Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Parky41]

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

Alas, sarcasm is not for everyone, I get that. His appearance being noted will have been all over Chris, they wouldn't just stop at his shins.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts.  My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it.  The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah”   When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of.  Here is that part of your post again:

I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be.  There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith.  I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate.  Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.

Hopefully that clears that point up.

The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal.  Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club?  They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter.  Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell,  the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.

[Joe Blogs]

No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts.  My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it.  The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah”   When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of.  Here is that part of your post again:

I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be.  There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith.  I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate.  Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.

Hopefully that clears that point up.

The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal.  Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club?  They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter.  Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell,  the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.

Do you think a visiting serial killer would have been familiar with this woodland path?  Did you have a particular serial killer in mind? 
You see, this is an example of what I mean.  Throwing in random serial killers into the mix with literally not a smidgeon of evidence to support the theory.  Anyone will do just so long as it ain’t Mitchell!
Did you ever consider the possibility that Mitchell murdered Jodi, Joe?

[faithlilly]

Did you ever consider the possibility that the killer was a visitor to Dalkeith, Vertigo?
Not from the neighbourhood at all.
I'm sure i've read several suggestions of a visiting serial killer on the forum here from years back!
There's no denying that it looks like the killer knew exactly what he/she intended to do, no un-planned sudden fit of rage anyway.

I wonder if the individual who perpetrated the crimes that Andrew Malkinson was convicted of was local? The path was not hidden so I’m not sure why it’s being suggested that only a local would know would have known where it was and while I’m sure that the murderer wished to do harm to a female, I’d wager that’s as far as his plan went.

[Joe Blogs]

Do you think a visiting serial killer would have been familiar with this woodland path?  Did you have a particular serial killer in mind? 
You see, this is an example of what I mean.  Throwing in random serial killers into the mix with literally not a smidgeon of evidence to support the theory.  Anyone will do just so long as it ain’t Mitchell!
Did you ever consider the possibility that Mitchell murdered Jodi, Joe?

It will probably take a number of posts to fully answer your questiond, Vertigo!
Firstly, the reason I mention visiting killer is that the murder has all the hallmarks of an 'experienced looking killer'.
This has been pointed out to me by others on other forums, and to be honest it is always at the back of my mind.
It just seems a very well planned and executed crime for a first time killer as it were.
I mean, we have LM at home getting a number of texts from Jodi between 4,30-4.38 telling him that she can meet up, that her grounding has been lifted, then, according to the police, within 16 minutes he has decided to kill Jodi, changed his clothes and travelled to the Easthouses end of RDP where he is seen by a passing Andrina Bryson at 4.54.
Quite a feat to start with, Vertigo.
So, i'm trying to answer your question, 'did you ever consider the possibility that Luke murdered Jodi'? and the answer is obviously yes! Of cousre I thought LM was guilty like everyone else, but then programmes like 'the devils own' and 'Murder in a small town' made me go, mmmm! thats interesting! And like so many others started to look more closely into the case before deciding which side to take.
And for me, like so many others, there just didn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure that LM was the killer.
Indeed when you looked at what the police were claiming there just didn't seem to be enough time for Luke to carry out the murder, not to mention the lack of bloodied clothing or any other forensic evidence.
And to be honest, the prosecution scenario just doesn't make a lot of sense, claiming that LM loitered about on Newbattle Road in his murder clothes for almost an hour after the murder for all to see before going home, why?
It does however make sense to wonder about on NB Road in his Bomber jacket waiting for Jodi to appear after Luke had his supper.
Anyway, there just isn't enough tangible evidence for me to conclude that LM was the killer, Vertigo.

[Joe Blogs]

I wonder if the individual who perpetrated the crimes that Andrew Malkinson was convicted of was local? The path was not hidden so I’m not sure why it’s being suggested that only a local would know would have known where it was and while I’m sure that the murderer wished to do harm to a female, I’d wager that’s as far as his plan went.

