Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

Can you provide evidence that Mitchell's supporters are trying to pin the crime on someone without being fussed about who it is?  Can you provide evidence that they consider Luke to be a darling?  Here is an alternative hypothesis:  Luke's supporters think that this was a miscarriage of justice. 

[Chris_Halkides]

My point I thought was self-explanatory.  Mitchell fans have no coherent alternative suspect but throw accusations out willy nilly on any number of other individuals linked to the family or the area, it doesn’t seem to matter who just so long as it diverts the discussion away from their man and sows seeds of suspicion elsewhere (despite the absence of any actual concrete evidence of their involvement).

There was DNA from someone else on Jodi's body.  There was an individual close to Jodi who was rumored to be violent.  Yet this misses the bigger question:  There does not have to be an alternative suspect, and this conviction may still be unsafe.  Referring to people who think that this is, or that this may be, a wrongful conviction as "Mitchell fans" does not advance the discussion, shall we say.

[Parky41]

His clothing was confiscated.  His hair was examined.  His fingernails were scraped and nothing of significance was found.  One or more injuries to his shins was described.  IIRC when Professor Busuttil was asked about the transfer of blood to the murderer, he said that it was quite likely.

See how easily that was exposed, the fallacy that is. The utter nonsense that he was forensically examined from head to shins. Indeed the prof did say that would happen if the person was not covered. One is not going to have areas of themselves contaminated if those areas are not exposed to the elements. That is simple logic.

[Chris_Halkides]

See how easily that was exposed, the fallacy that is. The utter nonsense that he was forensically examined from head to shins. Indeed the prof did say that would happen if the person was not covered. One is not going to have areas of themselves contaminated if those areas are not exposed to the elements. That is simple logic.

"Donald Findlay QC, defending, asked if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Mr Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Mitchell, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. "That is so," agreed the professor."  Dr. Kranti Hiremath, a forensic medical examiner, performed the exam.
EDT
Craig Dobbie stated, "I also caused the witness DC Bowsher to be informed that he should, on a voluntary basis, obtain the now accused Luke Mitchell's clothing and mobile telephone and have him medically examined by a Forensic Medical Advisor."  It has been said that Luke Mitchell was photographed as part of this examination.

[Chris_Halkides]

He was covered from head to toe in baggy clothing, the army parka with hood covering about 70% of his body. The forensics in this case concluded that Jodi had had her throat slit from behind and that the blood spurted forward, away from the assailant. Therefore, no, LM wouldn't necessarily have been covered in blood like many people erroneously conclude. However, the Mitchells knew that there were likely blood traces from Jodi on that big parka jacket and so had to destroy it. The parka took the brunt of any DNA traces due to its size and volume, so LM would not have had to wash his body at  all. Interestingly, one of the boys he met with at the abbey that night said he was more cleaner and less unkempt than normal, suggesting he had cleaned himself up (their transcript has yet to be uploaded, so it will be interesting to read what exactly they said about LM's appearance that night).

My understanding is that there were several injuries to Jodi's body that would have produced blood loss, not just those to her throat.  Derek Scrimger indicated that the if the killer removed Jodi's clothing after death, then the killer would likely have been bloodstained.  Professor Busuttil said that it would have been quite unlikely for there not to have been blood transfer to the killer.  It was not determined whether the killer were right- or left-handed.  Can you offer specific testimony that ruled out everything but her throat having been slit from behind?
EDT
From an interview with Professor Busuttil:  "This girl would have had in her about 5 to 5.5 litres of blood. Most of which has left the body before she died. Now we are not talking of a few drops. We are talking of litres of blood. Therefore, if there was this intimate contact one would have expected some of the blood of the deceased to have transferred itself onto a person who was assaulting her.”

[Chris_Halkides]

But again, his whole body had not been forensically swabbed etc. Nor had every inch of his hair, a sample taken.

Citation, please.

[Vertigo Swirl]

A manager of a Walmart (2000-2018) wrote, "In theory modern accounting and point of sales systems make inventory tracking easier than it ever was in the past. Inventory coming in is scanned and entered into inventory. Then when an item is bought it is scanned and taken out of inventory. Then the system orders more based on how fast each item is selling."  I have read that point of sale data is saved for a minimum of twelve months.  My experience with cash sales in a second hand store is that they were recorded on a duplicating tablet.  I received one of the copies.  If one did not record each sale, how would one know whether he or she had taken in the correct amount of revenue?

Apart from spectacularly missing the point (again!) what Wal-Mart does and what happened in some random second hand shop in America does not actually prove that some random shop in Scotland kept detailed receipt records explicitly stating 1 x green khaki parka sold to Mr Luke Mitchell on it. When I last bought something in a vintage shop I get a bog standard till receipt with the date and the amount on it with a department code, so like I say - conjecture . 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Can you provide evidence that Mitchell's supporters are trying to pin the crime on someone without being fussed about who it is?  Can you provide evidence that they consider Luke to be a darling?  Here is an alternative hypothesis:  Luke's supporters think that this was a miscarriage of justice.

Just read this forum and you will find the evidence.  I have personally interacted with one (highly aggressive) individual on here who was quite happy to pin the blame on anyone else - the boys on mopeds, Jodi’s brother, some dead guy, anyone would do apart from the guy he was furiously defending.  You all are extremely protective and defensive of his behaviour prior to the crime and afterwards too, downplaying his a n t i social traits, his acknowledged satanism, bleating about how he was only a child and claiming that kids just don’t do murders like that etc.   Of course you all have sympathy and therefore a soft spot for this deeply unpleasant individual.  BTW I am expressing my opinions of what I have observed, I don’t have to provide evidence, we are not in a court of law and you are not a defence lawyer so please dial down the interrogations.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There was DNA from someone else on Jodi's body.  There was an individual close to Jodi who was rumored to be violent.  Yet this misses the bigger question:  There does not have to be an alternative suspect, and this conviction may still be unsafe.  Referring to people who think that this is, or that this may be, a wrongful conviction as "Mitchell fans" does not advance the discussion, shall we say.

