way to his house when she was attacked?
It is suggested that Luke/Jodi were arguing when Andrina Bryson saw them and that a blazing row ensued, but if this is the case, Jodi certainly wouldn't be in any mood to go home with Luke for the evening, so how on earth did Luke manage to persuade Jodi to walk two thirds back along the path heading for Newbattle?
The prosecution case simply fails on a lot of points, Mr Apples.
If Luke was expecting to meet up with Jodi that evening and went out to meet her why was he seemingly unconcerned that she never showed up for their meeting?
-
If Luke was expecting to meet up with Jodi that evening and went out to meet her why was he seemingly unconcerned that she never showed up for their meeting?
Well Luke did phone Jodi's house around 5.40 remember, and talked to Alen Ovens.
I dont know why he didn't phone again later, Vertigo.
Luke said he thought Jodi may have met some of her friends or been grounded again, this didn't go down well.
But after all, they were juat kids, and kids can be unreliable I suppose.
I dont know, make of it what you will.
-
Well Luke did phone Jodi's house around 5.40 remember, and talked to Alen Ovens.
I dont know why he didn't phone again later, Vertigo.
Luke said he thought Jodi may have met some of her friends or been grounded again, this didn't go down well.
But after all, they were juat kids, and kids can be unreliable I suppose.
I dont know, make of it what you will.
Was he not hanging round with mates that evening at some point? Did he say anything to them along the lines of “I’ve been stood up” or express any concern about his girlfriend’s no show? Asking because I genuinely don’t know the answer to this btw.
-
so how on earth did Luke manage to persuade Jodi to walk two thirds back along the path heading for Newbattle?
What is your source that it was two thirds along RDP? I've got the exact distances somewhere so will try and look them out later. There is also no evidence that they walked along the RDP and over the V, but along the inner path on the woods side.
EDIT:
Found them - you were out by quite a bit.
From the Jones to the V is 9 mins. From the V to the Mitchell's is 13 mins, so not even halfway yet you've tried to mislead by saying it was two thirds. The V section is exactly halfway time-wise along the RDP but it's uphill from Newbattle end.
All timings by me a few years ago so imagine teenagers could do it quicker.
-
What is your source that it was two thirds along RDP? I've got the exact distances somewhere so will try and look them out later. There is also no evidence that they walked along the RDP and over the V, but along the inner path on the woods side.
It doesn't matter the exact distance or how they got there, the fact is they shouldn't have been there at all ,Ken! Jodi and Luke should have been 'mucking about up here' in Easthouses.
And well do you know this, sir.
-
It doesn't matter the exact distance or how they got there, the fact is they shouldn't have been there at all ,Ken! Jodi and Luke should have been 'mucking about up here' in Easthouses.
And well do you know this, sir.
So why did you say it was two thirds if it's doesn't matter? Are you just making things up to suit your daft arguments?
Do you really think teenagers tell their parents exactly what they're going to be doing? You've just said that teenagers are unreliable earlier today now you say the opposite.
-
So why did you say it was two thirds if it's doesn't matter? Are you just making things up to suit your daft arguments?
Do you really think teenagers tell their parents exactly what they're going to be doing? You've just said that teenagers are unreliable earlier today now you say the opposite.
Ithink there may be a sketch/plan at the beginning of Innocents Betrayed showing RDP and the location of the 'v', Ken!
-
Ithink there may be a sketch/plan at the beginning of Innocents Betrayed showing RDP and the location of the 'v', Ken!
Why would I need a plan from IB when I've walked the route several times? I know where it is and it's not even halfway. Almost as though you are copying SL's distortions and inaccuracies to gain credence.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
Was he not hanging round with mates that evening at some point? Did he say anything to them along the lines of “I’ve been stood up” or express any concern about his girlfriend’s no show? Asking because I genuinely don’t know the answer to this btw.
Brief timeline, Vertigo. [of known facts and 'alleged' sightings]
Jodi texts Luke between 4.30-4.40.
Jodi and Luke 'allegedly' seen by Andrina Bryson at 4.54.
Luke Mitchell 'sllegedly' seen by Flem/Walsh by the gate up from RDP at 5.40-45 [Luke denys being there I think?]
Luke seen by the three push bike boys, Carol Heatlie and possibly the o'sullivans at Barondale cottages between 5.55-6.25 roughly.
Around 7.00 Luke meets David High and two other boys at the Abbey. In answer to your question, when High asked about Jodi, Luke said something like 'Jodi wont be coming tonight'
Luke mucks about with the boys [one went home earlier] until around 9.00 then goes home.
Luke is seen around 10.00 by Mr Frankland walking past their window[ the prosecution suggest LM may have been disposing of the knife at this time]
Smoke or fires seen in the Mitchells backyard between 6.30-10.00.
Judith texts LM about 10.30 roughly, Luke phones back around 10.40 and tells Judith that Jodi didn't 'turn up'.
Judith phones Alice, who heads for RDP with Janine and boyfriend Steven Kelly.
Luke phones Judith again or vice versa, it is decided that Luke will walk to Judiths house using RDP in the hope of finding Jodi.
Around 11.15 roughly, Luke, and the search party meet up at the junction with Lady path I believe?
Alice wants to re-check RDP which Luke had just came up.
Around 11.35 Luke climbs over the 'v' break after 'allegedly' being allerted by his dog 'Mia', and the body is found.
Police are informed and Luke, and Luke only is taken to the police station to be searched and interviewed.
Luke obviously denies killing Jodi, claiming he was at home having supper at 5.15 waiting for Jodi to arrive.
Well thats a rough idea of the timeline anyway, Vertigo!
-
I put it to you that LM's short temper got the better of him and he lost all control for a few minutes (AB spotted them arguing at 1655, saying in court "it did not look like they were there to meet"). Deep down, I don't think LM did pre-plan killing Jodi, and hence why he sent text messages in their exchanges between 1634-1639. I think, when he regained some kind of composure, after he'd already inflicted fatal/near fatal wounds, he knew he had to kill her and get rid of the body. He probably found out right there and then that he enjoyed killing (as he had fantasized about pre-murder) and hence why he was able to think on his feet and give the police the run-around for so long as he did.
As regards text messages being able to be retrieved by police ... I think most carriers get rid of them automatically after they're sent (or within a few hours that same day after being sent). The reason being that the Carriers' servers would not be able to handle the sheer volume of texts and that the servers would continuously crash. I'm pretty sure the police said (in one of their testimonies) that the texts in this case were not retrievable. So, yes, LM got lucky in the respect that Judith had deleted Jodi's texts from her phone (or else Jodi deleted them herself as simply they were private) and that mobile phone carriers did not retain text messages for any amount of time.
But, the really big question is this: why did LM completely wipe out all of his phone records, call logs and text messages while he was in police custody for 6 hours on the morning of 01.07.03? Did his phone have incriminating text messages on it? For example, text messages showing their intentions to meet up that evening?
Firstly yes mobile phone carriers do hold text messages for months and often years.
Secondly please point out to me in the transcripts or the reports of the trial still on the internet where Bryson said that she saw a couple arguing or that Jodi was seen crying that afternoon?
-
What is your source that it was two thirds along RDP? I've got the exact distances somewhere so will try and look them out later. There is also no evidence that they walked along the RDP and over the V, but along the inner path on the woods side.
EDIT:
Found them - you were out by quite a bit.
From the Jones to the V is 9 mins. From the V to the Mitchell's is 13 mins, so not even halfway yet you've tried to mislead by saying it was two thirds. The V section is exactly halfway time-wise along the RDP but it's uphill from Newbattle end.
All timings by me a few years ago so imagine teenagers could do it quicker.
No Ken, I said the 'V' break was simply two thirds along 'RDP'. I didn't mention where it was in relation to either of the houses. I didn't mention how long it took to reach the 'V' from Jodi or Lukes house either.
I am not interested in timings, only the fact that Jodi was murdered so far away from Easthouses where she was supposed to be mucking about.
That, is the point I am making, Kenny.
-
Firstly yes mobile phone carriers do hold text messages for months and often years.
Secondly please point out to me in the transcripts or the reports of the trial still on the internet where Bryson said that she saw a couple arguing or that Jodi was seen crying that afternoon?
On the contrary, didn't Judith say that Jodi was in good spirits when told that she could meet Luke that day,leaving in a very happy mood?
-
Why would I need a plan from IB when I've walked the route several times? I know where it is and it's not even halfway. Almost as though you are copying SL's distortions and inaccuracies to gain credence.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
And I think that you’re trying to deflect.
When did Jodi find out about Kimberly?
At school as suggested by MA? Then why no word of it in her texts to him and why was she so happy when her mum ungrounded her?
At the beginning of the path? Then why go down the path at all with him? If she was ‘mucking about’ in Easthouses there would be no need for her to be on the path.
Or just maybe she had arranged to walk down the path to Newbattle to meet Luke but didn’t want her mum to know that she walking it alone so deleted the texts from her mum’s phone and pretended that she was meeting Luke in Easthouses? No row just a terrible misjudgment that cost Jodi her life.
-
No Ken, I said the 'V' break was simply two thirds along 'RDP'. I didn't mention where it was in relation to either of the houses. I didn't mention how long it took to reach the 'V' from Jodi or Lukes house either.
I am not interested in timings, only the fact that Jodi was murdered so far away from Easthouses where she was supposed to be mucking about.
That, is the point I am making, Kenny.
Now now JB Lean. The V break is exactly halfway along the RDP - so still not two thirds, and is closer to EH than NB. You're basing your argument on what a teenage girl told her mum then said kids are unreliable. There is no logic to any of your posts - its just trolling, much like the serial killer suggestion.
Do you think DF QC would have stood up in court and said he's not interested in timings? If they were supposed to be mucking about in Easthouses why did LM stay at the end of NBA Crescent for over an hour.
-
On the contrary, didn't Judith say that Jodi was in good spirits when told that she could meet Luke that day,leaving in a very happy mood?
Yes she did but unfortunately that doesn’t fit the narrative.
-
Now now JB Lean. The V break is exactly halfway along the RDP - so still not two thirds, and is closer to EH than NB. You're basing your argument on what a teenage girl told her mum then said kids are unreliable. There is no logic to any of your posts - its just trolling, much like the serial killer suggestion.
Do you think DF QC would have stood up in court and said he's not interested in timings? If they were supposed to be mucking about in Easthouses why did LM stay at the end of NBA Crescent for over an hour.
What do you think of Judith’s lack of concern when, if she was to meet Luke in Easthouses, that her daughter wasn’t with him 50 minutes after leaving home? That for me raises huge red flags.
-
And I think that you’re trying to deflect.
When did Jodi find out about Kimberly?
At school as suggested by MA? Then why no word of it in her texts to him and why was she so happy when her mum ungrounded her?
At the beginning of the path? Then why go down the path at all with him? If she was ‘mucking about’ in Easthouses there would be no need for her to be on the path.
Or just maybe she had arranged to walk down the path to Newbattle to meet Luke but didn’t want her mum to know that she walking it alone so deleted the texts from her mum’s phone and pretended that she was meeting Luke in Easthouses? No row just a terrible misjudgment that cost Jodi her life.
I'm not deflecting anything. I'm showing the regularity of JB/SL's need to distort facts, or lie. No idea when [Name removed] found out about KT. My belief is they met at the EH end of the RDP and went down the woods side for a smoke and to talk things over. She/they weren't on the RDP - they went to the area where they had carved their name.
There's a lot of "what if's" in yours and JB Lean's posts - ultimately the jury didn't believe LM/CM's account - one look at the LM police interview and CM's testimony proves it's all lies. His brother never saw him and he was witnessed at both ends of RDP, pre/post murder and 8 people testified in court he had the same jacket pre-murder.
-
I'm not deflecting anything. I'm showing the regularity of JB/SL's need to distort facts, or lie. No idea when [Name removed] found out about KT. My belief is they met at the EH end of the RDP and went down the woods side for a smoke and to talk things over. She/they weren't on the RDP - they went to the area where they had carved their name.
There's a lot of "what if's" in yours and JB Lean's posts - ultimately the jury didn't believe LM/CM's account - one look at the LM police interview and CM's testimony proves it's all lies. His brother never saw him and he was witnessed at both ends of RDP, pre/post murder and 8 people testified in court he had the same jacket pre-murder.
So it doesn’t raise questions in your mind that Bryson’s first couple of statements put her sighting at a couple different time or that her description of the male was not only older than Luke but that she categorically denied that the jacket she saw the youth wearing was not a parka?
Like you I do believe that Fleming and Walsh saw Luke that night, the description of a hip length shiny green jacket certainly sounds like Luke’s bomber jacket, but that they saw him far further down to the abbey than their court testimony suggested. The jogger’s position certainly suggests this.
Shane said he couldn’t be sure if he’d seen him.
The first thing that David High said when giving his testimony was that Luke had a parka after the murder not before. Of course Turnbull took him back to his April statement where he said the opposite but who knows what pressure was put on the young lad to tell the police what they wanted. It will be interesting to see how sure other witnesses were in relation to the parka.
-
Do you mean premeditated for weeks or months, Mr Apples? It could hardly have been premeditated on the day of the murder, as LM couldn't have known that Jodi would be ungrounded at 4.30 that day.
Thats what I was saying, if LM is guilty then he must have decided on the spur of the moment to kill Jodi that day, albeit having had those thoughts in his mind for weeks or months before hand.
But of course, this takes us back to the sheer stupidity of his alleged actions, rushing to kill Jodi with others knowing they were going to meet at that time, ie, Jodi's family. Does this make sense?
Of course, you cover the other option , Mr Apples, of Luke killing Jodi in an unplanned fit of rage about Kim, but if this is the case, why did Luke 'allegedly' change his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi?
You also say that LM found out on the spot that he enjoyed killing Jodi, but again, only a psychopath could have inflicted the horrific post mortem injuries surely?
I dont think there is actually any evidence of Luke being mentally ill in any way, is there?
Anyway, the prosecution claim that LM and Jodi met at the Easthouses end of RDP as witnessesd by Andrina Bryson, yet Jodi's body was not found in that area.
Jodi's body was actually found at the 'v' break, roughly two thirds along RDP in the Newbattle direction.
So again, you could argue that this backs up LM claim of meeting at his mums house in Newballe.
For want of a better description, you could say that Jodi did indeed appear to be heading to Lukes house in Newbattle when she was attacked behind the 'v' break!
Indeed, why would Jodi end up two thirds along RDP if the claim by Judith was that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses?
Isn't the logical answer, that Luke was telling the truth and Jodi was indeed on her way to his house when she was attacked?
It is suggested that Luke/Jodi were arguing when Andrina Bryson saw them and that a blazing row ensued, but if this is the case, Jodi certainly wouldn't be in any mood to go home with Luke for the evening, so how on earth did Luke manage to persuade Jodi to walk two thirds back along the path heading for Newbattle?
The prosecution case simply fails on a lot of points, Mr Apples.
I think it wasn't premeditated, if I was pushed to go with my gut feeling. Premeditation, however, could have been lingering in his subconscious for months, weeks, days -- ready to come to the fore at any moment. I wouldn't rule premeditation out, by any means. I think Parky made an interesting point about what AB saw: she said the male standing at the top of the entrance to RDP had his arms by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to the girl; Parky suggested the male was 'beckoning' the girl to come with him westbound along the RDP to Newbattle, possibly having made up his mind to lure her behind that wall for a joint and murder her there (ie, premeditated). Certainly a plausible theory, but, given the time of evening and the time of year, I think premeditation was unlikely (even though the murder site itself was off the beaten path). But, you're right: it didn't make any sense for him to go out and do what he did, especially as Judith knew he was the only one who was to meet with Jodi that night; that's why I think the 'lost it in a blind rage' theory is more likely. I think they decided to go to the area behind the V away from prying eyes for a quick smoke/joint as it was sometimes used as a rendezvous point at the time for teens to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, etc -- and their falling out at school/argument continued as they were walking down the RDP and LM snapped. (I remember reading somewhere that people testified in court that they thought LM & Jodi had had an argument in school as they had their backs to one another during an interval or luchtime on 30.06.03, which would make sense, since a newspaper article stated that Jodi had her head on the desk with her hands covering it and was crying.) Luke changing clothes before heading out to meet Jodi can be explained away by common sense: most teenagers change out of their school clothes when they get home, especially when they are going out to socialise for the evening; also, it was overcast that day and threatening to rain -- this probably explains why LM opted to wear a jacket with a hood (ie, his parka). The V-break in the wall is literally a mere 10 minute walk from Jodi's home and about 15 minutes from LM's, and LM moved the body 16.3 meters west from the V, out of necessity; where he moved the body to was off the beaten path, amongst many trees, shrubs and foilage (suggesting it was a local person who did it, as only they would know to move the body there, hidden). As for Jodi being persuaded to walk down the path after a row, it was only a teenagers' tiff. Besides, Jodi really liked Luke and he was her first serious boyfriend; she'd even put in her diary that she thought she loved him and would die if he finished with her, so probably had forgiven him and was willing to fight for their relationship. It was LM's disproportionately bad temper that escalated into murder. Just because some professional assessed him as not being mentally ill, doesn't mean he wasn't ; it is not an exact science. Maybe he was only mentally ill during the time he murdered Jodi. As discussed, there were signs he was troubled from as young as 7, and was referred for psychological counselling in both primary school and high school. Also, sometimes, things like murder just cannot be explained and are anomalous and beyond human understanding.
-
I think it wasn't premeditated, if I was pushed to go with my gut feeling. Premeditation, however, could have been lingering in his subconscious for months, weeks, days -- ready to come to the fore at any moment. I wouldn't rule premeditation out, by any means. I think Parky made an interesting point about what AB saw: she said the male standing at the top of the entrance to RDP had his arms by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to the girl; Parky suggested the male was 'beckoning' the girl to come with him westbound along the RDP to Newbattle, possibly having made up his mind to lure her behind that wall for a joint and murder her there (ie, premeditated). Certainly a plausible theory, but, given the time of evening and the time of year, I think premeditation was unlikely (even though the murder site itself was off the beaten path). But, you're right: it didn't make any sense for him to go out and do what he did, especially as Judith knew he was the only one who was to meet with Jodi that night; that's why I think the 'lost it in a blind rage' theory is more likely. I think they decided to go to the area behind the V away from prying eyes for a quick smoke/joint as it was sometimes used as a rendezvous point at the time for teens to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, etc -- and their falling out at school/argument continued as they were walking down the RDP and LM snapped. (I remember reading somewhere that people testified in court that they thought LM & Jodi had had an argument in school as they had their backs to one another during an interval or luchtime on 30.06.03, which would make sense, since a newspaper article stated that Jodi had her head on the desk with her hands covering it and was crying.) Luke changing clothes before heading out to meet Jodi can be explained away by common sense: most teenagers change out of their school clothes when they get home, especially when they are going out to socialise for the evening; also, it was overcast that day and threatening to rain -- this probably explains why LM opted to wear a jacket with a hood (ie, his parka). The V-break in the wall is literally a mere 10 minute walk from Jodi's home and about 15 minutes from LM's, and LM moved the body 16.3 meters west from the V, out of necessity; where he moved the body to was off the beaten path, amongst many trees, shrubs and foilage (suggesting it was a local person who did it, as only they would know to move the body there, hidden). As for Jodi being persuaded to walk down the path after a row, it was only a teenagers' tiff. Besides, Jodi really liked Luke and he was her first serious boyfriend; she'd even put in her diary that she thought she loved him and would die if he finished with her, so probably had forgiven him and was willing to fight for their relationship. It was LM's disproportionately bad temper that escalated into murder. Just because some professional assessed him as not being mentally ill, doesn't mean he wasn't ; it is not an exact science. Maybe he was only mentally ill during the time he murdered Jodi. As discussed, there were signs he was troubled from as young as 7, and was referred for psychological counselling in both primary school and high school. Also, sometimes, things like murder just cannot be explained and are anomalous and beyond human understanding.
Citation please?
-
Citation please?
For which part (s)?
-
I think it wasn't premeditated, if I was pushed to go with my gut feeling. Premeditation, however, could have been lingering in his subconscious for months, weeks, days -- ready to come to the fore at any moment. I wouldn't rule premeditation out, by any means. I think Parky made an interesting point about what AB saw: she said the male standing at the top of the entrance to RDP had his arms by his side and palms outstretched, gesticulating to the girl; Parky suggested the male was 'beckoning' the girl to come with him westbound along the RDP to Newbattle, possibly having made up his mind to lure her behind that wall for a joint and murder her there (ie, premeditated). Certainly a plausible theory, but, given the time of evening and the time of year, I think premeditation was unlikely (even though the murder site itself was off the beaten path). But, you're right: it didn't make any sense for him to go out and do what he did, especially as Judith knew he was the only one who was to meet with Jodi that night; that's why I think the 'lost it in a blind rage' theory is more likely. I think they decided to go to the area behind the V away from prying eyes for a quick smoke/joint as it was sometimes used as a rendezvous point at the time for teens to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, etc -- and their falling out at school/argument continued as they were walking down the RDP and LM snapped. (I remember reading somewhere that people testified in court that they thought LM & Jodi had had an argument in school as they had their backs to one another during an interval or luchtime on 30.06.03, which would make sense, since a newspaper article stated that Jodi had her head on the desk with her hands covering it and was crying.) Luke changing clothes before heading out to meet Jodi can be explained away by common sense: most teenagers change out of their school clothes when they get home, especially when they are going out to socialise for the evening; also, it was overcast that day and threatening to rain -- this probably explains why LM opted to wear a jacket with a hood (ie, his parka). The V-break in the wall is literally a mere 10 minute walk from Jodi's home and about 15 minutes from LM's, and LM moved the body 16.3 meters west from the V, out of necessity; where he moved the body to was off the beaten path, amongst many trees, shrubs and foilage (suggesting it was a local person who did it, as only they would know to move the body there, hidden). As for Jodi being persuaded to walk down the path after a row, it was only a teenagers' tiff. Besides, Jodi really liked Luke and he was her first serious boyfriend; she'd even put in her diary that she thought she loved him and would die if he finished with her, so probably had forgiven him and was willing to fight for their relationship. It was LM's disproportionately bad temper that escalated into murder. Just because some professional assessed him as not being mentally ill, doesn't mean he wasn't ; it is not an exact science. Maybe he was only mentally ill during the time he murdered Jodi. As discussed, there were signs he was troubled from as young as 7, and was referred for psychological counselling in both primary school and high school. Also, sometimes, things like murder just cannot be explained and are anomalous and beyond human understanding.
