What's in a gesture

[Steve_uk]

I have read some poor posts many times but this is up there with the worst. It is clear KT was some form of holiday romance/friendship. They had only met three times in the last year. One could hardly call that dating. My grandchildren often kept in touch with holiday friends even though they were dating others. Some carried on for more than two years. The second teenager KF looks to have sought her 15 minutes of fame. All her evidence is hearsay and inadmissible. This article looks like a hatchet job on LM & CM after Luke was convicted and to me looks like a typical Daily Mail follow up article reinforcing the establishment narrative and introducing fictitious evidence.

As for you second paragraph it falls apart because of one piece of real evidence. Phone calls to and from the Mitchel household were recorded after 17.00 and someone made and answered these calls.

Can I suggest you do not take up Crime writing? Perhaps you should try the Fantasy genre

I thought it was a well-reasoned piece, one of several quality posts written today. Kimberley Thomson stayed at the Mitchell house over the Christmas period 2002, so it appears that the relationship may well have been more than just a casual Shirley Valentine romance.

[Steve_uk]

Go onto your extensions on your web browser and download a spellchecker. I have given you this advice before, otherwise you just cannot be taken seriously. The thing that's gets me, your spelling is perfectly readable on other forums, but not here why?

I didn't know nugnug posted elsewhere.

[Bubo bubo]

I thought it was a well-reasoned piece, one of several quality posts written today. Kimberley Thomson stayed at the Mitchell house over the Christmas period 2002, so it appears that the relationship may well have been more than just a casual Shirley Valentine romance.

It is not unusual for the odd visit to take place for a short stay and this was one of the three (Boxing Day) meetings. My Grandchildren also travelled to holiday friends for a stayover. Sometimes these friends are made on exchange visits from school and additional meetings involving travel abroad take place. I do not think this was anything other than a casual but genuinely friendly relationship between two young teenagers exploring a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Even under tens can ask for their friends to join them over the Christmas period.

Correct me if I am wrong but JJ did not come onto the scene till the spring of 2003.

[nugnug]

why would you go to the police sayin you saw a random boy an girl highfiving each other.

and why would you even pay atention to it.

[Steve_uk]

It is not unusual for the odd visit to take place for a short stay and this was one of the three (Boxing Day) meetings. My Grandchildren also travelled to holiday friends for a stayover. Sometimes these friends are made on exchange visits from school and additional meetings involving travel abroad take place. I do not think this was anything other than a casual but genuinely friendly relationship between two young teenagers exploring a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Even under tens can ask for their friends to join them over the Christmas period.

Correct me if I am wrong but JJ did not come onto the scene till the spring of 2003.

She may have found out, or he may have started a relationship with another girl at school whilst Jodie was grounded, as is intimated here: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3a+The+verdict%3a+Luke+was+a+dark+and+dangerous+character..+he...-a0127488179

[Bubo bubo]

She may have found out, or he may have started a relationship with another girl at school whilst Jodie was grounded, as is intimated here: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3a+The+verdict%3a+Luke+was+a+dark+and+dangerous+character..+he...-a0127488179

Looks and smells like character blackening propaganda to me. The other girl is merely alluded to, no name is given. Looks like a journalist writing a piece to gain recognition using the saddest of situations to bolster their credentials with a titillating article. How much of it is actually true and what has been embellished is hard to know. No doubt Roadrunner may have a view but it seems about par for the course with this case. The media treatment of Luke was well over the top but hey ho it sells papers.

[Germane]

i have suspionion the a sigting ident really happen.

Didn’t really happen?? A sighting either happened or it didn’t; no in between. If not LM, then who? Funny that 45 mins later, the exact same youth was spotted at the n’battle rd looking suspicious by lf & rw (rw, when shown a pic of lm in a newspaper, exclaimed: “Oh my god! It’s him!” ... she was unequivocal that the person she saw at the gate was the same person in this newspaper). And this gate that LM was standing at is only a 5 min walk from the murder scene and is directly in line with the woodland strip (you would only have to cross the road to get to this gate once you emerged from that woodland strip). After LM overpowered, murdered and inflicted those mutilations, he then tried to set his alibi in place whilst walking westward down that woodland strip towards that gate on the n’battle road, by phoning the Jones’ landline at 1738 feigning concern. AO answered the call and said j had left to meet him (to which L replied, “Okay. cool.”); this call served the dual purpose of setting L’s alibi in place and lulling AO into a false sense of security, leading him to think L was looking for J and, as she set out to specifically meet him, they would inevitably meet with each other at some point. Of course, what AO didn’t know was that J was dead when L made that call @ 1738.

[Germane]

I have read some poor posts many times but this is up there with the worst. It is clear KT was some form of holiday romance/friendship. They had only met three times in the last year. One could hardly call that dating. My grandchildren often kept in touch with holiday friends even though they were dating others. Some carried on for more than two years. The second teenager KF looks to have sought her 15 minutes of fame. All her evidence is hearsay and inadmissible. This article looks like a hatchet job on LM & CM after Luke was convicted and to me looks like a typical Daily Mail follow up article reinforcing the establishment narrative and introducing fictitious evidence.

As for you second paragraph it falls apart because of one piece of real evidence. Phone calls to and from the Mitchel household were recorded after 17.00 and someone made and answered these calls.

