Likely Profile of The Perp

[David1819]

You do not know the truth neither do I. You are just suggesting something that cannot be proved one way or the other. I wish to believe Luke and his mum. Show me a picture of the Jacket. No body has testified about a particular jacket that is missing and  have produced a picture of it and asked to see it..

[19] "There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it."

[killingeve]

[19] "There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it."

What sort of evidence?  Receipts, images?

Who provided testimony about the "unusual smell"?  What did the forensic examination of the log burner reveal?

[Roadrunner]

When you have characters like the above lurking about I've no idea why the defence at trial, Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell refer to others who seem about as unlikely to have committed the murder as Luke Mitchell does imo.

Yes those are the two I was referring to. As far as I'm aware they weren't on the police radar at the time. One was caught shortly before the trial was due to begin and the other was caught after Luke had been convicted. I think Sandra Lean and others bring other names into it, not to point the finger and say they are suspects but to show that investigation failed to consider any other suspects besides Luke and failed to follow up on legitimate leads to exclude people from the investigation. Luke's mum and dads houses along with Scott's caravans were the only places besides the crime scene to be searched and forensically examined. JF for example, puts himself at the scene at the time alleged time of the murder, cuts his hair and doesn't come forward for 5 days despite being aware of the murder to the point that the police issue an appeal for them to come forward. When he was finally questioned his statement was 9 pages long and 7 pages were about Luke Mitchell not his own whereabouts or links to Jodi. The moped boys were ruled out by police before any forensic results had came back. This left it open for DF to ask him at trial 'did you murder Jodi?' If the investigation was as thorough as Mr Dobbie makes it out to be this wouldn't have happened and there wouldn't be as many questions over possible suspects today.

I noticed you posted on a previous thread that you thought there was no semen found on Jodi?

There was 1 full DNA sample recovered from Jodi's clothing which was a match to Jodi's sisters boyfriend, 1 semen sample from a condom nearby Jodi's body and 3 full samples of DNA which have yet to be matched to anybody. There were many other partial samples found made up of blood, semen and saliva.

Despite what the daily record says there was no arrangement not to discuss DNA evidence, The DNA was talked about in court by DR Susan Ure and it is reported in all other papers as there was no DNA link found between Jodi and Luke. The daily record talks about a partial sample taken from Jodi's bra which has too few markers to definitively match to anybody and a sample of Jodi's DNA taken from a pair of trousers which were found in a holdall that he used when he stayed at his dads house. These trousers were not linked to the crime or the crime scene in anyway and it is this transfer that is said to be innocently explained.

[Roadrunner]

What sort of evidence?  Receipts, images?

Who provided testimony about the "unusual smell"?  What did the forensic examination of the log burner reveal?

Appoligies for the double post I'm not sure if you have rules against that here, it's been a long time since I've used a forum.

Originally Luke said he was out at the time so he could not know whether or not the bbq (lets just call it what it is) was being used. By the end of the interview he said it might have been used. This was during the same interview that appeal court judges said the officers conduct should be deplored.  There were 32 statements taken from neighbours regarding the fire. Of that 32, only 3 said that there was. 2 of them husband and wife from the same household said that it was wood smoke, they liked the smell so there was no need to shut their kitchen window. 1 other said he recalled smelling a strange smell but could not say when he smelled it. In the days following the murder there was a completely unrelated news report about a suspect burning clothes in a garden in Newton grange. The public linked this to Corrine Mitchell and it has been present in the public consciousness ever since. This is why in the Sky news interview Luke says 'no that wasn't us'. The small wood burner that Corrine Mitchell owned was forensically examined and they found no evidence of any clothing having been burned in it.

As for the parka if Luke is pictured in the paper in a parka and the police go around asking people 'have you seen Luke Mitchell wearing a parka?' of course you'll get a few that say yes.

There was an inference that he owned a parka and that his mother had burned it. It was never established as fact that he did. Unfortunately for Luke the jury were entitled to accept these broad inferences. His mother handed in a receipt for the parka showing that it had been bought after the murder. Something else to note when discussing the parka is that Luke had on the same clothes that he had been wearing at school that day when he was seen by the boys at the end of his street between 5:45 and 6pm including the same distinctive white snowboarding boots. So was the parka a magic parka that stopped any blood getting on other items? Why just burn a jacket and not the rest of his clothing if that is what happened?

This source for the info on the statements is Innocents Betrayed.

[David1819]

Appoligies for the double post I'm not sure if you have rules against that here, it's been a long time since I've used a forum.

Originally Luke said he was out at the time so he could not know whether or not the bbq (lets just call it what it is) was being used. By the end of the interview he said it might have been used. This was during the same interview that appeal court judges said the officers conduct should be deplored.  There were 32 statements taken from neighbours regarding the fire. Of that 32, only 3 said that there was. 2 of them husband and wife from the same household said that it was wood smoke, they liked the smell so there was no need to shut their kitchen window. 1 other said he recalled smelling a strange smell but could not say when he smelled it. In the days following the murder there was a completely unrelated news report about a suspect burning clothes in a garden in Newton grange. The public linked this to Corrine Mitchell and it has been present in the public consciousness ever since. This is why in the Sky news interview Luke says 'no that wasn't us'. The small wood burner that Corrine Mitchell owned was forensically examined and they found no evidence of any clothing having been burned in it.

As for the parka if Luke is pictured in the paper in a parka and the police go around asking people 'have you seen Luke Mitchell wearing a parka?' of course you'll get a few that say yes.

