Luke's German Army Parka

[Germane]

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?

Why didn’t the couple ever come forward? It’s not too big of an area. There is a chance they decided against coming forward for fear of being wrongly accused of a murder (highly unlikely, though, imo). I think it’s also significant that there hasn’t been another such murder in Dalkeith and surrounding areas.

[Roadrunner]

Nobody was actively searching for them. There have been no public appeals for them to come forward.

It took a long time (I don't have the exact date to hand) for the police to trace a blonde woman pushing a buggy that they believed from other witness reports to have been in the area at the same time.

They also appealed for a man who was seen near to the school with the bonnet of his car open to come forward. I'm not sure if he was ever traced.

How broad is your definition of similar? Similar in terms of young female found in the woods or similar injuries? Similar MO?
There's many reasons that have been discussed at length on this forum and others.

Some examples are;
The killer moved to a different area
They've already been apprehended for another crime
It was a one off. Not all killers are serial killer who don't stop unless they're caught, some try it once and realise they didn't enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

I'm not accusing anyone just pointing out that as unlikely as it sounds there were two offenders who knew the local area that had the propensity to brutally murder in a similar way to the way Jodi was killed. They were not known to the investigation at the time and thankfully they have both been apprehended.

[Davie2]

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

Jeez, are you still using different screen handles to sell your book. Case is closed my dear, no amount of pointing the finger at the Jones to a few conspiracy theorists on a forum will make one bit of difference.

[Germane]

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

What was LM doing between 1830 and 1930? No reports of him during this time whatsover. Very strange. He phoned David High to meet up at the abbey at 1930. He phoned DH twice, to hurry him up, and yet no concern for Jodi, no phoning to see where she was or chasing her up. David High and others asked Luke where Jodi was as they found it odd they weren’t together like they usually were most evenings and Luke told them that Jodi wasn’t coming out. It’s also significant that the guys who met up with LM that evening in the abbey testified in court that LM looked a lot cleaner than usual. LM said he went home at 9pm and watched some dvds until he took Mia a walk at 1030pm, but neighbour Mr Ramage said he saw LM going home at 10pm as he settled down to watch the news. Where was LM coming from at 10pm? His statement to police was that he left the boys at the abbey at 9pm and that he went home and watched dvds in his room until 1030pm. Why? Anyway, LM had a great deal of time unaccounted for .... and certainly a lot of time to dispose/destroy incriminating evidence, and that includes the residue from the log burner.

[David1819]

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

Does Innocents Betrayed cite the sources of its information?

It seems not. Here is one readers review -

"I bought this book after watching a documentary. I'm very sceptical of the information that is presents. Has this book been fact-checked? I'm also aware that witness statements presented in this book, are only partial. I understand laws, stop the author from presenting full witness statements, but these statements will be 1000's of words long, is the author cherry-picking what to present?
What is the authors qualifications on forensic science? Or is this just the author opinion?
This only gets 2 stars from me, I was expecting more facts after watching the documentary. I'm very sceptical of the facts that this book is presenting. I can't help but think it is more based of theory, with cherry-picked statements to back that theory up."

[Roadrunner]

Does Innocents Betrayed cite the sources of its information?

It seems not. Here is one readers review -

"I bought this book after watching a documentary. I'm very sceptical of the information that is presents. Has this book been fact-checked? I'm also aware that witness statements presented in this book, are only partial. I understand laws, stop the author from presenting full witness statements, but these statements will be 1000's of words long, is the author cherry-picking what to present?
What is the authors qualifications on forensic science? Or is this just the author opinion?
This only gets 2 stars from me, I was expecting more facts after watching the documentary. I'm very sceptical of the facts that this book is presenting. I can't help but think it is more based of theory, with cherry-picked statements to back that theory up."

Contrary to what the above poster thinks Dr Sandra Lean isn't here to defend herself so I won't comment on her as a person or as an author. From my own research, I've found that the majority of what she says and the gist of her narrative is backed up by reporting at the time and the Judges views in the 2008 appeal.

