Luke's German Army Parka

[Steve_uk]

I'm unsure who you are referring to but I completely agree with this view which is why I can't understand why you keep posting links across the board to the Sun and Daily Records main articles on the case.

AT the time of Jodi's murder, Mitchell was described as having an interest in knives, and owned a 4 inch 'skunting' blade.
That knife and its pouch were not found during an extensive police search of Mitchell's home.
During another search the following year, the pouch was recovered - featuring a number of inscriptions including the numbers 666 and "JJ 1989 - 2003", marking Jodi's birth and death.
A further quote also read: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife.

From <https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/>

This article is very misleading and conceals a lot of information.
Corrine purchased a 4 inch 'skunting' blade in December 2003 5 months after the murder. If Luke did not own it "at the time of the murder" it makes sense that it wasn't found during the initial search on the 4th of July 2003.

Dobbie believed this was a replacement knife. There is no evidence put forward to support Dobbie's theory.

Mr Dobbie said: "When we searched the house we also found a knife pouch with the inscription ‘JJ 1989-2003’ and the numbers 666 written on it and one of Jodi’s favourite quotes. It was like some kind of memorial to Jodi.
"We made inquiries and discovered that Mrs Mitchell had bought a knife which came with a pouch identical to this one in December 2003. She said she had bought it for him to go on a camping trip. But why purchase that knife. It seemed bizarre, bearing in mind Jodi had been killed and that her son was a suspect.
"We started to question whether that knife was a replacement to one he had previously."

From <https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415>

According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".

Professor Anthony Busuttil also said that this knife was too small to have caused the injuries inflicted on Jodi's tonsil without damaging the Luke Mitchells hand. There were no injuries on Luke's hand when he was examined. Professor Busuttil has appeared in both the recent channel 5 documentary and the 2007 BBC documentary made about this case.

"When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife."

During the section 14 interview/interrogation, police showed Luke a photograph of a knife, asking if he recognised it.
Luke confirmed that it was his fishing knife.
The detective went on to ask: Where’s that knife now?
Luke replied: I don’t know the police have probably got it.
The detective asked: You’ve no idea where it is?
Luke: Well, considering you’ve got photos of it, I take it you’ve got it, haven’t you?
The police went on to show Luke another photo of another knife, which Luke confirmed was a knife used for opening boxes at work. The detective asked again: “Where did that go?”
Luke replied: “Well, considering you’ve got the photos, you’ve got it, haven’t you?”
The detective replied: “Well, how did we get it then?”
There was nothing to say that any of these knives had been used in Jodi’s murder.
Sandra Lean
Innocents Betrayed

So how long was the fishing knife? Really there is so much subterfuge involved in this case.

[Roadrunner]

So how long was the fishing knife? Really there is so much subterfuge involved in this case.

Yes I agree with that too but I see it coming from the investigation, the prosecution and the media.

It is no secret that Luke Mitchell carried a knife. Us discussing the length of his fishing knife that the police had in their possession has no bearing on anything. One would imagine that those knives would have been forensically examined and the lengths measured and checked against Jodi's injuries. They were not part of the prosecutions case or the knife that the media talks about.
 

[Germane]

so after estroying one parker jacket he thn goes an buys one thats exatly the same not exactly credible is it.

CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.) The crux of the matter here is that, imo, the knife bought from the catalogue was a replacement for the knife that went missing (the one that LM had to get rid of as he had used it as a murder weapon, imo). Likewise, I think this is what happened with the parka bought in July ‘03 — it was bought as a replacement. At the time the new parka was bought, I think the Mitchells were probably very confident they wouldn’t get caught — but deeply underestimated how perceptive the police were and the power of circumstantial evidence. I think Luke banked on the parka not being problematic as a.) he’d disposed of the the old one that might’ve had incriminating forensic evidence on it; b.) if the parka did become a problem, he’d banked on the change into the bomber jacket creating confusion in eyewitnesses’ accounts and rendering any potential police investigation messy and confusing (this ties in with Luke’s devious nature); c.) Luke thought he was invincible and untouchable and thought he could outsmart police in the long-run (a narcissistic personality).

