What IF Luke Mitchell is proven guilty after the remaining samples are tested?

[Chris_Halkides]

Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses

Perhaps Donald Findlay was trying to confuse Ms. Bryson with the facts.  Ms. Bryson's original account was that she saw the couple around 5:40-5:45 after having seen the house for sale.  Then her story changed to having seen them much earlier, which means that she would have been traveling in the opposite direction.  What I would like to know is why her story changed.

[faithlilly]

The point being missed however - Such as, these excerpts mean nothing, that is zero, without the everything of the witnesses testimony in full. What DF may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses, so your point here is what exactly?

Those precognitions, where one would look to build something of what they may 'attempt' with each witness, in brief, to attempt to lesson the strength of their testimony already led by the Crown. Where the Crown, not at all daft to what would take place, covers most of those bases pre the cross examining by the defence - In brief, which and again, cannot be highlighted enough, it means nothing, that is nothing, without the "everything" the full context.

Very much why, there is nothing, again, nothing, happening with this case bar being able to gain some further public support - Based upon something that could not be more lopsided.

Talking of nothing, would we agree, that if there was nothing in any first statements, then it would mean nothing could be added to = Nothing. For that is the basis of the good Prof, is it not? There was nothing to merit an arrest far less taken to trial. Not much "Cajoling" going on there then, was there now, for it the end result was nothing, then nothing happened, nothing was added to equal nothing, was it now? I'll leave that with you.

"Cajoling", altering, changing? - Like 50yards, to 30, to 25 to just a "couple of feet" Or, Not quite 60ft to 43ft to just a "couple of feet" Or, less than 1 mile to 3 miles, or 6 ltrs to 5, or 4inches to 1 1/2 inches, a large oak tree to a tree trunk, 10 steps to 30steps, and on this "cajoling" goes, does it not? We know who is "cajoling" don't we now? And we certainly know who is being "cajoled" - Just a thought.

To rapidly arresting SM, to lesson without a doubt any chance of warning those still indoors, were two people were in a bedroom and NOT on couches in the lounge. To, every test carried out upon the suspect was executed perfectly, but everything else was botched, that type of "Cajoling" - And it really does keep going on and on, with more being added, more "cajoling" taken place of the actual truth in this case, transforming it into utter fantasy for the most part.

Please remind me…when did you familiarise yourself with the hours of Luke’s interrogations in order to come to your conclusions as to his guilt or innocence? Or indeed Corrine’s or Shane’s? Would that be never? How can you claim as a fact that Luke didn’t make dinner when, by your own logic, if you have only heard excerpts of the witnesses’s testimony who were there it means zero…nothing?

To paraphrase “ What AT may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? “ Touché.

[Parky41]

Please remind me…when did you familiarise yourself with the hours of Luke’s interrogations in order to come to your conclusions as to his guilt or innocence? Or indeed Corrine’s or Shane’s? Would that be never? How can you claim as a fact that Luke didn’t make dinner when, by your own logic, if you have only heard excerpts of the witnesses’s testimony who were there it means zero…nothing?

To paraphrase “ What AT may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? “ Touché.

Another outstanding comment, that clear lack of intellect shining through - Guilty verdict, the AD and his "attempts" at putting forth that evidence, perfectly executed, = Accepted.

This nothing from nothing that the defence failed to produce enough doubt around nothing - Marvellous stuff, is it not?

SM, what do we do with the male that everyone has to speak for, not from him but for him - You have no idea what SM has felt throughout those years, has he given you a statement to put out on his behalf? - No.

However, when we can only go with what we know, and not just the cherry picked attempts at anything here - 20yrs old when the murder took place, the claim of having early onset dementia due to severe drug abuse "years ago" Yes we know it is claims, but let us focus on those claims here. What was this "years ago?" How many to be precise, that had his younger brother, that "child" at 14yrs old heavily abusing cannabis, dishing it out like sweeties, drinking, smoking with no parental control. Sought no help, zero deterrent in place, offered and refused help. After seeing the elder at an equally young age becoming damaged by drug abuse?

Spare us the bog standard infantile tit for tat nonsense. The discussion is around reform, steps taking to help, for prevention. Had parental steps been taken, one, there would have been no early onset dementia to use, and secondly, a young girl may have survived, that is reality here, around reform starting at home with children. Those under a certain age and not adults.

