Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Parky41]

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?

The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?

[Mr Apples]

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.

I'll need to go back to IB and re-read the part about the green fibres as I'm sure SL mentions the fibres in one of the chapters very briefly. I read about the fibres on another forum as well, but that's hardly compelling evidence.

Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what the remaining transcripts uncover -- that elusive photo and cctv footage may not have been figments of people's imagination after all. 

[Mr Apples]

The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?

Yeah, exactly. Would be good to read exactly what the reports said. 

[faithlilly]

The green fibres that yielded no reportable results according to SL. The same green fibres that SF's said were likely from the bindings of jotters. Both acknowledging that these fibres had been found, both in their own way saying that in 2003 forensics were unable to identify source.
What is likely however to have left some kind of remnants from burning over the course of the evening. Material or paper?

So we are believing Dr Lean and Forbes now?

I wish that you’d make your mind up.

[Joe Blogs]

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.

Wow, you certainly know your stuff, Mr Apples.

[Joe Blogs]

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?

I have heard of these fibres before, Mr Apples, but never got the full story. Where can I read up on then?

[Joe Blogs]

I'll need to go back to IB and re-read the part about the green fibres as I'm sure SL mentions the fibres in one of the chapters very briefly. I read about the fibres on another forum as well, but that's hardly compelling evidence.

Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what the remaining transcripts uncover -- that elusive photo and cctv footage may not have been figments of people's imagination after all.

The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!

[Mr Apples]

The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!

Blood is thicker than water, JB (pun definitely not intended). I think the transcripts emphasized that CM was guilty of perjury and, in turn, showed clearly the lengths a mother would go to to protect her youngest and favourite son (and, regardless of what some people may say or think, the Crown had every right to lead/introduce the tattoo parlour id evidence, as it was apposite and to a certain extent showed LM & CM's deceit, and how CM would lie so that her son could get what he wanted). SM evidently was roped into aiding and abetting his brother and he even admitted to the police he was coached by his mother about what to say to police regarding LM's alibi/whereabouts that day. SM during his testimony gave deliberately ambiguous evidence so as to protect his brother (ie, many 'I don't know" & "I can't remember" answers), but his instinct to shield his brother from harm wasn't as acute or as strong as CM's (not many things in life are as potent as a mother's maternal instincts). As regards PM, well, like said, he seems to have been reticent from day 1 and not much is known about his statements, evidence and thoughts on his son's case. I don't even know if he was summoned to court as a witness. Time will tell.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The thing is, Mr Apples, from a moral point of view, you are asking us to believe that Shane, Corrine and the dad deliberately lied or at best refused to answer questions to help keep a 'Jack the Ripper' style killer on the streets.
We are not talking about petty theft or other minor offences here.
If they knew LM was the killer, are we really to believe they would help to free him to kill again and have that on their conscience?
I cant really see this!

And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.

[Mr Apples]

And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.

If Phil and Corinne had still been together when Jodi was murdered, I firmly believe there wouldn't have been a court case and LM would have been forced to admit to what he had done, by his father. After their divorce, LM was spoiled, got his own way and left to his own devices and do as he pleased; he was very much the man about the house, even though his older brother Shane was living there, too (eg, allowed to smoke cannabis and drink alcohol at home, deal cannabis, have sex at home, use the family car, given large amounts of cash by his mother for weekend work at her caravan sales site). All of this was a bad combination, especially as LM was very intelligent, independent and a self-confessed hothead (inherited from CM). There were signs LM was a troubled kid from an early age: he had to literally be pulled off another primary school pupil when he was only 11 (and referred to seek professional help for 'throttling' the other pupil). Then we can also factor in his other attacks on young girls, his fascination with knives, death and the macabre -- and his excessive cannabis use. He was also referred to seek psychological help in high school by his English teacher for his fascination with Satan and his Satanic essays. So, yeah, it seems his parents' separation had a negative effect and had gotten progressively worse. With no father figure to discipline  him, it added fuel to the fire and tragically culminated in a young teenager losing her life in the most savage way.

[Kenmair]

And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.

Where did this monstrous theory originate from? Was it Lean or Forbes first, and most likely suggested by LM imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where did this monstrous theory originate from? Was it Lean or Forbes first, and most likely suggested by LM imo.

It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.

[Joe Blogs]

And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.

Yes, i'm aware of all the different theories and suspects, Vertigo.
How preposterous they are, I do not know.

[Kenmair]

It seems Mitchell supporters have a wide range of alternative perpetrators that they’d prefer to pin this crime on, but they don’t seem overly fussed about who they would prefer was languishing in jail just so long as it’s not darling Luke.

Since SL has been ousted as head honcho, LM's new campaign 'manager'/and on-off gf (GC) has recently been cautioned by Police for threatening to "mow down anyone who gets in her way" and threatening to burn down a journalist who wrote about the case many years ago. It's an even more insular campaign now and seems to be focusing on tagging onto various other perceived MOJ's for publicity.

[Mr Apples]

And yet this is exactly what some people on this forum do believe happened, only that it was Jodie’s family lying to keep a member of their own family out of jail, which is even more preposterous when you think about it.

Even though blood is thicker than water, most people wouldn't lie and protect a brutal murderer. But, judging from what I've researched, CM isn't most people. I think the evidence showed categorically that she was lying. Not only lying during the investigation, but lying on the stand as well (and even warned about perjury by ADT). I know CM was adopted. And raised by travelling people (the Guettas) -- who are known to be notoriously deceitful and anti-authoritarian -- but wonder if her biological parents have traits making them susceptible to disorders, mental illness, criminality, and so on? Likewise with PM -- what sort of person was he and his immediate family?

Anyway, the crux of the matter is this: everything the Mitchells did between 30.06.03 and January 2005 was highly suspicious, whereas everything the Jones family did was normal (with the odd transgression of smoking some cannabis).