I don't feel like I've been overly reliant on referencing Innocents Betrayed I've provided a good mix of links to the appeal documents, reporting at the time, and the documentaries that cover the case so that others can do their own research and form their own opinions without having to read Innocents Betrayed.

Your issues with Sandra Lean seem to be getting in the way of having a discussion about the case.
She is not the only person to have concerns about Luke Mitchells conviction. And no matter how much you try to discredit them all as individuals, the information they give and the narrative they tell doesn't change.


Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)

[Davie2]

Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)

The good old copy and paste doing the rounds.
When did Busuttil put his name to anything?
The rest are either in it for an easy buck, or happy to promote innocent fraud. Need to do better my dear.

[Steve_uk]

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

Not every murder is synonymous with an Agatha Christie novel. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558

[Germane]

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

Source?

From an old article in The Herald:

Earlier, witness Andrina Bryson, 26, said she was ''taken aback'' when she saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in a tabloid newspaper last August.

In her evidence, she told the court she saw a male person at the entrance to the Roan's Dyke path on the day Jodi died at around 4.50pm or 4.55pm.

The male was looking towards a girl and he had his arms by his side, with his palms facing out in front of him, the court had been told.

The witness was asked about a photograph she had seen in the press.

'I saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in the paper,'' she told the court, adding: ''It looked like the same person I had seen.''

In a statement given to police, which was read out in court, the witness said: ''The person in this picture I am sure was the same person as I saw at the top of the path.''

But, asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: ''I don't know.''

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410745.witness-heard-strangling-sound-near-path-the-day-jodi-died/

[Fairplay1]

Contrary to what the above poster thinks Dr Sandra Lean isn't here to defend herself so I won't comment on her as a person or as an author. From my own research, I've found that the majority of what she says and the gist of her narrative is backed up by reporting at the time and the Judges views in the 2008 appeal.

I don't feel like I've been overly reliant on referencing Innocents Betrayed I've provided a good mix of links to the appeal documents, reporting at the time, and the documentaries that cover the case so that others can do their own research and form their own opinions without having to read Innocents Betrayed.

Your issues with Sandra Lean seem to be getting in the way of having a discussion about the case.
She is not the only person to have concerns about Luke Mitchells conviction. And no matter how much you try to discredit them all as individuals, the information they give and the narrative they tell doesn't change.


Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)

Fantastic post outlining the difficulty the guilty brigade that are lost and overwhelmed with hate of one person , it's really rather sad that they can't put their hate and bias aside and look logically at this case.
The weight they give to evidence like a person calling talking clock compared to a persons scientific genetic footprint being on a murder victim continues to astound me .

Anyway great to see all those credible experts listed again in support of this case being unsafe , a matter of time .

[Fairplay1]

From an old article in The Herald:

Earlier, witness Andrina Bryson, 26, said she was ''taken aback'' when she saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in a tabloid newspaper last August.

In her evidence, she told the court she saw a male person at the entrance to the Roan's Dyke path on the day Jodi died at around 4.50pm or 4.55pm.

The male was looking towards a girl and he had his arms by his side, with his palms facing out in front of him, the court had been told.

The witness was asked about a photograph she had seen in the press.

'I saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in the paper,'' she told the court, adding: ''It looked like the same person I had seen.''

In a statement given to police, which was read out in court, the witness said: ''The person in this picture I am sure was the same person as I saw at the top of the path.''

But, asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: ''I don't know.''

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410745.witness-heard-strangling-sound-near-path-the-day-jodi-died/

