Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think the parka jacket is a major part of the case for most people, Vertigo!

If it’s the one thing that the entire case rests on then all the other aspects become irrelevant, such as the claim that Mitchell didn’t have time to commit the murder, or that it would have been impossible to commit it without having Jodi’s blood found on him etc.

[Mr Apples]

When asked by Turnbull about the parka Luke was supposed to have had before the murder this is what he said.

“ Tell me this, please. Did, did Luke have a, a garment like that? -
Ehm, I'm pretty sure it was after, ehm,
Jodie was killed.”

I’d advise anyone asking about the parka to read David High’s testimony. He doesn’t seem at all sure about the acquiring of Luke’s parka and he was his best friend.

Could you please point me to the testimony, a newspaper report will do, where a witness says that Luke was less scruffy than usual?

Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.

I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.

[Joe Blogs]

If it’s the one thing that the entire case rests on then all the other aspects become irrelevant, such as the claim that Mitchell didn’t have time to commit the murder, or that it would have been impossible to commit it without having Jodi’s blood found on him etc.

Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.

[Mr Apples]

Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.

I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.

I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11934.msg644052#msg644052

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.

But if he definitely had a parka prior to the murder then clearly he would have had time, right?

[Mr Apples]

Well it is highly unlikely that LM had time to carry out the murder if the witnesses on Newbattle Road saw him in his school clothes and Bomber jacket, Vertigo.
That would mean that he had already killed Jodi, then gone home and changed before walking down to the gate beside the entrance to RDP where he was allegedly seen by Flem/Walsh by around 5.40-45. Is that possible?
As for no blood being found on LM, well that goes hand in hand with the parka, the reason it was burned being because it was blood stained.

What?? You are not making sense. Anyway, he wasn't spotted in the Bomber jacket; one of the pushbike boys said it may have been a Bomber, but conceded that he may have been wrong because he remembered LM wearing a green Bomber jacket in school. The other 2 pushbike boys said that it was more of a dull green army shirt that went down past his bottom (one of the boys even said that the shirt was sold in Flip clothing in Edinburgh). LM was wearing layers if clothing between 1655 - 1815 (ie German parka with a German army shirt underneath) and then was wearing his shiny green Bomber jacket when he met the boys in the abbey at 1930. The only anomaly here is the DH & MO sightings at 1800 on NB rd, where they said he was wearing a Bomber jacket. Were this couple getting mixed up between a Bomber and a parka? Or did LM have his shiny green Bomber jacker planked nearby, changing into it to try and confuse eyewitnesses? (If he did plank the bomber, surely an indication that Jodi's murder was premeditated?)

[Joe Blogs]

But if he definitely had a parka prior to the murder then clearly he would have had time, right?

Well that would be a different scenario, Vertigo, that would be the prosecution one as follows.
Luke changed into parka and other clothes before leaving at 4.40 to meet Jodi.
Now, we only ever hear about the parka, but Luke must have changed all his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi, as common sense tells us that his trouser legs and footwear were bound to get blood on them moving Jodis body to the tree through the blood soaked crime scene, therefore if guilty, Luke/mum, whoever must have burned or dumped his jacket, trousers and foot wear at least after LM returned from killing Jodi.
So, to carry on, Luke changes clothing and rushes to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP before 4.54 as Andrina Bryson passes by in her car.
Luke immediately persuades Jodi to head back along RDP in the Newbattle direction for some reason, back down the path that Luke has just came up. Almost the same scenario that would later happen with the search party!
Anyway, Luke and Jodi head back towards Newbattle, either using RDP or walking through the woodland strip.
Just why Luke/Jodi walked at least half way back down to the 'v' break is a mystery to me, but there you go.
Anyway, they reached the 'v' and for whatever reason, all hell broke loose.
Luke then tries to phone Jodi's house at 5.32 but doesn't get through, he phones again at around 5.40 t say that Jodi hadn't arrived and Alen Ovens tells him that Jodi has left.
Luke is seen around this time by Flem/walsh standing by the gate.
Then Luke is seen by the three bike boys, Carol Heatlie and the o'sullivans between 5.55-6.25 standing beside the entrance to Barondale cottages.
No witness saw LM after this, so we can only presume that he went home around 6.30 or after to change his clothes.
We know Luke limited the time he had to change because he phoned David High at 6.32 to meet up then LM phoned him again before seven because he was taking too long to turn up.
Luke also phoned his mums landline around 6.40 while presuably being at home at the time??
So, Luke stood on Newbattle road for almost an hour in his parka and other murder clothes after the murder, not sure why?
He even arranged to meet David High before going home to change or just after.
Shane Mitchell had already left for the evening before LM got home, so Luke must have had a brief conversation with his mother regarding an alibi if the police arrived, and presumably asked her to dispose of his bloodied clothing ASAP.
Luke then leaves a distraught, shocked ? Corrine before leaving before 7.00 to meet David High and friends at the Abbey.
So, the question was, did LM have time to carry out the murder if he owned a parka? And the answer is yes, with the prosecution scenario which I have just written!
Do you think their scenario makes sense, Vertigo?

