Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[Paranoid Android]

LM attacked a fellow student? Now a serving policeman? A Midlothian policeman?  Okay. Who started the fight? Was it Luke or your friend’s son? Did Luke simply get the better of your friend’s son? Hard to admit for your friend I’d imagine.

You said Luke was regularly involved in fights. How many? When? With who?

As to the dog attack...it was anecdotal to begin with but now you admit that you know little about it. Hardly damning.

As to you last sentence, that is your prerogative and I would imagine that there’s nothing I could say to change your mind so do you mind if I don’t even try?

Luke attacked the lad, ergo he started it - it's really quite simple.

Luke was regularly involved in fights.

 How many? Lots.

When? All the time.

With who? (surely you mean with whom) - Lots of people.

The dog attack - I know it happened, because my friend (who has nothing to gain from saying so) said so.

I know my friends very well, and they have nothing to gain by lying - we're close mates - I trust and believe them for all sorts of valid reasons.

I doubt you know LM at all, but you believe every word he says.

You may know CM somewhat. and you believe every word she says.

You know SL very well, and believe every word he says.

It's just black or white for you - there are shades of grey, but you can't see them because you don't want to - that's your prerogative.

Logic is everything.

[Parky41]

Something that linked him to the scene? What like DNA? Well he certainly scrubbed the scene well and managed to leave the DNA of others

What DNA of others?

Let's for examples sake say that one of the partial profiles obtained. Scrub that. Let's try to make this easy.

If (and I am not saying there is, just an example) forensics use 10 markers from a profile to determine accuracy from whom it came, out of say 15 markers. That's (for example again) 15 boxes along a strip numbered 1-15.

let's take 15 letters A-O , that out of those 15 letters you could obtain 0-infinity profiles depending on where the letters are placed in the 15 marker boxes of 1-15

Let's say (for example again) LM's profile is a straight A-0 in sequence along those 15 markers.

First partial profile is extracted and in boxes 1-8 there is the straight sequence of A-H, It is a partial match to LM but we can not say it is his, rightly so as those remaining (missing) markers could be any combination of I-O

Rather like the lottery?

However - If (for example) there are 50 partial profiles obtained and 40 of those with only 8 markers obtained in each, fit the sequence of LM's then the odds that they now can be from multiple different males changes dramatically.

So 40 partial profiles - different combination in each extracted, 8 markers in different places but all of them in the same place as the markers of LM's profile .. For example again - The 2nd partial profile obtained has the letters B(marker 2),D(marker 4), F(marker 6), I(marker 9), K(marker 11, L(marker 12) and M (marker 13) yet again we can not say this is LM's profile as those missing markers yet again could be any combination of A,C,E,G,H,J, N and O.

Thus my reference to the Lottery - the odds of a syndicate putting on 50 lines and winning a tenner on 40 of them.?
This could also be applied to 10 lines being put on and winning on 8 of them.

Is this therefore what Craig Dobbie meant when he stated there was "no DNA unaccounted for?"

That whilst they could not pin point with certainty that all of these partials belonged to LM they most certainly did not belong to 10% of the population. - this would be ludicrous, considering the small area in question that this DNA was obtained from.

Thus, common sense would tell us that - there most definitely was no DNA that pointed to this being a "stranger" murder. An another. 

Would DF simply have missed this? - NO.
Is Ms Leans deciphering of all the evidence greater than that of "everyone else" - no.

The blood spray on the wall is a prime example of this as it has been claimed that  - "Yet again we are left with the real possibility that Jodi was killed elsewhere" - ??
 

There were of course - multiple partial profiles obtained

One can not of course, add them to try and make the point that they came from the same male - each and everyone would have to be debated on, individually - reason as to why perhaps, there was an agreement made between the Crown and the defence? - Even after debating each and every one of them - that of innocent transfer would be suggested..

So whilst there have been an abundance of claims over the years of there being DNA of LM's at the scene, there has been absolutely nothing to disprove this - quite the opposite, multiple DNA that with the "Law of probability" almost certainly did come from one individual.

We are of course discussing the reasons as to why this agreement was made - it was not on the basis of not discussing DNA in it's entirety, it was on the basis of these partials. We know this as SK's DNA was discussed, from those two full profiles of his that were obtained. That is two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions.

Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true. What we are left with is the "old chestnut" of holding "all" of the evidence which conveniently can not be disclosed for all to see. The DNA result being yet another area, some over time have been shown - but not all of them, much like the "cherry picking" of small excerpts of multiple statements that are then badly stitched together.  - it certainly has drawn support for LM, from those who choose not to be critical of that which is being pushed out, which in itself shows the actual/factual interest in the "truth".