SM was treated surprisingly gentle, he was given false alibi in a murder investigation. At best a killer may have escaped justice, at worse, further lives may have been lost - SM may very well be counting his blessings and many more besides, that by taken the correct course of action, he may feel he has equalled out his wrong, thankful even, that whilst impeding that investigation, no further loss of life had happened in that time period - But guess what? Should LM have killed again prior to any arrest, would the police be blamed here for the brother and mother impeding and holding any arrest up? Just a thought.

Reality is, that not you nor any other, knows that LM did not murder that young girl, we can all discuss until the cows come home, put forth what we feel may or not have been wrong - You and every other, has failed to even scratch the surface of proving that he could not have killed that young girl - Fact.

Spare us the interviews nonsense - Not you nor the egos have listened to those audio/video recorded interviews, nor held the full court transcripts, and for what one may have there is certainly no honesty around them, is there now?

[faithlilly]

Another outstanding comment, that clear lack of intellect shining through - Guilty verdict, the AD and his "attempts" at putting forth that evidence, perfectly executed, = Accepted.

This nothing from nothing that the defence failed to produce enough doubt around nothing - Marvellous stuff, is it not?

SM, what do we do with the male that everyone has to speak for, not from him but for him - You have no idea what SM has felt throughout those years, has he given you a statement to put out on his behalf? - No.

However, when we can only go with what we know, and not just the cherry picked attempts at anything here - 20yrs old when the murder took place, the claim of having early onset dementia due to severe drug abuse "years ago" Yes we know it is claims, but let us focus on those claims here. What was this "years ago?" How many to be precise, that had his younger brother, that "child" at 14yrs old heavily abusing cannabis, dishing it out like sweeties, drinking, smoking with no parental control. Sought no help, zero deterrent in place, offered and refused help. After seeing the elder at an equally young age becoming damaged by drug abuse?

Spare us the bog standard infantile tit for tat nonsense. The discussion is around reform, steps taking to help, for prevention. Had parental steps been taken, one, there would have been no early onset dementia to use, and secondly, a young girl may have survived, that is reality here, around reform starting at home with children. Those under a certain age and not adults.

SM was treated surprisingly gentle, he was given false alibi in a murder investigation. At best a killer may have escaped justice, at worse, further lives may have been lost - SM may very well be counting his blessings and many more besides, that by taken the correct course of action, he may feel he has equalled out his wrong, thankful even, that whilst impeding that investigation, no further loss of life had happened in that time period - But guess what? Should LM have killed again prior to any arrest, would the police be blamed here for the brother and mother impeding and holding any arrest up? Just a thought.

Reality is, that not you nor any other, knows that LM did not murder that young girl, we can all discuss until the cows come home, put forth what we feel may or not have been wrong - You and every other, has failed to even scratch the surface of proving that he could not have killed that young girl - Fact.

Spare us the interviews nonsense - Not you nor the egos have listened to those audio/video recorded interviews, nor held the full court transcripts, and for what one may have there is certainly no honesty around them, is there now?

It was a majority verdict, lest we forget….perhaps 8-7 to convict….and please don’t repeat the lie about the judge’s direction. It’s codswallop and you know it. A minority of that jury didn’t believe that the porous excuse for a case played out in front of them amounted to guilt. The longest trial of a single defendant in Scottish history…all of those witnesses….all of those hours of testimony and the Crown couldn’t even manage a unanimous verdict.

Of course we can look at the alleged parental deficiencies of Mitchell parents, they are fair game you may believe but it is only right then that we don’t let victimhood absolve Jodi’s mother of nurturing a corrosive environment in which her children grew up too fast and saw too much. The very environment from which Jodi, according to her diary, wanted to escape. An environment where alcohol at midday was the norm and employment was a lifestyle choice. Where a mother enabled her son through her lies to indulge in the very behaviour that destroyed not only his own mental stability but any chance of a safe, stable home which should be the right of every child. No protection from the violence for Jodi, just the vain hope that eventually, through the force of her personality, she would one day find a way out of the madness. Sadly she was robbed of even that.

