Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Mr Apples]

Ah an unnamed ‘source’ about Jodi having her head on the desk and no mention of them standing with their bac to each other.

Juxtaposition it with this

‘ After arriving home from school, Jodi discovered the ban had been lifted. Delighted, she immediately texted Luke around 4.30pm.’


And it really is a smorgasbord of ridiculousness and rumour.

Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was  different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.

As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was  different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.

As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.

Some people have a very simplistic view of how humans express and experience emotions.  They believe that if you are sad or depressed or grief-stricken that it is impossible for you to smile at all or to have any fleeting moments of joy or light-heartedness.  I have seen this inability to understand human emotions and behaviours on another part of this forum.

[Parky41]

Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was  different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.

As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.

Clearly her upbeat mood was due to the lifting of her punishment. No phone records of using her mothers phone, nor the landline after school on school nights to set up a meeting. Indicative of those arrangements being made from school, in line with her restrictions. She was clearly going to be seeing Mitchell that evening anyway. The only thing that changed was the time due to her punishments being lifted. She texted her boyfriend and she would be telling him her good news first and foremost.

[faithlilly]

Nothing ridiculous about it. At least two sources saying she was  different/upset/quieter that day; I think we can safely infer something was amiss with Jodi that day. Of course, the source of her change that day might not have been caused by LM. However, Occam's razor and all that? You know where I'm going with this. We'll just have to see if the remaining transcripts shed some light on any of this. I concede that the part about their backs being against each other was read on another forum a few years ago. Again, we'll see what the transcripts reveal.

As for Jodi seemingly being delighted before going out to meet LM, wouldn't her ungrounding alone be enough to induce this delight? Then, in her teenage naivety, hopeful for a reconciliation with her first serious boyfriend? The one she said she was in love with and friends said she was besotted with? Besides, teenagers are fickle, able to recover from adversity, break-ups and trauma fairly quickly.

What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?

Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.

You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.

[faithlilly]

Clearly her upbeat mood was due to the lifting of her punishment. No phone records of using her mothers phone, nor the landline after school on school nights to set up a meeting. Indicative of those arrangements being made from school, in line with her restrictions. She was clearly going to be seeing Mitchell that evening anyway. The only thing that changed was the time due to her punishments being lifted. She texted her boyfriend and she would be telling him her good news first and foremost.

Absolutely she was upbeat due to the lifting of her punishment. There is nothing to indicate anything else was worrying her.

Luke could not have been sure that the text messages from Jodi weren’t still on her mum’s phone so why tell a lie about the texts?

Of course we can’t even be sure when this strange grounding where Jodi was allowed to go out at the time she usually did was actually lifted. Family opinions differ. From DC Alan Tower’s transcripts Jodi was out and about with Luke virtually all day on the Friday, most of Saturday and Sunday before her murder so it’s obvious that she wasn’t grounded at that point.

[Joe Blogs]

What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?

Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.

You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.

Good post, Faith! The same thoughts were running through my mind.

[Mr Apples]

What was it Jodi said in her diary…that if she found out Luke was cheating she’d die? She’d be grief stricken to find out she’d been betrayed by her first ever boyfriend and at that age you simply can’t hide that kind of distress. She went home on the bus with her friend but never mentioned to her friend that Luke was cheating on her. Really?

Further you have given one unnamed source that Jodie was sitting with her head down on the desk. If true couldn't she possibly just have been tired or upset that she was grounded and wouldn’t be able to see Luke. It would certainly explain her delight when her mum lifted her grounding.

You are scrabbling around for a motive but unfortunately coming up with empty hands. I have said this to you before MA butyl, and people like you, are the reason I question the jury system we have in this country.

She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
 breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?

[faithlilly]

She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
 breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?

Absolutely teenagers will eventually recover from a betrayal or break up but not in an afternoon and if you believe that is what happened here I really hope that you don’t have children. As to Jodi not telling her friend haven’t we already been told by one of her friends, albeit in a newspaper report, that Jodi at one point believed that Luke was cheating with another friend. Didn’t keep that quiet, did she?

The weekend before she was murdered Jodi doesn’t seem to have been home but either with Luke or at her gran’s.
Read DC Tower’s testimony. There is absolutely no evidence that she was grounded and appeared to be able to come and go as she pleased.


A teenager tired? I really did have to laugh at this. What is so unbelievable about a teenager being tired?

While you may be meticulous and fussy you are absolutely no good at evaluating evidence. You say you have evaluated the forensic evidence. How? There was no forensic evidence to link Luke to the crime and the circumstantial evidence is weak at best.

Upwards of 10 professionals who have experience in the type of crime we are discussing have voiced grave reservations about Luke’s conviction. Why do you believe that you have the expertise to know otherwise?

[Chris_Halkides]

Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?

What sort of financial reason could there be?  What other reasons?