And it is worth remembering that a school was nearby too, Faith.
Not sure about the killer in the Malkinson case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It will probably take a number of posts to fully answer your questiond, Vertigo!
Firstly, the reason I mention visiting killer is that the murder has all the hallmarks of an 'experienced looking killer'.
This has been pointed out to me by others on other forums, and to be honest it is always at the back of my mind.
It just seems a very well planned and executed crime for a first time killer as it were.
I mean, we have LM at home getting a number of texts from Jodi between 4,30-4.38 telling him that she can meet up, that her grounding has been lifted, then, according to the police, within 16 minutes he has decided to kill Jodi, changed his clothes and travelled to the Easthouses end of RDP where he is seen by a passing Andrina Bryson at 4.54.
Quite a feat to start with, Vertigo.
So, i'm trying to answer your question, 'did you ever consider the possibility that Luke murdered Jodi'? and the answer is obviously yes! Of cousre I thought LM was guilty like everyone else, but then programmes like 'the devils own' and 'Murder in a small town' made me go, mmmm! thats interesting! And like so many others started to look more closely into the case before deciding which side to take.
And for me, like so many others, there just didn't seem to be enough evidence to be sure that LM was the killer.
Indeed when you looked at what the police were claiming there just didn't seem to be enough time for Luke to carry out the murder, not to mention the lack of bloodied clothing or any other forensic evidence.
And to be honest, the prosecution scenario just doesn't make a lot of sense, claiming that LM loitered about on Newbattle Road in his murder clothes for almost an hour after the murder for all to see before going home, why?
It does however make sense to wonder about on NB Road in his Bomber jacket waiting for Jodi to appear after Luke had his supper.
Anyway, there just isn't enough tangible evidence for me to conclude that LM was the killer, Vertigo.

Fair enough and thanks for your repy.  I’m not sufficiently au fait with the minute by minute timeline to add any further comment at this stage but I’ll be sure to read up about it.
I would question your conclusion that the murder had to be well planned and executed however or that it had all the hallmarks of an experienced killer.  What are the hallmarks of a poorly executed or inexperienced murder? 

[Chris_Halkides]

No you’re missing the point again and conflating two separate posts.  My first post was in response to yours complaining about others using conjecture when you yourself were using it.  The clue was in your phrase beginning I”I suspect…blah blah blah”   When you suspect something that means you are using conjecture, something you appear to disapprove of.  Here is that part of your post again:

I checked, and the distance to Edinburgh is about what I remembered it to be.  There are some clothing shops in Dalkeith.  I suspect that the shops in both cities keep records of purchases, and credit card records may be consulted when appropriate.  Individuals on this board resorted to conjectures to explain the lack of evidence of such a purchase, conjectures that lack evidence.

Hopefully that clears that point up.

The second point is certainly NOT unfounded as any detailed reading of this forum will reveal.  Do you deny that there is a long list of alternative suspects put forward by the Mitchell Supporters Club?  They can’t all have done it, but that doesn’t seem to matter.  Even though the evidence for every name on that list is IMO far weaker than the case against Mitchell,  the Supporters Club still think it’s far more likely someone else, anyone else committed the heinous crime, but they don’t seem that fussed which name on the list to point the finger at just so long as Mitchell’s name is not on it.

Your choice of words is imprecise.  A conjecture is a statement offered without evidence.  A hypothesis is a statement that is open to verification or falsification by evidence.  I offered a hypothesis, and I provided evidence.  You are free to reject the evidence that I offered, just as I am free to argue that your rejection is poorly reasoned.  Now do you see the difference?

It may help to put the issue of a possible receipt into the context of the case.  The prosecution does not have objective, incontrovertible evidence of Luke Mitchell having or wearing a parka prior to the murder, such as receipt or CCTV footage.  Is it possible that a parka was purchased and no receipt ever generated?  Yes, but it is unlikely in my judgement and experience.  What it has, eyewitness testimony, is debatable regarding its probative value for reasons which I stated some time ago.  The burden to prove its existence prior to the murder falls on the prosecution.  The lack of a receipt does not prove Mr. Mitchell's innocence; it means that the case is weaker without it than it would be with it.  The defenders of the safety of this conviction would rather engage in pretzel logic, than acknowledge this or other weaknesses in the case.

Of course there are alternative persons of interest, but reasonable minds may list them in different orders.  However, let me rephrase something that I said earlier.  For some people the case against Luke Mitchell fails to clear the BARD standard with or without alternative suspects.  For instance, some commenters elsewhere think that the timeline is too tight for Mr. Mitchell to have done this crime.  For this reason alone, your statement is not an accurate depiction of those who are skeptical that this conviction is a safe one.  Other reasons may yet occur to you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Your choice of words is imprecise.  A conjecture is a statement offered without evidence.  A hypothesis is a statement that is open to verification or falsification by evidence.  I offered a hypothesis, and I provided evidence.  You are free to reject the evidence that I offered, just as I am free to argue that your rejection is poorly reasoned.  Now do you see the difference?