You appear to believe that a conviction in this case bestows absolute surety of guilt but every miscarriage of justice begins with a conviction. Every prisoner whose conviction is quashed will also have experienced years of people just like you campaigning for their guilt. It will not work. You will deflect and defame just to obscure the rottenness at the core of L&B’s investigation against Luke but ultimately the truth will out in this case as it has in many others and it won’t matter what web of dishonesty you, or others, strive to manufacture justice will have its day.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It was a majority verdict, lest we forget….perhaps 8-7 to convict….and please don’t repeat the lie about the judge’s direction. It’s codswallop and you know it. A minority of that jury didn’t believe that the porous excuse for a case played out in front of them amounted to guilt. The longest trial of a single defendant in Scottish history…all of those witnesses….all of those hours of testimony and the Crown couldn’t even manage a unanimous verdict.

Of course we can look at the alleged parental deficiencies of Mitchell parents, they are fair game you may believe but it is only right then that we don’t let victimhood absolve Jodi’s mother of nurturing a corrosive environment in which her children grew up too fast and saw too much. The very environment from which Jodi, according to her diary, wanted to escape. An environment where alcohol at midday was the norm and employment was a lifestyle choice. Where a mother enabled her son through her lies to indulge in the very behaviour that destroyed not only his own mental stability but any chance of a safe, stable home which should be the right of every child. No protection from the violence for Jodi, just the vain hope that eventually, through the force of her personality, she would one day find a way out of the madness. Sadly she was robbed of even that.

You appear to believe that a conviction in this case bestows absolute surety of guilt but every miscarriage of justice begins with a conviction. Every prisoner whose conviction is quashed will also have experienced years of people just like you campaigning for their guilt. It will not work. You will deflect and defame just to obscure the rottenness at the core of L&B’s investigation against Luke but ultimately the truth will out in this case as it has in many others and it won’t matter what web of dishonesty you, or others, strive to manufacture justice will have its day.

It could also have been a majority of 14-1, could it not?  Then what?

[Kenmair]

What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?

Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark?  In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.

For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?

Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark?  In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.

For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.

. There are some sick people on the internet who latch onto cases purely to indulge in their favourite hobby of victim blaming.   If the victim’s family is anything other than 100% perfect then they are ripe for blaming and accusing in the eyes of these sick people and they rewlly don’t care who they hurt in the process.  It’s very sad, especially when it comes from individuals imploring their followers to “be kind”.  What a joke.

[faithlilly]

What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?

Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark?  In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.

For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.

Oh do behave and stop clutching those pearls for a moment. I was merely pointing out that if ‘parental steps’ could have saved Jodi then the finger of guilt may point closer to home. A mother who enabled, under her roof, her already psychotic son to indulge in the very behaviour known to escalate the violent episodes they as a family had already suffered at his hands. What was it Judith said soon after the murder “thank goodness they ( the police) don’t know about Joseph”. Joseph who had no alibi, beyond family, for most of the afternoon of his sister’s murder. Joseph who was identified following his sister only minutes before her alleged death. Joseph who claimed that he had dinner with his sister while his mother testified that he ate alone in his bedroom. Joseph who regularly carried a knife.

Perhaps if he’d shown the slightest interest in his sister’s whereabouts he’d be in prison now? There was certainly as much circumstantial evidence pointing to him as there ever was to Luke….if the police cared to look. The only difference..Luke was worried enough to look.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Oh do behave and stop clutching those pearls for a moment. I was merely pointing out that if ‘parental steps’ could have saved Jodi then the finger of guilt may point closer to home. A mother who enabled, under her roof, her already psychotic son to indulge in the very behaviour known to escalate the violent episodes they as a family had already suffered at his hands. What was it Judith said soon after the murder “thank goodness they ( the police) don’t know about Joseph”. Joseph who had no alibi, beyond family, for most of the afternoon of his sister’s murder. Joseph who was identified following his sister only minutes before her alleged death. Joseph who claimed that he had dinner with his sister while his mother testified that he ate alone in his bedroom. Joseph who regularly carried a knife.

Perhaps if he’d shown the slightest interest in his sister’s whereabouts he’d be in prison now? There was certainly as much circumstantial evidence pointing to him as there ever was to Luke….if the police cared to look. The only difference..Luke was worried enough to look.

More delightful victim blaming.  How are you being allowed to get away with it?

[Kenmair]

More delightful victim blaming.  How are you being allowed to get away with it?