When did Luke tie Jodi's hands behind her back, Mr Apples, and why?
-
Now now JB Lean. The V break is exactly halfway along the RDP - so still not two thirds, and is closer to EH than NB. You're basing your argument on what a teenage girl told her mum then said kids are unreliable. There is no logic to any of your posts - its just trolling, much like the serial killer suggestion.
Do you think DF QC would have stood up in court and said he's not interested in timings? If they were supposed to be mucking about in Easthouses why did LM stay at the end of NBA Crescent for over an hour.
Exactly half way? Doesn't look like that to me , Ken!
Luke stayed in Newbattle for over an hour because Jodi was going to meet him there, and there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict this.
-
When did Luke tie Jodi's hands behind her back, Mr Apples, and why?
After he murdered her. Used a granny knot (probably learned in the army cadets or from whoever took him fishing and camping; LM loved outdoor and survival pursuits). I suspect he did it before the post-mortem mutilations. Why? Because he was psychopath and narcissist, displaying a form of showmanship and leaving his mark/calling card.
-
For which part (s)?
Apologies this
‘ I remember reading somewhere that people testified in court that they thought LM & Jodi had had an argument in school as they had their backs to one another during an interval or luchtime on 30.06.03, which would make sense, since a newspaper article stated that Jodi had her head on the desk with her hands covering it and was crying.’
-
Exactly half way? Doesn't look like that to me , Ken!
Luke stayed in Newbattle for over an hour because Jodi was going to meet him there, and there is no evidence whatsoever to contradict this.
It's exactly halfway. I've walked RDP a few times, but you've recently said times/distances don't matter so why are you disputing it? Prove otherwise please? Why would LM stay in NB if they were going to be mucking about in EH as you claim? You've contradicted yourself once again.
-
Now now JB Lean. The V break is exactly halfway along the RDP - so still not two thirds, and is closer to EH than NB. You're basing your argument on what a teenage girl told her mum then said kids are unreliable. There is no logic to any of your posts - its just trolling, much like the serial killer suggestion.
Do you think DF QC would have stood up in court and said he's not interested in timings? If they were supposed to be mucking about in Easthouses why did LM stay at the end of NBA Crescent for over an hour.
They really are compulsive liars, clearly an affliction spread amidst the egos. But yes, trolling with the same old nonsense/lies on repeat. The entrance to RDP and the woodland strip are in EH. The entrance to RDP on the other side is from Newbattle road and not actually Newbattle itself. After meeting with his girlfriend in the lane. where to go for a smoke but that woodland strip out of prying eyes. It was clearly a haunt of theirs. There is nothing in any of it bar Mitchells lies that the they were heading to Newbattle. They were within that woodland strip for a reason and it was clearly not heading to Newbattle.
All these obtuse questions, surely he wouldn't have killed her knowing her mother knew he was with her. I'm sure that was the last thing on his deranged mind when he set about her. smh.
-
After he murdered her. Used a granny knot (probably learned in the army cadets or from whoever took him fishing and camping; LM loved outdoor and survival pursuits). I suspect he did it before the post-mortem mutilations. Why? Because he was psychopath and narcissist, displaying a form of showmanship and leaving his mark/calling card.
I believe the DNA on the knot belonged to an unknown person and not Luke, Mr Apples, is this true?
-
It's exactly halfway. I've walked RDP a few times, but you've recently said times/distances don't matter so why are you disputing it? Prove otherwise please? Why would LM stay in NB if they were going to be mucking about in EH as you claim? You've contradicted yourself once again.
As Judith Jones claimed yet didn’t seem too bothered when her daughter wasn’t where she was supposed to be 50 minutes later.
-
After he murdered her. Used a granny knot (probably learned in the army cadets or from whoever took him fishing and camping; LM loved outdoor and survival pursuits). I suspect he did it before the post-mortem mutilations. Why? Because he was psychopath and narcissist, displaying a form of showmanship and leaving his mark/calling card.
I forget his real name but the survivalist was known locally as Crocodile Dalkeith, a wee fella but not to be messed with.
-
It's exactly halfway. I've walked RDP a few times, but you've recently said times/distances don't matter so why are you disputing it? Prove otherwise please? Why would LM stay in NB if they were going to be mucking about in EH as you claim? You've contradicted yourself once again.
And he didn't stay in Newbattle anyway. Met with his girlfriend in EH, walked in the woodland strip in EH with her. Nothing has proven this to be wrong.
-
And he didn't stay in Newbattle anyway. Met with his girlfriend in EH, walked in the woodland strip in EH with her. Nothing has proven this to be wrong.
Or right.
-
They really are compulsive liars, clearly an affliction spread amidst the egos. But yes, trolling with the same old nonsense/lies on repeat. The entrance to RDP and the woodland strip are in EH. The entrance to RDP on the other side is from Newbattle road and not actually Newbattle itself. After meeting with his girlfriend in the lane. where to go for a smoke but that woodland strip out of prying eyes. It was clearly a haunt of theirs. There is nothing in any of it bar Mitchells lies that the they were heading to Newbattle. They were within that woodland strip for a reason and it was clearly not heading to Newbattle.
All these obtuse questions, surely he wouldn't have killed her knowing her mother knew he was with her. I'm sure that was the last thing on his deranged mind when he set about her. smh.
'They' weren't heading for Newbattle, Peter, Jodi was! Luke was 'waiting' for her there.
-
'They' weren't heading for Newbattle, Peter, Jodi was! Luke was 'waiting' for her in Newbattle.
Why have none of these theories been used in a possible new appeal or review in LM's case, instead he lies languishing in Shotts deemed a high risk to females and failed his parole despite other murderer's being freed after completing their tariff? Can't always blame the media/police if other murderer's are being released.
Instead, all we get on here are ridiculous theories (he didn't have a parka because they didn't find a receipt etc) or the never ending madness of JB Lean's trolling since she got ousted from the official LM campaign.
-
Why have none of these theories been used in a possible new appeal or review in LM's case, instead he lies languishing in Shotts deemed a high risk to females and failed his parole despite other murderer's being freed after completing their tariff? Can't always blame the media/police if other murderer's are being released.
Instead, all we get on here are ridiculous theories (he didn't have a parka because they didn't find a receipt etc) or the never ending madness of JB Lean's trolling since she got ousted from the official LM campaign.
Well I suppose the SCCRC and appeal judges are only interested in new evidence, Ken! Not plausible theories.
-
Well I suppose the SCCRC and appeal judges are only interested in new evidence, Ken! Not plausible theories.
Why don't you publish your 2014 SCCRC submission/decision in the public interest instead of pretending to be someone you're not and this foolish "I'm only asking questions" approach which less than 2 people on this forum have fallen for.
-
Why don't you publish your 2014 SCCRC submission/decision in the public interest instead of pretending to be someone you're not and this foolish "I'm only asking questions" approach which less than 2 people on this forum have fallen for.
Unlike your good self I don’t think anyone else gives a fig anyone’s real identity on this forum.
You really do have a rather unhealthy fixation on Dr Lean. I would hope that it goes no further than the pages of this forum.
-
Unlike your good self I don’t think anyone else gives a fig anyone’s real identity on this forum.
You really do have a rather unhealthy fixation on Dr Lean. I would hope that it goes no further than the pages of this forum.
Don't worry it goes no further than a few minutes here every few days. The fact you call someone "Dr" that's never been employed in criminal justice and is a part-time van driver for the council is more of a worry.
The lies she has told around this case are well established now. Both yourself and Chris have alluded to both Lean & Forbes as trustworthy sources when it's been established it's been completely fraudulent.
-
Unlike your good self I don’t think anyone else gives a fig anyone’s real identity on this forum.
You really do have a rather unhealthy fixation on Dr Lean. I would hope that it goes no further than the pages of this forum.
Ha ha! You sort him out, Faith!
-
Don't worry it goes no further than a few minutes here every few days. The fact you call someone "Dr" that's never been employed in criminal justice and is a part-time van driver for the council is more of a worry.
The lies she has told around this case are well established now. Both yourself and Chris have alluded to both Lean & Forbes as trustworthy sources when it's been established it's been completely fraudulent.
You're a character, Kenneth!
-
Don't worry it goes no further than a few minutes here every few days. The fact you call someone "Dr" that's never been employed in criminal justice and is a part-time van driver for the council is more of a worry.
The lies she has told around this case are well established now. Both yourself and Chris have alluded to both Lean & Forbes as trustworthy sources when it's been established it's been completely fraudulent.
Sandra Lean has a PhD and therefore has earned the right to be called doctor. It doesn’t matter what work she has done previously or indeed does now.
Dr Lean was a source, that’s all and until the transcripts were published the misleading nature of some of her claims was unknown. Would I rely on that source now…of course not. I move on…unlike yourself. I debunked a few weeks ago the fallacy of a ‘strong majority’ and held the source of that misinformation to account yet you still believe that there is some truth in it. Some of us most certainly never learn.
-
Ha ha! You sort him out, Faith!
Crawl back under your stone Sandra you crook.
Sidling up to Faithlilly = the last desperate vestige of the Innocence Fraudster.
-
You're a character, Kenneth!
You're a woman, Joe!!!
-
Crawl back under your stone Sandra you crook.
Sidling up to Faithlilly = the last desperate vestige of the Innocence Fraudster.
You really are a rather nasty piece of work. I’d be concerned if I was Sandra that you may know my address.
-
You really are a rather nasty piece of work. I’d be concerned if I was Sandra that you may know my address.
If in doubt, play the victim. You've admitted you'll have LM round for tea, and regardless of his guilt, he is a deeply unpleasant individual.
I couldn't care less where you or Lean live - I'll carry on exposing liars and crooks that have monetised a young girl's murder though, and anyone that supports that ridiculous theory.
-
If in doubt, play the victim. You've admitted you'll have LM round for tea, and regardless of his guilt, he is a deeply unpleasant individual.
I couldn't care less where you or Lean live - I'll carry on exposing liars and crooks that have monetised a young girl's murder though, and anyone that supports that ridiculous theory.
You have no idea what kind of person Luke is now. You have however shown the nastiness of your character again and again.
You are exposing nothing but your own misogynistic obsession with Dr Lean.
-
Instead, all we get on here are ridiculous theories (he didn't have a parka because they didn't find a receipt etc) or the never ending madness of JB Lean's trolling since she got ousted from the official LM campaign.
You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that there is no objective evidence of a parka (receipt or CCTV footage), and that this lack weakens the prosecution's case. Please try to keep up.
-
You have no idea what kind of person Luke is now. You have however shown the nastiness of your character again and again.
You are exposing nothing but your own misogynistic obsession with Dr Lean.
Well we know he is a practising Satanist and poses a sexual danger to women so for those reasons alone I’d not be getting out my best china for him and would advise you not to either when he calls round for tea.
-
You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that there is no objective evidence of a parka (receipt or CCTV footage), and that this lack weakens the prosecution's case. Please try to keep up.
Try and remember that the prosecution’s case was successful, they didn’t need a receipt and numerous witnesses confirmed he owned this garment. If the police had spent an entire year revisiting the sales ledgers of every single clothing shop in Scotland and not found a receipt linking a green parka sale to Luke Mitchell or his family does that prove he never owned one? Of course not! It would have been a complete waste of police resources and wasn’t needed anyway. The prosecution won without it.
-
You are misrepresenting my argument. My argument is that there is no objective evidence of a parka (receipt or CCTV footage), and that this lack weakens the prosecution's case. Please try to keep up.
There appears to have been cameras in Luke’s school yet absolutely no footage of him wearing a parka before the murder although I believe there was afterwards.
-
What were the dates on the witness statements of those people claiming Mitchell opened a parka?
-
Crawl back under your stone Sandra you crook.
Sidling up to Faithlilly = the last desperate vestige of the Innocence Fraudster.
I've told you, there are no Sandra's here , Ken!
As for sidling up to Faithlilly, i'm just conversing with her the same as I do with any other member.
Although, Faith is a highly regarded 'Luke Mitchell' poster by many, on here and elsewhere.
Faith has been an expert on the case for many years, and to be quite honest, I thought 'she' was Dr Lean for a long time too, Ken.
Just shows you, we can all add two and two together and get five!
-
Apologies this
‘ I remember reading somewhere that people testified in court that they thought LM & Jodi had had an argument in school as they had their backs to one another during an interval or luchtime on 30.06.03, which would make sense, since a newspaper article stated that Jodi had her head on the desk with her hands covering it and was crying.’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/
'A truly evil murder - you will rightly be regarded as wicked' Lucy Bannerman finds how a teenage love of music and rebellion ended with a walk to a horrific death
THE screen flickers into life:
stark images of women, trussed up, straining against their bonds. As the camera pans over the dark woodland setting, the voice-over urges viewers to "kill everything".
The video by the goth rocker Marilyn Manson was standard teenage fare:
entertainment for a rebellious generation.
However, in Luke Mitchell's case, it was more sinister. He bought the CD and DVD set just a few days after he had found the body of his girlfriend, mutilated, almost naked, dumped behind a wall near a woodland path.
The murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones in July 2003 shocked Dalkeith, in Midlothian. Police officers admitted to being shaken by the mutilation of her body.
The one person who seemed unconcerned was Mitchell. As police undertook their massive inquiry to find the killer, their attention soon turned to her boyfriend: the calm, cannabis-smoking youth who would become their only suspect.
In the early part of 2003, the romance that developed between Luke and Jodi seemed like any other, albeit more suited to a couple older than their 14 years.
Both were known to be mature for their age, and equally strong-minded.
During the five months they saw each other, Mitchell often made the journey from the semi-detached home he shared with his mother and elder brother, on a quiet suburban street in Newbattle, to the Easthouses area of Dalkeith, where Jodi lived.
His journey took him past the historic gates of Newbattle Abbey, over the bridge and up the tree-lined road where pigeons flap above the lampposts, before reaching the turn-off for the secluded route known as Roan's Dyke Path.
It was a familiar track. The short cut through the fields separating their houses made it a quick 20-minute walk, less if Mitchell took his bike.
On the occasions he went to meet Jodi, Mitchell would follow the woodland path, the wall on his left and the fields on his right, emerging just a couple of hundred yards from her front door. It seems likely that it was on this pathway that they met for the final time at about 5pm on July 30, 2003.
The pair seemed wellmatched. Both followed the teenage trends of piercings and dark, baggy clothes.
Music and fashion became an increasingly important way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the crowd.
However, their shared love of hardcore "nu-metal" and "heavy metal" bands unpalatable to the older generation, such as Korn, Metallica and, above all, Nirvana, became more than frequent topics of conversation. It was an identity badge. Mitchell also liked Marilyn Manson. Jodi, unlike her sister, was not a huge fan.
Mitchell - six months her senior - was Jodi's first proper boyfriend. For the schoolgirl, the relationship with the nonconformist schoolboy, with his lip-stud, long, lank hair, and grey-blue eyes, developed alongside her own newlyadopted "goth" style. It was the beginning of a teenage rebellion.
Her third year of secondary school had seen the shy teenager experiment with her appearance. Her fuzzy hair was now often tied, dyed, and braided. The bookwormish glasses were abandoned in favour of a trendier pair; and the girly dresses of her youth replaced by the wardrobe of a young Nirvana fan.
Only her childhood love of sunflowers had not yet been obscured by her love of all things black. One favourite Tshirt showed how Jodi was beginning to come out of her shell: "Feel free to point, stare, whisper, and talk among yourselves, " it said.
The message was echoed in another T-shirt belonging to her boyfriend: "You laugh at me because I'm different. I pity you because you are all the same." Mitchell was wearing it the night he murdered Jodi.
For Jodi, Kurt Cobain, Nirvana's lead singer, was a hero. Song lyrics and posters of him were plastered over her bedroom. The shadow of the grunge singer, who committed suicide when Jodi was only five, loomed large in her diary, to which she confided, in her own words, "the inner workings of a f*****-up mind."
Themes popularised by the bands they both loved resurfaced in Jodi's own writing: "Take the knife, " said one passage. "All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy just like me."
For Mitchell, it went further.
References to "Satanic people like me" and "drink the devil's green blood" in one school essay on God concerned a teacher enough that she referred him for counselling.
He failed to attend.
Friends also remember his aggressiveness and quick temper. At the riding stables where his mother kept a horse, it was his pony, Diesel, that felt the sharp end of his temper.
One boy, who knew Mitchell well, recalls his fascination with death. The summer before Jodi's death, Mitchell came across a dead dog in the street.
"I remember the way he was talking about it, " said the friend. "It was as if he had seen a dead person. He said it made him think about the afterlife, about why the dog was dead. He was asking 'Will the dog become a person?'
'What will happen when I die?'" Images of death appealed to the philosophical side of his nature, said the friend.
Both Jodi and Mitchell had absent fathers. Both youngest children, they also appeared to provide emotional support to their mothers.
Jimmy Jones, a postal worker, took his own life in 1998, at the age of 39. He was found by his wife, Judith, and son, Joseph, hanging from a tree in the family garden. In the wake of the tragedy, Jodi grew close to her mother, who called her youngest child "my wee mentor".
Phil Mitchell separated from his wife, Corinne, in 1999, and moved to Livingston, where Mitchell visited him every other weekend. Despite his brother, Shane, being older by around eight years, it was Mitchell who became the man of the house in his father's absence.
The close bond between Corinne and her younger son was such that Shane often felt excluded, an outsider in the household.
While Mrs Mitchell kept the rest of their home almost immaculate, she allowed her sons to have completely free rein, and inevitably considerable mess, in their own rooms.
Jodi and Luke Mitchell regularly visited each other's homes. Soon, they were inseparable. During school lunchbreaks and after classes, they smoked cannabis together.
On Saturdays, they would sometimes catch the bus to Edinburgh to "hang out" in Greyfriars Kirkyard. The famously sepulchral setting was popular with like-minded music fans.
Mitchell was usually the one with the drugs. His hands blackened by cannabis resin, he would cut the hash with one of his different knives.
Although many of their friends shared a joint, few shared his interest in weapons. During one army cadet exercise, acquaintances remember the youngster approaching a girl from behind in a balaclava, and warning: "It would be so easy to kill you."
It was not just knives he carried. Cash, and often large amounts of cannabis, were produced from one baggy pocket or another.
The teenager would later boast to psychiatrists that he was smoking around 300 joints a week - an unfeasible amount, which he claimed doubled after Jodi's death.
Within days of becoming a couple, Jodi and Mitchell were having sex. He was her first.
Little did she know that another girl, Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, had also been calling Mitchell her boyfriend since meeting him on holiday in 2002.
But Kimberley and Jodi were not the only girls to have been attracted to the "bad boy" image. A brief romance with one girl is believed to have ended after just two days, when his behaviour scared her off.
Another fling ended on a more threatening note, with anotherWest Lothian girl, Kimberley Tait, claiming Mitchell once pulled a knife on her after she refused to sleep with him. Mitchell claimed the knife incident was only a joke.
Mitchell's enthusiasm for blades is well-remembered in Livingston. He was particularly proud of one knife he received as a present. "He said: 'Look what I got. Do you think it's cool?" recalls one female friend. "He thought it was something brilliant. We thought it was a bit weird."
While almost every day in Dalkeith was spent with Jodi, Mitchell's relationship with Kimberley Thomson continued, albeit infrequently. Over the weeks before Jodi's death, she was in regular contact with Luke. As soon as Jodi left Mitchell's house on the Saturday before she died, her boyfriend spent hours on the phone to Kimberley, with them planning to see each other the next week.
It is possible Jodi had found out about the relationship. On the afternoon of Monday, June 30, schoolfriends remember her seeming upset in her class, her head down on her desk.
That week, Jodi had been grounded for smoking cannabis at her cousin's house and playing truant.
By Monday afternoon, Judith Jones decided her daughter had been punished enough.
After arriving home from school, Jodi discovered the ban had been lifted. Delighted, she immediately texted Luke around 4.30pm. He responded a minute later and they arranged a meeting.
The exact details - when and where - may never be known. Asking her mum to save her some lasagne from the family meal she was about to miss, Jodi waved goodbye just before 5pm and started the journey from Parkhead Place to Newbattle, along the route she was forbidden to take alone.
The gangly teenager headed towards Roan's Dyke, towards the path behind the football fields, where seagulls gathered around empty goalposts.
Luke, she thought, was going to meet her.
Just hours later, Detective Superintendent Craig Dobbie was dealing with the most horrific murder he had ever seen. The 14-year-old had been stabbed, her throat slit, her breast cut, and her stomach slashed.
Her eyelids had been carefully cut.
The murder seemed almost ritualistic. Yet there was no direct evidence to link the suspect to the scene.
Despite more than 2000 interviews, a reconstruction, and help from the FBI, the biggest case facing Lothian and Borders Police for more than 30 years stretched from weeks into months. No murder weapon had been found, and DNA testing showed little that could not be innocently explained.
As the tributes mounted by the path entrance where Jodi was last seen, and the exit she never reached, so too did the suspicion surrounding the boyfriend who was meant to meet her.
His own message held an emotional resonance absent among the candles, teddy bears, and toys left by other friends. It said: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - an ambiguous line from the Nirvana song, On A Plain, which held special significance for the couple.