It may help to put the issue of a possible receipt into the context of the case.  The prosecution does not have objective, incontrovertible evidence of Luke Mitchell having or wearing a parka prior to the murder, such as receipt or CCTV footage.  Is it possible that a parka was purchased and no receipt ever generated?  Yes, but it is unlikely in my judgement and experience.  What it has, eyewitness testimony, is debatable regarding its probative value for reasons which I stated some time ago.  The burden to prove its existence prior to the murder falls on the prosecution.  The lack of a receipt does not prove Mr. Mitchell's innocence; it means that the case is weaker without it than it would be with it.  The defenders of the safety of this conviction would rather engage in pretzel logic, than acknowledge this or other weaknesses in the case.

Of course there are alternative persons of interest, but reasonable minds may list them in different orders.  However, let me rephrase something that I said earlier.  For some people the case against Luke Mitchell fails to clear the BARD standard with or without alternative suspects.  For instance, some commenters elsewhere think that the timeline is too tight for Mr. Mitchell to have done this crime.  For this reason alone, your statement is not an accurate depiction of those who are skeptical that this conviction is a safe one.  Other reasons may yet occur to you.

1)You’re playing semantics, boring, not interested in playing that game.  2) what evidence have you offered, and of what? 3) a receipt may or may not have proved Mitchell once purchased a parka but you would have be en sending the police on a fool’s errand looking for one.  Which shops?  In which towns?  Going back how far?  What if the parka was purchased with cash?  Just how much time and resources would you have thrown at this fool’s errand which was quite unnecessary as there were a stack of witnesses prepared to swear on oath that Mitchell owned one prior to the murder?   The police secured a successful conviction so point proven.  4) My opinion is based on what I have observed and experienced on this forum.  You obviously haven’t read the posts I have read so are in no position to tell me my opinion is inaccurate. 

[Joe Blogs]

Fair enough and thanks for your repy.  I’m not sufficiently au fait with the minute by minute timeline to add any further comment at this stage but I’ll be sure to read up about it.
I would question your conclusion that the murder had to be well planned and executed however or that it had all the hallmarks of an experienced killer.  What are the hallmarks of a poorly executed or inexperienced murder?

Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house,  nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.

[Mr Apples]

Why would a shop manager think it at all suspicious that a customer, even Luke, was buying clothes after a murder?
Aren’t individuals close to a murder victim allowed to buy clothes?

It’s funny the only source I can find for the ‘Colin’ episode is from a site called pieandbovril and the source seems to write without paragraphs in precisely the same way as you MA.

Maybe the news reports at the time (and media in general) reported heavily on LM's clothing and missing parka, and the staff member who (by sheer chance) knew Jodi told her boss (Colin Proctor) and they decided to phone the police. There's a very strong chance that the girl who knew Jodi was following the case very closely from day 1 (and there's a good chance Colin the manager was, too; it was obviously a major and internationally notorious case, dominating domestic news for a couple of years continually). Also, LM had a strange aura about him (eg, a lot of his peers claiming he was a weirdo and loner, and the whole business of no emotion emanating from him on the night of the murder when others were screaming and crying in shock & grief, all hell breaking loose at the grim discovery) and perhaps they detected this and it was also a factor in their decision to call the police. I can't recall how I came to know about Colin. I think, initially, the WTF (What They Found) Youtube channel drew my attention to him, and then latterly the Innocence Fraud blog that Nicholas often cited had info on him giving the police the tip-off re the parka. We'll just have to wait until his transcript is uploaded. Not everything about this case is in the public domain (which, alas, can be exploited and manipulated by SL & SF).

Pie and bovril site??? I must profess ignorance on that one! Never heard of it, ol' gal.

[faithlilly]

Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house,  nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.

This is a point that has always puzzled me. Luke knew that Jodi’s phone was broken and she was using her mum’s so why text her when the texts could be retrieved? Why not simply phone her? Further what happened to the texts? Were they deleted by Jodi so her mum didn’t find out that she was intending to walk the path alone? Did the police try to receive the texts? How could Luke know that the texts wouldn’t be retrieved and so catching him out in a lie.

