Hi, Fairplay1. I’m fine, thanks. Hope you are, too. The young lad who testified in court about LM owning and wearing a parka before 30.06.03 indicated that the press coverage and pictures of LM in the media wearing a green parka (with the German national flag on the sleeves) jogged his memory and made him recollect seeing LM in Eskbank Trading BEFORE the murder wearing a jacket that was identical to the jacket LM was wearing throughout the investigation; he made it clear under oath, like all the other eye witnesses who were called to give evidence regarding the green parka, that he wasn’t confused. He clarified that his sighting was unambiguously prior to the murder. The young lad even went on to add that what also made him recollect seeing LM in the shop wearing the parka before 30.06.03 was the fact that his mother owned the exact same jacket (the young lad drew attention to the distinctive German national flags on the sleeves of the jacket). I would expect the other 7 witnesses, including the HS teacher who retired at the end of the 2002/2003 semester, clarified their sightings regarding LM in the parka before the 30.06.03, as I would expect the other 13 eyewitnesses would’ve had they been summoned to court (the Crown had 20 witnesses in total who said they had seen LM in the parka before the murder, but only 8 of those were called to court). We’ve already discussed previously the inability to ascertain what evidence was led at court because of the fact that about 95% of that evidence is not — and will likely never be — in the public domain. As I said, though, this was an investigation that lasted ariund 15 months and a trial that lasted 9 weeks (for years it was the longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish legal history), so it’s not as though it wasn’t methodical or thorough. Even though a considerable amount of the evidence led at court is not in the public domain, I am very confident that the evidence that is available to us tells us that LM was guilty. I’m also reliably informed that the evidence that isn’t in the public domain — which is roughly around 95% of the case — only incriminates LM further. It’s also significant that DF, one of the finest and most eminent defence lawyers in the land, couldn’t prove LM’s innocence or get a not proven verdict. He also never put LM on the stand — for he knew that this disturbed teenager would have further incriminated himself with his attitude, demeanour and lack of emotion. The only time LM showed emotion was when he took unwell in court one day — probably because he knew that he was going to jail for murder and hadn’t outsmarted the police as he had thought.
The forum member alison from the Shirley Mckie tapatalk website mentioned that green fibres had veen found but not enough to prove anything. She didn’t mention if these fibres were found at the locus or in the CM’s log burner. (I provided a link upthread to alison’s posts ... just read through that other forum when you have time and form your own opinion.)
Look, this was a murder investigation and trial. A considerable amount was at stake (understatement), both for the deceased and the accused. The police had to get it right, and I believe they did. The forensics were not conclusive, so a very robust and strong circumstantial case was needed and I think the Prosecution achieved this and the right person was and is incarcerated. This case had its flaws. Most notably, for me, anyway, was the initial crime scene management; the body should have been covered and not moved from its original position, and each item of Jodi’s clothing should have been put in protective bags separately and not bundled together in a heap like they were. A lot of people reference the police’s ‘deplorable’ and ‘outrageous’ tactics used during their interrogations of the Mitchells, but I think these unorthodox tactics were necessary in order for the police to go toe to toe with a devious and cunning family who, imo, lied throughout the investigation and trial, literally trying to get away with murder (SM, in fairness, told the truth under oath). Besides, the Judge at the trial and the Judges who oversaw LM’s appeal all agreed that the police interrogations of LM throughout the investigation did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Obviously, no one can be 100% certain if LM was guilty as there was no direct evidence. The only way we will ever know is if the killer makes a full confession
Hi Germane
Guess what forum I've been reading for the past week the the tapa site with
the poster Alison lol . I wanted to go back 10 years maybe for different reasons than yourself as you will probably notice their is a few posters who completely support miscarriage and who have now changed their view , very dramatically might I say. I want to know what/why they changed , so totally sidetracked for a while.
So Alison , who seen Luke with the fishing jacket on , she is a random person who is saying he had it on yet when pushed to give a detail account of this sighting she digresses, not saying she is lying but she did not give evidence and was not at court ( neither was I ). Is it at all possible Alison may be covering for the real murderer , well we don't know . It's just a random person adding their bit but not actually involved.