[killingeve]

Eight separate witnesses testified in court that Luke Mitchell had owned and worn a green parka jacket prior to the murder (see cite below). In fact, there were actually about 20 people in total that said they had seen LM wearing a parka jacket before the murder, but they cherry-picked 8 out of those to use in court that were the most incriminating. The most incriminating of all came from a teacher at St David’s RC High School (this teacher had left just before the 2003 semester ended) who said he had seen LM walking around the school playground in the parka before the 30.06.03, and that the used to joke that LM looked like a ‘hooded monk’ with it on. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket: once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers, AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909

Descriptions of the outerwear are inconsistent.  Andrina Bryson describes the person she observed as follows:

She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
 
Was it outerwear with a collar or a hood?   ?

Why did Andrina Bryson refer to the outerwear as a fishing-style jacket with its collar up if it was a hooded parka?

Please provide a source where Andrina Bryson refers to badges of the German national flag on the sleeves?

Research shows eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when carried out properly which in this case it wasn't.  Andrina Bryson was not casually strolling along taking in the sight and sounds but moving at speed in charge of a motor vehicle.  As I am sure you know she was unable to identify Luke at trial. 

[killingeve]

CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.) The crux of the matter here is that, imo, the knife bought from the catalogue was a replacement for the knife that went missing (the one that LM had to get rid of as he had used it as a murder weapon, imo). Likewise, I think this is what happened with the parka bought in July ‘03 — it was bought as a replacement. At the time the new parka was bought, I think the Mitchells were probably very confident they wouldn’t get caught — but deeply underestimated how perceptive the police were and the power of circumstantial evidence. I think Luke banked on the parka not being problematic as a.) he’d disposed of the the old one that might’ve had incriminating forensic evidence on it; b.) if the parka did become a problem, he’d banked on the change into the bomber jacket creating confusion in eyewitnesses’ accounts and rendering any potential police investigation messy and confusing (this ties in with Luke’s devious nature); c.) Luke thought he was invincible and untouchable and thought he could outsmart police in the long-run (a narcissistic personality).

Is there any evidence that Luke ever owned a knife capable of inflicting the wounds sustained by Jodie described by the pathologist? 

Is there any evidence that Luke has been diagnosed with a mental illness or personality disorder?

[killingeve]

No circumstantial case will ever be watertight. Never ever, by its very definition. However, LM was found guilty by a majority verdict in what was longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish criminal history. He had the best defence lawyer in the land in DF. His subsequent appeals have failed. Tells you all you need to know. Lm may very well be innocent, but I’d be extremely surprised if he was. The circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming, imo.

Stefan Kiszko supposedly had a good defence lawyer in David Waddington who went on to become Home Secretary but it didn't prevent his case being one of the worst miscarriages of justice.  The case also went to and fro the appeal courts until it was eventually overturned. 

[killingeve]

It’s hard to tell, Steveuk. My hunch is no. I think they started arguing at 1654 (ab spotted them arguing at the lane), they obviously continued arguing as they walked westward down the rdp towards nbattle, and the argument reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall (cyclist lk heard ‘strangling noises’ that gave him a fright and made him slow down). btw, luke and jodi had been arguing at school that day ... this was testified in court ... lots of info out there re this case, but some of it is now hard to find to cite.

sorry for any typos ... i’m typing from my iphone.

Sally Ann Dixon argued with her boyfriend inside his car outside her house for over an hour.  She then got out the car and attempted to walk a few metres to her front door before she was savagely murdered by Mark Dixie.  Initially all concerned thought the boyfriend was responsible until DNA exonerated him. 

The fact Jodie and Luke had arrangements to meet is neither here nor there.  Where are the exhange of text messages between the pair allowing us to see exactly what was agreed upon?

[David1819]

CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.)

Not necessarily.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520

[killingeve]

Not necessarily.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520

The above press article is coming up for 12 years old.  What connects the knife found with either Luke or the murders?

[Bubo bubo]

The above press article is coming up for 12 years old.  What connects the knife found with either Luke or the murders?

Nothing as far as I can see and the police did not test it. Nor did they test another knife found hidden in a drystone wall. CM had no problem with either find and wanted them tested because they might have evidence of the killers DNA as well as JJ's.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131

[Germane]

Descriptions of the outerwear are inconsistent.  Andrina Bryson describes the person she observed as follows:

She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
 
Was it outerwear with a collar or a hood?   ?