[Joe Blogs]

What?? You are not making sense. Anyway, he wasn't spotted in the Bomber jacket; one of the pushbike boys said it may have been a Bomber, but conceded that he may have been wrong because he remembered LM wearing a green Bomber jacket in school. The other 2 pushbike boys said that it was more of a dull green army shirt that went down past his bottom (one of the boys even said that the shirt was sold in Flip clothing in Edinburgh). LM was wearing layers if clothing between 1655 - 1815 (ie German parka with a German army shirt underneath) and then was wearing his shiny green Bomber jacket when he met the boys in the abbey at 1930. The only anomaly here is the DH & MO sightings at 1800 on NB rd, where they said he was wearing a Bomber jacket. Were this couple getting mixed up between a Bomber and a parka? Or did LM have his shiny green Bomber jacker planked nearby, changing into it to try and confuse eyewitnesses? (If he did plank the bomber, surely an indication that Jodi's murder was premeditated?)

Oh dear, I think you're the one not making sense with that post. Mr Apples!

[Chris_Halkides]

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?

I am not sure how you could draw the conclusion in your first sentence from what I wrote.  I have said at least once before that using the jury's verdict in threads whose purpose is to test the jury's verdict provides no new information.  What I have also said before is that better evidence regarding the parka (a receipt or CCTV footage) or regarding Luke's whereabouts (cell phone triangulation) would be more convincing that what the Crown actually used.  There may be other similar examples.

I used to participate in discussions of the Knox-Sollecito case, and the pro-guilt commenters made exactly the same argument as one of the ones that you made, namely that the jury was there and heard all of the evidence.  Yet the K-S case is now almost universally regarded as a wrongful conviction. Regarding the jury in this case, the fact that only a majority verdict is required is a Scotland-wide question.  There is also the fact that they deliberated for only 5 hours IIRC, yet there were over forty days of testimony.  That strikes me as not much time, given the complexities of this case.

Some time ago I went through much of the eyewitness evidence over the course of roughly six pages of comments in another thread, and time is short today.  Let me do an offhand summary of the Andrina Bryson evidence as an example (I imagine that I will misremember something along the way).  Neither the victim nor the convicted individual was known to her.  She was with her children in a car and turning in the opposite direction versus the direction she was looking.  Her descriptions were different from the actual appearances either individual.  IIUC the timing of the sighting that she initially gave was different from what was indicated in court.  Moreover, the timing in court as summarized by Mr Turnbull ignored her getting lost and looking at the house.  All of these factors lessen the probative value of her testimony.
EDT
With respect to Ms. Bryson, I forgot to add that Mr Findley indicated that the photo lineup was problematic.  There  is at least one additional problem, namely the direction in which she was traveling, that I cannot quickly summarize.  With respect to the argument that the jury heard all of the evidence, every jury hears all the evidence.  Yet every wrongful conviction begins with a guilty verdict.  Therefore, just being there is not enough.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am not sure how you could draw the conclusion in your first sentence from what I wrote.  I have said at least once before that using the jury's verdict in threads whose purpose is to test the jury's verdict provides no new information.  What I have also said before is that better evidence regarding the parka (a receipt or CCTV footage) or regarding Luke's whereabouts (cell phone triangulation) would be more convincing that what the Crown actually used.  There may be other similar examples.

I used to participate in discussions of the Knox-Sollecito case, and the pro-guilt commenters made exactly the same argument as one of the ones that you made, namely that the jury was there and heard all of the evidence.  Yet the K-S case is now almost universally regarded as a wrongful conviction. Regarding the jury in this case, the fact that only a majority verdict is required is a Scotland-wide question.  There is also the fact that they deliberated for only 5 hours IIRC, yet there were over forty days of testimony.  That strikes me as not much time, given the complexities of this case.