The boy soon became a social pariah, banned from both school and Jodi's funeral.
However, much to the angst of Jodi's family, one friend sided with Mitchell, forming an intimate relationship with him in the aftermath of the killing.
Despite her initial loyalty, she and Mitchell became estranged and the 15-year-old was later diagnosed with a severe depressive disorder, exacerbated by the heavy use of cannabis and the trauma of her friend's murder. Increasing doubts over Mitchell's innocence may have contributed to her condition.
With now only his mother's unfailing support, Mitchell continued to court controversy. While the congregation remembered the dead girl, Luke was looking down a Sky TV camera lens, his mother beside him on the sofa.
It was an audacious move.
The interview was regarded at best as the insensitive actions of a confused boy, at worst the miscalculated move of a dispassionate killer.
Twice he was questioned by police, and twice he was released. It was the behaviour of a particular type of guilt, according to Dr Ian Stephen, forensic psychologist.
"Many people choose to lie low, but he was sticking his nose right above the parapet, and so were his family, increasing his visibility in the hope that people would not suspect him.
"Even though he was clearly suspected, he still brazened it out."
After a police search of his home, Mitchell was finally charged with murder in April 2004. The 42-day trial revealed much about Mitchell's character. However, it revealed little about his motive. Most importantly, it failed to answer the questions:
Why? Why Jodi? And why such a brutal murder?
Professor Vincent Egan, of the forensic psychology department at Glasgow Caledonian University, said:
"Victims are often the persons closest to a troubled teenager, as the closest people evoke the strongest emotions, and the emotions can go from very positive to very negative very quickly.
"Thwarted love in an angry young man, and the shame and humiliation of this, is a common trigger to violence.
The nature of the crime - the near-decapitation - was an extreme, messy and violent act, which indicates massive anger and focused aggression in the proponent."
As Mitchell was convicted, the judge said: "You have been convicted of a truly evil murder - one of the most appalling crimes that any of us can remember - and you will rightly be regarded as wicked."
It will be a considerable time before Mitchell returns to Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
The entrance to Roan's Dyke Path, just five minutes' walk from his front door, is now marked by a permanent bouquet. Mud has made the short cut to Jodi's house almost impassable at this time of year; the two houses now linked only by grief and guilt.
At the other end, artificial sunflowers are still taped to a lamp-post - a quick, yellow reminder to passers-by, easier to spot than the withered stocks that stand in the Joneses' garden.
The murdered girl's small, two-storey home showed no sign of change yesterday after the verdict was delivered, testimony perhaps that life grinds on for the family that has suffered the suicides of a father and an uncle, and the murder of a daughter, over the past six years.
A few miles south, beyond the stubble fields and low rows of unremarkable houses, another 14 flowers brighten a pair of black headstones. They stand alone in a small, square cemetery on the outskirts of town; memorials to a father who died before his 40th birthday, and a daughter prevented from celebrating her 15th.
One says: "We can feel sad that she's gone, or open our eyes, smile, love, and go on as she'd want."
-
Jodi's best friend at the time saying she seemed a bit quiet on 30.06.03:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Byline: JANE HAMILTON
JODI JONES'S best friend told how the teenager confided in her about fears she had over Luke Mitchell's knife obsession. Months before she was killed, the 14-year-old told closest pal Kirsten Ford: 'Luke has all these knives in his bedroom. Isn't that weird?'
Last night, Kirsten, now 16, said: 'Jodi was disturbed by it. She wouldn't have said it otherwise.
'She never judged or looked for the bad in people, so she probably thought it was Luke being himself.
'When I look at him now and see no emotion at all for what he did, I just think he is psychotic. He must be. No one could do what he did and not be.'
The pretty teenager broke her silence to reveal the real Jodi and an insight into her relationship with murderer Mitchell.
Kirsten also revealed Jodi's feelings about Mitchell's mum, Corinne, who was exposed in court lying to protect her son.
Kirsten said: 'She found it weird Luke had a lot of knives in his bedroom and she only once said that she feared Luke was cheating on her but they sorted it out.
'She was besotted with him and they were together a lot.
'Jodi thought Luke's mum was as mad as a hatter and said she knew Corinne was smoking a lot of cannabis.
'But she and Luke seemed to be happy. 'They used to have toy fights. Sometimes it looked as if Luke was getting a bit rough but Jodi seemed able to handle him and he would calm down.'
Kirsten was one of Jodi's handful of trusted pals at St David's High School, Dalkeith, all of whom loved Goth music and the lifestyle. Mitchell, said Kirsten, was known to all of them but had been seen as a bit of a loner.
She added: 'We all knew him from first year but he was isolated and wasn't well-liked but then he changed and started looking a bit grungy.
'Jodi met him in March. It was a Friday and she was going out with him after school. I think they used to speak in form class and one day agreed to go out.
'After that they were together a lot. 'He wasn't as isolated as he used to be when he was going out with Jodi but he did hang back when she was chatting to us.'
But only weeks into the relationship, Jodi became worried about Mitchell's close friendship with Laura Wightman, a girl he would later take to her graveside.
Kirsten said: 'Laura was with Luke a lot and once Jodi heard that he might have been cheating on her but I think she spoke to him and they sorted it out.'
The Sunday Mail was with Kirsten and her mum, Carol, when Mitchell's guilty verdict came through.
Kirsten, who now lives in England, said: 'I believe he did do it but I still can't quite believe how someone could do that to someone they knew and loved. A small part of me still thinks maybe Luke didn't do it because he was Jodi's boyfriend.
'I get annoyed when people describe her as popular. Jodi didn't want to be popular, she wanted to be liked.
'We didn't want to be popular because most of the popular people weren't nice and Jodi didn't want to be like that. She believed in people being individuals.
'Jodi was not a Goth or into Satanism, she was never interested in that.
'We liked alternative music and we dressed differently but that's what made Jodi unique.'
Kirsten's happiest memory of Jodi was of a sleepover at her house. She said: 'Me, Jodi and Clare Stewart stayed over the night before her 14th birthday.
'We watched Minority Report and had a Chinese feast and just talked and laughed all night.
'In the morning, her mum came into the room with a birthday cake.
'Jodi was embarrassed but it was fun and she was so happy. I'll never forget that.'
Kirsten now keeps a poignant memorial to Jodi in her farmhouse home. A little window is dressed with mementoes of the fun-loving teenager - pictures, flowers and cards.
A picture of Jodi, laughing, takes pride of place beside a thank you card from the teenager's mum, Judy, given to Kirsten in the sad days after the tragedy.
Kirsten said: 'I bought the rose in America after Jodi died just because she liked them.
'The sunflower was Jodi's favourite flower and the little sunshine buddie was from Judy because that's what Jodi was.
'The day she died was like any other but when I look back, she was a bit quiet.
'Strangely, I never usually saw her at the end of the day but at 3.45pm that day, I saw her just before she got on the bus.
'I said, 'Bye Jodi.' She just turned and smiled. That was the last time I saw her.'
Kirsten's mum Carol said: 'Jodi's mum phoned the night she went missing to ask if Jodi was at our house.
'We both knew then something was wrong. Next day when we heard a body had been found I just knew it was Jodi.
'I ran straight to the school to try and see Kirsten. I was worried for her in case she had heard. It was a terrible day.
'We moved away for my husband's job but it has also been a chance for Kirsten to try and get over what happened.'
Kirsten said the events that followed, including the finger of suspicion being pointed at Mitchell, left her stunned.
But she has vowed never to forget Jodi and is heading to Dalkeith next month to visit Judy.
Kirsten said: 'Jodi actually loved bright colours and being different.
'She was the most gentle and loving person I have ever met. She loved her family and her life and I don't think I'll ever meet anyone like her.'
CAPTION(S):
Happy memory:; A picture of a smiling Jodi is the centrepiece of Kirsten's poignant memorial to her murdered friend; Friends forever: Kirsten says Jodi was ``besotted'' with Mitchell, even after she suspected he was cheating on her
COPYRIGHT 2005 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
These articles have all been posted before, Faith. You know this.
-
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/
'A truly evil murder - you will rightly be regarded as wicked' Lucy Bannerman finds how a teenage love of music and rebellion ended with a walk to a horrific death
THE screen flickers into life:
stark images of women, trussed up, straining against their bonds. As the camera pans over the dark woodland setting, the voice-over urges viewers to "kill everything".
The video by the goth rocker Marilyn Manson was standard teenage fare:
entertainment for a rebellious generation.
However, in Luke Mitchell's case, it was more sinister. He bought the CD and DVD set just a few days after he had found the body of his girlfriend, mutilated, almost naked, dumped behind a wall near a woodland path.
The murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones in July 2003 shocked Dalkeith, in Midlothian. Police officers admitted to being shaken by the mutilation of her body.
The one person who seemed unconcerned was Mitchell. As police undertook their massive inquiry to find the killer, their attention soon turned to her boyfriend: the calm, cannabis-smoking youth who would become their only suspect.
In the early part of 2003, the romance that developed between Luke and Jodi seemed like any other, albeit more suited to a couple older than their 14 years.
Both were known to be mature for their age, and equally strong-minded.
During the five months they saw each other, Mitchell often made the journey from the semi-detached home he shared with his mother and elder brother, on a quiet suburban street in Newbattle, to the Easthouses area of Dalkeith, where Jodi lived.
His journey took him past the historic gates of Newbattle Abbey, over the bridge and up the tree-lined road where pigeons flap above the lampposts, before reaching the turn-off for the secluded route known as Roan's Dyke Path.
It was a familiar track. The short cut through the fields separating their houses made it a quick 20-minute walk, less if Mitchell took his bike.
On the occasions he went to meet Jodi, Mitchell would follow the woodland path, the wall on his left and the fields on his right, emerging just a couple of hundred yards from her front door. It seems likely that it was on this pathway that they met for the final time at about 5pm on July 30, 2003.
The pair seemed wellmatched. Both followed the teenage trends of piercings and dark, baggy clothes.
Music and fashion became an increasingly important way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the crowd.
However, their shared love of hardcore "nu-metal" and "heavy metal" bands unpalatable to the older generation, such as Korn, Metallica and, above all, Nirvana, became more than frequent topics of conversation. It was an identity badge. Mitchell also liked Marilyn Manson. Jodi, unlike her sister, was not a huge fan.
Mitchell - six months her senior - was Jodi's first proper boyfriend. For the schoolgirl, the relationship with the nonconformist schoolboy, with his lip-stud, long, lank hair, and grey-blue eyes, developed alongside her own newlyadopted "goth" style. It was the beginning of a teenage rebellion.
Her third year of secondary school had seen the shy teenager experiment with her appearance. Her fuzzy hair was now often tied, dyed, and braided. The bookwormish glasses were abandoned in favour of a trendier pair; and the girly dresses of her youth replaced by the wardrobe of a young Nirvana fan.
Only her childhood love of sunflowers had not yet been obscured by her love of all things black. One favourite Tshirt showed how Jodi was beginning to come out of her shell: "Feel free to point, stare, whisper, and talk among yourselves, " it said.
The message was echoed in another T-shirt belonging to her boyfriend: "You laugh at me because I'm different. I pity you because you are all the same." Mitchell was wearing it the night he murdered Jodi.
For Jodi, Kurt Cobain, Nirvana's lead singer, was a hero. Song lyrics and posters of him were plastered over her bedroom. The shadow of the grunge singer, who committed suicide when Jodi was only five, loomed large in her diary, to which she confided, in her own words, "the inner workings of a f*****-up mind."
Themes popularised by the bands they both loved resurfaced in Jodi's own writing: "Take the knife, " said one passage. "All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy just like me."
For Mitchell, it went further.
References to "Satanic people like me" and "drink the devil's green blood" in one school essay on God concerned a teacher enough that she referred him for counselling.
He failed to attend.
Friends also remember his aggressiveness and quick temper. At the riding stables where his mother kept a horse, it was his pony, Diesel, that felt the sharp end of his temper.
One boy, who knew Mitchell well, recalls his fascination with death. The summer before Jodi's death, Mitchell came across a dead dog in the street.
"I remember the way he was talking about it, " said the friend. "It was as if he had seen a dead person. He said it made him think about the afterlife, about why the dog was dead. He was asking 'Will the dog become a person?'
'What will happen when I die?'" Images of death appealed to the philosophical side of his nature, said the friend.
Both Jodi and Mitchell had absent fathers. Both youngest children, they also appeared to provide emotional support to their mothers.
Jimmy Jones, a postal worker, took his own life in 1998, at the age of 39. He was found by his wife, Judith, and son, Joseph, hanging from a tree in the family garden. In the wake of the tragedy, Jodi grew close to her mother, who called her youngest child "my wee mentor".
Phil Mitchell separated from his wife, Corinne, in 1999, and moved to Livingston, where Mitchell visited him every other weekend. Despite his brother, Shane, being older by around eight years, it was Mitchell who became the man of the house in his father's absence.
The close bond between Corinne and her younger son was such that Shane often felt excluded, an outsider in the household.
While Mrs Mitchell kept the rest of their home almost immaculate, she allowed her sons to have completely free rein, and inevitably considerable mess, in their own rooms.
Jodi and Luke Mitchell regularly visited each other's homes. Soon, they were inseparable. During school lunchbreaks and after classes, they smoked cannabis together.
On Saturdays, they would sometimes catch the bus to Edinburgh to "hang out" in Greyfriars Kirkyard. The famously sepulchral setting was popular with like-minded music fans.
Mitchell was usually the one with the drugs. His hands blackened by cannabis resin, he would cut the hash with one of his different knives.
Although many of their friends shared a joint, few shared his interest in weapons. During one army cadet exercise, acquaintances remember the youngster approaching a girl from behind in a balaclava, and warning: "It would be so easy to kill you."
It was not just knives he carried. Cash, and often large amounts of cannabis, were produced from one baggy pocket or another.
The teenager would later boast to psychiatrists that he was smoking around 300 joints a week - an unfeasible amount, which he claimed doubled after Jodi's death.
Within days of becoming a couple, Jodi and Mitchell were having sex. He was her first.
Little did she know that another girl, Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, had also been calling Mitchell her boyfriend since meeting him on holiday in 2002.
But Kimberley and Jodi were not the only girls to have been attracted to the "bad boy" image. A brief romance with one girl is believed to have ended after just two days, when his behaviour scared her off.
Another fling ended on a more threatening note, with anotherWest Lothian girl, Kimberley Tait, claiming Mitchell once pulled a knife on her after she refused to sleep with him. Mitchell claimed the knife incident was only a joke.
Mitchell's enthusiasm for blades is well-remembered in Livingston. He was particularly proud of one knife he received as a present. "He said: 'Look what I got. Do you think it's cool?" recalls one female friend. "He thought it was something brilliant. We thought it was a bit weird."
While almost every day in Dalkeith was spent with Jodi, Mitchell's relationship with Kimberley Thomson continued, albeit infrequently. Over the weeks before Jodi's death, she was in regular contact with Luke. As soon as Jodi left Mitchell's house on the Saturday before she died, her boyfriend spent hours on the phone to Kimberley, with them planning to see each other the next week.
It is possible Jodi had found out about the relationship. On the afternoon of Monday, June 30, schoolfriends remember her seeming upset in her class, her head down on her desk.
That week, Jodi had been grounded for smoking cannabis at her cousin's house and playing truant.
By Monday afternoon, Judith Jones decided her daughter had been punished enough.
After arriving home from school, Jodi discovered the ban had been lifted. Delighted, she immediately texted Luke around 4.30pm. He responded a minute later and they arranged a meeting.
The exact details - when and where - may never be known. Asking her mum to save her some lasagne from the family meal she was about to miss, Jodi waved goodbye just before 5pm and started the journey from Parkhead Place to Newbattle, along the route she was forbidden to take alone.
The gangly teenager headed towards Roan's Dyke, towards the path behind the football fields, where seagulls gathered around empty goalposts.
Luke, she thought, was going to meet her.
Just hours later, Detective Superintendent Craig Dobbie was dealing with the most horrific murder he had ever seen. The 14-year-old had been stabbed, her throat slit, her breast cut, and her stomach slashed.
Her eyelids had been carefully cut.
The murder seemed almost ritualistic. Yet there was no direct evidence to link the suspect to the scene.
Despite more than 2000 interviews, a reconstruction, and help from the FBI, the biggest case facing Lothian and Borders Police for more than 30 years stretched from weeks into months. No murder weapon had been found, and DNA testing showed little that could not be innocently explained.
As the tributes mounted by the path entrance where Jodi was last seen, and the exit she never reached, so too did the suspicion surrounding the boyfriend who was meant to meet her.
His own message held an emotional resonance absent among the candles, teddy bears, and toys left by other friends. It said: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - an ambiguous line from the Nirvana song, On A Plain, which held special significance for the couple.
The boy soon became a social pariah, banned from both school and Jodi's funeral.
However, much to the angst of Jodi's family, one friend sided with Mitchell, forming an intimate relationship with him in the aftermath of the killing.
Despite her initial loyalty, she and Mitchell became estranged and the 15-year-old was later diagnosed with a severe depressive disorder, exacerbated by the heavy use of cannabis and the trauma of her friend's murder. Increasing doubts over Mitchell's innocence may have contributed to her condition.
With now only his mother's unfailing support, Mitchell continued to court controversy. While the congregation remembered the dead girl, Luke was looking down a Sky TV camera lens, his mother beside him on the sofa.
It was an audacious move.
The interview was regarded at best as the insensitive actions of a confused boy, at worst the miscalculated move of a dispassionate killer.
Twice he was questioned by police, and twice he was released. It was the behaviour of a particular type of guilt, according to Dr Ian Stephen, forensic psychologist.
"Many people choose to lie low, but he was sticking his nose right above the parapet, and so were his family, increasing his visibility in the hope that people would not suspect him.
"Even though he was clearly suspected, he still brazened it out."
After a police search of his home, Mitchell was finally charged with murder in April 2004. The 42-day trial revealed much about Mitchell's character. However, it revealed little about his motive. Most importantly, it failed to answer the questions:
Why? Why Jodi? And why such a brutal murder?
Professor Vincent Egan, of the forensic psychology department at Glasgow Caledonian University, said:
"Victims are often the persons closest to a troubled teenager, as the closest people evoke the strongest emotions, and the emotions can go from very positive to very negative very quickly.
"Thwarted love in an angry young man, and the shame and humiliation of this, is a common trigger to violence.
The nature of the crime - the near-decapitation - was an extreme, messy and violent act, which indicates massive anger and focused aggression in the proponent."
As Mitchell was convicted, the judge said: "You have been convicted of a truly evil murder - one of the most appalling crimes that any of us can remember - and you will rightly be regarded as wicked."
It will be a considerable time before Mitchell returns to Newbattle Abbey Crescent.
The entrance to Roan's Dyke Path, just five minutes' walk from his front door, is now marked by a permanent bouquet. Mud has made the short cut to Jodi's house almost impassable at this time of year; the two houses now linked only by grief and guilt.
At the other end, artificial sunflowers are still taped to a lamp-post - a quick, yellow reminder to passers-by, easier to spot than the withered stocks that stand in the Joneses' garden.
The murdered girl's small, two-storey home showed no sign of change yesterday after the verdict was delivered, testimony perhaps that life grinds on for the family that has suffered the suicides of a father and an uncle, and the murder of a daughter, over the past six years.
A few miles south, beyond the stubble fields and low rows of unremarkable houses, another 14 flowers brighten a pair of black headstones. They stand alone in a small, square cemetery on the outskirts of town; memorials to a father who died before his 40th birthday, and a daughter prevented from celebrating her 15th.
One says: "We can feel sad that she's gone, or open our eyes, smile, love, and go on as she'd want."
Ah an unnamed ‘source’ about Jodi having her head on the desk and no mention of them standing with their bac to each other.
Juxtaposition it with this
‘ After arriving home from school, Jodi discovered the ban had been lifted. Delighted, she immediately texted Luke around 4.30pm.’
And it really is a smorgasbord of ridiculousness and rumour.
-
Of course it is quite possible for a young teenage girl to be upset at school over her boyfriend and then to be delighted to discover that her mum was allowing her to go out and meet up with him later that evening. What’s ridiculous about that?
-
Ah an unnamed ‘source’ about Jodi having her head on the desk and no mention of them standing with their bac to each other.
Juxtaposition it with this
‘ After arriving home from school, Jodi discovered the ban had been lifted. Delighted, she immediately texted Luke around 4.30pm.’
And it really is a smorgasbord of ridiculousness and rumour.
Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.
As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.
-
Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.
As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.
Some people have a very simplistic view of how humans express and experience emotions. They believe that if you are sad or depressed or grief-stricken that it is impossible for you to smile at all or to have any fleeting moments of joy or light-heartedness. I have seen this inability to understand human emotions and behaviours on another part of this forum.
-
Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.
As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.
Clearly her upbeat mood was due to the lifting of her punishment. No phone records of using her mothers phone, nor the landline after school on school nights to set up a meeting. Indicative of those arrangements being made from school, in line with her restrictions. She was clearly going to be seeing Mitchell that evening anyway. The only thing that changed was the time due to her punishments being lifted. She texted her boyfriend and she would be telling him her good news first and foremost.
-
Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.
As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.
What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?
Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.
You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.
-
Clearly her upbeat mood was due to the lifting of her punishment. No phone records of using her mothers phone, nor the landline after school on school nights to set up a meeting. Indicative of those arrangements being made from school, in line with her restrictions. She was clearly going to be seeing Mitchell that evening anyway. The only thing that changed was the time due to her punishments being lifted. She texted her boyfriend and she would be telling him her good news first and foremost.
Absolutely she was upbeat due to the lifting of her punishment. There is nothing to indicate anything else was worrying her.
Luke could not have been sure that the text messages from Jodi weren’t still on her mum’s phone so why tell a lie about the texts?