Again more questions than answers.

[Joe Blogs]

This is a point that has always puzzled me. Luke knew that Jodi’s phone was broken and she was using her mum’s so why text her when the texts could be retrieved? Why not simply phone her? Further what happened to the texts? Were they deleted by Jodi so her mum didn’t find out that she was intending to walk the path alone? Did the police try to receive the texts? How could Luke know that the texts wouldn’t be retrieved and so catching him out in a lie.

Again more questions than answers.

I have never seen an explanation why the Texts sent to Luke by Jodi couldn't be retrieved from Judith's phone, Faith.
Could there be the distinct chance that they backed up Lukes version of events and therefore had to be hidden or deleted?
No proof of this of course!

[Mr Apples]

Well i'm sure we can agree that the killer was at least psychotic, Vertigo?
Remember, this wasn't just a stabbing. We have heard the argument that there may have been an argument between Luke and Jodi regarding Kim from Kenmore[Lukes other lady friend at the time] which in turn caused Luke to stab Jodi. But alas, this makes no sense whatsoever. If Jodi had been killed in a fit of rage she would have been stabbed a few times and that would have been that. However, Jodi was beaten severely, strangled and then stabbed to death. And it didn't stop there, had it done so, you might still argue the killing had been done in a frenzied rage.
No, and here's where the psychopathy part really kicks in, the killer calmly mutilates Jodi's face and body after she is stripped naked. Sorry about the details!
No,undoubtably the killer was a psychopath, else they would not and indeed could not inflict severe post mortem injuries.
Jodi hands were also tied behind her back, again nothing to do with a fit of rage.
The body was then moved to a tree, presumably for staging the body, all hallmarks of a deranged mind, surely?
So, do you think LM was/is a psychopath who planned to kill Jodi and had decided exactly how he was going to carry it out? Do you thinkhe decided on the spur of the moment when Jodi sent the text at 4.32 that todays the day! This is when I carry out my fantasy! And duly changed his clothes before rushing to meet Jodi.
Is it that simple?
Of course we have to ask, wouldn't LM realize that he would be the number one suspect? After all, he was the one going to meet her, and Jodi's family knew that. Very risky surely?
But then Luke claimed that he and Jodi arranged to meet at Newbattle Abbey crescent at his house,  nowhere near the end of RDP at Easthouses end where he was allegedly seen by Andrina Bryson.
And why shouldn't we believe Luke? After all, the texts sent to LM by Jodi on her mums phone would prove where they planned to meet, and Luke knew this. So why would he risk lying about the meeting place?
After all, Luke had no way of knowing that the texts sent by Jodi would be lost.
And as I have said elsewhere, no one questioned Luke's version about where they had planned to meet in the days following the murder.
Of course by the time of the trial Jodi's mum claimed that Jodi told her that she would be mucking about in Easthouses that evening, yet Judith never queried Luke about meeting at Newbattle when he phoned her on the night of the murder, she even phoned Alice Walker right away and sent her straight to RDP to search for Jodi, straight to RDP and nowhere else!
Even when Judith went to Lukes house in the days after the murder she didn't quiery the meeting place, she only asked LM why he didn't phone her again when Jodi didn't turn up. Turn up in Newbattle I presume??
Anyway, I better stop for now, or the post will be too long and no one will read it, Vertigo.
Sorry if I have wandered from one thing to the other.

I've, since I took an interest in this case a few years ago, always thought it wasn't premeditated. Now I'm not so sure. LM had a history of violence from a young age (as previously discussed) and a fascination with knives, Satan, death and the macabre from a young age (he even conceded to a journalist that he 'wasn't your average teenager'). Throw copious amounts of Marijuana-smoking into the mix, and a mother who spoiled him and let him do as he pleased, with no father around to discipline him, then I suggest he was a keg waiting to explode. He had talked to friends pre-murder about how easy it would be to kill someone and could imagine himself doing it just for a laugh when stoned. He also knew Newbattle & Easthouses intimately, rural settlements offering plenty of options to commit and get away with murder. And we can also factor in he was due to meet with KT from Kenmore around the same time  -- a girl who testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until the murder -- and Jodi was crying that day in classroom. Something was amiss. Wearing layers of clothing that night, too? To trick and confuse eyewitnesses? I think it's possible and feasible it was premeditated. Not 100% sure it was, though.