[Parky41]

Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true.

A total lack of understand as;



Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #5493 on: Yesterday at 12:52 PM »

Sandra has never claimed that semen was on the body! Where was it she said that? There is only two full profiles for identified males. The dna is so f..ked up there is even 1 labelled semen female sample!! There are a number of unidentified profiles and the problem with them is there’s no way of knowing how accurate these profiles are unless there matched to an individual, they may be all from the same male that have become contaminated and can be of no use

[/color].

"f..ked up" - indeed? as;

Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.

[/color]

Intellect and common sense it would seem do not go hand in hand, when one has tunnel vision - When one ultimately takes the firm stance of Innocence first and foremost - then subsequently attempts to dismantle the evidence without expertise.

[faithlilly]

Luke attacked the lad, ergo he started it - it's really quite simple.

Luke was regularly involved in fights.

 How many? Lots.

When? All the time.

With who? (surely you mean with whom) - Lots of people.

The dog attack - I know it happened, because my friend (who has nothing to gain from saying so) said so.

I know my friends very well, and they have nothing to gain by lying - we're close mates - I trust and believe them for all sorts of valid reasons.

I doubt you know LM at all, but you believe every word he says.

You may know CM somewhat. and you believe every word she says.

You know SL very well, and believe every word he says.

It's just black or white for you - there are shades of grey, but you can't see them because you don't want to - that's your prerogative.

Logic is everything.

You’re right, logic is everything.  Sometimes distance lends perspective though.

You seem not to have known LM before Jodi’s murder so everything you’ve heard or been told has been acquired  through that filter. That can never be a good roadmap for the development of an objective opinion. I came to the case years later and am not local so have not been influenced by local prejudice or gossip.

Most of your information seems to have been second hand and while I’m sure that your friends aren’t lying, attaching a greater significance to events than was at the time they happened is human nature when something as horrific as Jodi’s murder happens.


You accuse me of believing every word of those who are campaigning for Luke yet you discount easily checkable court testimony simply because of your view of the honesty of the source. SL has made mistakes in the past with regard to facts, though this seems to have happened before she had access to the case files and after 18 years it would be astonishing if she hadn’t, but as far as I can see she’s corrected those mistakes at the first opportunity.

I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You’re right, logic is everything.  Sometimes distance lends perspective though.

You seem not to have known LM before Jodi’s murder so everything you’ve heard or been told has been acquired  through that filter. That can never be a good roadmap for the development of an objective opinion. I came to the case years later and am not local so have not been influenced by local prejudice or gossip.

Most of your information seems to have been second hand and while I’m sure that your friends aren’t lying, attaching a greater significance to events than was at the time they happened is human nature when something as horrific as Jodi’s murder happens.


You accuse me of believing every word of those who are campaigning for Luke yet you discount easily checkable court testimony simply because of your view of the honesty of the source. SL has made mistakes in the past with regard to facts, though this seems to have happened before she had access to the case files and after 18 years it would be astonishing if she hadn’t, but as far as I can see she’s corrected those mistakes at the first opportunity.

I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.

You seem to be suggesting that the less you knew the protagonists, the area, the locals etc the better position you are to pronounce on their innocence or guilt So, if you only get your info from a book, the newspapers and a woman whose made it her life's work to get this man released the better you are in a position to know what happened.  Interesting theory.

[faithlilly]

What DNA of others?

Let's for examples sake say that one of the partial profiles obtained. Scrub that. Let's try to make this easy.

If (and I am not saying there is, just an example) forensics use 10 markers from a profile to determine accuracy from whom it came, out of say 15 markers. That's (for example again) 15 boxes along a strip numbered 1-15.

let's take 15 letters A-O , that out of those 15 letters you could obtain 0-infinity profiles depending on where the letters are placed in the 15 marker boxes of 1-15

Let's say (for example again) LM's profile is a straight A-0 in sequence along those 15 markers.

First partial profile is extracted and in boxes 1-8 there is the straight sequence of A-H, It is a partial match to LM but we can not say it is his, rightly so as those remaining (missing) markers could be any combination of I-O

Rather like the lottery?

However - If (for example) there are 50 partial profiles obtained and 40 of those with only 8 markers obtained in each, fit the sequence of LM's then the odds that they now can be from multiple different males changes dramatically.