Of course we can’t even be sure when this strange grounding where Jodi was allowed to go out at the time she usually did was actually lifted. Family opinions differ. From DC Alan Tower’s transcripts Jodi was out and about with Luke virtually all day on the Friday, most of Saturday and Sunday before her murder so it’s obvious that she wasn’t grounded at that point.
-
What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?
Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.
You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.
Good post, Faith! The same thoughts were running through my mind.
-
What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?
Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.
You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.
She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?
-
She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?
Absolutely teenagers will eventually recover from a betrayal or break up but not in an afternoon and if you believe that is what happened here I really hope that you don’t have children. As to Jodi not telling her friend haven’t we already been told by one of her friends, albeit in a newspaper report, that Jodi at one point believed that Luke was cheating with another friend. Didn’t keep that quiet, did she?
The weekend before she was murdered Jodi doesn’t seem to have been home but either with Luke or at her gran’s.
Read DC Tower’s testimony. There is absolutely no evidence that she was grounded and appeared to be able to come and go as she pleased.
A teenager tired? I really did have to laugh at this. What is so unbelievable about a teenager being tired?
While you may be meticulous and fussy you are absolutely no good at evaluating evidence. You say you have evaluated the forensic evidence. How? There was no forensic evidence to link Luke to the crime and the circumstantial evidence is weak at best.
Upwards of 10 professionals who have experience in the type of crime we are discussing have voiced grave reservations about Luke’s conviction. Why do you believe that you have the expertise to know otherwise?
-
Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?
What sort of financial reason could there be? What other reasons?
-
Try and remember that the prosecution’s case was successful, they didn’t need a receipt and numerous witnesses confirmed he owned this garment. If the police had spent an entire year revisiting the sales ledgers of every single clothing shop in Scotland and not found a receipt linking a green parka sale to Luke Mitchell or his family does that prove he never owned one? Of course not! It would have been a complete waste of police resources and wasn’t needed anyway. The prosecution won without it.
The purpose of any thread in this sub-forum is to test the jury's verdict. Therefore, using the jury's verdict as evidence does not make a lick of sense. With respect to the eyewitnesses who claimed that Mr. Mitchell had a parka, a specific problem is that once his photograph was published, this potentially contaminated their memories. Sadly, this is not the only problem with the eyewitness testimony in this case.
-
Absolutely teenagers will eventually recover from a betrayal or break up but not in an afternoon and if you believe that is what happened here I really hope that you don’t have children. As to Jodi not telling her friend haven’t we already been told by one of her friends, albeit in a newspaper report, that Jodi at one point believed that Luke was cheating with another friend. Didn’t keep that quiet, did she?
The weekend before she was murdered Jodi doesn’t seem to have been home but either with Luke or at her gran’s.
Read DC Tower’s testimony. There is absolutely no evidence that she was grounded and appeared to be able to come and go as she pleased.
A teenager tired? I really did have to laugh at this. What is so unbelievable about a teenager being tired?
While you may be meticulous and fussy you are absolutely no good at evaluating evidence. You say you have evaluated the forensic evidence. How? There was no forensic evidence to link Luke to the crime and the circumstantial evidence is weak at best.
Upwards of 10 professionals who have experience in the type of crime we are discussing have voiced grave reservations about Luke’s conviction. Why do you believe that you have the expertise to know otherwise?
I would've thought keeping a near year-on relationship under wraps would have been something of a herculean task? KT testifying under oath that she still believed she was his girlfriend right up until the murder, and was upset to have found out he was cheating on her with Jodi. Didn't LM completely deny he was dating KT? And had had no contact with her since the previous year -- until his mobile phone records revealed he'd been in contact with her at least 60-odd times between Jan 03 - June 03?? Was it possible that LM mentioned to Jodi around that time or that day he was planning to go on holiday in Kenmore to the Thomsons, Lm & CM having become quite close friends with the family after holidaying there the previous year (summer 02)? The relationship between the 2 families developing after LM became friends with KT's brother initially and then subsequently dating his sister (KT) shortly afterwards? I suggest LM mentioned going away and Jodi not liking it and, in turn, LM not liking her not liking it, and consequently the source of the conflict that day? I suggest that LM had mentioned KT before 30.06.03 as that level of communication between the two would've been difficult to hide from Jodi.
I was never, not once, tired in high school -- and I was extremely sporty and active back then.
I have evaluated the evidence painstakingly, in the capacity of a sort of autodidact. I trust my own research, inferences and instinct more than these so-called professionals. Everyone seems to be a 'professional' these days, don't they? It seems to be a thing in the boxing world at present. Worse still, these chancing adult apprentices who do a year-long course instead of the normal 4 and tell fellow mouthbreathers they're master craftsmen. Or, worse still, Walter Mitty characters like SF. Sorry, Scott, it's too late in life for you to be taken seriously; the die was cast long ago and, alas, the outcome was there for all to see. Forever the trier, though, I'll give him that.
The forensics in this case couldn't further the case. It was of no evidential value at all.
-
She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?
Getting back to the parka, Mr Apples.
I asked the same question as you on Twitter a while back, ie., 'did LM habitually change his clothes when he got home from school'? No one gave an answer. You would think the police would have asked this question too, wouldn't you?
Anyway, you just pointed out that LM visited Jodi's house most evenings, if this is the case and LM did change into his old clothes every day after school, why didn't the likes of Judith, Janine, Joe and Alan Ovens ever see LM in his parka?
After all, Luke had been seeing Jodi for months and in the colder weather. And what about John [Name removed] who LM had drug interactions with? Wouldn't he have seen the parka if it existed?
And apparently the parka was a general purpose jacket worn at school and the scouts too, so again, why didn't any of the Jones's see the parka at all in the five months that Luke was seeing Jodi? And in the colder weather too?
And shouldn't one of the main people to ask have been his friend David High? Was he asked?
Surely he would have seen the parka if it existed and would also have known if LM habitually changed into his old clothes after school?
Was High surprised to see LM in his school clothes on the evening of the murder or was this normal?
Funny that most family and friends closest to LM who saw him most regularly didn't testify that he owned a parka pre-murder, Mr Apples. Dont you think?
-
Getting back to the parka, Mr Apples.
I asked the same question as you on Twitter a while back, ie., 'did LM habitually change his clothes when he got home from school'? No one gave an answer. You would think the police would have asked this question too, wouldn't you?
Anyway, you just pointed out that LM visited Jodi's house most evenings, if this is the case and LM did change into his old clothes every day after school, why didn't the likes of Judith, Janine, Joe and Alan Ovens ever see LM in his parka?
After all, Luke had been seeing Jodi for months and in the colder weather. And what about John [Name removed] who LM had drug interactions with? Wouldn't he have seen the parka if it existed?
And apparently the parka was a general purpose jacket worn at school and the scouts too, so again, why didn't any of the Jones's see the parka at all in the five months that Luke was seeing Jodi? And in the colder weather too?
And shouldn't one of the main people to ask have been his friend David High? Was he asked?
Surely he would have seen the parka if it existed and would also have known if LM habitually changed into his old clothes after school?
Was High surprised to see LM in his school clothes on the evening of the murder or was this normal?
Funny that most family and friends closest to LM who saw him most regularly didn't testify that he owned a parka pre-murder, Mr Apples. Dont you think?
David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.
-
The purpose of any thread in this sub-forum is to test the jury's verdict. Therefore, using the jury's verdict as evidence does not make a lick of sense. With respect to the eyewitnesses who claimed that Mr. Mitchell had a parka, a specific problem is that once his photograph was published, this potentially contaminated their memories. Sadly, this is not the only problem with the eyewitness testimony in this case.
Are you saying that without the receipt that the jury’s verdict was invalid? In your opinion maybe. Personally I put more faith in the opinions of those who were in a position to hear all the evidence presented at trial rather that those of the Johnny Come Latelys who have had to rely on an imperfect set of information, much of it funneled through the highly biased channel of individuals like Sandra Lean. Out of interest is there any eyewitness testimony in this case that you would allow or should it all have been scrapped in your view?
-
David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.
Well David Tulloch could only have been talking about Lukes hair looking 'less unkempt', as Luke was wearing the same clothes that evening as he was at school that day.
In fact, just how can your clothes look less scruffy anyway?
Was Lukes usual appearance scruffy like a tramp with tears all over the place and a bit of rope holding up his trousers?
Scruffy in what way? Unkempt in what way?
Luke was simply wearing his school clothes!
If Tulloch was simply talking about his hair, there was no evidence it had been washed was there?
Wasn't it described as greasy?
In fact wasn't LM described as unwashed?
Doesn't seem to match Tullochs interpretation of LM appearance at all, Mr Apples.
-
David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.
If there is a photo and video evidence of LM in parka pre-murder surely this would have been used in court and LM guilt would be unquestionable, Mr Apples.
Why has LM any support at all if it was proven in court that he owned a parka pre-murder?
Why do some experts, including the FBI, say LM may be innocent if they knew about the parka evidence?
Why make programmes like MIAST and the Devils own if it was proven LM owned a parka pre-murder?
Why was it a majority verdict only if parka was proven to exist pre-murder?
Dont you think that if there was video and photo evidence of said parka, we would have seen it by now, Mr Apples?
Every LM supporter would vanish from the web in a flash!!!
-
I would've thought keeping a near year-on relationship under wraps would have been something of a herculean task? KT testifying under oath that she still believed she was his girlfriend right up until the murder, and was upset to have found out he was cheating on her with Jodi. Didn't LM completely deny he was dating KT? And had had no contact with her since the previous year -- until his mobile phone records revealed he'd been in contact with her at least 60-odd times between Jan 03 - June 03?? Was it possible that LM mentioned to Jodi around that time or that day he was planning to go on holiday in Kenmore to the Thomsons, Lm & CM having become quite close friends with the family after holidaying there the previous year (summer 02)? The relationship between the 2 families developing after LM became friends with KT's brother initially and then subsequently dating his sister (KT) shortly afterwards? I suggest LM mentioned going away and Jodi not liking it and, in turn, LM not liking her not liking it, and consequently the source of the conflict that day? I suggest that LM had mentioned KT before 30.06.03 as that level of communication between the two would've been difficult to hide from Jodi.
I was never, not once, tired in high school -- and I was extremely sporty and active back then.
I have evaluated the evidence painstakingly, in the capacity of a sort of autodidact. I trust my own research, inferences and instinct more than these so-called professionals. Everyone seems to be a 'professional' these days, don't they? It seems to be a thing in the boxing world at present. Worse still, these chancing adult apprentices who do a year-long course instead of the normal 4 and tell fellow mouthbreathers they're master craftsmen. Or, worse still, Walter Mitty characters like SF. Sorry, Scott, it's too late in life for you to be taken seriously; the die was cast long ago and, alas, the outcome was there for all to see. Forever the trier, though, I'll give him that.
The forensics in this case couldn't further the case. It was of no evidential value at all.
You appear to be suggesting things that you have no evidence for. Simply wishing it to be so because it fits neatly into your narrative doesn’t make it so.
Then well done you. Can I point out though that we have no identifiable source for Jodi being upset any time during that day.
Then you crack on. I’ll continue to rely on individuals who are qualified experts in their fields like Dr Allan Jamieson and Lord John Scott KC.
-
David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.
When asked by Turnbull about the parka Luke was supposed to have had before the murder this is what he said.
“ Tell me this, please. Did, did Luke have a, a garment like that? -
Ehm, I'm pretty sure it was after, ehm,
Jodie was killed.”
I’d advise anyone asking about the parka to read David High’s testimony. He doesn’t seem at all sure about the acquiring of Luke’s parka and he was his best friend.
Could you please point me to the testimony, a newspaper report will do, where a witness says that Luke was less scruffy than usual?
-
If there is a photo and video evidence of LM in parka pre-murder surely this would have been used in court and LM guilt would be unquestionable, Mr Apples.
Why has LM any support at all if it was proven in court that he owned a parka pre-murder?
Why do some experts, including the FBI, say LM may be innocent if they knew about the parka evidence?
Why make programmes like MIAST and the Devils own if it was proven LM owned a parka pre-murder?
Why was it a majority verdict only if parka was proven to exist pre-murder?
Dont you think that if there was video and photo evidence of said parka, we would have seen it by now, Mr Apples?
Every LM supporter would vanish from the web in a flash!!!
If we’re not to trust eyewitness testimony then why would proof that Mitchell owned a parka mean he definitely committed the crime?
-
If there is a photo and video evidence of LM in parka pre-murder surely this would have been used in court and LM guilt would be unquestionable, Mr Apples.
Why has LM any support at all if it was proven in court that he owned a parka pre-murder?
Why do some experts, including the FBI, say LM may be innocent if they knew about the parka evidence?
Why make programmes like MIAST and the Devils own if it was proven LM owned a parka pre-murder?
Why was it a majority verdict only if parka was proven to exist pre-murder?
Dont you think that if there was video and photo evidence of said parka, we would have seen it by now, Mr Apples?
Every LM supporter would vanish from the web in a flash!!!
I’ve made the same points several times to MA but I suppose it easier to be fooled than to admit that you’ve been fooled.
-
If we’re not to trust eyewitness testimony then why would proof that Mitchell owned a parka mean he definitely committed the crime?
Well there had to be murder clothing you see, Vertigo, seeing LM school clothing and bomber jacket yielded no forensic link to the murder scene.
All the police could do then was claim that LM changed back into his school clothes afer killing Jodi and then burned/disposed of the murder clothes.
Without such a claim there was no case against Luke, although there was no tangible evidence of any clothing being burned, ie., no remains!
All the police had was witness testimony of the parkas existence pre-murder, thats all, just 'words'!
And as Faith just pointed out, David High testified that it was after the murder that he saw Luke wearing a parka.
-
Well there had to be murder clothing you see, Vertigo, seeing LM school clothing and bomber jacket yielded no forensic link to the murder scene.
All the police could do then was claim that LM changed back into his school clothes afer killing Jodi and then burned/disposed of the murder clothes.
Without such a claim there was no case against Luke, although there was no tangible evidence of any clothing being burned, ie., no remains!
All the police had was witness testimony of the parkas existence pre-murder, thats all, just 'words'!
And as Faith just pointed out, David High testified that it was after the murder that he saw Luke wearing a parka.
Sorry but that doesn’t really answer the question. If eyewitnesses claiming Mitchell owned such a garment were all wrong then why not the eyewitnesses who said they saw someone on the evening in question wearing such a garment? Therefore proof that he owned a parka doesn’t make the eyewitness that evening any more reliable does it? Or can we just pick and choose which eyewitnesses we want to believe?
-
Sorry but that doesn’t really answer the question. If eyewitnesses claiming Mitchell owned such a garment were all wrong then why not the eyewitnesses who said they saw someone on the evening in question wearing such a garment? Therefore proof that he owned a parka doesn’t make the eyewitness that evening any more reliable does it? Or can we just pick and choose which eyewitnesses we want to believe?
Yes, if LM is innocent then those who testified that he owned a parka pre-murder were wrong, and the witnesses who saw LM on Newbattle Road on the day of the murder were also wrong, except two of the pushbike boys who testified that LM was wearing his bomber jacket, Vertigo. Its that simple!
The other witness, Andrina Bryson,described seeing someone in a fishing style jacket.
-
Yes, if LM is innocent then those who testified that he owned a parka pre-murder were wrong, and the witnesses who saw LM on Newbattle Road on the day of the murder were also wrong, except two of the pushbike boys who testified that LM was wearing his bomber jacket, Vertigo. Its that simple!
The other witness, Andrina Bryson,described seeing someone in a fishing style jacket.
No, you’re missing my point. How does proof of LM owning a parka prove he committed the murder as you said in your post at 6.58pm?
-
From a report in the Scotsman.
"Then there was the parka jacket," he ( Dobbie) added. "We spoke to friends, school teachers and others who knew Mitchell and established he had a parka jacket. The eye witnesses had also made references to a long parka style jacket. His mother said he had never owned one.
"When we searched the house, the parka was missing.
"But friends and family were adamant that he owned one. We also had the information about the wood burner and we started to paint a picture."
Who were the family, best placed to know if Luke had had a parka, that were ‘adamant that he owned one’? I’ve never hear of any of Luke or Jodi’s family giving evidence that he owned a parka.
-
No, you’re missing my point. How does proof of LM owning a parka prove he committed the murder as you said in your post at 6.58pm?
Well, if LM did own a parka it went missing after the murder and he denied owning one, Vertigo.
-
Well, if LM did own a parka it went missing after the murder and he denied owning one, Vertigo.
so basically we’re one photo or receipt away from you being convinced of his guilt?
-
so basically we’re one photo or receipt away from you being convinced of his guilt?
If Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket pre-murder then it is more than likely he was the killer, Vertigo.
What other reason would there be to dispose of it and deny doing so?
-
If Luke Mitchell owned a parka jacket pre-murder then it is more than likely he was the killer, Vertigo.
What other reason would there be to dispose of it and deny doing so?
I’m sure he could come up with one, even if an unconvincing one. Interesting though that all the other many reasons cited by his supporters why Luke couldn’t possibly be the killer would be chucked out the window if it could be proven that he owned this parka.
-
I’m sure he could come up with one, even if an unconvincing one. Interesting though that all the other many reasons cited by his supporters why Luke couldn’t possibly be the killer would be chucked out the window if it could be proven that he owned this parka.
I think the parka jacket is a major part of the case for most people, Vertigo!
-
I think the parka jacket is a major part of the case for most people, Vertigo!
If it’s the one thing that the entire case rests on then all the other aspects become irrelevant, such as the claim that Mitchell didn’t have time to commit the murder, or that it would have been impossible to commit it without having Jodi’s blood found on him etc.
-
When asked by Turnbull about the parka Luke was supposed to have had before the murder this is what he said.
“ Tell me this, please. Did, did Luke have a, a garment like that? -
Ehm, I'm pretty sure it was after, ehm,
Jodie was killed.”
I’d advise anyone asking about the parka to read David High’s testimony. He doesn’t seem at all sure about the acquiring of Luke’s parka and he was his best friend.
Could you please point me to the testimony, a newspaper report will do, where a witness says that Luke was less scruffy than usual?
Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.
I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.
-
If it’s the one thing that the entire case rests on then all the other aspects become irrelevant, such as the claim that Mitchell didn’t have time to commit the murder, or that it would have been impossible to commit it without having Jodi’s blood found on him etc.
Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.
-
Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.
I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.
I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.
-
I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644052#msg644052
-
Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.
But if he definitely had a parka prior to the murder then clearly he would have had time, right?
-
Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.
What?? You are not making sense. Anyway, he wasn't spotted in the Bomber jacket; one of the pushbike boys said it may have been a Bomber, but conceded that he may have been wrong because he remembered LM wearing a green Bomber jacket in school. The other 2 pushbike boys said that it was more of a dull green army shirt that went down past his bottom (one of the boys even said that the shirt was sold in Flip clothing in Edinburgh). LM was wearing layers if clothing between 1655 - 1815 (ie German parka with a German army shirt underneath) and then was wearing his shiny green Bomber jacket when he met the boys in the abbey at 1930. The only anomaly here is the DH & MO sightings at 1800 on NB rd, where they said he was wearing a Bomber jacket. Were this couple getting mixed up between a Bomber and a parka? Or did LM have his shiny green Bomber jacker planked nearby, changing into it to try and confuse eyewitnesses? (If he did plank the bomber, surely an indication that Jodi's murder was premeditated?)
-
But if he definitely had a parka prior to the murder then clearly he would have had time, right?
Well that would be a different scenario, Vertigo, that would be the prosecution one as follows.
Luke changed into parka and other clothes before leaving at 4.40 to meet Jodi.
Now, we only ever hear about the parka, but Luke must have changed all his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi, as common sense tells us that his trouser legs and footwear were bound to get blood on them moving Jodis body to the tree through the blood soaked crime scene, therefore if guilty, Luke/mum, whoever must have burned or dumped his jacket, trousers and foot wear at least after LM returned from killing Jodi.
So, to carry on, Luke changes clothing and rushes to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP before 4.54 as Andrina Bryson passes by in her car.
Luke immediately persuades Jodi to head back along RDP in the Newbattle direction for some reason, back down the path that Luke has just came up. Almost the same scenario that would later happen with the search party!
Anyway, Luke and Jodi head back towards Newbattle, either using RDP or walking through the woodland strip.
Just why Luke/Jodi walked at least half way back down to the 'v' break is a mystery to me, but there you go.
Anyway, they reached the 'v' and for whatever reason, all hell broke loose.
Luke then tries to phone Jodi's house at 5.32 but doesn't get through, he phones again at around 5.40 t say that Jodi hadn't arrived and Alen Ovens tells him that Jodi has left.
Luke is seen around this time by Flem/walsh standing by the gate.
Then Luke is seen by the three bike boys, Carol Heatlie and the o'sullivans between 5.55-6.25 standing beside the entrance to Barondale cottages.
No witness saw LM after this, so we can only presume that he went home around 6.30 or after to change his clothes.
We know Luke limited the time he had to change because he phoned David High at 6.32 to meet up then LM phoned him again before seven because he was taking too long to turn up.
Luke also phoned his mums landline around 6.40 while presuably being at home at the time??
So, Luke stood on Newbattle road for almost an hour in his parka and other murder clothes after the murder, not sure why?
He even arranged to meet David High before going home to change or just after.
Shane Mitchell had already left for the evening before LM got home, so Luke must have had a brief conversation with his mother regarding an alibi if the police arrived, and presumably asked her to dispose of his bloodied clothing ASAP.
Luke then leaves a distraught, shocked ? Corrine before leaving before 7.00 to meet David High and friends at the Abbey.
So, the question was, did LM have time to carry out the murder if he owned a parka? And the answer is yes, with the prosecution scenario which I have just written!
Do you think their scenario makes sense, Vertigo?
