Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?  (Read 92746 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #345 on: March 21, 2025, 06:22:15 PM »
I've told you, there are no Sandra's here , Ken!

Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #346 on: March 21, 2025, 06:53:02 PM »
Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.
Oh Ken! Dont you ever tire!

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #347 on: March 21, 2025, 07:23:08 PM »
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?

Sure enough to remember that it was well before the murder, like all numerous other witnesses recalled as well and testified under oath. Wearing parkas wouldn't have been common in the suburbs, villages and settlements of Dalkeith, I woukd have thought??

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #348 on: March 21, 2025, 07:24:50 PM »
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?

You're clutching at straws.

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #349 on: March 21, 2025, 07:44:16 PM »
Oh Ken! Dont you ever tire!

I'll never tire of the truth. It's ironic your Bloggs-Lean persona emerged around the same time SL was ousted as head honcho of the LM campaign with no more opportunities to con people.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #350 on: March 21, 2025, 08:29:02 PM »
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.

Let’s break the timeline down from when Dean Houston, Grant Elliot and Andrew Holborn saw Luke Mitchell.

From the testimony of Andrew Holborn.

‘And so sometime, what around about 5-6, 6 o’clock, something like that by the time you’re down in the area of photograph D (where Luke was standing)- Yeah’

From the testimony of Grant Elliot

‘ Help me with this, if you can please.Just to estimate how much time
would have passed between first seeing him (Luke) and seeing him on your return journey? -
About 40 minutes to half an hour.

So the earliest Grant Elliot could have seen Luke on his return journey was around 6.30 and as late as 6.40pm.

Again from Dean Houston

‘ What was the doing, could you tell? - Ehm, (inaudible).
Yes. - I sure he was on his phone.
Sorry? - I am sure he was on
his phone.’

This phone call could possibly have been the first call to David High asking him to come out.

From the testimony of David High

‘If we return to the records of the telephone calls, we can see that, as we looked at a moment ago, the first call to
you was at 1832. Do you see that? - Yes.’

Or if the later time his mother.

Again during the testimony of David High.

‘The next call made from Luke's telephone is at 1839. We'll hear, I think, that's to his home number. I don't know if you knew that was his home number or not. - No.’

The next phone call from Luke to David High was at 6.54pm. Again from David HIgh’s testimony.

‘Right. But after that, at
1854, he phones you back again. - Yes.’

And

‘Is that right? Okay. How long would you say it was after the second
phone call until you met him? - About ten
minutes.

So David High met Luke at around 7.05 which is verified by testimony from David Tulloch

“Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.

He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.

'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.”

So it’s absolutely untrue that Luke wasn’t seen between 6.15 and 7.30. Dean Houston either saw Luke phone David High at 6.34 or 6.39 when he called his mum so he was certainly on Newbattle Road then. Being charitable Luke was not seen for around 30 minutes at the most and around 20 minutes at the least after being seen by Houston and Elliot that evening.

While compiling the above timeline I found this from Dean Houston’s testimony.


“Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes

And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.

But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’

So another school friend who hadn’t seen Luke in a parka.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2025, 08:32:58 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #351 on: March 21, 2025, 08:30:27 PM »
You're clutching at straws.

I’m afraid it’s you who are gullible MA.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #352 on: March 21, 2025, 08:34:40 PM »
Sure enough to remember that it was well before the murder, like all numerous other witnesses recalled as well and testified under oath. Wearing parkas wouldn't have been common in the suburbs, villages and settlements of Dalkeith, I woukd have thought??

Another school friend who doesn’t remember Luke having a parka until after the murder.

‘Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes

And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.

But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #353 on: March 21, 2025, 08:43:09 PM »
Even a half trained German Shepherd wouldn't fall for that one. The twitter detectives have already sussed you if it wasn't already so obvious that someone would constantly gush over themselves in the third person. And also on the Bamber forum in another guise.

Do you ever add anything substantial to the debate or do you simply get a kick from trolling?

No one, apart from yourself and perhaps Parky, who does like a bit of doxing, cares who anyone is.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #354 on: March 21, 2025, 08:53:03 PM »
Let’s break the timeline down from when Dean Houston, Grant Elliot and Andrew Holborn saw Luke Mitchell.

From the testimony of Andrew Holborn.

‘And so sometime, what around about 5-6, 6 o’clock, something like that by the time you’re down in the area of photograph D (where Luke was standing)- Yeah’

From the testimony of Grant Elliot

‘ Help me with this, if you can please.Just to estimate how much time
would have passed between first seeing him (Luke) and seeing him on your return journey? -
About 40 minutes to half an hour.

So the earliest Grant Elliot could have seen Luke on his return journey was around 6.30 and as late as 6.40pm.

Again from Dean Houston

‘ What was the doing, could you tell? - Ehm, (inaudible).
Yes. - I sure he was on his phone.
Sorry? - I am sure he was on
his phone.’

This phone call could possibly have been the first call to David High asking him to come out.

From the testimony of David High

‘If we return to the records of the telephone calls, we can see that, as we looked at a moment ago, the first call to
you was at 1832. Do you see that? - Yes.’

Or if the later time his mother.

Again during the testimony of David High.

