Fair enough. I’ve often said myself that my own personal view is that there is reasonable doubt in this case, and have stated many times the areas of the case that I’d like clarification on before I could feel comfortable in saying LM was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, I am more convinced he did it than he didn’t. The real dilemma I have is that I don’t know if the doubt I have is strong enough to sway me to the point where I could bring myself to comfortably say not proven, given just how strong the circumstantial evidence is against Luke. Pressed between guilty or not guilty, I’d categorically say guilty (and I have also outlined why I would do this, in previous posts).
Faithlilly — regarding LK changing his statement under duress, what is your source (or sources) for this info? There are readily available historical online articles from the Herald newspaper that mention that there was some ambiguity in relation to what he said he heard cycling east up the RDP; discrepancies between, in his words, “movement, rustling noises, branches and twigs and grass being trampled underfoot”, along with a “strangling noise — a human sound” and like “two laddies fighting — like someone was in a headlock”. Sure, there were discrepancies in his statements, but nothing that would suggest that anything he said was a result of being under duress. A lot of key witnesses for both the prosecution and defence changed their statements over the course of the investigation, did they not? The Mitchells certainly did, didn’t they? The crux of the matter — and what was always consistent in LK’s statements — is how uneasy and alarmed he became when he heard the noises; they even forced him to slow down and listen. LK also mentioned that when he slowed down to listen, the noises stopped. This would suggest, imo, that it was human activity and not that of wild animals; the person at the other end of that wall in the woodland was aware the cyclist had slowed down and was listening, and they then acted accordingly by stopping whatever it was that they were doing so as not to draw attention to themselves. For what they were doing was obviously criminal. LK was a grown man who conceded that the noises gave him a “fright” and “regretted not stopping”, even before he knew that someone had been killed where he heard those disturbing noises; it had played on his mind when he finally got home that day and later that evening. Also interesting is that in one of the statements he said he could hear the moped, but it sounded some distance away ... like north and possibly in the adjacent field, north of the wall & woodland strip. I’ve read IB and don’t think SL even addresses LK’s testimony or discrepancies in his statements. Maybe I’ve missed this in the book?
Also, re AB’s evidence .... I think the police very carefully and meticulously went over her routes that day and were able to ascertain that it was highly likely she would’ve seen the quarrelling couple at the path in Easthouses leading westwards down the RDP between 1654-1700. As she was driving southbound, she would’ve had a decent, uninterrupted view of them, even though she was preoccupied with her young kids in the back of the car who were restless and playing up. Interestingly, in this clear momentary glance she (most likely) got of them, it was the behaviour of the male that caught her attention; his hands by his side and palms oustretched as if they were having a dispute (the bbc frontline doco accurately reconstructs this account, imo). The time on the her til receipt from Gorebridge Coop was out and in their quest for accuracy in their investigation, the police checked AB’s bank statement timings as she had withdrawn cash at an ATM shortly after her shop. It was these accurate timings and reconstructions that were to prove to be LM’s undoing (along with all the other considerable circumstantial evidence, of course) as it made it highly likely it was LM & JODJ she saw — NOT that he was being fitted up and the rest of the potential suspects were being eliminated quickly and without being thoroughly investigated. Suspicion fell on LM for many reasons- and rightly so, imo. (I still think MK, JAF and the moped boys should’ve been investigated more professionally and robustly, as they are the reasons why I still have a lingering niggling doubt re the safeness of Luke’s conviction.)
Like so much in this case it’s hard to provide a source read some time ago, the knowledge however remains. The quote below is from the Times:
“Donald Findlay, QC, for the defence, read a statement that Mr Kelly gave police in July 2003, which said: “I cannot describe the noise. It wasn’t a voice. It sounded of movement, like branches moving on a tree.” Asked by Mr Findlay why he made no reference to strangling noises in his statement, the witness said: “I just put it down to nerves.”
I am aware that this doesn’t completely address your question but it does show that very early on LK did not mention hearing a strangling sound, just ‘branches moving on a tree’. It is absolutely logical then to ask when and why the ‘strangling noises’ were added to the narrative?
Then there’s AB’s testimony. If we completely ignore AB’s timings in her first statements and accept the police’s timings then there remains a 45 minute time discrepancy if AB’s return home was at 5.50 as she claimed. Also I have never read any credible source claim that AB’s children were ‘playing up’ or indeed that the teenagers seen by AB looked like they were ‘having a dispute’.
AB would also have been caught on CCTV on her journey to and from the supermarket as well as at the ATM machine and the queried timings could have been verified by accessing the footage yet unlike AO the CCTV footage was, as far as we are aware, never accessed. Of course it could have been wiped before it was asked for but CCTV footage is usually kept for 30 days and as AB gave her first two witness statements within days of the murder it does suggest that AB’s testimony wasn’t thought a priority. Was that because the sighting on AB’s timings was too late to have been the teenagers? The fact that no appeal was made for the them to come forward also suggests they were initially dismissed as unimportant.
Again from the Times :
“ In a statement to police the accused told officers that his dog, Mia, put her paws on a gap in the wall and drew his attention to the area where Jodi’s body lay. But Jodi’s sister Janine, 19, her grandmother Alice Walker, 67, and Janine’s fiancé, Steven Kelly, 21, all claimed that he headed straight for the gap in the wall without his dog having alerted him to the area.
Mr Turnbull said each of the three family members “gave a clear and telling account of what Luke Mitchell did”.
Of course we know this isn’t true. The search party’s first statements all concurred.
In her first statement JaJ claimed ‘Luke’s dog started jumping about at the wall and then Luke jumped over and started looking about’ and SK describes Luke’s dog ‘pulling him to the wall and jumping up’.
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0 approx 23 minutes in.
Doesn’t that raise any questions for you?