-
What?? You are not making sense. Anyway, he wasn't spotted in the Bomber jacket; one of the pushbike boys said it may have been a Bomber, but conceded that he may have been wrong because he remembered LM wearing a green Bomber jacket in school. The other 2 pushbike boys said that it was more of a dull green army shirt that went down past his bottom (one of the boys even said that the shirt was sold in Flip clothing in Edinburgh). LM was wearing layers if clothing between 1655 - 1815 (ie German parka with a German army shirt underneath) and then was wearing his shiny green Bomber jacket when he met the boys in the abbey at 1930. The only anomaly here is the DH & MO sightings at 1800 on NB rd, where they said he was wearing a Bomber jacket. Were this couple getting mixed up between a Bomber and a parka? Or did LM have his shiny green Bomber jacker planked nearby, changing into it to try and confuse eyewitnesses? (If he did plank the bomber, surely an indication that Jodi's murder was premeditated?)
Oh dear, I think you're the one not making sense with that post. Mr Apples!
-
Are you saying that without the receipt that the jury’s verdict was invalid? In your opinion maybe. Personally I put more faith in the opinions of those who were in a position to hear all the evidence presented at trial rather that those of the Johnny Come Latelys who have had to rely on an imperfect set of information, much of it funneled through the highly biased channel of individuals like Sandra Lean. Out of interest is there any eyewitness testimony in this case that you would allow or should it all have been scrapped in your view?
I am not sure how you could draw the conclusion in your first sentence from what I wrote. I have said at least once before that using the jury's verdict in threads whose purpose is to test the jury's verdict provides no new information. What I have also said before is that better evidence regarding the parka (a receipt or CCTV footage) or regarding Luke's whereabouts (cell phone triangulation) would be more convincing that what the Crown actually used. There may be other similar examples.
I used to participate in discussions of the Knox-Sollecito case, and the pro-guilt commenters made exactly the same argument as one of the ones that you made, namely that the jury was there and heard all of the evidence. Yet the K-S case is now almost universally regarded as a wrongful conviction. Regarding the jury in this case, the fact that only a majority verdict is required is a Scotland-wide question. There is also the fact that they deliberated for only 5 hours IIRC, yet there were over forty days of testimony. That strikes me as not much time, given the complexities of this case.
Some time ago I went through much of the eyewitness evidence over the course of roughly six pages of comments in another thread, and time is short today. Let me do an offhand summary of the Andrina Bryson evidence as an example (I imagine that I will misremember something along the way). Neither the victim nor the convicted individual was known to her. She was with her children in a car and turning in the opposite direction versus the direction she was looking. Her descriptions were different from the actual appearances either individual. IIUC the timing of the sighting that she initially gave was different from what was indicated in court. Moreover, the timing in court as summarized by Mr Turnbull ignored her getting lost and looking at the house. All of these factors lessen the probative value of her testimony.
EDT
With respect to Ms. Bryson, I forgot to add that Mr Findley indicated that the photo lineup was problematic. There is at least one additional problem, namely the direction in which she was traveling, that I cannot quickly summarize. With respect to the argument that the jury heard all of the evidence, every jury hears all the evidence. Yet every wrongful conviction begins with a guilty verdict. Therefore, just being there is not enough.
-
I am not sure how you could draw the conclusion in your first sentence from what I wrote. I have said at least once before that using the jury's verdict in threads whose purpose is to test the jury's verdict provides no new information. What I have also said before is that better evidence regarding the parka (a receipt or CCTV footage) or regarding Luke's whereabouts (cell phone triangulation) would be more convincing that what the Crown actually used. There may be other similar examples.
I used to participate in discussions of the Knox-Sollecito case, and the pro-guilt commenters made exactly the same argument as one of the ones that you made, namely that the jury was there and heard all of the evidence. Yet the K-S case is now almost universally regarded as a wrongful conviction. Regarding the jury in this case, the fact that only a majority verdict is required is a Scotland-wide question. There is also the fact that they deliberated for only 5 hours IIRC, yet there were over forty days of testimony. That strikes me as not much time, given the complexities of this case.
Some time ago I went through much of the eyewitness evidence over the course of roughly six pages of comments in another thread, and time is short today. Let me do an offhand summary of the Andrina Bryson evidence as an example (I imagine that I will misremember something along the way). Neither the victim nor the convicted individual was known to her. She was with her children in a car and turning in the opposite direction versus the direction she was looking. Her descriptions were different from the actual appearances either individual. IIUC the timing of the sighting that she initially gave was different from what was indicated in court. Moreover, the timing in court as summarized by Mr Turnbull ignored her getting lost and looking at the house. All of these factors lessen the probative value of her testimony.
EDT
With respect to Ms. Bryson, I forgot to add that Mr Findley indicated that the photo lineup was problematic. There is at least one additional problem, namely the direction in which she was traveling, that I cannot quickly summarize. With respect to the argument that the jury heard all of the evidence, every jury hears all the evidence. Yet every wrongful conviction begins with a guilty verdict. Therefore, just being there is not enough.
The way you keep banging on about a receipt it’s as if this is the magic ticket that solves the case. Without it there is no case but with it you may as well all pack up and go home (as Joe Bloggs has said). Hence my opening comment. Yes juries can make mistakes but they still have had the full facts at their disposal. They sat through every scrap of evidence. Why should armchair detectives who have not had access to the full facts as presented in court have their opinions treated as at least as valid if not more valid than those of the jury? That was my point. Unless they have somehow stumbled on something new that wasn’t heard in court of course…. I always thought Knox and Sollecito was a miscarriage of justice but it was an opinion formed on an imperfect understanding of all the evidence, not enough to state with absolute certainty that I was right of course. I also think Lucy Letby is guilty but concede it may be one on the biggest miscarriages of justice. Time will tell. FYI I concede the same re: Mitchell. .
As for the rest of your post I take it from your example that you don’t believe any eyewitness testimony is reliable. Should it therefore all be excluded on principle? Not just in this case but in every case past, present and future?
-
Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.
I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.
It is obvious from High’s testimony that he really had no idea when Luke bought his parka and why should he? Unless it’s an unusual piece of clothing, and it’s obvious that wearing parkas in his age group wasn’t unusual, then he probably hadn’t taken any notice. It is interesting though that even though High must have been questioned several times before April 2004, being with Luke on the night of Jodi’s murder, it wasn’t until almost a year later that he was asked about a parka.
Luke had the same clothes on that he’d had on at school. His hair was unwashed. In what way was he cleaner or less unkempt?
-
I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.
You do know that anyone can log on as whoever they like on the internet, don’t you MA? Even I’ve been accused of being Dr Lean…I’m not BTW. What Prof do we have that this was Kimberley Thompson? It’s not a post from her a Facebook page where there’s a better chance that it was her or indeed any other personal social media. So what has convinced you that it was her? Is it simply the fact that it fits your narrative?
-
First statement of Carol Heatlie on the 3rd of July
‘ Okay. "about collar length draped down the sides, he did not look particularly scruffy. He was wearing baggy clothes, a waist-length jacket, loose style or
baggy, khaki green coloured"? - Yeah.’
Her from her statement of the 27th of October 2003.
‘ "The top I saw the male wearing was...", does that say, "...longer jacket and goes down to thigh-length. The jacket was a khaki green colour and was baggy. I got the
impression it was more like a baggy sweat
top"? - Yes.
How can a jacket change from being ‘waist length’ like Luke’s bomber jacket to ‘long jacket and goes down to the thigh’ in a matter of months?
-
Well that would be a different scenario, Vertigo, that would be the prosecution one as follows.
Luke changed into parka and other clothes before leaving at 4.40 to meet Jodi.
Now, we only ever hear about the parka, but Luke must have changed all his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi, as common sense tells us that his trouser legs and footwear were bound to get blood on them moving Jodis body to the tree through the blood soaked crime scene, therefore if guilty, Luke/mum, whoever must have burned or dumped his jacket, trousers and foot wear at least after LM returned from killing Jodi.
So, to carry on, Luke changes clothing and rushes to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP before 4.54 as Andrina Bryson passes by in her car.
Luke immediately persuades Jodi to head back along RDP in the Newbattle direction for some reason, back down the path that Luke has just came up. Almost the same scenario that would later happen with the search party!
Anyway, Luke and Jodi head back towards Newbattle, either using RDP or walking through the woodland strip.
Just why Luke/Jodi walked at least half way back down to the 'v' break is a mystery to me, but there you go.
Anyway, they reached the 'v' and for whatever reason, all hell broke loose.
Luke then tries to phone Jodi's house at 5.32 but doesn't get through, he phones again at around 5.40 t say that Jodi hadn't arrived and Alen Ovens tells him that Jodi has left.
Luke is seen around this time by Flem/walsh standing by the gate.
Then Luke is seen by the three bike boys, Carol Heatlie and the o'sullivans between 5.55-6.25 standing beside the entrance to Barondale cottages.
No witness saw LM after this, so we can only presume that he went home around 6.30 or after to change his clothes.
We know Luke limited the time he had to change because he phoned David High at 6.32 to meet up then LM phoned him again before seven because he was taking too long to turn up.
Luke also phoned his mums landline around 6.40 while presuably being at home at the time??
So, Luke stood on Newbattle road for almost an hour in his parka and other murder clothes after the murder, not sure why?
He even arranged to meet David High before going home to change or just after.
Shane Mitchell had already left for the evening before LM got home, so Luke must have had a brief conversation with his mother regarding an alibi if the police arrived, and presumably asked her to dispose of his bloodied clothing ASAP.
Luke then leaves a distraught, shocked ? Corrine before leaving before 7.00 to meet David High and friends at the Abbey.
So, the question was, did LM have time to carry out the murder if he owned a parka? And the answer is yes, with the prosecution scenario which I have just written!
Do you think their scenario makes sense, Vertigo?
Yes, it makes sense -- even though there are grounds for it not making sense or being logical that you are trying to make out with your post above. LM wasn't seen at all between 1815-1930, meaning he'd had a full hour to tell his mother what had happened, begin the process of destroying his murder clothes (ie, the long parka, the German army shirt, black baggy jeans and black doc martin-like boots), quickly clean up (eg, a quick 2 min shower upstairs or at a sink upstairs), change into other clothes (including his white snowboarding boots and shiny green Bomber jacket) and be back out to meet the boys at the Abbey at 1930. He had to be seen between 1740-1815 as that's when he said he'd left the house to go and meet Jodi. Already, there are red flags: LM, regardless of wether they were going to be mucking around at the EH end or NB rd end of the isolated path, LM mostly met Jodi at the EH end as she was forbidden from walking the RDP by her mother due its seclusion. Since dating in March 03, Jodi had only failed to meet LM once and even then she had phoned LM to let him know she wouldn't make it or had phoned him shortly after their arranged meeting time to say why she didn't make it; however, the crux of the matter is that LM would meet Jodi at the EH end of rdp, or half way, regardless of where they were going. Yet on the night of the murder, LM broke those typical arrangements? We are expected to believe he dilly-dallied between 1740-1930, before meeting DH & co at NB Abbey? Not even calling or attempting to call the Joneses back to find out where she was during this window of 1740 - 1930? Indeed, he never even made an attempt to find out where Jodi was all evening, between 1740 - 2238, when Judith inevitably called his phone to find out where she was as she was normally in by her curfew time of 2200? Even when he knew she had no phone that evening as hers was broken? On the night of a brutal murder, their normal meeting arrangements changed? Another coincidence? I don't think so!
Btw, he absolutely had a parka pre-murder and it was established beyond reasonable doubt by virtiue of the prosecution's overwhelming evidence (at least 8 independent witnesses, including 3 teachers, testifying in court that he had worn it pre-murder), some of it yet to be uploaded in the transcript blog. Most school kids change out of their school clothing as soon as they get home, more so when they are going out for the evening (which LM was anyway, at 1800 hrs, before Jodi's text came through at 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than 1800, her grounding/punishment having been lifted unexpectedly by Judith that day). It was overcast and threatening to rain on the late afternoon/early evening of 30.06.03, all the more reason for LM opting to wear a longer jacket with a hood.
-
I've told you, there are no Sandra's here , Ken!
Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.
-
Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.
Oh Ken! Dont you ever tire!
-
It is obvious from High’s testimony that he really had no idea when Luke bought his parka and why should he? Unless it’s an unusual piece of clothing, and it’s obvious that wearing parkas in his age group wasn’t unusual, then he probably hadn’t taken any notice. It is interesting though that even though High must have been questioned several times before April 2004, being with Luke on the night of Jodi’s murder, it wasn’t until almost a year later that he was asked about a parka.
Luke had the same clothes on that he’d had on at school. His hair was unwashed. In what way was he cleaner or less unkempt?
Sure enough to remember that it was well before the murder, like all numerous other witnesses recalled as well and testified under oath. Wearing parkas wouldn't have been common in the suburbs, villages and settlements of Dalkeith, I woukd have thought??
-
You do know that anyone can log on as whoever they like on the internet, don’t you MA? Even I’ve been accused of being Dr Lean…I’m not BTW. What Prof do we have that this was Kimberley Thompson? It’s not a post from her a Facebook page where there’s a better chance that it was her or indeed any other personal social media. So what has convinced you that it was her? Is it simply the fact that it fits your narrative?
You're clutching at straws.
-
Oh Ken! Dont you ever tire!
I'll never tire of the truth. It's ironic your Bloggs-Lean persona emerged around the same time SL was ousted as head honcho of the LM campaign with no more opportunities to con people.
-
Yes, it makes sense -- even though there are grounds for it not making sense or being logical that you are trying to make out with your post above. LM wasn't seen at all between 1815-1930, meaning he'd had a full hour to tell his mother what had happened, begin the process of destroying his murder clothes (ie, the long parka, the German army shirt, black baggy jeans and black doc martin-like boots), quickly clean up (eg, a quick 2 min shower upstairs or at a sink upstairs), change into other clothes (including his white snowboarding boots and shiny green Bomber jacket) and be back out to meet the boys at the Abbey at 1930. He had to be seen between 1740-1815 as that's when he said he'd left the house to go and meet Jodi. Already, there are red flags: LM, regardless of wether they were going to be mucking around at the EH end or NB rd end of the isolated path, LM mostly met Jodi at the EH end as she was forbidden from walking the RDP by her mother due its seclusion. Since dating in March 03, Jodi had only failed to meet LM once and even then she had phoned LM to let him know she wouldn't make it or had phoned him shortly after their arranged meeting time to say why she didn't make it; however, the crux of the matter is that LM would meet Jodi at the EH end of rdp, or half way, regardless of where they were going. Yet on the night of the murder, LM broke those typical arrangements? We are expected to believe he dilly-dallied between 1740-1930, before meeting DH & co at NB Abbey? Not even calling or attempting to call the Joneses back to find out where she was during this window of 1740 - 1930? Indeed, he never even made an attempt to find out where Jodi was all evening, between 1740 - 2238, when Judith inevitably called his phone to find out where she was as she was normally in by her curfew time of 2200? Even when he knew she had no phone that evening as hers was broken? On the night of a brutal murder, their normal meeting arrangements changed? Another coincidence? I don't think so!
Btw, he absolutely had a parka pre-murder and it was established beyond reasonable doubt by virtiue of the prosecution's overwhelming evidence (at least 8 independent witnesses, including 3 teachers, testifying in court that he had worn it pre-murder), some of it yet to be uploaded in the transcript blog. Most school kids change out of their school clothing as soon as they get home, more so when they are going out for the evening (which LM was anyway, at 1800 hrs, before Jodi's text came through at 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than 1800, her grounding/punishment having been lifted unexpectedly by Judith that day). It was overcast and threatening to rain on the late afternoon/early evening of 30.06.03, all the more reason for LM opting to wear a longer jacket with a hood.
Let’s break the timeline down from when Dean Houston, Grant Elliot and Andrew Holborn saw Luke Mitchell.
From the testimony of Andrew Holborn.
‘And so sometime, what around about 5-6, 6 o’clock, something like that by the time you’re down in the area of photograph D (where Luke was standing)- Yeah’
From the testimony of Grant Elliot
‘ Help me with this, if you can please.Just to estimate how much time
would have passed between first seeing him (Luke) and seeing him on your return journey? -
About 40 minutes to half an hour.
So the earliest Grant Elliot could have seen Luke on his return journey was around 6.30 and as late as 6.40pm.
Again from Dean Houston
‘ What was the doing, could you tell? - Ehm, (inaudible).
Yes. - I sure he was on his phone.
Sorry? - I am sure he was on
his phone.’
This phone call could possibly have been the first call to David High asking him to come out.
From the testimony of David High
‘If we return to the records of the telephone calls, we can see that, as we looked at a moment ago, the first call to
you was at 1832. Do you see that? - Yes.’
Or if the later time his mother.
Again during the testimony of David High.
‘The next call made from Luke's telephone is at 1839. We'll hear, I think, that's to his home number. I don't know if you knew that was his home number or not. - No.’
The next phone call from Luke to David High was at 6.54pm. Again from David HIgh’s testimony.
‘Right. But after that, at
1854, he phones you back again. - Yes.’
And
‘Is that right? Okay. How long would you say it was after the second
phone call until you met him? - About ten
minutes.
So David High met Luke at around 7.05 which is verified by testimony from David Tulloch
“Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.
He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.”
So it’s absolutely untrue that Luke wasn’t seen between 6.15 and 7.30. Dean Houston either saw Luke phone David High at 6.34 or 6.39 when he called his mum so he was certainly on Newbattle Road then. Being charitable Luke was not seen for around 30 minutes at the most and around 20 minutes at the least after being seen by Houston and Elliot that evening.
While compiling the above timeline I found this from Dean Houston’s testimony.
“Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes
And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.
But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’
So another school friend who hadn’t seen Luke in a parka.
-
You're clutching at straws.
I’m afraid it’s you who are gullible MA.
-
Sure enough to remember that it was well before the murder, like all numerous other witnesses recalled as well and testified under oath. Wearing parkas wouldn't have been common in the suburbs, villages and settlements of Dalkeith, I woukd have thought??
Another school friend who doesn’t remember Luke having a parka until after the murder.
‘Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes
And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.
But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’
-
Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.
Do you ever add anything substantial to the debate or do you simply get a kick from trolling?
No one, apart from yourself and perhaps Parky, who does like a bit of doxing, cares who anyone is.
-
Let’s break the timeline down from when Dean Houston, Grant Elliot and Andrew Holborn saw Luke Mitchell.
From the testimony of Andrew Holborn.
‘And so sometime, what around about 5-6, 6 o’clock, something like that by the time you’re down in the area of photograph D (where Luke was standing)- Yeah’
From the testimony of Grant Elliot
‘ Help me with this, if you can please.Just to estimate how much time
would have passed between first seeing him (Luke) and seeing him on your return journey? -
About 40 minutes to half an hour.
So the earliest Grant Elliot could have seen Luke on his return journey was around 6.30 and as late as 6.40pm.
Again from Dean Houston
‘ What was the doing, could you tell? - Ehm, (inaudible).
Yes. - I sure he was on his phone.
Sorry? - I am sure he was on
his phone.’
This phone call could possibly have been the first call to David High asking him to come out.
From the testimony of David High
‘If we return to the records of the telephone calls, we can see that, as we looked at a moment ago, the first call to
you was at 1832. Do you see that? - Yes.’
Or if the later time his mother.
Again during the testimony of David High.
‘The next call made from Luke's telephone is at 1839. We'll hear, I think, that's to his home number. I don't know if you knew that was his home number or not. - No.’
The next phone call from Luke to David High was at 6.54pm. Again from David HIgh’s testimony.
‘Right. But after that, at
1854, he phones you back again. - Yes.’
And
‘Is that right? Okay. How long would you say it was after the second
phone call until you met him? - About ten
minutes.
So David High met Luke at around 7.05 which is verified by testimony from David Tulloch
“Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.
He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.”
So it’s absolutely untrue that Luke wasn’t seen between 6.15 and 7.30. Dean Houston either saw Luke phone David High at 6.34 or 6.39 when he called his mum so he was certainly on Newbattle Road then. Being charitable Luke was not seen for around 30 minutes at the most and around 20 minutes at the least after being seen by Houston and Elliot that evening.
While compiling the above timeline I found this from Dean Houston’s testimony.
“Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes
And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.
But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’
So another school friend who hadn’t seen Luke in a parka.
Brilliant Faith! I knew Mr Apples was way out with his timings and have been reading the transcripts for verification, but try as I may I couldn't find out just when the bike boy passed LM a second time on his way home with a flat tyre.
Was that Andrew Holburn? I couldn't find that part in his transcript.
And yes, David High said they met Luke ten minutes after the second phone call at 6.54, so that would be 7.04 if we want to be picky.
-
LM wasn't seen at all between 1815-1930.
Funny Parky posted the same thing a while ago.
‘ Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?’
Of course that was before the transcripts were published and we could test his claims.
-
Brilliant Faith! I knew Mr Apples was way out with his timings and have been reading the transcripts for verification, but try as I may I couldn't find out just when the bike boy passed LM a second time on his way home with a flat tyre.
Was that Andrew Holburn? I couldn't find that part in his transcript.
And yes, David High said they met Luke ten minutes after the second phone call at 6.54, so that would be 7.04 if we want to be picky.
No it was Grant Elliot.
-
Do you ever add anything substantial to the debate or do you simply get a kick from trolling?
No one, apart from yourself and perhaps Parky, who does like a bit of doxing, cares who anyone is.
It's not trolling/doxing. It's exposing someone who has for decades spread lies about a murder victim's family. Someone that you regularly quoted as some kind of guru about the case, when it turns out all she was a bitter mature student clinging onto LM/CM for notoriety and cash. Sacked by LM, CM & the LM Campaign.
There is so much I have asked about the case that has been ignored. For example: why did SL state in a podcast she had all the transcripts, when it transpired none had been requested - and that mere commoners would not be able to afford them, while she personally deceived the LM Campaign for thousands for her "work" when she was working p/t for the local council and doing F'all for LM as the DNA sample non-request cock up revealed?
