Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Mr Apples]

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?

[Chris_Halkides]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

What conspiracies does Ken promote?  I wasn’t aware of any.

KenMair wrote, " It's all a conspiracy."

[Kenmair]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[Chris_Halkides]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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]“

[Kenmair]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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?

[Joe Blogs]

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!

[Kenmair]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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?

[Kenmair]

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.

[Joe Blogs]

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.