AB identification is seriously undermined by her description esp of the female , in your minds eye imagine the picture- black/ dark hair navy hoodie and boot cut trousers lighter than top possibly denims, she does not see either of these people faces, it was a couple of seconds but I think her clothes description has the detail I would be happy with. Now  picture Jodi with auburn hair goffed out in all black , black hoody with very big sign on the back ( I think it was orange)very baggy black trousers their is a lot in Jodi clothes that I would logically think stands out .  I put these two images together and my logical brain says this might not be Jodi. Add the guy who is average height and build for  late teens early 20's fitted out in it seems full combat gear fishing jacket and all , hair brown or ginger in a clump with his hands out , call it padentic but the prosecution say she was at a certain position that had to be 4:53/4 , Luke is calling the talking clock. Also Luke at the age of fourteen was no average size guy for adult early 20's .  I simply don't give any weight to this , I feel their is enough argument to the possibility this was not Jodi and Luke. Further something that I have always questioned is her first account great discriptions with clothes detail and hair but she never seen their faces.  How does someone pick out someone when she hasn't seen their face .  The picture was extremely manipulative and that's not just Sandra , D Findlay goes after it in the appeal . TBH to me this point has  been proved to be problem and the appeal stated as much , that was finally upheld for argument , so progress.

After all the emphasis they put on AB crucial sighting she goes to court and will not commit , I think this lady did the right thing even although it took her to get to court to say she is not sure, and their is no way she was fooled by his changed appearance she knew what she had to do and a sense of consciousness kicked in and she just wasn't sure.  She never seen his face , but then sees the paper and has a omg moment as she was so taken aback by the face of Luke Mitchell , SHE NEVER SAW his FACE( sorry not being rude with caps just wanted to emphasise a point that troubled me from the beginning.

[Germane]

It was definitely weird the fact that CM bought LM an identical parka jacket so soon after the murder (was bought on the 08.07.03). Didn’t they both think it would come back to bite them in some way, especially as LM must have known that people saw him on 30.06.03? They didn’t think that the police would eventually deduce it was a replacement parka? Or perhaps they thought it would work in their favour —  i.e., that they thought the police would think they wouldn’t be so stupid to buy a jacket that LM was wearing when he murdered Jodi? It’s definitely very odd CM buying him the new parka, don’t you think?

[Bullseye1]

Had to open a new account, can’t get password for my old account, so just stuck a 1 on the end on my user name.

Hi Germane, I agree buying an identical jacket seems a strange thing to do, unless he did not own one to start with. I know his mum bought a parka but also said this was the only one, he did not own one before. There was no missing parka. But there were witnesses that seen him and were called to court to confirm. One, I think , was his teacher. What I was wondering is were any of the witnesses his friends or family or Jodi’s friend or family. People he hung around with all the time, these would be the people would know if he had one before July. To my knowledge the police were also never able to produce any evidence the parka existed like photos, cctv etc. I’m not sure if he had one or not but I definitely do not believe it was burnt in his back garden, more likely if he did do it, then it was dumped in a bin somewhere that was emptied the next day.

[Bullseye]

Admin sorted my password, thanks!

[Germane]

Did Sandra mention this in her book? By the way: could you introduce yourself in the Forum?

No. There are a lot of facts from this case that were conveniently omitted from ‘Innocents Betrayed’. Funny how SL fails to mention the 8 witnesses who testified in court that LM owned and had been seen wearing a green parka jacket with hood PRIOR to the murder (there were about 20 witnesses in total who were willing to testify in court that they had seen LM wearing a green parka jacket before the murder, but the Prosecution whittled it down to 8 to give evidence at court). The most compelling and incriminating evidence of all was the testimony from a school teacher at LM’s school who retired that 2003 semester; this teacher was very specific and made it crystal clear that he had seen LM walking around St David’s high school playground wearing the green parka BEFORE the murder and that he and fellow teachers used to joke that LM looked akin to a “hooded monk” with it on. In addition, she also fails to mention in IB the boys in the abbey who said in court that Luke looked a lot cleaner and less scruffy that evening when they met up with him, and omits the testimony of cyclist Leonard Kelly who heard disturbing strangling human noises behind the wall as he was cycling past RDP when going home to Easthouses at 1710/1715. So much more missing from Sandra Lean’s ‘Innocents Betrayed’ — for she doesn’t have access to ‘everything’ (a huge misconception that she does) and she did not attend and sit through the 9-week original trial. As a few others have stated on here already, there are a few areas of the case that SL has exploited and misrepresented in an attempt to try and muddy the waters, but, ultimately, it merely amounts to misinformation and waffle. Basically, clutching at straws.