[Chris_Halkides]

Try and remember that the prosecution’s case was successful, they didn’t need a receipt and numerous witnesses confirmed he owned this garment.  If the police had spent an entire year revisiting the sales ledgers of every single clothing shop in Scotland and not found a receipt linking a green parka sale to Luke Mitchell or his family does that prove he never owned one?  Of course not!  It would have been a complete waste of police resources and wasn’t needed anyway.  The prosecution won without it.

The purpose of any thread in this sub-forum is to test the jury's verdict.  Therefore, using the jury's verdict as evidence does not make a lick of sense.  With respect to the eyewitnesses who claimed that Mr. Mitchell had a parka, a specific problem is that once his photograph was published, this potentially contaminated their memories.  Sadly, this is not the only problem with the eyewitness testimony in this case.

[Mr Apples]

Absolutely teenagers will eventually recover from a betrayal or break up but not in an afternoon and if you believe that is what happened here I really hope that you don’t have children. As to Jodi not telling her friend haven’t we already been told by one of her friends, albeit in a newspaper report, that Jodi at one point believed that Luke was cheating with another friend. Didn’t keep that quiet, did she?

The weekend before she was murdered Jodi doesn’t seem to have been home but either with Luke or at her gran’s.
Read DC Tower’s testimony. There is absolutely no evidence that she was grounded and appeared to be able to come and go as she pleased.


A teenager tired? I really did have to laugh at this. What is so unbelievable about a teenager being tired?

While you may be meticulous and fussy you are absolutely no good at evaluating evidence. You say you have evaluated the forensic evidence. How? There was no forensic evidence to link Luke to the crime and the circumstantial evidence is weak at best.

Upwards of 10 professionals who have experience in the type of crime we are discussing have voiced grave reservations about Luke’s conviction. Why do you believe that you have the expertise to know otherwise?

I would've thought keeping a near year-on relationship under wraps would have been something of a herculean task? KT testifying under oath that she still believed she was his girlfriend right up until the murder, and was upset to have found out he was cheating on her with Jodi. Didn't LM completely deny he was dating KT? And had had no contact with her since the previous year -- until his mobile phone records revealed he'd been in contact with her at least 60-odd times between Jan 03 - June 03?? Was it possible that LM mentioned to Jodi around that time or that day he was planning to go on holiday in Kenmore to the Thomsons, Lm & CM having become quite close friends with the family after holidaying there the previous year (summer 02)? The relationship between the 2 families developing after LM became friends with KT's brother initially and then subsequently dating his sister (KT) shortly afterwards?  I suggest LM mentioned going away and Jodi not liking it and, in turn, LM not liking her not liking it, and consequently the source of the conflict that day? I suggest that LM had mentioned KT before 30.06.03 as that level of communication between the two would've been difficult to hide from Jodi.

I was never, not once, tired in high school -- and I was extremely sporty and active back then.

I have evaluated the evidence painstakingly, in the capacity of a sort of autodidact. I trust my own research, inferences and instinct more than these so-called professionals. Everyone seems to be a 'professional' these days, don't they? It seems to be a thing in the boxing world at present. Worse still, these chancing adult apprentices who do a year-long course instead of the normal 4 and tell fellow mouthbreathers they're master craftsmen. Or, worse still, Walter Mitty characters like SF. Sorry, Scott, it's too late in life for you to be taken seriously; the die was cast long ago and, alas, the outcome was there for all to see. Forever the trier, though, I'll give him that.

The forensics in this case couldn't further the case. It was of no evidential value at all.

[Joe Blogs]

She didn't say cheating, but an entry in her diary, dating from the spring or early summer of 2003, read: "'I think I am actually in love with Luke. Not in a stupid way, I mean real love. God, I think I would die if he finished with me ... If I am crying, he hugs me and strokes my face." Yes, I agree, such things like relationships
 breaking down or ending can cause a teenager distress that is difficult to hide, but, a high percentage of the time, teenagers are able to recover from such experiences quickly (certainly more quickly than adults generally). There could be a whole raft of reasons as to why she never told her pal on the bus (eg, pride, embarrassment, sadness, uncertainty, and so on). A teenager tired? Hardly plausible. She still saw Luke most nights even when she was grounded, didn't she? Didn't he visit her house after 1800 most nights even when she was grounded? People like me?? I'm a very meticulous, fussy and professional individual, successful in various fields and spheres; not an extremely late bloomer like some people. Anyone with half a brain using a holistic approach when evaluating the forensic & circumstantial evidence in this case can see LM is guilty a mile away; it's the only inference that can be drawn. Why don't you just admit that you know he's guilty, too? Or do you have too much skin in the game, financial or otherwise?