That's who Jo Bloggs is. Both yourself and Chris have quoted "IB" as some kind of impeccable source while demanding cites from others. It's been exposed as fiction and lies, which it always was, but for some reason you believed it then but don't now. If you want to debate, debate the 3 Mitchell's testimony inconsistency. The case is firmly closed and he will be refused parole again next month.
-
No it was Grant Elliot.
Ah! Thanks Faith, thats why I couldn't find it.
-
It's not trolling/doxing. It's exposing someone who has for decades spread lies about a murder victim's family. Someone that you regularly quoted as some kind of guru about the case, when it turns out all she was a bitter mature student clinging onto LM/CM for notoriety and cash. Sacked by LM, CM & the LM Campaign.
There is so much I have asked about the case that has been ignored. For example: why did SL state in a podcast she had all the transcripts, when it transpired none had been requested - and that mere commoners would not be able to afford them, while she personally deceived the LM Campaign for thousands for her "work" when she was working p/t for the local council and doing F'all for LM as the DNA sample non-request cock up revealed?
That's who Jo Bloggs is. Both yourself and Chris have quoted "IB" as some kind of impeccable source while demanding cites from others. It's been exposed as fiction and lies, which it always was, but for some reason you believed it then but don't now. If you want to debate, debate the 3 Mitchell's testimony inconsistency. The case is firmly closed and he will be refused parole again next month.
Asking about Dr Lean is not asking about the case but carrying on your rather sinister obsession with her.
Much of IB has been proven accurate by the transcripts. There are inaccuracies but they are few.
I’m interested in debating the case. I care not a fig who that’s with. What I’m not interested in are cowards who hide behind the anonymity they enjoy and throw stones at those who have raised their heads above the parapet.
-
Asking about Dr Lean is not asking about the case but carrying on your rather sinister obsession with her.
Much of IB has been proven accurate by the transcripts. There are inaccuracies but they are few.
I’m interested in debating the case. I care not a fig who that’s with. What I’m not interested in are cowards who hide behind the anonymity they enjoy and throw stones at those who have raised their heads above the parapet.
She's not just raised her head above the parapet - she's actively encouraged a hate campaign against the victim's family and gained thousands of pounds by various campaigns under false pretence which you don't seem to acknowledge.
There are dozens of transcript inaccuracies below if you wish to debate and answer why SL claimed to have all transcripts when they weren't available instead of judging me by your off kilter moral compass, remembering that you are arguing about a child murder that hasn't been legally contested since the original trial verdict.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
She's not just raised her head above the parapet - she's actively encouraged a hate campaign against the victim's family and gained thousands of pounds by various campaigns under false pretence which you don't seem to acknowledge.
There are dozens of transcript inaccuracies below if you wish to debate and answer why SL claimed to have all transcripts when they weren't available instead of judging me by your off kilter moral compass, remembering that you are arguing about a child murder that hasn't been legally contested since the original trial verdict.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
I have no idea why Dr Lean has claimed anything and I’m sure you don’t expect me to have. I am not her keeper and to be honest I’m beyond bored by you and your ilk expecting me to make excuses for her. I can’t. She was dishonest but as someone who has tried to the best of my ability to find official confirmation for anything I post it really doesn’t impact me.
The thing about miscarriages of justice, as I believe this to be, is that no one gets justice….not Luke, not Jodi’s family and certainly not Jodi.
-
I have no idea why Dr Lean has claimed anything and I’m sure you don’t expect me to. I am not her keeper and to be honest I’m beyond bored by you and your ilk expecting me to make excuses for her. I can’t. She was dishonest but as someone who has tried to the best of my ability to find official confirmation for anything I post it really doesn’t impact me.
The thing about miscarriages of justice, as I believe this to be, is that no one gets justice….not Luke, not Jodi’s family and certainly not Jodi.
You have quoted and supported Lean for years - now you don't. There is no MOJ. The only people that claim that are CM and the mentally deranged Lean who has history of false MOJ accusations - Hall & Prout. None of the Jones or Mitchell family (apart from his sole alibi) are asking for justice - they want to move on but for the cruel actions of lunatics like Lean, Forbes and the remaining fishwives of the LM campaign.
It's not your place to demand justice for people you don't know. Debate away, but don't implicate the family like you and Chris have done.
-
You have quoted and supported Lean for years - now you don't. There is no MOJ. The only people that claim that are CM and the mentally deranged Lean who has history of false MOJ accusations - Hall & Prout. None of the Jones or Mitchell family (apart from his sole alibi) are asking for justice - they want to move on but for the cruel actions of lunatics like Lean, Forbes and the remaining fishwives of the LM campaign.
It's not your place to demand justice for people you don't know. Debate away, but don't implicate the family like you and Chris have done.
Would you expect me to support someone I know has been dishonest? I’m sure it’s disappointing for you that you can’t suggest that whatever Dr Lean does I’ll support her but there it is. Two of the Mitchell family are definitely asking for justice. The Jones family…I wouldn’t have expected them to. Even when convictions are quashed it’s often hard for the victim of the crime’s families to accept that our legal system had the wrong person.
Yes it is my place to demand that a dreadful wrong is righted…not only my place but the duty of every citizen of this island. Further if the evidence is there to raise question marks over the complicity of any individual named in this case I will do so..without fear or favour.
-
So it’s absolutely untrue that Luke wasn’t seen between 6.15 and 7.30. Dean Houston either saw Luke phone David High at 6.34 or 6.39 when he called his mum so he was certainly on Newbattle Road then. Being charitable Luke was not seen for around 30 minutes at the most and around 20 minutes at the least after being seen by Houston and Elliot that evening
20 mins to 30 mins is still enough time for him to do what I said he likely did. It's remarkable what an individual can do in a short space of time when in survival mode and full of adrenaline.
-
20 mins to 30 mins is still enough time for him to do what I said he likely did. It's remarkable what an individual can do in a short space of time when in survival mode and full of adrenaline.
What do you think that Luke did in those 20 to 30 minutes?
-
Would you expect me to support someone I know has been dishonest? I’m sure it’s disappointing for you that you can’t suggest that whatever Dr Lean does I’ll support her but there it is. Two of the Mitchell family are definitely asking for justice. The Jones family…I wouldn’t have expected them to. Even when convictions are quashed it’s often hard for the victim of the crime’s families to accept that our legal system had the wrong person.
Yes it is my place to demand that a dreadful wrong is righted…not only my place but the duty of every citizen of this island. Further if the evidence is there to raise question marks over the complicity of any individual named in this case I will do so..without fear or favour.
Why won't you address the lies that Lean has put forward - lies that you have used to advance futile arguments? 99% have no issue with a MOJ, only the killer and his mum. None of his family, dad, brother, cousins etc have spoken out. Yet again you have a dig at the victim's family which shows your lack of empathy. You were suckered by a fake criminologist and a fantasy lawyer which is probably harder to admit than the fact you were wrong all along.
If Lean said Aaron Campbell was a MOJ, I'm sure you'd consider it a dreadful wrong etc. Why support LM and no other convicted killer in the past 20 years? Lean is/was a complete amateur but you spent years extolling her virtues. You should get in touch with Gemma if you feel so strongly about it and join the front line - without fear or favour.
-
20 mins to 30 mins is still enough time for him to do what I said he likely did. It's remarkable what an individual can do in a short space of time when in survival mode and full of adrenaline.
Why didn't he just go home earlier, Mr Apples?
Besides, there is no proof whatsoever that LM went home at all between 6.30-7.00, that is the only 'possible' time according to the prosecution scenario, in which time we know he phoned David High twice and his mums landline once.
Why did LM need to stand on Newbattle Road at all after the murder showing off the' alleged' parka? Makes no sense to me!
Why didn't LM sneak home as soon as possible after the murder using back paths as much as possible?
Why the need to display himself at all if he was the killer?
He even managed to use his phone two or three times too without leaving any DNA on it, although we'll be told he cleaned it too.
There's just too much that defies logic for a lot of people, Mr Apples.
-
Why won't you address the lies that Lean has put forward - lies that you have used to advance futile arguments? 99% have no issue with a MOJ, only the killer and his mum. None of his family, dad, brother, cousins etc have spoken out. Yet again you have a dig at the victim's family which shows your lack of empathy. You were suckered by a fake criminologist and a fantasy lawyer which is probably harder to admit than the fact you were wrong all along.
If Lean said Aaron Campbell was a MOJ, I'm sure you'd consider it a dreadful wrong etc. Why support LM and no other convicted killer in the past 20 years? Lean is/was a complete amateur but you spent years extolling her virtues. You should get in touch with Gemma if you feel so strongly about it and join the front line - without fear or favour.
You have no idea what work I’ve been doing on behalf of wrongfully convicted individuals.
I’m sure Luke’s family have their reasons for their silence. Perhaps they’ve seen how Corrine has been treated by individuals such as yourself and decided to stay in the background.
You keep brewing that hatred sweetie. It will rot your insides though.
-
What do you think that Luke did in those 20 to 30 minutes?
Went home, quickly briefed his mother, quickly rinsed his body in upstairs shower, quickly changed clothes and back out to meet the boys in the abbey. The timings for their meeting at the abbey aren't exact, even in the transcripts. Likewise, the pushbike boys' recollections on what LM was wearing at 1755/1800; one said a German army shirt sold in Flip (which I think LM was wearing underneath his parka) and one of the others said possibly a bomber jacket, but said he could be mistaken because he had often seen LM wearing said bomber jacket in school. It's messy. There's no doubt LM was on the NB rd between 1755-1820 as 2 boys whe knew him positively identified him. Lf, RW & ch didn't know him and were extremely confident it was him, wearing a parka jacket that went down to his bum, having seen his picture in a newspaper and tv interview. What are the chances of seeing someone similar looking to LM on the same road in a tiny area/settlement where LM lived at that time on that day? None. Simple as that. It's absurd reasoning to suggest it was a LM lookalike.
-
You have no idea what work I’ve been doing on behalf of wrongfully convicted individuals.
I’m sure Luke’s family have their reasons for their silence. Perhaps they’ve seen how Corrine has been treated by individuals such as yourself and decided to stay in the background.
You keep brewing that hatred sweetie. It will rot your insides though.
Ha ha! Thats exactly what I was thinking, Faith!
Poor Ken is definately going to end up with ulcers if he doesn't calm down a bit, poor chap.
-
Went home, quickly briefed his mother, quickly rinsed his body in upstairs shower, quickly changed clothes and back out to meet the boys in the abbey. The timings for their meeting at the abbey aren't exact, even in the transcripts. Likewise, the pushbike boys' recollections on what LM was wearing at 1755/1800; one said a German army shirt sold in Flip (which I think LM was wearing underneath his parka) and one of the others said possibly a bomber jacket, but said he could be mistaken because he had often seen LM wearing said bomber jacket in school. It's messy. There's no doubt LM was on the NB rd between 1755-1820 as 2 boys whe knew him positively identified him. Lf, RW & ch didn't know him and were extremely confident it was him, wearing a parka jacket that went down to his bum, having seen his picture in a newspaper and tv interview. What are the chances of seeing someone similar looking to LM on the same road in a tiny area/settlement where LM lived at that time on that day? None. Simple as that. It's absurd reasoning to suggest it was a LM lookalike.
What on earth are you talking about ,Mr Apples? Luke never denied standing on Newbattle Rd waiting for Jodi. Of course the witnesses saw him, but more likely than not in his Bomber Jacket.
-
Went home, quickly briefed his mother, quickly rinsed his body in upstairs shower, quickly changed clothes and back out to meet the boys in the abbey. The timings for their meeting at the abbey aren't exact, even in the transcripts. Likewise, the pushbike boys' recollections on what LM was wearing at 1755/1800; one said a German army shirt sold in Flip (which I think LM was wearing underneath his parka) and one of the others said possibly a bomber jacket, but said he could be mistaken because he had often seen LM wearing said bomber jacket in school. It's messy. There's no doubt LM was on the NB rd between 1755-1820 as 2 boys whe knew him positively identified him. Lf, RW & ch didn't know him and were extremely confident it was him, wearing a parka jacket that went down to his bum, having seen his picture in a newspaper and tv interview. What are the chances of seeing someone similar looking to LM on the same road in a tiny area/settlement where LM lived at that time on that day? None. Simple as that. It's absurd reasoning to suggest it was a LM lookalike.
I can’t do anything but shake my head. You are determined not to follow the evidence but to make up your own so who am I to stop you.
-
You have no idea what work I’ve been doing on behalf of wrongfully convicted individuals.
I’m sure Luke’s family have their reasons for their silence. Perhaps they’ve seen how Corrine has been treated by individuals such as yourself and decided to stay in the background.
You keep brewing that hatred sweetie. It will rot your insides though.
I know exactly why the Mitchell's have remained silent as I live nearby. They deliberately ex-communicated CM after a year or so and have no contact since. I've never met CM but she comes across as wholly untrustworthy in interviews/podcasts, desperate to shift the blame and often getting basic facts wrong like in the J English car crash interview where she contradicted herself numerous times.
No hatred from me hen - I'll keep calling out chancers and fraudsters like you and JB Lean.
-
Ha ha! Thats exactly what I was thinking, Faith!
Poor Ken is definately going to end up with ulcers if he doesn't calm down a bit, poor chap.
I spoke to Michael Hickey’s mum many years ago at a meeting of Liberty and she was confronted often with the same hatred displayed towards Corrine often on this page. Of course her son was convicted of killing a child. He didn’t of course and had his conviction was eventually quashed. Only his mother campaigned for him, no other family.
You’d think that we’d learn.
-
Ha ha! Thats exactly what I was thinking, Faith!
Poor Ken is definately going to end up with ulcers if he doesn't calm down a bit, poor chap.
Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?
-
I know exactly why the Mitchell's have remained silent as I live nearby. They deliberately ex-communicated CM after a year or so and have no contact since. I've never met CM but she comes across as wholly untrustworthy in interviews/podcasts, desperate to shift the blame and often getting basic facts wrong like in the J English car crash interview where she contradicted herself numerous times.
No hatred from me hen - I'll keep calling out chancers and fraudsters like you and JB Lean.
I lived quite near to George Micheal some years ago but do you know what…..I knew nothing about the dynamics within his family.
What is it this week? Do you know someone who knows Shane or do you actually know him yourself. If memory serves we’ve had both.
On the upside I’m glad that you think that I’m such a threat.
-
Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?
You are the gift that keeps giving Kenneth.
-
You are the gift that keeps giving Kenneth.
If you knew better I was referring to the drunken states SL has been in while addressing LM supporters pretending to be something she wasn't. No response from her sock puppet account yet though, Plebian?
-
If you knew better I was referring to the drunken states SL has been in while addressing LM supporters pretending to be something she wasn't. No response from her sock puppet account yet though, Plebian?
Are you trying to dox me now? I’m going to enjoy this so crack on.
I remember when Scottish men were men and not simpering bullies who tried to endanger women’s safety.
-
I lived quite near to George Micheal some years ago but do you know what…..I knew nothing about the dynamics within his family.
What is it this week? Do you know someone who knows Shane or do you actually know him yourself. If memory serves we’ve had both.
On the upside I’m glad that you think that I’m such a threat.
George Michael ffs! What next, Cliff Richard isn't gay, he just lives with a disgraced priest.
You're not a threat in the slightest. I'm more scared of Forbes and he's a coward/bully. Yes I've met SM but I don't have a photo or video recording of him implicating LM as guilty.
-
Are you trying to dox me now? I’m going to enjoy this so crack on.
I remember when Scottish men were men and not simpering bullies who tried to endanger women’s safety.
How am I endangering women's safety? You've spent years accusing a murder victims family. Take responsibility for your actions before you accuse others.
-
Why didn't he just go home earlier, Mr Apples?
Besides, there is no proof whatsoever that LM went home at all between 6.30-7.00, that is the only 'possible' time according to the prosecution scenario, in which time we know he phoned David High twice and his mums landline once.
Why did LM need to stand on Newbattle Road at all after the murder showing off the' alleged' parka? Makes no sense to me!
Why didn't LM sneak home as soon as possible after the murder using back paths as much as possible?
Why the need to display himself at all if he was the killer?
He even managed to use his phone two or three times too without leaving any DNA on it, although we'll be told he cleaned it too.
There's just too much that defies logic for a lot of people, Mr Apples.
LM was going to Jodi's at 1800 that evening regardless. Judith had grounded Jodi a few weeks earlier because of truanting school, which involved her not being allowed out before 1800 and doing some household chores. Judith unexpectedly lifted the grounding that day and Jodi texted LM at 1634 to say she'd be allowed out before 1800. Why would Jodi text LM at 1634 to she was allowed out, when LM was going over to her house anyway that evening after 1800? Surely it was to meet up before 1800? As per AO's testimony, Jodi left her house at 1650 (after getting changed and listening to a Rod Stewart track with Judith and JosJ), which suggests she was going to meet LM before 1800 (she'd told Judith she was going to meet with LM, and only LM, and be mucking around at EH). Why, then, did LM say he left the house at 1740 to go and meet with Jodi when Jodi had set off to be with him 50 mins earlier and knowing Jodi had not to walk the path alone? Surely, he should have set off 45 mins - 60 mins earlier if he was to meet Jodi? I think they had, in light of Jodi's ungrounding that day, made an arrangement by text to meet up at 1700 and that's why LM wiped his mobile phone's entire history before police seized it at DPS in the early hours of 01.07.03, for it held incriminating evidence - including the time of a meet-up earlier than their normal 1800. Thats why AB saw him at 1655 hrs at the EH end if RDP (AB told the police she was as sure as she could be it was LM she saw, and was taken aback by how much a photo in a newspaper of LM she saw looked like the male youth she saw that day).
As for why LM didn't sneak home earlier ... he tried to sneak home but was spotted by LF & RW at 1742. He had no choice but to cross the road after murdering Jodi, and not only that, he couldn't risk looking suspicious on the road, for example by running, looking flustered or climbing fences to get back home. But, inevitably, he was seen on the quite busy rural NB rd at peak time when people were driving home to Dalkeith from work, etc. He was at a standstill when the 2 women saw him, not knowing what to do, and that's why the 2 women said he looked suspicious and cheesed off; I think LM at that point was still angry and miffed, not least as he had a murder to hide. As for LM not going home earlier, I suspect he'd made a decision by then that he would tell police that he was waiting on Jodi at that point in time and also still planning what to do or say about other parts of the murder. Why he chose to stay on the nb rd for 30 to 40 mins is anyone's guess. One thing it does prove is that LM must have been confident that people who may have walked by him would not have noticed any blood upon him. Interestingly, the gate where LM was spotted at on NB rd was directly in line with the locus; if LM continued down the woodland strip after murdering Jodi, then he would have emerged on the nb road, exactly opposite the wooden gate.
-
Firstly I would apply that many things were skewed somewhat when working around the many lies from Lean; Such as saying SM was off out around 5:30pm, wouldn't do for the truth here because his actual time of leaving fits around his younger brothers actions that evening. SM was home until at least 6:20pm. But let's just look at what I have always said.
There are no sightings of Mitchell from where he claimed to have been. He had been seen by boys who knew him, he applied he had walked to BC and back again a 'couple of times' because he had been seen, and again by one of the boys on his return journey. It is not the same thing at all as being seen where he claimed, it is the other way around. Giving reason for being seen there those two times, where he could not dispute being identified. In a small time frame he was seen by them and two motorists. It doesn't matter if he was seen 20/30mins later by the boy on his return, it is the same thing. A brief sighting that he incorporated in his claim of walking there and back to where he was never seen.
He was seen several hundred yards away at the point where he claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop. Seen by F&W near to RDP and the woodland strip where Jodi was murdered. And some 45mins before then by AB in Easthouses.
The shuffling around those lies. SM didn't leave home until after 6:20pm and not around 5:30pm. I would imagine that dealing with his mother would be one thing after such an event, dealing with his brother something else entirely? What took place between then and his second call to DH? He had asked him to his house, 20mins barely passed by and he chases him, but he doesn't just chase him to see where he was as always thought, he called him to change the meeting place away from his house and in the Abbey instead. At that point a fire had been decided upon in the Mitchell garden. If he did have a phone in view when the boy on the cycle past, we can certainly apply this may have been his first call to DH. Let's face it, the second call to his mother, the reason they gave was absolute nonsense. The claim of asking if Jodi had been to the house.
Therefore it all still stands. Being seen collectively in a short period of time, then briefly some time later does not equate to Mitchell being where he claimed, does not equate to him standing out on NR in full view of everyone for that ludicrous time frame, not even close.
-
The way you keep banging on about a receipt it’s as if this is the magic ticket that solves the case. Without it there is no case but with it you may as well all pack up and go home (as Joe Bloggs has said). Hence my opening comment. Yes juries can make mistakes but they still have had the full facts at their disposal. They sat through every scrap of evidence. Why should armchair detectives who have not had access to the full facts as presented in court have their opinions treated as at least as valid if not more valid than those of the jury? That was my point. Unless they have somehow stumbled on something new that wasn’t heard in court of course…. I always thought Knox and Sollecito was a miscarriage of justice but it was an opinion formed on an imperfect understanding of all the evidence, not enough to state with absolute certainty that I was right of course. I also think Lucy Letby is guilty but concede it may be one on the biggest miscarriages of justice. Time will tell. FYI I concede the same re: Mitchell. .
As for the rest of your post I take it from your example that you don’t believe any eyewitness testimony is reliable. Should it therefore all be excluded on principle? Not just in this case but in every case past, present and future?
