Author Topic: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell  (Read 5778 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2022, 07:26:PM »
I'm not taking the bait. You have been provided with links showing Mitchell's cannabis use (as far as I'm concerned the amount is irrelevant), that he had at least one other girlfriend, that his English teacher was so concerned about his essays she contacted the school guardian, that he used a knife on another girl during Cadets, that his alibi failed to stand up in court and that he had at least a passing interest in the Devil.
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2022, 07:31:PM by Bubo bubo »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2022, 07:44:PM »
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2022, 08:36:PM »
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
The clue is in the words 'than usual' . Remember teenage boys can be less than scrupulous when it comes to personal hygiene. What you and I might call scruffy and a bit grimy may be viewed by them as 'smart'  Since he was meeting JJ he may have tidied himself up a bit. So he was cleaner THAN USUAL.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2022, 08:43:PM »
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
Yes there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Much of it with the view of hindsight is highly contestable and weak. There is also a high degree of misinformation brought about by local rags peddling unattributed gossip. To convict on this basis with absolutely no forensics is not right. The chances of committing this crime with no forensics is almost impossible in my way of thinking.   
« Last Edit: February 06, 2022, 12:59:PM by Bubo bubo »

Offline Germane

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2022, 10:45:PM »
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.

A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).

Offline Germane

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2022, 11:14:PM »
The clue is in the words 'than usual' . Remember teenage boys can be less than scrupulous when it comes to personal hygiene. What you and I might call scruffy and a bit grimy may be viewed by them as 'smart'  Since he was meeting JJ he may have tidied himself up a bit. So he was cleaner THAN USUAL.

These boys were used to seeing Luke regularly, and Jodi was usually always with him when they did. David High testified in court that he had asked lm where jodi was that evening, as he was surpised that she was not with him. Strangely, LM said that ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Also, it’s very significant indeed that they testified in court that he was looking a lot cleaner than his usual scruffy self. The evening that a young girl is murdered — a young girl that set out specifically to meet him — her
boyfriend is looking a lot more cleaner than normal? Hmm

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2022, 11:23:PM »
These boys were used to seeing Luke regularly, and Jodi was usually always with him when they did. David High testified in court that he had asked lm where jodi was that evening, as he was surpised that she was not with him. Strangely, LM said that ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Also, it’s very significant indeed that they testified in court that he was looking a lot cleaner than his usual scruffy self. The evening that a young girl is murdered — a young girl that set out specifically to meet him — her
boyfriend is looking a lot more cleaner than normal? Hmm
I have to say the more I read about this case the blacker it looks for Mitchell. Of course you really have to be in the courtroom and follow the evidence, and even then you can be mistaken.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2022, 10:59:AM »
A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).

Your post is at odds with the pathological evidence from Prof Busuttil.  He is on record as saying (@2.45 mins in) that Jodie lost some 5 litres of blood prior to death and that the perp would have needed to wear a covering over his clothes and person to avoid transfer including the wearing of gloves and googles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=222s

Please can you start supplying sources for your claims.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2022, 11:49:AM »
A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).

I find this post so preposterous I question whether I should even bother to accord it validity and respond. How much more fantasy fuelled speculation must we endure. The key thing is, there is no record of LM contacting his home to set up the clothing exchange. That rather kills the main plank of your argument. Not only was there no evidence on Luke but he also managed to remove his DNA from JJ but leave other male DNA intact, some feat.

I will repeat the point that the knife was purchased after the killing and the pathologist gave solid reasons as to why that knife was unlikely to be the weapon for reasons already outlined.

If this was premeditated it would make more sense to take a change of clothes and hide them for future use. He could also have packed his soap bag and a towel.

He could have rolled in the dirt to provide a reason for a clothing change. I tripped and  fell in the stream. Just how did he dirty himself up? You seem to have had a logic bypass.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2022, 11:53:AM by Bubo bubo »

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3331
Re: The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2022, 05:05:PM »
Your post is at odds with the pathological evidence from Prof Busuttil.  He is on record as saying (@2.45 mins in) that Jodie lost some 5 litres of blood prior to death and that the perp would have needed to wear a covering over his clothes and person to avoid transfer including the wearing of gloves and googles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=222s

Please can you start supplying sources for your claims.

I think Busuttil is a bit over the top with the goggles. Would stand out unless my QC theory and his snorkelling expedition is right. However a pair of aviator sunglasses would do the trick. Good size lenses to cover a large area.