Some time ago I went through much of the eyewitness evidence over the course of roughly six pages of comments in another thread, and time is short today.  Let me do an offhand summary of the Andrina Bryson evidence as an example (I imagine that I will misremember something along the way).  Neither the victim nor the convicted individual was known to her.  She was with her children in a car and turning in the opposite direction versus the direction she was looking.  Her descriptions were different from the actual appearances either individual.  IIUC the timing of the sighting that she initially gave was different from what was indicated in court.  Moreover, the timing in court as summarized by Mr Turnbull ignored her getting lost and looking at the house.  All of these factors lessen the probative value of her testimony.
EDT
With respect to Ms. Bryson, I forgot to add that Mr Findley indicated that the photo lineup was problematic.  There  is at least one additional problem, namely the direction in which she was traveling, that I cannot quickly summarize.  With respect to the argument that the jury heard all of the evidence, every jury hears all the evidence.  Yet every wrongful conviction begins with a guilty verdict.  Therefore, just being there is not enough.

The way you keep banging on about a receipt it’s as if this is the magic ticket that solves the case.  Without it there is no case but with it you may as well all pack up and go home (as Joe Bloggs has said).  Hence my opening comment.  Yes juries can make mistakes but they still have had the full facts at their disposal.  They sat through every scrap of evidence.  Why should armchair detectives who have not had access to the full facts as presented in court have their opinions treated as at least as valid if not more valid than those of the jury?  That was my point.  Unless they have somehow stumbled on something new that wasn’t heard in court of course….  I always thought Knox and Sollecito was a miscarriage of justice but it was an opinion formed on an imperfect understanding of all the evidence, not enough to state with absolute certainty that I was right of course. I also think Lucy Letby is guilty but concede it may be one on the biggest miscarriages of justice.  Time will tell. FYI I concede the same re: Mitchell. .
As for the rest of your post I take it from your example that you don’t believe any eyewitness testimony is reliable.  Should it therefore all be excluded on principle?  Not just in this case but in every case past, present and future?

[faithlilly]

Pages 91, 92 & 93 from DH's transcript. DH was asked by ADT if LM had a parka before the murder and he replied: "I think so, but I'm not that sure because a lot of people have parkas." Then ADT showed DH a statement he'd given to police on 15.04.04, where DH said he knew LM owned a parka, green in colour, which had German army badges on the sleeves. DH went on to say that he thought LM had owned this parka for 'a couple of years' (meaning he'd owned it since spring/summer 2002). ADT then asked DH if this was still his recollection and he said yes.

I read about a witness saying LM was cleaner than normal and less unkempt on the night of the murder in an old online newspaper article a few years ago. I can't seem to find it now. It was also mentioned on other forums. We'll just have to wait on the transcripts of the other boys who met with LM at the abbey that evening.

It is obvious from High’s testimony that he really had no idea when Luke bought his parka and why should he? Unless it’s an unusual piece of clothing, and it’s obvious that wearing parkas in his age group wasn’t unusual, then he probably hadn’t taken any notice. It is interesting though that even though High must have been questioned several times before April 2004, being with Luke on the night of Jodi’s murder, it wasn’t until almost a year later that he was asked about a parka.

Luke had the same clothes on that he’d had on at school. His hair was unwashed. In what way was he cleaner or less unkempt?

[faithlilly]

I should also add that there is an old post from Kimberley Thomson herself on an internet forum, saying categorically that LM owned a parka before the murder. Anyone have it to hand? I know it's been posted on here before.

You do know that anyone can log on as whoever they like on the internet, don’t you MA? Even I’ve been accused of being Dr Lean…I’m not BTW. What Prof do we have that this was Kimberley Thompson? It’s not a post from her a Facebook page where there’s a better chance that it was her or indeed any other personal social media. So what has convinced you that it was her? Is it simply the fact that it fits your narrative?

[faithlilly]

First statement of Carol Heatlie on the 3rd of July

‘ Okay. "about collar length draped down the sides, he did not look particularly scruffy. He was wearing baggy clothes, a waist-length jacket, loose style or
baggy, khaki green coloured"? - Yeah.’

Her from her statement of the 27th of October 2003.

‘ "The top I saw the male wearing was...", does that say, "...longer jacket and goes down to thigh-length. The jacket was a khaki green colour and was baggy. I got the
impression it was more like a baggy sweat
top"? - Yes.

How can a jacket change from being ‘waist length’ like Luke’s bomber jacket to ‘long jacket and goes down to the thigh’ in a matter of months?

