Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Joe Blogs]

This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.

“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”

Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.

It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.

Good point Faith!

[faithlilly]

It’s also interesting that the prosecution went to the length of paying for a fingerprint expert to discredit Mrs Mitchell. They had absolutely no way to discredit her actual alibi evidence so had to resort the desperate act of destroying her credibility wholesale.

[Joe Blogs]

It’s also interesting that the prosecution went to the length of paying for a fingerprint expert to discredit Mrs Mitchell. They had absolutely no way to discredit her actual alibi evidence so had to resort the desperate act of destroying her credibility wholesale.

Ah, I didn't know what they were trying, Faith, I gave up reading the fingerprint transcript.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.

“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”

Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.

It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.

I thought the argument was that because Mitchell was all over the media his face was so familiar that it created false memory syndrome.  Odd that she claims she wouldn’t recognise him, given her involvement in such a high profile case.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-2470415
From a 2005 article in The Scotsman:  "But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation.  It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect."  Mr. Dobbie indicated that their suspicions were aroused or increased on 3 July.  The only reasons to take fingernail scrapings (which took place on the morning of 1 July) from someone is if one thinks that they are either the victim or the perpetrator of a person-on-person crime.  Therefore Craig Dobbie's statement is false, and his credibility is lessened.

[Joe Blogs]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-2470415
From a 2005 article in The Scotsman:  "But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation.  It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect."  Mr. Dobbie indicated that their suspicions were aroused or increased on 3 July.  The only reasons to take fingernail scrapings (which took place on the morning of 1 July) from someone is if one thinks that they are either the victim or the perpetrator of a person-on-person crime.  Therefore Craig Dobbie's statement is false, and his credibility is lessened.

Well, you may well be right, Chris, but I believe that the police often interrogate and check someone for injuries if they were close to the deceased, eg, a husband who's wife has been murdered.
This is done to rule that person out I believe, and in Lukes case it certainly did.

[Chris_Halkides]

Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances."  From the discussion:  "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."

It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible.  Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances."  From the discussion:  "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."

It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible.  Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.

Everyone??  Who did you have in mind and why?

[Joe Blogs]

Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 532–537.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216213/
From the abstract: "The amount of biological material transferred under the fingernails during ‘‘casual’’ activities is not [generally] sufficient to genotype reportable mixtures. This may not be the case with homicide victims that may have struggled and died under violent circumstances."  From the discussion:  "The prevalence of DNA mixtures found among suspect’s samples was higher (13.5%), compared with the published incidence found among volunteers from the general population (6%) [8]. In addition, both ‘high’ and ‘low’ level mixtures were noted among suspect’s fingernail samples, compared with ‘drop in’ or residual profiles within the general population [8]."

It would have made a modicum of sense to take fingernail swabbings from everyone as soon as possible.  Taking swabbings from one person is an indication that only one person was a suspect.

Yes, you have a point there, Chris.

[faithlilly]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp

38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.

[Vertigo Swirl]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp

38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.

Then empty the prisons, everyone else must be innocent too.

[Kenmair]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce809e3gd1xo.amp

38 years of unlawful detention began with a jury believing the evidence that was put before them.

Says the person who believed Sandra Lean's version of events and promoted it as the truth.

[faithlilly]

Says the person who believed Sandra Lean's version of events and promoted it as the truth.

I believe that Luke is innocent if that?s what you mean.

Much of the detail Dr Lean described in her book we have subsequently found out from the transcripts to be true?.some not. This narrative of Innocents Betrayed being a complete falsehood is simply not true.

Parky brought to us the tail of the ?large majority?, which you wholly embraced. Of course we now know that Nimmo said nothing about a ?large majority?. Does this make everything that Parky has ever posted to be disbelieved?

[Kenmair]

I believe that Luke is innocent if that?s what you mean.
Much of the detail Dr Lean described in her book we have subsequently found out from the transcripts to be true?.some not. This narrative of Innocents Betrayed being a complete falsehood is simply not true.

Large parts of IB have been exposed as complete lies - there are at least 17 referenced in the link below. How many lies are acceptable for a complete falsehood?

If I read a book that contained that many deliberate lies, I would not trust the author. Lean also claimed on YT she had ALL the transcripts when most hadn't even been transcribed. The point is you promoted her as an unquestionable authority on the subject. It's ok to have an opinion on LM but to to still promote Lean as relevant is laughable. I'm standing by the 2005 court verdict, failed appeals, failed parole, his current risk to females, lack of credible representation or support from his family as defining his guilt.

And Jo Bloggs AKA S Lean liking posts that show her in a good light (rare) but unable to respond to others. Typical Lean - a con artist from start to finish, reduced to filling up this forum after being ousted from the LM campaign by his psycho new/old girlfriend.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

[faithlilly]

Large parts of IB have been exposed as complete lies - there are at least 17 referenced in the link below. How many lies are acceptable for a complete falsehood?

If I read a book that contained that many deliberate lies, I would not trust the author. Lean also claimed on YT she had ALL the transcripts when most hadn't even been transcribed. The point is you promoted her as an unquestionable authority on the subject. It's ok to have an opinion on LM but to to still promote Lean as relevant is laughable. I'm standing by the 2005 court verdict, failed appeals, failed parole, his current risk to females, lack of credible representation or support from his family as defining his guilt.

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/02/transcript-comparison-comparison.html

That?s the thing. You don?t have to trust the author. The corroboration for much of what Dr Lean claimed is right there in the transcripts.

You stand by anything you like and myself and many individuals with a much deeper knowledge of the judicial process than you or I will continue to doubt the legitimacy of Luke?s conviction.