“A "fan" in this context refers to a person who is a devoted admirer or supporter of a person, sport, team, hobby, or other interest” - Mitchell has many devoted supporters aka fans.

[Parky41]

"Donald Findlay QC, defending, asked if Jodi's injuries suggested she had "fought literally to the death". Prof Busuttil said: "Indeed so, yes." Mr Findlay pointed out that when a doctor examined Mitchell, "not a bump, scratch, bruise or abrasion" was found which could be linked to the time Jodi died. "That is so," agreed the professor."  Dr. Kranti Hiremath, a forensic medical examiner, examined him.
EDT
Craig Dobbie stated, "I also caused the witness DC Bowsher to be informed that he should, on a voluntary basis, obtain the now accused Luke Mitchell's clothing and mobile telephone and have him medically examined by a Forensic Medical Advisor."  It has been said that Luke Mitchell was photographed as part of this examination.

Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they? Now I would like you to put up the original forensic reports from the samples taken from Mitchell that morning? If his chief enablers continuously bleat about the same things then that indicates the backbone of what is there. Such as hair sample, nail samples, appearance noted, hair that "appeared" unwashed. But absolutely nothing of what was in the forensic report pertaining to that hair sample? The infamous blood sample, the blatant lie of stating that LM had not been smoking cannabis the evening before, that he could not have been the person smoking cannabis with Jodi Jones around t-time. He had been smoking throughout that day and evening.

Naturally a qualified person would be the one to take any samples, does not equate to having samples taken from all over his person. Were any samples taken from his genitals? I am genuinely interested here, because that would be something taken in an extensive forensic examination, don't you agree? So again, pop up the original reports intact.  Rather than just confirming again by the above which you put, that he had not been extensively forensically examined by having samples taken from everywhere. 

 

[Parky41]

Just read this forum and you will find the evidence.  I have personally interacted with one (highly aggressive) individual on here who was quite happy to pin the blame on anyone else - the boys on mopeds, Jodi’s brother, some dead guy, anyone would do apart from the guy he was furiously defending.  You all are extremely protective and defensive of his behaviour prior to the crime and afterwards too, downplaying his a n t i social traits, his acknowledged satanism, bleating about how he was only a child and claiming that kids just don’t do murders like that etc.   Of course you all have sympathy and therefore a soft spot for this deeply unpleasant individual.  BTW I am expressing my opinions of what I have observed, I don’t have to provide evidence, we are not in a court of law and you are not a defence lawyer so please dial down the interrogations.

Chris has also inferred previously of his list of suspects in order of preference. Not just one, but a list of them. Hypocritical to say the least. Very much preaches that which he does not practice himself. The further hypocrisy I thought had well been put to bed, demanding of others what they have never demanded from those they blindly put trust in before and still do?

[faithlilly]

Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they? Now I would like you to put up the original forensic reports from the samples taken from Mitchell that morning? If his chief enablers continuously bleat about the same things then that indicates the backbone of what is there. Such as hair sample, nail samples, appearance noted, hair that "appeared" unwashed. But absolutely nothing of what was in the forensic report pertaining to that hair sample? The infamous blood sample, the blatant lie of stating that LM had not been smoking cannabis the evening before, that he could not have been the person smoking cannabis with Jodi Jones around t-time. He had been smoking throughout that day and evening.

Naturally a qualified person would be the one to take any samples, does not equate to having samples taken from all over his person. Were any samples taken from his genitals? I am genuinely interested here, because that would be something taken in an extensive forensic examination, don't you agree? So again, pop up the original reports intact.  Rather than just confirming again by the above which you put, that he had not been extensively forensically examined by having samples taken from everywhere.

Of course these are all samples that should have been taken. Are you saying that the investigators were incompetent from the get go?

[Chris_Halkides]

Again Chris, Mitchell did not have forensic samples taken from head to shins, Such a ludicrous application in itself, they just stopped 'any' examination at his shins did they?

Parky41,
If you want to use an idiosyncratic (and rather silly) definition for a phrase, there is nothing I can do to stop you.

[Chris_Halkides]

Apart from spectacularly missing the point (again!) what Wal-Mart does and what happened in some random second hand shop in America does not actually prove that some random shop in Scotland kept detailed receipt records explicitly stating 1 x green khaki parka sold to Mr Luke Mitchell on it. When I last bought something in a vintage shop I get a bog standard till receipt with the date and the amount on it with a department code, so like I say - conjecture .

Do shops in Scotland not need to keep track of their inventory or their incoming funds?  Your argument ignores the obvious.

I am sorry to say that I did get your initial point, which was to bandy unfounded accusations against the bulk of Mitchell's supporters.  The parsimonious explanation for their support is that most of Mitchell's defenders believe that this is/may be a wrongful conviction, in which case it is a multiple injustice.

[Joe Blogs]

Indeed it was which begs the question why? Surely it would be more prudent to burn the clothes as early as they could? Surely burning anything at 10pm would raise more suspicion than earlier in the evening? Why start burning, stop then start again? Why invite David High to his house while Luke knew that his murder garb was being burned?

So many questions!

Yes, so many questions without logical answers, Faith.
And didn't Luke make a call to his mothers landline around 6.40 too?