There was an inference that he owned a parka and that his mother had burned it. It was never established as fact that he did. Unfortunately for Luke the jury were entitled to accept these broad inferences. His mother handed in a receipt for the parka showing that it had been bought after the murder. Something else to note when discussing the parka is that Luke had on the same clothes that he had been wearing at school that day when he was seen by the boys at the end of his street between 5:45 and 6pm including the same distinctive white snowboarding boots. So was the parka a magic parka that stopped any blood getting on other items? Why just burn a jacket and not the rest of his clothing if that is what happened?

This source for the info on the statements is Innocents Betrayed.

Luke admitted in his police interviews that he was wearing the green jacket on the day of the murder. Sandra originally redacted this information from the transcript but she did disclose it in the end.

This is why so little evidence is ever posted, it does Luke no favours. Best create an echo chamber of wild conjecture and incomplete information.

[killingeve]

Luke admitted in his police interviews that he was wearing the green jacket on the day of the murder. Sandra originally redacted this information from the transcript but she did disclose it in the end.

This is why so little evidence is ever posted it does Luke no favours. Best create an echo chamber of wild conjecture and incomplete information.

Source please.

[Bubo bubo]

The exchange of text messages between Jodie and Luke have never been available.  Therefore we do not know exactly what they agreed.  School age teens often just have loose arrangements about meeting up in some place youths tend to congreate in.  According to Mrs Jones Jodie said:

The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here".

What evidence exists that the Mitchells burned any clothes on the 30th June or thereafter?

What evidence exists that Luke wore the coat described by Andrina Bryson on 30th June?

I ignore him most of the time. He is having a go at me because I had his wings clipped. He will get over it. He is the guilters guilter. He only tries to knock down positive posters and from what I have seen offers nothing positive. On cases like JB where he professes to be an innocence supporter he castigates positive posts unless they involve period blood and the family being the bad guys. These are just my observations

[Roadrunner]

Luke admitted in his police interviews that he was wearing the green jacket on the day of the murder. Sandra originally redacted this information from the transcript but she did disclose it in the end.

Perhaps you misunderstood Sandra? She has always came across as very clear on this issue to me.

Sandra has shared transcripts from Luke's August 14th interview where the police are asking about a green German army shirt, saying that they have witnesses who say he was wearing a green German army shirt. Luke informs them that this was bought after the murder and they have it in their possession. It is quite clear they are asking about a green German army shirt not a green parka jacket with a German flag on it. These can be found in her book for any one that's interested.

[nugnug]

Good news! The wood burner was not taken for examination until 5 days after the murder. Plenty of time to empty the remnants.

The suspect and his mother have never explained what they were burning and the jacket he admits wearing that day (and seen wearing) is missing.

You are still on a hot lead.

they eplianed everal times.

[David1819]

Perhaps you misunderstood Sandra? She has always came across as very clear on this issue to me.

Sandra has shared transcripts from Luke's August 14th interview where the police are asking about a green German army shirt, saying that they have witnesses who say he was wearing a green German army shirt. Luke informs them that this was bought after the murder and they have it in their possession. It is quite clear they are asking about a green German army shirt not a green parka jacket with a German flag on it. These can be found in her book for any one that's interested.

When Luke was asked what he was wearing on the evening of the murder -

"Eh,my black baggies, snowboarding boots, my black On Fire t shirt with writing on the back saying "laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the same" and my green bomber jacket."

[Bubo bubo]

When Luke was asked what he was wearing on the evening of the murder -

"Eh,my black baggies, snowboarding boots, my black On Fire t shirt with writing on the back saying "laugh at me cause I'm different, I pity you cause you're all the same" and my green bomber jacket."

I do not think a bomber jacket which barely but usually ends at the waist could be described as a fishing style jacket that was hip length. What did he wear when he went to search for Jodi if he had burnt his jacket? What was the jacket that the police removed on the night? Forensic experts say given the nature of the attack it would be virtually impossible to remove all traces on the culprit. Luke was swabbed and nothing was found. He would have had to walk through the street covered in blood without being seen in broad daylight in order to get home to burn his jacket.

It seems to me you are not listening to other viewpoints expressed in this and other threads but repeating myths that have grown up around the case, which is what got him convicted in the first instance.

Try this from Roadrunner.

Originally Luke said he was out at the time so he could not know whether or not the bbq (lets just call it what it is) was being used. By the end of the interview he said it might have been used. This was during the same interview that appeal court judges said the officers conduct should be deplored.  There were 32 statements taken from neighbours regarding the fire. Of that 32, only 3 said that there was. 2 of them husband and wife from the same household said that it was wood smoke, they liked the smell so there was no need to shut their kitchen window. 1 other said he recalled smelling a strange smell but could not say when he smelled it. In the days following the murder there was a completely unrelated news report about a suspect burning clothes in a garden in Newton grange. The public linked this to Corrine Mitchell and it has been present in the public consciousness ever since. This is why in the Sky news interview Luke says 'no that wasn't us'. The small wood burner that Corrine Mitchell owned was forensically examined and they found no evidence of any clothing having been burned in it.

[nugnug]

what about omone who was high on acid.

[killingeve]

what about omone who was high on acid.

I don't know anything about acid. 

Bearing in mind the pathologist said the level of mutilation was highly unusual and some of the injuries were inflicted post death.  It seems more than an argument that got out of hand where you might expect to find strangulation only or a blow from a fist that caused a fatal brain/head injury that sort of thing.  But what occurred is off the richter scale.

I can't recall many cases where someone has binged on drugs and/or booze then committed a gruesome murder but the case of Rurik Jutting sticks out.  He was on a cocaine and booze bender and raped and tortured two women.  Apparently he was heavily addicted to the cocaine. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/08/rurik-jutting-guilty-murder-indonesian-women-hong-kong