The only reason I continued to discuss the lack of a receipt is to correct your misimpression of what I had said. Eyewitness testimony has to be evaluated on its merits individually, and there are many factors that contribute to its reliability or lack thereof. There is also the question of its value, apart from its reliability. The chief problem with the testimony of Fleming and Walsh is that even if it were completely accurate, it would only mean that LM was a few hundred yards from where he said he was. In other words, it would not have much probative value.
-
Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?
Thanks for the concern, Ken, but my health is just fine!
Although i'm recovering from a hip operation at the moment, which is no big deal.
-
I spoke to Michael Hickey’s mum many years ago at a meeting of Liberty and she was confronted often with the same hatred displayed towards Corrine often on this page. Of course her son was convicted of killing a child. He didn’t of course and had his conviction was eventually quashed. Only his mother campaigned for him, no other family.
You’d think that we’d learn.
Thanks Faith.
-
The only reason I continued to discuss the lack of a receipt is to correct your misimpression of what I had said. Eyewitness testimony has to be evaluated on its merits individually, and there are many factors that contribute to its reliability or lack thereof. There is also the question of its value, apart from its reliability. The chief problem with the testimony of Fleming and Walsh is that even if it were completely accurate, it would only mean that LM was a few hundred yards from where he said he was. In other words, it would not have much probative value.
Well of course it had probative value. When evaluating the evidence holistically, as was naturally done with this entirely circumstantial case, F&W's sighting was accepted by the jury and thus was a part of the jigsaw that got LM convicted.
-
Firstly I would apply that many things were skewed somewhat when working around the many lies from Lean; Such as saying SM was off out around 5:30pm, wouldn't do for the truth here because his actual time of leaving fits around his younger brothers actions that evening. SM was home until at least 6:20pm. But let's just look at what I have always said.
There are no sightings of Mitchell from where he claimed to have been. He had been seen by boys who knew him, he applied he had walked to BC and back again a 'couple of times' because he had been seen, and again by one of the boys on his return journey. It is not the same thing at all as being seen where he claimed, it is the other way around. Giving reason for being seen there those two times, where he could not dispute being identified. In a small time frame he was seen by them and two motorists. It doesn't matter if he was seen 20/30mins later by the boy on his return, it is the same thing. A brief sighting that he incorporated in his claim of walking there and back to where he was never seen.
He was seen several hundred yards away at the point where he claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop. Seen by F&W near to RDP and the woodland strip where Jodi was murdered. And some 45mins before then by AB in Easthouses.
The shuffling around those lies. SM didn't leave home until after 6:20pm and not around 5:30pm. I would imagine that dealing with his mother would be one thing after such an event, dealing with his brother something else entirely? What took place between then and his second call to DH? He had asked him to his house, 20mins barely passed by and he chases him, but he doesn't just chase him to see where he was as always thought, he called him to change the meeting place away from his house and in the Abbey instead. At that point a fire had been decided upon in the Mitchell garden. If he did have a phone in view when the boy on the cycle past, we can certainly apply this may have been his first call to DH. Let's face it, the second call to his mother, the reason they gave was absolute nonsense. The claim of asking if Jodi had been to the house.
Therefore it all still stands. Being seen collectively in a short period of time, then briefly some time later does not equate to Mitchell being where he claimed, does not equate to him standing out on NR in full view of everyone for that ludicrous time frame, not even close.
If LM is guilty, Peter, what was he hoping to achieve standing on Newbattle Road after the murder?
-
Contacting DH twice on the night of the murder was, I suggest, out of the ordinary at that period in LM's life, since he was with Jodi most evenings then. Another coincidence? I don't think so. I'm surprised ADT never asked DH if it was common for LM to phone him to meet up at that period.
-
Contacting DH twice on the night of the murder was, I suggest, out of the ordinary at that period in LM's life, since he was with Jodi most evenings then. Another coincidence? I don't think so. I'm surprised ADT never asked DH if it was common for LM to phone him to meet up at that period.
Well David High must have met up with Luke/Jodi quite regular, Mr Apples.
How else would he have known that it was unusual for Jodi to be missing?
-
Well David High must have met up with Luke/Jodi quite regular, Mr Apples.
How else would he have known that it was unusual for Jodi to be missing?
It seems that DH was one of LM's closest friends at the time, so he probably knew he was with her most nights without actually being in their company (ie, LM telling him in school he was with her and DH seeing them together most nights without actually being in their company). Like I said, I'm surprised ADT never asked DH if it was common for LM to meet up with him during that particular time when LM was dating Jodi.
-
It seems that DH was one of LM's closest friends at the time, so he probably knew he was with her most nights without actually being in their company (ie, LM telling him in school he was with her and DH seeing them together most nights without actually being in their company). Like I said, I'm surprised ADT never asked DH if it was common for LM to meet up with him during that particular time when LM was dating Jodi.
Well, you certainly have an answer to everything, Mr Apples!
Anyway, lets go back to what happened after the murder and what was going on in LM mind, if guilty!
OK, Luke has rushed to kill Jodi and indeed she is dead within a good half hour of the last text between them, now what?
Rationally Luke must have thought, 'right ! job done, now to sneak home as soon as possible and dispose of my blood stained clothing, hopefully without being seen or recognized by anyone. I'll shower to get rid of any forensic evidence then phone Jodi's house to say that she hasn't turned up. Yes thats it, brilliant, speed home unseen, shower, dispose of murder clothing then phone Jodi's house! All evidence destroyed and no forensics on me, nothing to tie me to the murder scene, by golly i'm good! You're a genius Luke Muir Mitchell, a genius!!!!'..............
..........'No wait!.. just wait up there a minute, Mitchell! wait up you numbskull !..yes, thats it, thats it! ..why dont I just stroll onto Newbattle Road in my murder clothes for all to see! I could stand there for about an hour to let as many people see what i'm wearing and hopefully remember my face too. Who knows, someone may even pass by who actually knows me, they may even notice any small blood stains on my clothing! Yes, lets give the police a sporting chance too, if Jodi's body is found quickly they might even lift me before I get home.Yes, now i'm talking! That indeed sounds like a plan for sure my son! ..Phew!!! I almost messed up before I got started! What in the name of god was I thinking there, rush home and get cleaned up ASAP? Gee whizz!.. you are a numpty, Muir!!''...............
............
Is this what went through LM mind as he stood over Jodi's body at the locus, Mr Apples?
In hind sight, do you think he made the right decision?
I for one cant fathom out what his plan was!!
-
Well of course it had probative value. When evaluating the evidence holistically, as was naturally done with this entirely circumstantial case, F&W's sighting was accepted by the jury and thus was a part of the jigsaw that got LM convicted.
Indeed MA, weight of evidence in respect of each link in the chain adds probative value. Mitchell being exposed as lying holds probative value. His statement of why he lied to the police, 'because he knew how they worked' holds probative value. Being seen, denying it was him, not just several hundred yards away on the same road but close to the murder site held probative value. Tying in with being seen some 45mins pre murder added to the probative value of his sighting on the other side. Having in excess of 8 people stating they saw Mitchell wear such attire pre-murder holds probative value. Being seen in similar clothing on the day of the murder holds probative value. Jodi getting out earlier than expected with no means to contact anyone else holds probative value. Leaving home at a much earlier time to meet with Mitchell, then him being seen holds probative value. The list is endless and backed up by other things to add weight to that probative value. - The attempt to dismantle and break that chain or indeed ask for more to lesson probative value of each link doesn't break it. It hasn't broken its strength.
-
Well, you certainly have an answer to everything, Mr Apples!
Anyway, lets go back to what happened after the murder and what was going on in LM mind, if guilty!
OK, Luke has rushed to kill Jodi and indeed she is dead within a good half hour of the last text between them, now what?
Rationally Luke must have thought, 'right ! job done, now to sneak home as soon as possible and dispose of my blood stained clothing, hopefully without being seen or recognized by anyone. I'll shower to get rid of any forensic evidence then phone Jodi's house to say that she hasn't turned up. Yes thats it, brilliant, speed home unseen, shower, dispose of murder clothing then phone Jodi's house! All evidence destroyed and no forensics on me, nothing to tie me to the murder scene, by golly i'm good! You're a genius Luke Muir Mitchell, a genius!!!!'..............
..........'No wait!.. just wait up there a minute, Mitchell! wait up you numbskull !..yes, thats it, thats it! ..why dont I just stroll onto Newbattle Road in my murder clothes for all to see! I could stand there for about an hour to let as many people see what i'm wearing and hopefully remember my face too. Who knows, someone may even pass by who actually knows me, they may even notice any small blood stains on my clothing! Yes, now i'm talking! That indeed sounds like a plan for sure my son! ..Phew!!! I almost messed up before I got started! What in the name of god was I thinking there, rush home and get cleaned up ASAP? Gee whizz!.. you are a numpty, Muir!!''...............
............
Is this what went through LM mind as he stood over Jodi's body at the locus, Mr Apples?
In hind sight, do you think he made the right drcision?
I for one cant fathom out what his plan was!!
No point in going around in circles here. I've already given my views on what I think happened that fateful day and I can't be bothered going over it all again. Check out my posting history and see if that answers any of your questions.
Where I will agree with you to an extent is why LM chose to skulk around the NB road for almost 40 mins (between 1740-1820), though I don't think he was just pacing up and down that road for 40 mins, otherwise he'd have been seen by more eyewitnesses passing in cars; I think during that 40 mins he was in the woods for a large portion of time, thinking what his next move would be and also maybe cleaning himself up a little at a little brook or stream. I think it's very possible after the F&W sighting, he disappeared into the woodland behind the gate, took his parka off, planked it, went back out onto the Nb rd wearing his German army shirt that he'd been wearing underneath the parka (an attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses, imo). Then, after 1820, went back into the woodland, retrieved his parka, phoned his mother to quickly brief her, phoned DH, got home, briefed his mother further, gave her the murder clothes to burn, got a very quick shower, changed clothing, phoned DH back, checked the fire was underway, and met the boys in the abbey at just after 1900, wearing clean clothes and his shiny green bomber jacket and white snowboarding boots. It's important to remember that LM's house was literally only 2 mins fast walking distance away from where he was spotted on the nb rd - and he knew all those woodlands near his house intimately, including the woodland strip where Jodi was evidently murdered. So, yes, he had ample time to cover his tracks during that window of 1820/1830 - 1905, before he met the boys in the abbey.
I don't think LM went home, cleaned up and then phoned the Jones landline at 1740. He phoned their landline after he'd murdered her and hid her body in the foilage and undergrowth 16.3 metres west of the V-break in the wall - the phone call being a ruse, giving the Joneses the impression that LM had still to meet her and in turn setting LM's false alibi in place. Remember, too, that LM had attempted to call the Jones landline at 1732, but he had abruptly hung up after only a few seconds of that call connecting. Why? Was he interrupted by someone or something at that point as he walked down the woodland strip towards nb rd, fearful that they'd blow his cover or discover Jodi's body? Or was there a loud noise that could place him at the locus at that time, such as the motorbike in dubious mechanical condition that JOF & GD were driving in the adjacent field? The same motorbike that cyclist Leonard Kelly heard as he cycled home to EH along the RDP at 1710/1715? Leonard Kelly was the guy who testified that he heard strange and disturbing sounds coming from over the wall as he cycled past, describing it as a strangling noise as if a couple of boys were fighting and someone had somebody in a headlock. LK also said that the noises gave him a fright, so much so that he slowed down to a standstill to listen. When he stopped to listen, the disturbing noises stopped, meaning that the person over the wall heard him and made sure the noises stopped. I put it to you that this was when LM was murdering Jodi, and he was in a heightened state of alert to everything around him.
-
No point in going around in circles here. I've already given my views on what I think happened that fateful day and I can't be bothered going over it all again. Check out my posting history and see if that answers any of your questions.
Where I will agree with you to an extent is why LM chose to skulk around the NB road for almost 40 mins (between 1740-1820), though I don't think he was just pacing up and down that road for 40 mins, otherwise he'd have been seen by more eyewitnesses passing in cars; I think during that 40 mins he was in the woods for a large portion of time, thinking what his next move would be and also maybe cleaning himself up a little at a little brook or stream. I think it's very possible after the F&W sighting, he disappeared into the woodland behind the gate, took his parka off, planked it, went back out onto the Nb rd wearing his German army shirt that he'd been wearing underneath the parka (an attempt to confuse potential eyewitnesses, imo). Then, after 1820, went back into the woodland, retrieved his parka, phoned his mother to quickly brief her, phoned DH, got home, briefed his mother further, gave her the murder clothes to burn, got a very quick shower, changed clothing, phoned DH back, checked the fire was underway, and met the boys in the abbey at just after 1900, wearing clean clothes and his shiny green bomber jacket and white snowboarding boots. It's important to remember that LM's house was literally only 2 mins fast walking distance away from where he was spotted on the nb rd - and he knew all those woodlands near his house intimately, including the woodland strip where Jodi was evidently murdered. So, yes, he had ample time to cover his tracks during that window of 1820/1830 - 1905, before he met the boys in the abbey.
I don't think LM went home, cleaned up and then phoned the Jones landline at 1740. He phoned their landline after he'd murdered her and hid her body in the foilage and undergrowth 16.3 metres west of the V-break in the wall - the phone call being a ruse, giving the Joneses the impression that LM had still to meet her and in turn setting LM's false alibi in place. Remember, too, that LM had attempted to call the Jones landline at 1732, but he had abruptly hung up after only a few seconds of that call connecting. Why? Was he interrupted by someone or something at that point as he walked down the woodland strip towards nb rd, fearful that they'd blow his cover or discover Jodi's body? Or was there a loud noise that could place him at the locus at that time, such as the motorbike in dubious mechanical condition that JOF & GD were driving in the adjacent field? The same motorbike that cyclist Leonard Kelly heard as he cycled home to EH along the RDP at 1710/1715? Leonard Kelly was the guy who testified that he heard strange and disturbing sounds coming from over the wall as he cycled past, describing it as a strangling noise as if a couple of boys were fighting and someone had somebody in a headlock. LK also said that the noises gave him a fright, so much so that he slowed down to a standstill to listen. When he stopped to listen, the disturbing noises stopped, meaning that the person over the wall heard him and made sure the noises stopped. I put it to you that this was when LM was murdering Jodi, and he was in a heightened state of alert to everything around him.
You have quite a few posts to look at , Mr Apples, well over 500!
I may not read them all, not all at once anyway.
I have no doubt read some of them before anyway, I have visited the Red forum to see what was being said about LM and Jeremy Bamber many times in the past.
I've got the gist of your guilt scenario anyway!
-
What's changed? - Confirmation that SM had not seen nor heard his brother. Confirmation that he had been influenced into telling lies by his own mother. Confirmation that SM had not left home around 5:30pm but after 6:20pm. Where he still didn't see his brother around the entrance of the estate. Confirmation that it was after 6:30pm when LM was seen by the cyclist on his return journey. Confirmation that LM had not been seen sitting on the wall at the entrance of his estate, at any time. Though he claimed to be there for the best part of 80mins. Only walking to and from Barondale Cottages (claimed) twice he said. No evidence at all of him walking to and from there.
Confirmation that all the sightings of him had not been of him wearing his bomber jacket. Confirmation in everything put forward by F&W that the sighting took place at the wooden gate. Seeing the jogger 'further down the hill' Confirmation that the two boys who knew him may possibly have confused his jacket for the one they were familiar with. Confirmation that we are still left with no sightings of LM for the best part of 70mins, where he claimed to be. Confirmation that 5 people saw LM wearing something other than his bomber jacket. 3 (so far) in places he claimed not to have been.
Confirmation that LM had lied, that his dog had not alerted him to where the victims body lay, direction of. Confirmation that the only time the dog was up at the wall was the Gino break, then directly to and at the V break. Confirmation that no alert took place past this point, confirmation that LM did not double back to anywhere. Confirmation that he had lied when claiming he knew nothing of those breaks until with the others searching. Confirmation that he had walked down into that woodland towards the V break before with others. He was familiar with the woodland. Confirmation that in excess of 8 people testified to LM wearing a khaki green, parka style jacket pre the murder. Confirmation of LM carrying knives frequently, confirmation of a missing knife. Confirmation that a fire was taken place in the Mitchell garden at different intervals that evening.
Confirmation that LM went home around 10pm and not just after 9pm. Confirmation of his many multiple missing time frames. Confirmation of his changing accounts. Confirmation of his compulsive lies. Confirmation that that he did not meet with the others at the junction of the paths. Confirmation that he had not rushed up any path. Confirmation that there is a missing time frame again, from his arrival at the path (claimed by him), to his meeting the others after 11:20pm. Confirmation that it took approx 5 1/2 mins from heading off together, to LM entering the woodland and calling out he had found his "something" Seconds in the woodland to find and identify a body, through trees, overgrowth, name tree by type the victim lay behind, her hair fastener etc.
Confirmation that LM had not borrowed a torch from his brother, SM knew nothing was amiss until awakened (claimed) by his mother in the early hours of July 1st. Confirmation that LM had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of his mothers arrival at the police station. Confirmation that she was with her son when handing over that first account. Confirmation that LM asked if SM were home? Confirmation that he deleted the data from his phone and not the police. Confirmation he omitted the contact to the Jones house, being told Jodi had left already ("a wee while ago"), Conflicting accounts as to why he did nothing.
So, yes. Nothing much changed. Alibi exposed as false. Sightings still firmly in place elsewhere. The dog did not alert and show him where the victims body was, he made up position, reason and so forth, in his attempt to make it appear so. Still missing clothing, knife. Still fuelled to the brim with lies. But all in all, what has been exposed is a farce of a campaign overflowing with dishonesty. Where multiple innocents have been used as fodder to bring favour for LM. Is he innocent? I don't believe so. Was the evidence sufficient for a conviction? That will always be up for debate. It in no way shows nor proves in the slightest, that LM did not and could not have murdered Jodi Jones, imo.
Naughty, naughty Parky. Whether Shane went out at 5.30 or 6.20 makes absolutely no difference to the case against Luke. Further Luke was down at the entrance to Barndale Cottages at 6.20, standing at exactly the same place as Grant Elliot had seen him around 25 minutes before so Shane could have absolutely missed him.
We must never forget that this was a young man of 15 who just hours before his first interview had seen the body of his girlfriend, mutilated and murdered. If innocent how coherent do you think that first interview was likely to be? How accurate the timings? How accurate his recollections regarding his movements? We have seen time after time witnesses change their recollections….Carol Heatlie saw a youth in a jacket that was ‘waist length’ in July to ‘thigh length’ in October, Findlay drove a horse and cart through Fleming and Walsh’s testimony, Jodi was ‘grounded’ yet several witnesses testified to her being as free as a bird the last weekend of her life. It’s cherrypicking at its worst.
-
According to various media reports LM got engaged to his campaign chief and his 6th girlfriend from 2003 - that's quite a courtship. Anyone any the wiser if this is a shifty move to outwit the parole board after being named a danger to females. And will Faithlilly need to get in extra china to entertain the newly weds when he gets out.
-
According to various media reports LM got engaged to his campaign chief and his 6th girlfriend from 2003 - that's quite a courtship. Anyone any the wiser if this is a shifty move to outwit the parole board after being named a danger to females. And will Faithlilly need to get in extra china to entertain the newly weds when he gets out.
Poor thing. You really are riddled with it, aren’t you?
-
According to various media reports LM got engaged to his campaign chief and his 6th girlfriend from 2003 - that's quite a courtship. Anyone any the wiser if this is a shifty move to outwit the parole board after being named a danger to females. And will Faithlilly need to get in extra china to entertain the newly weds when he gets out.
James English "podcaster" and LM defender via his interviews with Lean & C Mitchell was in court this week on domestic abuse charges. Why are so many LM supporters misogynistic or criminal?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o)
-
James English "podcaster" and LM defender via his interviews with Lean & C Mitchell was in court this week on domestic abuse charges. Why are so many LM supporters misogynistic or criminal?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o)
Oh is the trial over then?
-
Oh is the trial over then?
If he's found not guilty I'll take it back, but he's a snake who tried to monetise [Name removed]'s murder through interviews with the LM rabble, and various other gangsters, right-wingers and Z-list chancers.
-
If he's found not guilty I'll take it back, but he's a snake who tried to monetise [Name removed]'s murder through interviews with the LM rabble, and various other gangsters, right-wingers and Z-list chancers.
I’m not particularly fond of him either but we have a judicial process for a reason.
I’m sure it wouldn’t matter to you how much money he’d made if he thought Luke guilty.
-
James English "podcaster" and LM defender via his interviews with Lean & C Mitchell was in court this week on domestic abuse charges. Why are so many LM supporters misogynistic or criminal?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyn5nr55o)
We can see where he’s coming from I think “ On his podcast, English has interviewed celebrities including Andrew Tate, Katie Price, and Tommy Robinson.”
-
We can see where he’s coming from I think “ On his podcast, English has interviewed celebrities including Andrew Tate, Katie Price, and Tommy Robinson.”
The LM campaign has been based on lies and gossip. English added fuel to the fire by indulging Lean & CM without doing "due diligence". He was in it for the likes for his channel. If rumour and gossip are to be believed there is much more to unfold about his behaviour with women, but he will no doubt play the victim much like LM's defenders.
-
The LM campaign has been based on lies and gossip. English added fuel to the fire by indulging Lean & CM without doing "due diligence". He was in it for the likes for his channel. If rumour and gossip are to be believed there is much more to unfold about his behaviour with women, but he will no doubt play the victim much like LM's defenders.
And Huw Edwards once interviewed the Duke of Edinburgh….and?
-
And Huw Edwards once interviewed the Duke of Edinburgh….and?
Poor response. Huw E was a royal correspondent, it was his BBC job. JE was an independent podcaster who hand picked controversial interviewees to boost his ratings, but here you are as ever trying to win an argument by some mental gymnastics. The facts are; JE indulged the LM campaigners without challenging them, and is now in court for 19 charges of domestic abuse.
