Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Joe Blogs]

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.

Did Phil Mitchell give evidence Ken?
Was he quizzed about the parka?

[Kenmair]

Did Paul Mitchell give evidence Ken?
Was he quizzed about the parka?

Who's Paul? I take it you mean Phil. Why would SM/PM testimony over-rule that of 8 other witnesses. Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just trolling? CM has already claimed he didn't have one and the jury ultimately didn't believe her version of events.

[Joe Blogs]

Who's Paul? I take it you mean Phil. Why would SM/PM testimony over-rule that of 8 other witnesses. Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just trolling? CM has already claimed he didn't have one and the jury ultimately didn't believe her version of events.

Sorry, I thought the dads name was Paul, will modify.
Shane and dad could always do a lie detector re parka to help Luke, Ken. just as Corrine did.
Corrine was asked by Terry Mullins if she burned any clothing I believe!

[Chris_Halkides]

If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record.  Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record.  Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?

Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy?  If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.

[Parky41]

Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy?  If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.

One would surely be disposing of a receipt for such an item anyway.  So many things that could have been destroyed in the fire taken place that evening?

[Joe Blogs]

If there had been a parka purchased before 30 June, then there would be a receipt and probably a credit card record.  Has such a receipt been offered as evidence?

Good point Chris.

[Chris_Halkides]

Do you keep all the receipts for all the clothes you buy?  If this parka was bought in a vintage or charity or independent shop then it’s highly unlikely to have a detailed description of the purchase on the receipt anyway.

The store would have a record of the sale.  What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?

[Kenmair]

Sorry, I thought the dads name was Paul, will modify.
Shane and dad could always do a lie detector re parka to help Luke, Ken. just as Corrine did.
Corrine was asked by Terry Mullins if she burned any clothing I believe!

Why would SM/PM take a lie detector test about a parka when they don't even support LM? A simple written statement of support and asking for privacy could easily have been issued, but not a peep in 20 years. Whether there is a receipt or not does not disprove that 8 independent people witnessed him wearing it pre-murder.

The parkas were second hand military issue so most likely from a vintage shop.

[Parky41]

The store would have a record of the sale.  What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?

Easily paid for by cash which would have no record of the buyer. Easily bought in Edinburgh, on holiday up north, anywhere they may have been over the years previously. As it stands the evidence is that he clearly did wear that army style jacket pre murder, never recovered.

[Joe Blogs]

Why would SM/PM take a lie detector test about a parka when they don't even support LM? A simple written statement of support and asking for privacy could easily have been issued, but not a peep in 20 years. Whether there is a receipt or not does not disprove that 8 independent people witnessed him wearing it pre-murder.

The parkas were second hand military issue so most likely from a vintage shop.

I dont know if SM/PM support Luke or not, Ken, but surely they must have known if LM had a parka before the murder.
Therefore, if we take it that the parka is proof of innocence/guilt then we must take it that Shane and dad must know for sure one way or the other,if you see what I mean?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The store would have a record of the sale.  What evidence is there that a parka was bought at a vintage or charity store?

Do you think shops record the names of every customer and the details of exactly what they purchased?  As for where the item was purchased I’ve no idea, but I do know it’s unlikely that a receipt would show a full description of the item purchased that would prove anything.  Anyway, as the lovely Mitchell family denied that Luke ever had such a garment where do you suppose the police should have gone looking for this receipt?

[Mr Apples]

I dont know if SM/PM support Luke or not, Ken, but surely they must have known if LM had a parka before the murder.
Therefore, if we take it that the parka is proof of innocence/guilt then we must take it that Shane and dad must know for sure one way or the other,if you see what I mean?

I surmise both PM and SM were probably asked about the parka at some point during the investigation and this would be documented and in the case files; SL will likely know, as she has access to said case files. SM likely either fully denied the existence of any parka pre-murder or reverted to the safety of his favourite ambiguous, evasive default answers: "I don't know" or "I can't remember"; any time the Mitchells were asked difficult questions, they conveniently got amnesia and gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers . SM certainly wasn't asked about the parka during his 3-day testimony. I don't know if PM was called as a witness to court ... his transcript has yet to be uploaded if he did. In fact, the only thing I've read officially about PM and his involvement with this case is an old newspaper article from 2004/05, which mentioned him accompanying CM to a visit at a secure unit or prison (along with LM's lady friend ... LW?). I heard that PM did say that LM owned a parka pre-murder (SL will likely know if this is true, from the case files). There is still a considerable amount yet to be uploaded about this case and many transcripts. As I said before, it will be interesting if certain transcripts mention a photograph of PM & LM at a Rock music concert on early June 2003 with the latter wearing the parka before the murder (supposedly, PM had the exact same jacket as his son). And likewise, it will be interesting if the transcripts mention cctv footage of LM in his parka at St David's High School pre-murder. The parka jacket is a very significant piece of circumstantial evidence, along with LM finding the body so quickly, SM not corroborating the alibi and the eyewitnesses spotting LM between 1655 -1815.

[Mr Apples]

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!

Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.

Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?

[faithlilly]

Simultaneously perceptive and puerile. A slightly quaint posting style. Interesting.

Anyway, what about the green fibres that were supposedly retrieved from the burner? Very slight, minute traces that could neither confirm nor deny a parka being burned that evening?

This is the world you’d like to exist MA, not the one that actually does.

If green fibres had been retrieved from the burner they would have been forensically examined to analysis their construction. The resulting analysis, if positive for fibres, would have been presented in court. It wasn’t that that’s why over 20 years later there is no definite proof that Luke had a parka before the murder.