Why did Andrina Bryson refer to the outerwear as a fishing-style jacket with its collar up if it was a hooded parka?

Please provide a source where Andrina Bryson refers to badges of the German national flag on the sleeves?

Research shows eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when carried out properly which in this case it wasn't.  Andrina Bryson was not casually strolling along taking in the sight and sounds but moving at speed in charge of a motor vehicle.  As I am sure you know she was unable to identify Luke at trial.

I just did a google image search there of ‘khakhi hip length fisherman’s jacket with collar up’ .... most of the results were indistinguishable from a parka jacket with hood up. So, that debunks this stuff that the jackets look totally different. AB, even though only seeing this couple for 2-5 seconds, got a great view of them (they were diagonally on her right hand side at the entrance to the path as she approached the roundabout. She was drawn to this couple, as they seemed to be having a quarrel: AB noticed LM standing a few yards down the path from the girl, with his arms by his sides and palms outstretched facing upwards. It was odd behaviour and she was drawn to it and managed to capture it fleetingly, like a photograph; those few fleeting seconds of this couple embedded in her mind like the snap of a photograph. And she gave a description of the male: guy with messy sandy shoulder length hair with clumps at the back, like shaggy from scooby-do movie, wearing a khaki hip length fisherman’s type jacket (such was its length that AB said the it looked like the male was wearing khaki trousers). Likewise with the girl, AB gave a decent description despite such a fleeting glance at her: girl had her back to AB, was wearing dark blue top and dark baggy trousers, dark brown hair. AB even said she was ‘taken aback’ by just how much the male she saw that day looked like a photograph of a male she had seen in a newspaper in August ‘03 (RW or LF said “oh my god, it’s him!”, when the saw lm’s photograph in a newspaper; unequivocal and certain it was the same individual they saw on n’battle rd looking suspicious and up to no good), and likewise she identified LM from a book of photographs the police had shown her (yeah, it was the only photo with long hair and a white background, but she still identified him). As for AB not identifying him in court, LM was going through puberty and still developing and growing; he looked like a completely different person by the time the trial came around. Besides, AB didn’t say it definitely wasn’t him — she said she ‘didn’t know’. She was simply being honest.

[nugnug]

ytheres a simple explantion for why the knife was never found the killer took it with them.

[Bubo bubo]

ytheres a simple explantion for why the knife was never found the killer took it with them.

Makes sense to me  because killers can have a favourite weapon

[Roadrunner]

AB gave a decent description despite such a fleeting glance at her: girl had her back to AB, was wearing dark blue top and dark baggy trousers, dark brown hair.

Please don't alter the known facts to suit your own narrative there is enough confusion in this case already.

She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans.

From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>

DF's argument regarding the evidence given by RW and LF:
Counsel also drew attention to pages 344 to 345 of the transcript of proceedings of 1 December 2004, which recorded the evidence of Lorraine Fleming. She had seen news photographs and reports of the appellant. It was contended that what she described amounted to the "building up of a piece of evidence" concerning identification. It was submitted that the foregoing examples showed that media coverage had had a significant influence in relation to witnesses.

From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>

RF&LW described the person that they saw as looking 'cheesed off' and 'up to no good' no sign that he's just committed a murder at all he just stood out because he was dressed differently.

"The picture which triggered your memory is one we have not yet seen in this court. You might not like it but it has to be right."
He said whatever the picture was, it could not have been Luke Mitchell.
He added: "What it does demonstrate, does it not, is that people, however genuine, however honest, however hard they are trying, people can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences."
"Yes," agreed Mrs Fleming.

From <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4058945.stm>

"AB didn’t say it definitely wasn’t him — she said she ‘didn’t know’. She was simply being honest."

Source?
AB said Luke Mitchell was not the man she saw and that it was not a parka
AB was also supposed to be an independent witness. Her brother in law is a close family relation to Jodi's family and was in and out Jodi's Grans house in the first weeks after the murder. This was discussed at trial with DF quizzing Janine on how well she knew AB and her husband.
-Innocents Betrayed



It's great to have an opinion but it's even better to keep an open mind in the face of new information.

[Roadrunner]

The uniform of Newbattle high at the time. There was a concert on at the school that night. Could AB's sighting be a case of mistaken identity?