-
Poor response. Huw E was a royal correspondent, it was his BBC job. JE was an independent podcaster who hand picked controversial interviewees to boost his ratings, but here you are as ever trying to win an argument by some mental gymnastics. The facts are; JE indulged the LM campaigners without challenging them, and is now in court for 19 charges of domestic abuse.
One has got absolutely nothing to do with the other.
It’s odd that I’ve never seen one interview with someone who believes Luke is guilty. Must be they prefer to do their exposing and challenging anonymously and thus avoiding scrutiny eh?
-
One has got absolutely nothing to do with the other.
It’s odd that I’ve never seen one interview with someone who believes Luke is guilty. Must be they prefer to do their exposing and challenging anonymously and thus avoiding scrutiny eh?
You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.
-
You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.
This is a tried and tested tactic by this forum member in all the cases she follows (but only when it suits her argument of course!)
-
You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.
You’d have a point if I had been talking about press interviews but I’m not. Take John Scott QC for example. He has consistently, on camera, questioned the safety of Luke’s conviction. Professor Allan Jamieson likewise. These people have a professional reputation to protect. Do you think that they’d question a conviction that they believed was safe?
As to Innocents Betrayed are you actually suggesting that new information shouldn’t change previously held views? Now that is ridiculous. Of course when I discovered that elements within Innocents Betrayed are untrue it adjusts the weight I give to the information within the book. Much however of that written by Dr Lean is evidenced within the transcripts published to date. Some is not and that is problematic so, as always, I’ll look elsewhere for verification.
Liken this approach to you and the ‘strong majority’. Apart from a few forum posts claiming that the judge had charged the jury to bring back a strong majority the transcripts tell us that is absolutely not true. The judge merely told the jury that 8 jury members who believed Luke was guilty was enough for a guilty verdict. Nothing more. Of course the verdict looks stronger if a verdict had been brought down with a strong majority but we have absolutely no idea if this was the case. The judge certainly didn’t insist on it. More propaganda but to what end? Yet you believe it and continue to promote the lie even although at this point you must know it to be untrue.
-
You’d have a point if I had been talking about press interviews but I’m not. Take John Scott QC for example. He has consistently, on camera, questioned the safety of Luke’s conviction. Professor Allan Jamieson likewise. These people have a professional reputation to protect. Do you think that they’d question a conviction that they believed was safe?
There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"
-
There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"
Yes he now makes money from producing tv programmes about notorious cases like this one and Jack the Ripper, etc.
-
Yes he now makes money from producing tv programmes about notorious cases like this one and Jack the Ripper, etc.
One, regardless of the merits of the case, this fact gives him a disincentive to criticize the present conviction, in that it might alienate a portion of his audience. Two, there is a second disincentive. I will need a US case to illustrate my point. Suppose a US true crime personality akin to Professor Wilson championed Raymond Clark in the murder of Annie Le. The evidence against Mr. Clark was overwhelming, and claiming that this was a wrongful conviction would lead to a loss of credibility. In other words, there are one or two self-interested reasons that Professor Wilson might choose to remain silent; there are no obvious countervailing ones.
-
There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"
I didn’t include David Wilson as I haven’t heard him express his views in a television interview.
-
One, regardless of the merits of the case, this fact gives him a disincentive to criticize the present conviction, in that it might alienate a portion of his audience. Two, there is a second disincentive. I will need a US case to illustrate my point. Suppose a US true crime personality akin to Professor Wilson championed Raymond Clark in the murder of Annie Le. The evidence against Mr. Clark was overwhelming, and claiming that this was a wrongful conviction would lead to a loss of credibility. In other words, there are one or two self-interested reasons that Professor Wilson might choose to remain silent; there are no obvious countervailing ones.
You can’t be serious. There is a whole industry of people making a decent living out of challenging the prevailing view or verdict in all sorts of cases and conspiracy theories. There will always be an eager audience for this sort of thing, anything that goes against the orthodoxy and encourages these conspiracy minded people to believe that they are smarter than the gullible sheeple who accept the official view.
-
You can’t be serious. There is a whole industry of people making a decent living out of challenging the prevailing view or verdict in all sorts of cases and conspiracy theories. There will always be an eager audience for this sort of thing, anything that goes against the orthodoxy and encourages these conspiracy minded people to believe that they are smarter than the gullible sheeple who accept the official view.
Is it your opinion that people who are challenging the present conviction are conspiracy theorists?
-
Is it your opinion that people who are challenging the present conviction are conspiracy theorists?
Many of them are, in my opinion. They will have a predisposition to believe that there are cover ups at a senior level not just in this case but in many others. How many MoJs has Sandra Lean championed which turned out not to be MoJs for example?
-
I read through Dr. Hiremath's testimony, who indicated that fingernail scrapings were taken from Luke. Lack of blood or DNA from these samples is mildly exculpatory. The fact that the samples were taken bolsters the argument that Luke was a suspect as of 6:30 AM on 1 July.
-
I read through Dr. Hiremath's testimony, who indicated that fingernail scrapings were taken from Luke. Lack of blood or DNA from these samples is mildly exculpatory. The fact that the samples were taken bolsters the argument that Luke was a suspect as of 6:30 AM on 1 July.
This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.
“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”
Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.
It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.
-
This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.
“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”
Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.
It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.
Good point Faith!
-
It’s also interesting that the prosecution went to the length of paying for a fingerprint expert to discredit Mrs Mitchell. They had absolutely no way to discredit her actual alibi evidence so had to resort the desperate act of destroying her credibility wholesale.
-
It’s also interesting that the prosecution went to the length of paying for a fingerprint expert to discredit Mrs Mitchell. They had absolutely no way to discredit her actual alibi evidence so had to resort the desperate act of destroying her credibility wholesale.
Ah, I didn't know what they were trying, Faith, I gave up reading the fingerprint transcript.
-
This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.
“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”
Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.
It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.
I thought the argument was that because Mitchell was all over the media his face was so familiar that it created false memory syndrome. Odd that she claims she wouldn’t recognise him, given her involvement in such a high profile case.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-2470415
From a 2005 article in The Scotsman: "But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation. It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect." Mr. Dobbie indicated that their suspicions were aroused or increased on 3 July. The only reasons to take fingernail scrapings (which took place on the morning of 1 July) from someone is if one thinks that they are either the victim or the perpetrator of a person-on-person crime. Therefore Craig Dobbie's statement is false, and his credibility is lessened.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-2470415
From a 2005 article in The Scotsman: "But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation. It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect." Mr. Dobbie indicated that their suspicions were aroused or increased on 3 July. The only reasons to take fingernail scrapings (which took place on the morning of 1 July) from someone is if one thinks that they are either the victim or the perpetrator of a person-on-person crime. Therefore Craig Dobbie's statement is false, and his credibility is lessened.
Well, you may well be right, Chris, but I believe that the police often interrogate and check someone for injuries if they were close to the deceased, eg, a husband who's wife has been murdered.
This is done to rule that person out I believe, and in Lukes case it certainly did.
-
Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances." From the discussion: "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."
It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible. Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.
-
Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances." From the discussion: "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."
It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible. Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.
Everyone?? Who did you have in mind and why?
-
Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances." From the discussion: "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."
It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible. Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.
Yes, you have a point there, Chris.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp
38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp
38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.
Then empty the prisons, everyone else must be innocent too.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp
38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.
Says the person who believed Sandra Lean's version of events and promoted it as the truth.
-
Says the person who believed Sandra Lean's version of events and promoted it as the truth.
I believe that Luke is innocent if that?s what you mean.
Much of the detail Dr Lean described in her book we have subsequently found out from the transcripts to be true?.some not. This narrative of Innocents Betrayed being a complete falsehood is simply not true.
Parky brought to us the tail of the ?large majority?, which you wholly embraced. Of course we now know that Nimmo said nothing about a ?large majority?. Does this make everything that Parky has ever posted to be disbelieved?
-
I believe that Luke is innocent if that?s what you mean.
Much of the detail Dr Lean described in her book we have subsequently found out from the transcripts to be true?.some not. This narrative of Innocents Betrayed being a complete falsehood is simply not true.
Large parts of IB have been exposed as complete lies - there are at least 17 referenced in the link below. How many lies are acceptable for a complete falsehood?
If I read a book that contained that many deliberate lies, I would not trust the author. Lean also claimed on YT she had ALL the transcripts when most hadn't even been transcribed. The point is you promoted her as an unquestionable authority on the subject. It's ok to have an opinion on LM but to to still promote Lean as relevant is laughable. I'm standing by the 2005 court verdict, failed appeals, failed parole, his current risk to females, lack of credible representation or support from his family as defining his guilt.
And Jo Bloggs AKA S Lean liking posts that show her in a good light (rare) but unable to respond to others. Typical Lean - a con artist from start to finish, reduced to filling up this forum after being ousted from the LM campaign by his psycho new/old girlfriend.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
-
Large parts of IB have been exposed as complete lies - there are at least 17 referenced in the link below. How many lies are acceptable for a complete falsehood?
If I read a book that contained that many deliberate lies, I would not trust the author. Lean also claimed on YT she had ALL the transcripts when most hadn't even been transcribed. The point is you promoted her as an unquestionable authority on the subject. It's ok to have an opinion on LM but to to still promote Lean as relevant is laughable. I'm standing by the 2005 court verdict, failed appeals, failed parole, his current risk to females, lack of credible representation or support from his family as defining his guilt.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
That?s the thing. You don?t have to trust the author. The corroboration for much of what Dr Lean claimed is right there in the transcripts.
You stand by anything you like and myself and many individuals with a much deeper knowledge of the judicial process than you or I will continue to doubt the legitimacy of Luke?s conviction.
-
Large parts of IB have been exposed as complete lies - there are at least 17 referenced in the link below. How many lies are acceptable for a complete falsehood?
If I read a book that contained that many deliberate lies, I would not trust the author. Lean also claimed on YT she had ALL the transcripts when most hadn't even been transcribed. The point is you promoted her as an unquestionable authority on the subject. It's ok to have an opinion on LM but to to still promote Lean as relevant is laughable. I'm standing by the 2005 court verdict, failed appeals, failed parole, his current risk to females, lack of credible representation or support from his family as defining his guilt.
And Jo Bloggs AKA S Lean liking posts that show her in a good light (rare) but unable to respond to others. Typical Lean - a con artist from start to finish, reduced to filling up this forum after being ousted from the LM campaign by his psycho new/old girlfriend.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html (https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html)
Hey! You've added that last paragraph, Ken! It wasn't there earlier!
Oh heck, i'll give your post a like anyway, just to save you getting too jealous of Faith, Sir!
-
If someone lied to you at least 17 times, why would you believe them - especially in an unqualified source?
I could understand if it was an established or credible author - not someone that was duped by CM and her killer son after selling her candles. A few rent-a-quotes have mentioned the case but what are they really doing about it? Or I could give Mein Kampf a bye as at least Adolf & Co developed the autobahn.
Lean is a con-artist/crook who is easily identifiable through various fraud/credit checks and unemployable in the legal/Criminal Justice field for 20 years.
-
If someone lied to you at least 17 times, why would you believe them - especially in an unqualified source?
I could understand if it was an established or credible author - not someone that was duped by CM and her killer son after selling her candles. A few rent-a-quotes have mentioned the case but what are they really doing about it? Or I could give Mein Kampf a bye as at least Adolf & Co developed the autobahn.
Lean is a con-artist/crook who is easily identifiable through various fraud/credit checks and unemployable in the legal/Criminal Justice field for 20 years.
Dr Lean had access to much that has been revealed in the transcripts long before the information was in the public domain. That she may have been reticent to reveal some information that did not fit her narrative is undeniably true but if you check the transcripts against her book much of what she claimed is absolutely correct.
As to a few ?rent-a-quotes? John Scott KC is one of Scotland?s foremost barristers. Do you really think he would have come out in support of a miscarriage of justice if he didn?t truly believe that there had been one? That he would jeopardise his reputation? What would be in it for him? Likewise Allan Jamieson. Further what do you expect them to do? Go on protests? Sell t-shirts?
-
Dr Lean had access to much that has been revealed in the transcripts long before the information was in the public domain. That she may have been reticent to reveal some information that did not fit her narrative is undeniably true but if you check the transcripts against her book much of what she claimed is absolutely correct.
As to a few ?rent-a-quotes? John Scott KC is one of Scotland?s foremost barristers. Do you really think he would have come out in support of a miscarriage of justice if he didn?t truly believe that there had been one? That he would jeopardise his reputation? What would be in it for him? Likewise Allan Jamieson. Further what do you expect them to do? Go on protests? Sell t-shirts?
Why do you continue to back an established con-artist (SL)? She had limited access to the defence papers - she manipulated those after discovering CM had lied. She wasn't reticent to reveal anything - I've met former LM campaigners who spoke of her intransigence to accept anything or anyone who didn't believe her while dishonestly demanding money for her "work" while regularly appearing intoxicated at campaign meetings and only focused on "fundraising" on her behalf.
You've fallen for Lean's version who fell for CM's lies and spun a web to try and get money, now she's been sacked from the campaign and started up a local community garden with the begging bowl out soon no doubt.
-
Why do you continue to back an established con-artist (SL)? She had limited access to the defence papers - she manipulated those after discovering CM had lied. She wasn't reticent to reveal anything - I've met former LM campaigners who spoke of her intransigence to accept anything or anyone who didn't believe her while dishonestly demanding money for her "work" while regularly appearing intoxicated at campaign meetings and only focused on "fundraising" on her behalf.
You've fallen for Lean's version who fell for CM's lies and spun a web to try and get money, now she's been sacked from the campaign and started up a local community garden with the begging bowl out soon no doubt.
Goodness it really is like talking to a child sometimes. ?Ive met some little girls who?ve said nasty things about Sandra because she didn't think they were as important as they thought that they were?. Real kindergarten stuff.
Of course we don?t know what skullduggery you get up to because, fortunately for you, you have the luxury of remaining anonymous. TBH I really don?t care what Dr Lean does outside the information she has made public. If she has committed some kind of crime report her to the police. Fraud is a criminal offence. Stop bleating about it here and take some action. I wait with baited breath.
-
Stop bleating about it here and take some action. I wait with baited breath.
Stop telling me and others what to do. If I want to highlight Lean's dishonesty this is as good a place as any to do it. I never bought her book so can't go to the police saying I've been defrauded because it turns out it was load of lies the average person could have spotted a mile off. Buyer beware, of fake criminologists bearing false truths.
-
Stop telling me and others what to do. If I want to highlight Lean's dishonesty this is as good a place as any to do it. I never bought her book so can't go to the police saying I've been defrauded because it turns out it was load of lies the average person could have spotted a mile off. Buyer beware, of fake criminologists bearing false truths.
It?s not whether you?ve been defrauded by if Dr Lean has committed fraud. You seem to think that she has and no doubt libel and slander so why not report her to the police? Or are you all mouth and no trousers? Does your bravery only extend as far as your anonymity does?
-
It?s not whether you?ve been defrauded by if Dr Lean has committed fraud. You seem to think that she has and no doubt libel and slander so why not report her to the police? Or are you all mouth and no trousers? Does your bravery only extend as far as your anonymity does?
Your post seems a bit disjointed and as I've already said, stop telling me what to do to. You overestimate how much it bothers me replying to a week old comment within a few hours suggests you're overly invested. Why not phone Scams UK saying you believed a book written by a fake criminologist/part-time van driver and ask for your ?19.99 back (plus P&P).
You seem on the brink. What stage of grief/denial are you at after however many years of promoting the Dr Lean Lie. I'll pop back in a week or so, so need for bated breath (baited would involve bait/lure).
-
Your post seems a bit disjointed and as I've already said, stop telling me what to do to. You overestimate how much it bothers me replying to a week old comment within a few hours suggests you're overly invested. Why not phone Scams UK saying you believed a book written by a fake criminologist/part-time van driver and ask for your ?19.99 back (plus P&P).
You seem on the brink. What stage of grief/denial are you at after however many years of promoting the Dr Lean Lie. I'll pop back in a week or so, so need for bated breath (baited would involve bait/lure).
Now Mr Kenneth, sir! All you seem to do is repeat the same two points over and over again.
That is, the family not supporting Luke and Dr Leans book!
Firstly, no one knows what LM family think about his guilt/innocence, but they certainly haven't spoken out about Innocents Betrayed, have they?
And as I have pointed out before, why would Dr Lean intentionally tell any lies in her book while simultaneously campaigning for an inquiry into the case which, as she says would bring 'everything' into the open, statements, transcripts the lot?
-
Your post seems a bit disjointed and as I've already said, stop telling me what to do to. You overestimate how much it bothers me replying to a week old comment within a few hours suggests you're overly invested. Why not phone Scams UK saying you believed a book written by a fake criminologist/part-time van driver and ask for your ?19.99 back (plus P&P).
You seem on the brink. What stage of grief/denial are you at after however many years of promoting the Dr Lean Lie. I'll pop back in a week or so, so need for bated breath (baited would involve bait/lure).
Why would I ask for my money back?
As to popping back?.no need to bother. You add nothing to the discussion so could I suggest that you spend your time more productively?I hear prison visiting is good for the soul.
-
Does anyone know if there is any intention of more trial transcripts being uploaded to the blog??
-
Does anyone know if there is any intention of more trial transcripts being uploaded to the blog??
What do you mean 'to the blog' Mr Apples? Are you referring to the forum here?
-
What do you mean 'to the blog' Mr Apples? Are you referring to the forum here?
Someone or some people has/have been kindly uploading the official trial transcripts from the original trial on a blog (the original trial took place between November 2004 - January 2005). I think the blog started some time in 2023 and the trial transcripts have gradually been getting uploaded to this blog since then for public consumption. Uncharacteristically, there hasn't been an upload in over 4 months, so I'm on here to ask if anyone knows if there is any news regarding the trial transcripts and the blog and if we can expect any more uploads soon. (Btw, I'm still really grateful for the transcripts which have been uploaded to the blog thus far, as I'm sure everyone else is.)
Here is the blog to which I refer:
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/?m=1
-
Someone or some people has/have been kindly uploading the official trial transcripts from the original trial on a blog (the original trial took place between November 2004 - January 2005). I think the blog started some time in 2023 and the trial transcripts have gradually been getting uploaded to this blog since then for public consumption. Uncharacteristically, there hasn't been an upload in over 4 months, so I'm on here to ask if anyone knows if there is any news regarding the trial transcripts and the blog and if we can expect any more uploads soon. (Btw, I'm still really grateful for the transcripts which have been uploaded to the blog thus far, as I'm sure everyone else is.)
Here is the blog to which I refer:
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/?m=1
OK, understood, Mr Apples!
And do we know if there are any more transcripts available to upload?
-
And do we know if there are any more transcripts available to upload?
In terms of transcripts of witness testimonies in court, there are still many more I know of that haven't been uploaded to the blog yet (for example, off the top of my head, these haven't been uploaded yet: Judith Jones; Marion O'Sullivan & her partner Derek Hamilton; John [Name removed]; Gordon & David [Name removed]; James Falconer; 3 of Luke's school teachers; David Tulloch & the other boy, who met with LM in NB Abbey College; Derek Morris of LBP technical support unit; and a few other LBP officers and other friends/school friends of LM and Jodi). However, I don't know if there are legal reasons or confidentiality reasons preventing these other transcripts from being made public (I highly doubt it) or if, for some reason, these testimonies weren't able to be transcribed for technical reasons (i.e., electronic or recording equipment being faulty during the court testimonies of these other witnesses - and thus making transcribing them impossible).
The other obstacles, of course, are time & finance. Perhaps the bloggers are simply too busy to upload the remaining witness testimony transcripts at this moment in time or just don't have the money available right now to obtain and buy them (I think they are quite expensive to obtain and buy). I am optimistic that the remaining ones will be available to read on the blog at some point in the future.
-
In terms of transcripts of witness testimonies in court, there are still many more I know of that haven't been uploaded to the blog yet (for example, off the top of my head, these haven't been uploaded yet: Judith Jones; Marion O'Sullivan & her partner Derek Hamilton; John [Name removed]; Gordon & David [Name removed]; James Falconer; 3 of Luke's school teachers; David Tulloch & the other boy, who met with LM in NB Abbey College; Derek Morris of LBP technical support unit; and a few other LBP officers and other friends/school friends of LM and Jodi). However, I don't know if there are legal reasons or confidentiality reasons preventing these other transcripts from being made public (I highly doubt it) or if, for some reason, these testimonies weren't able to be transcribed for technical reasons (i.e., electronic or recording equipment being faulty during the court testimonies of these other witnesses - and thus making transcribing them impossible).
The other obstacles, of course, are time & finance. Perhaps the bloggers are simply too busy to upload the remaining witness testimony transcripts at this moment in time or just don't have the money available right now to obtain and buy them (I think they are quite expensive to obtain and buy). I am optimistic that the remaining ones will be available to read on the blog at some point in the future.
Another one to add to the list of other people whose court testimony hasn't been uploaded to the blog yet is Mr Leonard Kelly. He was the man who heard the disturbing strangling noises behind the wall/dyke as cycled past. Since, unbeknownst to him, he was the only one who heard the girl being murdered, it would be interesting to read his court testimony.
-
Another one to add to the list of other people whose court testimony hasn't been uploaded to the blog yet is Mr Leonard Kelly. He was the man who heard the disturbing strangling noises behind the wall/dyke as cycled past. Since, unbeknownst to him, he was the only one who heard the girl being murdered, it would be interesting to read his court testimony.
I’d be more interested in Mr Kelly’s police statements than his testimony in court. That actually goes for many of the prosecution witnesses.
-
All seems to have gone very quiet on this topic..i keep checking. Was the common consensus finally that he's guilty as sin and we can move on :-)
Awe that’s a shame. You thought the campaign was gone. Wahahahahaha
-
Still no updates on transcripts since April? Anyone know what's happening?