So 40 partial profiles - different combination in each extracted, 8 markers in different places but all of them in the same place as the markers of LM's profile .. For example again - The 2nd partial profile obtained has the letters B(marker 2),D(marker 4), F(marker 6), I(marker 9), K(marker 11, L(marker 12) and M (marker 13) yet again we can not say this is LM's profile as those missing markers yet again could be any combination of A,C,E,G,H,J, N and O.

Thus my reference to the Lottery - the odds of a syndicate putting on 50 lines and winning a tenner on 40 of them.?
This could also be applied to 10 lines being put on and winning on 8 of them.

Is this therefore what Craig Dobbie meant when he stated there was "no DNA unaccounted for?"

That whilst they could not pin point with certainty that all of these partials belonged to LM they most certainly did not belong to 10% of the population. - this would be ludicrous, considering the small area in question that this DNA was obtained from.

Thus, common sense would tell us that - there most definitely was no DNA that pointed to this being a "stranger" murder. An another. 

Would DF simply have missed this? - NO.
Is Ms Leans deciphering of all the evidence greater than that of "everyone else" - no.

The blood spray on the wall is a prime example of this as it has been claimed that  - "Yet again we are left with the real possibility that Jodi was killed elsewhere" - ??
 

There were of course - multiple partial profiles obtained

One can not of course, add them to try and make the point that they came from the same male - each and everyone would have to be debated on, individually - reason as to why perhaps, there was an agreement made between the Crown and the defence? - Even after debating each and every one of them - that of innocent transfer would be suggested..

So whilst there have been an abundance of claims over the years of there being DNA of LM's at the scene, there has been absolutely nothing to disprove this - quite the opposite, multiple DNA that with the "Law of probability" almost certainly did come from one individual.

We are of course discussing the reasons as to why this agreement was made - it was not on the basis of not discussing DNA in it's entirety, it was on the basis of these partials. We know this as SK's DNA was discussed, from those two full profiles of his that were obtained. That is two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions.

Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true. What we are left with is the "old chestnut" of holding "all" of the evidence which conveniently can not be disclosed for all to see. The DNA result being yet another area, some over time have been shown - but not all of them, much like the "cherry picking" of small excerpts of multiple statements that are then badly stitched together.  - it certainly has drawn support for LM, from those who choose not to be critical of that which is being pushed out, which in itself shows the actual/factual interest in the "truth".

The only fact that matters is there was no definitive DNA that put Luke at the scene of the murder or the Crown would have used it. There was, however, a full DNA profile of SK.

[faithlilly]

A total lack of understand as;



Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #5493 on: Yesterday at 12:52 PM »
.

"f..ked up" - indeed? as;



Intellect and common sense it would seem do not go hand in hand, when one has tunnel vision - When one ultimately takes the firm stance of Innocence first and foremost - then subsequently attempts to dismantle the evidence without expertise.

Or guilt.

Couldn’t agree more.

[Parky41]

The only fact that matters is there was no definitive DNA that put Luke at the scene of the murder or the Crown would have used it. There was, however, a full DNA profile of SK.

Quite so - thus the agreement that was made between the Crown and the defence. It is a far cry however from stating as fact that there was 100% NO DNA of LM's at the scene. That there was DNA from multiple others when the simple fact is;

The Defence would have been all over it. They were not. Yet Ms Lean is? It certainly paints a harrowing picture though to those who accept without question all that is said? - the naive amongst us?

And yes there was of SK, I did of course mention this. "those two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions"

Or guilt.

Couldn’t agree more.

Definitely - thus why I took the stance of scrutinizing "all" of the available information.

Interested primarily in the power of suggestion, use of word play - Came across multiple blatant lies in the process. Which begged the question for me, why? If indeed there is "all" this evidence to show that LM is indeed innocent - why lie?

So I started at the beginning, asking one simple question - "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?"

So much misinformation on more suitable candidates for the role? Therefore, why Luke?

It is a good place to start - if interested enough of course?

[faithlilly]

Quite so - thus the agreement that was made between the Crown and the defence. It is a far cry however from stating as fact that there was 100% NO DNA of LM's at the scene. That there was DNA from multiple others when the simple fact is;

The Defence would have been all over it. They were not. Yet Ms Lean is? It certainly paints a harrowing picture though to those who accept without question all that is said? - the naive amongst us?

And yes there was of SK, I did of course mention this. "those two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions"


Definitely - thus why I took the stance of scrutinizing "all" of the available information.

