Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Joe Blogs]

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!!!

[faithlilly]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Joe Blogs]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Joe Blogs]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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!