To follow on from this I was on one of the many utube videos ( sorry can't remember which one ) where another random by the name of Elizabeth stated " my daughter gave evidence in court and she showed the court a picture of Luke in the fishing jacket with her daughter and a few other friends", I jumped on this comment as I knew she was lying if such a photograph existed it would not only have been reported on it would be in all the papers, it was embarrassing and I told the poster to show us proof , alas I still await that photo.
So here's my take on the fishing jacket/army shirt and bomber - of the six people who gave evidence why was none of them friends, neighbours who would surely have seen him coming and going in the the jacket that made him look like a monk. That evidence would have been more weight for me from people who hung out or seen him every day .
My next question would be around the police investigation and how they gathered these witnesses to support the fishing jacket , did they come forward after the picture in the newspaper or before- this in my view can only be answered by an Enquiry into the police investigation methods to obtain the evidence. These questions will only be answered by an Independent Enquiry which will look at the police investigation , their methods and like I say did these witnesses come forward before the picture in the paper or after, if after their is doubt as memory can be confused esp when their are ways to create confusion Ie the paper , not saying anybody is lying I'm just saying depending on dates etc it's possible for them like the boy at court to be mistaken. (Second area of convictions being overturned is witness recollection being wrong , the number one spot is DNA proving that the person they said was guilty was wrong and that is due to Forensic evidence clarifying who is guilty and who is not)
Following on from this why not one single picture not any cctv evidence of Luke in the jacket he wore all the time , so no photographic evidence or evidence even in the ashes of fibres , man made fibres of any kind found - I don't blame anybody else but the police investigation for this lack of supporting evidence of the existence of the jacket.
On the point of the boy at trial I'm not sure why you see his evidence as you do, DF asked him where his recollection was from he stated from the murder and all, that to me means his recollection of the jacket was via the newspaper with Luke in the new jacket after the murder, simply my interpretation of this is he was not a reliable witness as his memory is from a picture after the murder, maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
My biggest problem with this area is why none of the people who hung out with Luke even David High who gave evidence surely he would have been the best person to ask about the fishing jacket but to my knowledge this was not put to him. So just another piece that is missing , I would even believe a neighbour of the Mitchell's who could say yeah I seen him in the coat that he looked like a monk- nothing from these type of witnesses and that has me questioning it.
The police investigation has been slated to the point I have little faith in their competence to carry out a satisfactory investigation with supporting evidence , another example the teacher mentioned he spoke to other teachers about how he looked like a monk how about the teachers he made this statement to where are they , even just one of them to support the comment would have been good for me but alas again any type of supporting corroborating evidence like most of this case is missing.
For me Germane it's all about that police investigation, nothing to do with anything else but their failures to even the most basic areas ie crime scene , and the lack of any forensic evidence is not okay not in today's world . I sometimes forget this happened in 2003 as the lack of real solid unchangable evidence could have us thinking it was the 1980's , I am very disappointed as you can probably read with the quality of that investigation. The foundations of this case are in this investigation and that is why 20 years on this case will not go away, as the many flaws and missing pieces stands out to me. It's everything that is missing that leads me to question the conviction and in my opinion this again is down to the incompetent investigation. I only hope that an Enquiry can answer some of these missing areas for every bodies sake . The jacket is missing, the muder weapon is missing , the deleted crucial texts are missing. The forensic analysis to implicate Luke mitchel is one of the biggest flashing red flags that again is missing.
One last wee point I have read the forum that you mention Alison I have yet to come across the fibres on Jodi but to be fair I've got a few pages to go , but this is not fact again I feel it is some random who wants to be part of something and has the missing pieces. No fibres of a fishing style jacket were found on Jodi body if it was their this would have only supported the prosecution story that the perp was wearing a fishing style jacket , they did not bring this up in evidence in court so I can only assume no fibres were found or they would have used it. This supports my thoughts on " aliison" if she did say it she is like a lot of random posters making it up .
I actually think we are at least discussing it , my problem is the evidence used and the completely incompetent police investigation that leads me to uncertainty.