Interested primarily in the power of suggestion, use of word play - Came across multiple blatant lies in the process. Which begged the question for me, why? If indeed there is "all" this evidence to show that LM is indeed innocent - why lie?

So I started at the beginning, asking one simple question - "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?"

So much misinformation on more suitable candidates for the role? Therefore, why Luke?

It is a good place to start - if interested enough of course?

Firstly I don’t speak for SL. If you want to converse with her can I suggest that you email her? Give her the right to reply at least.

Secondly, it’s suspicious that SK’s DNA was there at all.


As to why suspicion fell on Luke, I think that is the wrong question. The question should be why did suspicion fall on Luke so early in the investigation? The treatment of him by the police in comparison to the rest of the searchers is stark in its contrast and certainly suggests that from the very first hours of the investigation, before there was any hard evidence on which to base an opinion, Luke was in the frame.

[Paranoid Android]

I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.

It's not gossip - it's testimony - anecdotal evidence.

Two young lassies come forward saying LM had a knife at their throats - you dismiss it.

A knife is found in LM's possession at cadet camp - you dismiss it.

You're given examples of LM being aggressive and violent, and CM not caring - you're not interested.

Your lack of balance is akin to that of the recent shoddy one-sided documentary.

The 'sources that have informed your opinion' are selective.

[faithlilly]

It's not gossip - it's testimony - anecdotal evidence.

Two young lassies come forward saying LM had a knife at their throats - you dismiss it.

A knife is found in LM's possession at cadet camp - you dismiss it.

You're given examples of LM being aggressive and violent, and CM not caring - you're not interested.

Your lack of balance is akin to that of the recent shoddy one-sided documentary.

The 'sources that have informed your opinion' are selective.

 Two boys in a fight, one gets the better of the other. Of course the dad of the boy who came out worst is going to be miffed.

Luke, allegedly, sets his dog on some children. Was your friend there? Did the dog simply start growling? What were the children’s injuries? Did your friend inform the police or was he not concerned enough for that?

Luke got into lots of fights? Where’s the evidence, beyond local gossip?

The alleged knife attacks I dismiss because the girls appear to have gone to the papers before the police. The Crown had an excellent witness who could prove that Luke threatened his girlfriends with knives but they didn’t call her. Why?

The knife incident I did not dismiss. I merely question it’s importance. Luke was known to carry knives when camping ect. Surely it was not unusual for him to take a knife to the sea cadets? It was against the rules no doubt but it certainly wasn’t a big enough issue to get him banned.

I give you direct quotes from court testimony but you dismiss it because it simply does not fit your narrative so please do not accuse me of being selective in my opinion.

[Paranoid Android]

Two boys in a fight, one gets the better of the other. Of course the dad of the boy who came out worst is going to be miffed.

Luke, allegedly, sets his dog on some children. Was your friend there? Did the dog simply start growling? What were the children’s injuries? Did your friend inform the police or was he not concerned enough for that?

Luke got into lots of fights? Where’s the evidence, beyond local gossip?

The alleged knife attacks I dismiss because the girls appear to have gone to the papers before the police. The Crown had an excellent witness who could prove that Luke threatened his girlfriends with knives but they didn’t call her. Why?

The knife incident I did not dismiss. I merely question it’s importance. Luke was known to carry knives when camping ect. Surely it was not unusual for him to take a knife to the sea cadets? It was against the rules no doubt but it certainly wasn’t a big enough issue to get him banned.

I give you direct quotes from court testimony but you dismiss it because it simply does not fit your narrative so please do not accuse me of being selective in my opinion.

Absolutely pointless engaging with you.

You can't accept the fact that SM didn't give LM an alibi, and you ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda.

If you try to remove the blinkers and open your mind, that will probably make you a nicer person.

Probably.

[faithlilly]

Absolutely pointless engaging with you.

You can't accept the fact that SM didn't give LM an alibi, and you ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda.

If you try to remove the blinkers and open your mind, that will probably make you a nicer person.

Probably.

Are we back in the playground?

The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.

I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.

‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.

This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.

They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.

I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.

[Paranoid Android]

The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.

I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.

‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.

This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.

SM has had years to come forward - the fact that he hasn't come forward in all that time suggests that he's happy with what he said.

[Parky41]

Are we back in the playground?

The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.

I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.

‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.

This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.

They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.

I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.

Direct from court transcripts - verbatim?   Who was Shane arguing with?

AD - "On that evening, about 4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?"
Shane - "No one at that time"
AD - "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?"
Shane "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there"