[Mr Apples]

Well that would be a different scenario, Vertigo, that would be the prosecution one as follows.
Luke changed into parka and other clothes before leaving at 4.40 to meet Jodi.
Now, we only ever hear about the parka, but Luke must have changed all his clothes before leaving to meet Jodi, as common sense tells us that his trouser legs and footwear were bound to get blood on them moving Jodis body to the tree through the blood soaked crime scene, therefore if guilty, Luke/mum, whoever must have burned or dumped his jacket, trousers and foot wear at least after LM returned from killing Jodi.
So, to carry on, Luke changes clothing and rushes to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of RDP before 4.54 as Andrina Bryson passes by in her car.
Luke immediately persuades Jodi to head back along RDP in the Newbattle direction for some reason, back down the path that Luke has just came up. Almost the same scenario that would later happen with the search party!
Anyway, Luke and Jodi head back towards Newbattle, either using RDP or walking through the woodland strip.
Just why Luke/Jodi walked at least half way back down to the 'v' break is a mystery to me, but there you go.
Anyway, they reached the 'v' and for whatever reason, all hell broke loose.
Luke then tries to phone Jodi's house at 5.32 but doesn't get through, he phones again at around 5.40 t say that Jodi hadn't arrived and Alen Ovens tells him that Jodi has left.
Luke is seen around this time by Flem/walsh standing by the gate.
Then Luke is seen by the three bike boys, Carol Heatlie and the o'sullivans between 5.55-6.25 standing beside the entrance to Barondale cottages.
No witness saw LM after this, so we can only presume that he went home around 6.30 or after to change his clothes.
We know Luke limited the time he had to change because he phoned David High at 6.32 to meet up then LM phoned him again before seven because he was taking too long to turn up.
Luke also phoned his mums landline around 6.40 while presuably being at home at the time??
So, Luke stood on Newbattle road for almost an hour in his parka and other murder clothes after the murder, not sure why?
He even arranged to meet David High before going home to change or just after.
Shane Mitchell had already left for the evening before LM got home, so Luke must have had a brief conversation with his mother regarding an alibi if the police arrived, and presumably asked her to dispose of his bloodied clothing ASAP.
Luke then leaves a distraught, shocked ? Corrine before leaving before 7.00 to meet David High and friends at the Abbey.
So, the question was, did LM have time to carry out the murder if he owned a parka? And the answer is yes, with the prosecution scenario which I have just written!
Do you think their scenario makes sense, Vertigo?

Yes, it makes sense -- even though there are grounds for it not making sense or being logical that you are trying to make out with your post above. LM wasn't seen at all between 1815-1930, meaning he'd had a full hour to tell his mother what had happened, begin the process of destroying his murder clothes (ie, the long parka, the German army shirt, black baggy jeans and black doc martin-like boots), quickly clean up (eg, a quick 2 min shower upstairs or at a sink upstairs), change into other clothes (including his white snowboarding boots and shiny green Bomber jacket) and be back out to meet the boys at the Abbey at 1930. He had to be seen between 1740-1815 as that's when he said he'd left the house to go and meet Jodi. Already, there are red flags: LM, regardless of wether they were going to be mucking around at the EH end or NB rd end of the isolated path, LM mostly met Jodi at the EH end as she was forbidden from walking the RDP by her mother due its seclusion. Since dating in March 03, Jodi had only failed to meet LM once and even then she had phoned LM to let him know she wouldn't make it or had phoned him shortly after their arranged meeting time to say why she didn't make it; however, the crux of the matter is that LM would meet Jodi at the EH end of rdp, or half way, regardless of where they were going. Yet on the night of the murder, LM broke those typical arrangements? We are expected to believe he dilly-dallied between 1740-1930, before meeting DH & co at NB Abbey? Not even calling or attempting to call the Joneses back to find out where she was during this window of 1740 - 1930? Indeed, he never even made an attempt to find out where Jodi was all evening, between 1740 - 2238, when Judith inevitably called his phone to find out where she was as she was normally in by her curfew time of 2200? Even when he knew she had no phone that evening as hers was broken? On the night of a brutal murder, their normal meeting arrangements changed? Another coincidence? I don't think so!

Btw, he absolutely had a parka pre-murder and it was established beyond reasonable doubt by virtiue of the prosecution's overwhelming evidence (at least 8 independent witnesses, including 3 teachers, testifying in court that he had worn it pre-murder), some of it yet to be uploaded in the transcript blog. Most school kids change out of their school clothing as soon as they get home, more so when they are going out for the evening (which LM was anyway, at 1800 hrs, before Jodi's text came through at 1634 to say she was allowed out earlier than 1800, her grounding/punishment having been lifted unexpectedly by Judith that day). It was overcast and threatening to rain on the late afternoon/early evening of 30.06.03, all the more reason for LM opting to wear a longer jacket with a hood.