‘The next call made from Luke's telephone is at 1839. We'll hear, I think, that's to his home number. I don't know if you knew that was his home number or not. - No.’

The next phone call from Luke to David High was at 6.54pm. Again from David HIgh’s testimony.

‘Right. But after that, at
1854, he phones you back again. - Yes.’

And

‘Is that right? Okay. How long would you say it was after the second
phone call until you met him? - About ten
minutes.

So David High met Luke at around 7.05 which is verified by testimony from David Tulloch

“Tulloch and Mitchell shared a good mutual friend in David High. They were not bosom buddies but Tulloch revealed Luke was happy to pass cannabis around.

He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.

'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about.”

So it’s absolutely untrue that Luke wasn’t seen between 6.15 and 7.30. Dean Houston either saw Luke phone David High at 6.34 or 6.39 when he called his mum so he was certainly on Newbattle Road then. Being charitable Luke was not seen for around 30 minutes at the most and around 20 minutes at the least after being seen by Houston and Elliot that evening.

While compiling the above timeline I found this from Dean Houston’s testimony.


“Complete with, well German parks type jacket, that’s what they are but you know what I mean?-Yes

And you were able to tell the police that you had some recollection of seeing Luke wearing a jacket like that?-
Yes.

But only since he came back
to school after Jodie's death? - Yes.’

So another school friend who hadn’t seen Luke in a parka.
Brilliant Faith! I knew Mr Apples was way out with his timings and have been reading the transcripts for verification, but try as I may I couldn't find out just when the bike boy passed LM a second time on his way home with a flat tyre.
Was that Andrew Holburn? I couldn't find that part in his transcript.
And yes, David High said they met Luke ten minutes after the second phone call at 6.54, so that would be 7.04 if we want to be picky.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #355 on: March 21, 2025, 08:56:11 PM »
LM wasn't seen at all between 1815-1930.

Funny Parky posted the same thing a while ago.

‘ Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?’

Of course that was before the transcripts were published and we could test his claims.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #356 on: March 21, 2025, 08:59:34 PM »
Brilliant Faith! I knew Mr Apples was way out with his timings and have been reading the transcripts for verification, but try as I may I couldn't find out just when the bike boy passed LM a second time on his way home with a flat tyre.
Was that Andrew Holburn? I couldn't find that part in his transcript.
And yes, David High said they met Luke ten minutes after the second phone call at 6.54, so that would be 7.04 if we want to be picky.

No it was Grant Elliot.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #357 on: March 21, 2025, 09:02:13 PM »
Do you ever add anything substantial to the debate or do you simply get a kick from trolling?

No one, apart from yourself and perhaps Parky, who does like a bit of doxing, cares who anyone is.

It's not trolling/doxing. It's exposing someone who has for decades spread lies about a murder victim's family. Someone that you regularly quoted as some kind of guru about the case, when it turns out all she was a bitter mature student clinging onto LM/CM for notoriety and cash. Sacked by LM, CM & the LM Campaign.

There is so much I have asked about the case that has been ignored. For example: why did SL state in a podcast she had all the transcripts, when it transpired none had been requested - and that mere commoners would not be able to afford them, while she personally deceived the LM Campaign for thousands for her "work" when she was working p/t for the local council and doing F'all for LM as the DNA sample non-request cock up revealed?

That's who Jo Bloggs is. Both yourself and Chris have quoted "IB" as some kind of impeccable source while demanding cites from others. It's been exposed as fiction and lies, which it always was, but for some reason you believed it then but don't now. If you want to debate, debate the 3 Mitchell's testimony inconsistency. The case is firmly closed and he will be refused parole again next month.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2025, 09:07:11 PM by KenMair »

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #358 on: March 21, 2025, 09:10:38 PM »
No it was Grant Elliot.
Ah! Thanks Faith, thats why I couldn't find it.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #359 on: March 21, 2025, 09:53:21 PM »
It's not trolling/doxing. It's exposing someone who has for decades spread lies about a murder victim's family. Someone that you regularly quoted as some kind of guru about the case, when it turns out all she was a bitter mature student clinging onto LM/CM for notoriety and cash. Sacked by LM, CM & the LM Campaign.

There is so much I have asked about the case that has been ignored. For example: why did SL state in a podcast she had all the transcripts, when it transpired none had been requested - and that mere commoners would not be able to afford them, while she personally deceived the LM Campaign for thousands for her "work" when she was working p/t for the local council and doing F'all for LM as the DNA sample non-request cock up revealed?

That's who Jo Bloggs is. Both yourself and Chris have quoted "IB" as some kind of impeccable source while demanding cites from others. It's been exposed as fiction and lies, which it always was, but for some reason you believed it then but don't now. If you want to debate, debate the 3 Mitchell's testimony inconsistency. The case is firmly closed and he will be refused parole again next month.

Asking about Dr Lean is not asking about the case but carrying on your rather sinister obsession with her.

Much of IB has been proven accurate by the transcripts. There are inaccuracies but they are few.

I’m interested in debating the case. I care not a fig who that’s with. What I’m not interested in are cowards who hide behind the anonymity they enjoy and throw stones at those who have raised their heads above the parapet.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?