Getting back to the parka, Mr Apples.
I asked the same question as you on Twitter a while back, ie., 'did LM habitually change his clothes when he got home from school'?  No one gave an answer. You would think the police would have asked this question too, wouldn't you?
Anyway, you just pointed out that LM visited Jodi's house most evenings, if this is the case and LM did change into his old clothes every day after school, why didn't the likes of Judith, Janine, Joe and Alan Ovens ever see LM in his parka?
After all, Luke had been seeing Jodi for months and in the colder weather. And what about John [Name removed] who LM had drug interactions with? Wouldn't he have seen the parka if it existed?
And apparently the parka was a general purpose jacket worn at school and the scouts too, so again, why didn't any of the Jones's see the parka at all in the five months that Luke was seeing Jodi? And in the colder weather too?
And shouldn't one of the main people to ask have been his friend David High? Was he asked?
Surely he would have seen the parka if it existed and would also have known if LM habitually changed into his old clothes after school?
Was High surprised to see LM in his school clothes on the evening of the murder or was this normal?
Funny that most family and friends closest to LM who saw him most regularly didn't testify that he owned a parka pre-murder, Mr Apples. Dont you think?

[Mr Apples]

Getting back to the parka, Mr Apples.
I asked the same question as you on Twitter a while back, ie., 'did LM habitually change his clothes when he got home from school'?  No one gave an answer. You would think the police would have asked this question too, wouldn't you?
Anyway, you just pointed out that LM visited Jodi's house most evenings, if this is the case and LM did change into his old clothes every day after school, why didn't the likes of Judith, Janine, Joe and Alan Ovens ever see LM in his parka?
After all, Luke had been seeing Jodi for months and in the colder weather. And what about John [Name removed] who LM had drug interactions with? Wouldn't he have seen the parka if it existed?
And apparently the parka was a general purpose jacket worn at school and the scouts too, so again, why didn't any of the Jones's see the parka at all in the five months that Luke was seeing Jodi? And in the colder weather too?
And shouldn't one of the main people to ask have been his friend David High? Was he asked?
Surely he would have seen the parka if it existed and would also have known if LM habitually changed into his old clothes after school?
Was High surprised to see LM in his school clothes on the evening of the murder or was this normal?
Funny that most family and friends closest to LM who saw him most regularly didn't testify that he owned a parka pre-murder, Mr Apples. Dont you think?

David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The purpose of any thread in this sub-forum is to test the jury's verdict.  Therefore, using the jury's verdict as evidence does not make a lick of sense.  With respect to the eyewitnesses who claimed that Mr. Mitchell had a parka, a specific problem is that once his photograph was published, this potentially contaminated their memories.  Sadly, this is not the only problem with the eyewitness testimony in this case.

Are you saying that without the receipt that the jury’s verdict was invalid?  In your opinion maybe.  Personally I put more faith in the opinions of those who were in a position to hear all the evidence presented at trial rather that those of the Johnny Come Latelys who have had to rely on an imperfect set of information, much of it funneled through the highly biased channel of individuals like Sandra Lean.  Out of interest is there any eyewitness testimony in this case that you would allow or should it all have been scrapped in your view?

[Joe Blogs]

David High's transcript is now in the public domain (has been for a good few months now). If my memory serves me correctly, he said LM had owned a khaki green parka from the summer of 2002, but wasn't 100% certain (but more certain than uncertain; that's the inference I drew from his testimony). Judith's court testimony has yet to be uploaded, but I definitely read on another forum that she said LM did own a parka prior to the murder. It will be interesting to read her transcript. Also, PM's, JOF's, GD's & JAF's transcripts have yet to be uploaded, so maybe they'll mention a parka also. In fact, there are a lot of people's transcripts still to be uploaded who may have compelling evidence re the parka. I am looking forward to reading about cctv footage of LM in the parka and a photograph of LM at a Rock music concert wearing it. I suspect lots of people saw him in his parka pre-murder and told the police in statements, but the police only used 8 as they felt that would be enough to convince the jury that he did own one pre-murder, especially as it was a cross-section of different people at different times prior to the murder. Also, one of the boys that met up with LM at the abbey that evening said that LM was a lot cleaner looking that evening and less unkempt than his usual scruffy self (I suspect David Tulloch), so that's another piece of the jigsaw.

Well David Tulloch could only have been talking about Lukes hair looking 'less unkempt', as Luke was wearing the same clothes that evening as he was at school that day.
In fact, just how can your clothes look less scruffy anyway?
Was Lukes usual appearance scruffy like a tramp with tears all over the place and a bit of rope holding up his trousers?
Scruffy in what way? Unkempt in what way?
Luke was simply wearing his school clothes!
If Tulloch was simply talking about his hair, there was no evidence it had been washed was there?
Wasn't it described as greasy?
In fact wasn't LM described as unwashed?
Doesn't seem to match Tullochs interpretation of LM appearance at all, Mr Apples.