I don't understand the hatred towards the J family from people who never knew them and under the pretence they actually care that Jodi was murdered. It's even worse on other social media accusing Joe of his father's suicide. The sex offenders and murder apologists will be out in Edinburgh on the 13th for their protest, yet the J family have had their justice can't get their peace due to these lunatics demanding more justice for the person who killed their daughter.

[faithlilly]

I don't understand the hatred towards the J family from people who never knew them and under the pretence they actually care that Jodi was murdered. It's even worse on other social media accusing Joe of his father's suicide. The sex offenders and murder apologists will be out in Edinburgh on the 13th for their protest, yet the J family have had their justice can't get their peace due to these lunatics demanding more justice for the person who killed their daughter.

You really don’t see the irony of your words, do you? You who poured scorn on the professionalism of Prof. David Wilson simply because he didn’t hold the same opinion as you.

BTW as an aside do you believe that miscarriages of justice do happen and if so in what circumstances do you think that they happen?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You really don’t see the irony of your words, do you? You who poured scorn on the professionalism of Prof. David Wilson simply because he didn’t hold the same opinion as you.

BTW as an aside do you believe that miscarriages of justice do happen and if so in what circumstances do you think that they happen?

You really can’t see the difference between pouring scorn on a tv criminologist and accusing a murder victim’s family of being shit parents and of covering up for one of their own?  No of course you can’t, because you have no empathy and terrible judgment. 
IMO.

[Mr Apples]

It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.

They used the best state-of-the-art DNA technology in the most advanced labs during the original investigation and found nothing incriminating from either LM or a stranger (SL mentions 5 unidentified profiles, but there are only 2; 2 that are almost certainly the result of innocent transfer). It was interesting that when the SCCRC retested the DNA in this case back in 2013/14 they found two previously untested miniscule samples which they concluded 'probably originated from semen that probably wasn't LM's'. So, it seems the sccrc's retesting wasn't 100% conclusive, and therein lies the problem: the DNA per se in this case will never ever be able to solve this case; it provides no silver bullet solution. Even if it was LM's semen, it still doesn't prove anything, since he was in an intimate relationship with her; fresh semen, of course, would incriminate him, but the body being left exposed to the elements for 8 hours would've degraded and contaminated fresh semen deposits. The dna evidence which would've categorically proven LM to be guilty would've been Jodi's blood on that long parka, which, as I said, is why he got rid of it and bought a new one. Anyway, it's clear the sccrc thought that those 2 deposits got there innocently (from another couple's sexual activity in that woodland strip, for example; also, the fact that her clothes were strewn around that woodland strip, it would have been inevitable that her clothes picked up innocent traces of other people's dna). And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.

[Chris_Halkides]

And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.

The circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell includes more than one person whose testimony changed between their initial statements and the trial and two witnesses (Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh) whose memories were contaminated.  There are a number of adjectives that come to mind, but "overwhelming" is not one of them.

[faithlilly]

It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.

They used the best state-of-the-art DNA technology in the most advanced labs during the original investigation and found nothing incriminating from either LM or a stranger (SL mentions 5 unidentified profiles, but there are only 2; 2 that are almost certainly the result of innocent transfer). It was interesting that when the SCCRC retested the DNA in this case back in 2013/14 they found two previously untested miniscule samples which they concluded 'probably originated from semen that probably wasn't LM's'. So, it seems the sccrc's retesting wasn't 100% conclusive, and therein lies the problem: the DNA per se in this case will never ever be able to solve this case; it provides no silver bullet solution. Even if it was LM's semen, it still doesn't prove anything, since he was in an intimate relationship with her; fresh semen, of course, would incriminate him, but the body being left exposed to the elements for 8 hours would've degraded and contaminated fresh semen deposits. The dna evidence which would've categorically proven LM to be guilty would've been Jodi's blood on that long parka, which, as I said, is why he got rid of it and bought a new one. Anyway, it's clear the sccrc thought that those 2 deposits got there innocently (from another couple's sexual activity in that woodland strip, for example; also, the fact that her clothes were strewn around that woodland strip, it would have been inevitable that her clothes picked up innocent traces of other people's dna). And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.

I’ll unpick this more thoroughly later but just to point out that Dobbie said that there was no ‘unidentified’ DNA on Jodi. Of course any DNA from her family would be simply put down to transference but was Dobbie right to disregard that DNA?