Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

No one holds a knife in the way that Professor Busuttil described.

[Parky41]

No one holds a knife in the way that Professor Busuttil described.

You may wish to rephrase that Chris.

[faithlilly]

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.



‘

[Parky41]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[Mr Apples]

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?

[Joe Blogs]

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!