cerumstational case.

[nugnug]

if there i a cercumstancel case agianst luke mitchell isnt there also a ercumsancel ase agiant the mope youth an the toky man.

in fact in cae of the mope youths a better one.

[David1819]

if there i a cercumstancel case agianst luke mitchell isnt there also a ercumsancel ase agiant the mope youth an the toky man.

No

[Bubo bubo]

if there i a cercumstancel case agianst luke mitchell isnt there also a ercumsancel ase agiant the mope youth an the toky man.

in fact in cae of the mope youths a better one.

That may well be the case but SL has made this very point to no avail on many occasions. However, "two wrongs do not make a right" and we should not do to others what has been done to LM. We should attempt to remain on the 'Moral high ground' and try to help without pointing fingers without good reason. If you believe that you have information which might assist Luke you should send it to an appropriate person. I am sure there will be an address somewhere. I have done this in the past.

[Bubo bubo]

Following on from my previous post I do believe that discussing and presenting arguments surrounding this case does provide  a window, albeit a small one. People can then, if they choose, look through that window and affirm or change their feelings about, and their understanding of, the case.

[Roadrunner]

There is more circumstantial evidence against others known to the investigation than there was presented at trial against Luke Mitchell.


SK DNA found on Jodi's t-shirt

The moped boys being at the crime scene close to the time of the murder and not being able to explain why

A close family member cancelled a home visit by a psychiatrist so he could continue to smoke weed that day. (with one of the moped boys). This individual also attacked someone with a knife in his own home injuring his own mother in the process. This person was severely ill but had made a number of breakthroughs in the days prior to Jodi's murder.


There was another one of Jodi's family member who had blood on his jacket and a knife that he owned. There were no forensic results provided to the defence.

A relative of one of the moped boys took his 8 spaniels for a walk going through the V break. He had blood on his shoes (again no reportable result) and there were short colourless hairs found on Jodi's body. He claims not to have seen the body.

This is not to say that any one of them should have been suspects but that the investigation should have done more to eliminate them from the enquiry and as an example of how the investigation focussed on Luke Mitchell while ignoring other lines of enquiry.

[nugnug]

at the murder sene at the time the murder i suppose to have happend faile to come forward desipite a police appeal. lie about what time they were on there one of them has a iy haircut the day after murder an leaves the area soon afterwoods there have people hanged on simler evedence.

[David1819]

There is more circumstantial evidence against others known to the investigation than there was presented at trial against Luke Mitchell.

Bullshit.

[Bubo bubo]

Bullshit.

How is that an answer to a serious statement. You are just being rude and adopting an aggressive style. Why do you not prove it wrong by comparing the facts on both sides of the argument.

[Germane]

The moped boys were thoroughly investigated and eliminated accordingly, just like every other potential suspect at the time was. Eyewitness accounts were all corroborated and the moped boys were cleared. It’s a myth that LM was singled out very early on in the case or that the police had tunnel vision and LM was ‘fit up’. Suspicion fell on LM very early on because of the way he was acting and because of what he was saying; he was lying and being devious, and most of what he was saying to police initially didn’t add up.

[Roadrunner]

How is that an answer to a serious statement. You are just being rude and adopting an aggressive style. Why do you not prove it wrong by comparing the facts on both sides of the argument.

I was fully expecting this to happen on this forum I'm surprised it's taken until my 20th post to emerge.
Your right though a rational argument back based on sources and what was actually presented at trial and in the press would be nice not personal opinions and a negative view of Sandra Lean.

[David1819]

How is that an answer to a serious statement. You are just being rude and adopting an aggressive style. Why do you not prove it wrong by comparing the facts on both sides of the argument.

The claim that there is more circumstantial evidence against other suspects is frankly bullshit. What else do I need to say?

[Roadrunner]

The moped boys were thoroughly investigated and eliminated accordingly, just like every other potential suspect at the time was. Eyewitness accounts were all corroborated and the moped boys were cleared. It’s a myth that LM was singled out very early on in the case or that the police had tunnel vision and LM was ‘fit up’. Suspicion fell on LM very early on because of the way he was acting and because of what he was saying; he was lying and being devious, and most of what he was saying to police initially didn’t add up.

Your welcome to your opinion but that doesn't make it true. That can be shown without having to read Innocents Betrayed.

If they were thoroughly investigated and ruled out why did they say they couldn't remember what they were doing at the V break that day at the time of the murder? Your saying eyewitness accounts were all corroborated but there was none at that time. The boys placed themselves there, not a witness.
They didn't come forward to let the police know they were on the path that day it took 5 days and an appeal in the papers for that to happen.
They didn't give an accurate timeline when they were questioned.
The very fact that DF was able to ask them all this in court and they still couldn't provide an answer shows that they were not thoroughly investigated. If it was all there in witness statements Alan Turnbull QC would have jumped up and corrected DF but he didn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4035169.stm

It's not a myth that Luke was treated as a suspect from the start again that's your opinion. The SCCRC agreed that he had been treated as a suspect from the start.

 The 'lying' 'devious' portrayal comes from SIO Dobbie in his press interviews talking about how Luke presented during the interrogations.
Contrasting that with how the appeal Judges described Dobbie's behaviour in those interviews I don't believe Luke Mitchell came across as 'Devious' or 'Lying at all.

"Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."

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

Remember Dobbie also described the crime scene as one of the finest that he'd ever seen. Do you agree with that too Germaine?
He also said that there was no DNA that couldn't be accounted for yet JaF would not be known to the investigation for another 3 years.
It was also Dobbie that came up with the Manson/Black dahlia theory, you know the one that led to years of press coverage labelling Luke as a Satanist obsessed with Manson? The theory that was not to be founded upon at appeal because they knew it was nonsense and there was no evidence to back it up so it couldn't be argued.