Can I suggest you do not take up Crime writing? Perhaps you should try the Fantasy genre

You’re entitled to your opinion. However, as per the cite, this girl testified in court that she was upset when she read about the murder and that L was named as the deceased’s boyfriend; forget that a poor young girl had been brutally murdered, kt’s main concern apparantely was that she had been misled and two-timed. This girl told the court, unequivocally, that she considered Luke & herself to be girlfriend and boyfriend. Furthermore, Luke had been in regular contact with this girl since they met and right up until all hell broke loose in the newspapers with the murder enquiry (SL in IB has, I think, a detailed account of the frequency of their phone calls to each other .... I’ll try and find the page number from IB).

As regards phone calls to the Mitchell landline between 1700 and onwards ..... wrong! You’re an hour out. It’s common knowledge that SM called the landline at around 1605 and spoke to L. SM was phonng to say that he was fixing a friend’s car. and would be later home than normal. At 1625, L phoned Scotts Caravans and spoke to his gran Ruby. So, there you have it, LM didn’t need to be in the house after he had spoken to his gran, and, for all we know, L was out of the house even before J sent him those text messages between 1634-1638. And, of course, SM finally admitted in court that L wasn’t in the house between 1650-1715 (he only said “my brother could have been there”, so as not to fully drop he and his mother in the shit, but nonetheless destroyed his brother’s alibi with his testimony ... cite below).

“Mr Turnbull asked him: 'On that evening, about4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?'

Shane told him: 'No one at that time.' The advocate depute then asked: 'Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?'

The witness told the court:'I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there.”

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509

[Bubo bubo]

LOL. Exactly what I was thinking, reading back this past few weeks, some of the nonsense that particular poster has been typing, babbling on about serial killers from abroad, picking a secluded spot in Easthouses Scotland to do his deed. What utter nonsense. Iv'e read some far out theories typed over the years by these desperadoe's, this one does not quite reach number 1 spot, but it's up there.

Perhaps not from abroad. It is interesting that the lawyers for Michael Stone say that Levi Belfield (convicted serial killer) has confessed to the murder that he (Stone) was convicted for and as a result he  has been imprisoned for over twenty years for a crime he may not have committed. Part of the circumstantial evidence against him was that he had burned blood stained clothes.

He picked a secluded spot in rural Kent. Perhaps not that outlandish after all.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/06/levi-bellfield-admits-to-murdering-lin-and-megan-russell-say-lawyers.

[Davie2]

Perhaps not from abroad. It is interesting that the lawyers for Michael Stone say that Levi Belfield (convicted serial killer) has confessed to the murder that he (Stone) was convicted for and as a result he  has been imprisoned for over twenty years for a crime he may not have committed. Part of the circumstantial evidence against him was that he had burned blood stained clothes.

He picked a secluded spot in rural Kent. Perhaps not that outlandish after all.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/06/levi-bellfield-admits-to-murdering-lin-and-megan-russell-say-lawyers.

Stick to the topic, or start a new thread.

[Fairplay1]

One thing to note is at the actual time AB seen the couple his hands are out wasn't Luke making a call to the talking clock at this supposed changed time by AB. And also this witness evidence are we still convinced the couple she seen was Luke and Jodi , not only does the Appeal Documents admit it can be argued but the woman failed to say that the boy in between the security guards , the boy who's face was plastered all over the papers for some months , AB evidence after logic scrutiny does not point to a positive I'd of either Jodi ( see clothes, hair description ) or of Luke ( again see description). The first pillar of the prosecution case is desentigrating to sadly a whole lot of nothing . Does it surprise anyone that the top reason for convictions being overturned is DNA evidence followed closely by witness inaccuracies, it's all out there just search reasons for miscarriages you will find supporting information that should give you pause for thought ??

[Germane]

One thing to note is at the actual time AB seen the couple his hands are out wasn't Luke making a call to the talking clock at this supposed changed time by AB. And also this witness evidence are we still convinced the couple she seen was Luke and Jodi , not only does the Appeal Documents admit it can be argued but the woman failed to say that the boy in between the security guards , the boy who's face was plastered all over the papers for some months , AB evidence after logic scrutiny does not point to a positive I'd of either Jodi ( see clothes, hair description ) or of Luke ( again see description). The first pillar of the prosecution case is desentigrating to sadly a whole lot of nothing . Does it surprise anyone that the top reason for convictions being overturned is DNA evidence followed closely by witness inaccuracies, it's all out there just search reasons for miscarriages you will find supporting information that should give you pause for thought ??

I think you are being a tad pedantic regarding the AB sighting at 1654. That time is obviously an estimate, whereas the speaking clock was an accurate time from phone logs. I think it’s safe to say that LM had already made the call when AB drove past (she probably missed him making the call by about 30 seconds or a minute). If the quarreling couple wasn’t LM & JODJ, then who was it? Why didn’t they come forward and eliminate themselves? AB did reasonably well with he ID, considering she circumstances; she, crucially, got the longish green/khaki jacket correct and the shoulder length sandy hair (she said his hair looked like Shaggy’s from the scooby doo movie). Also, when shown the photo by the police, she was taken aback by just how similar it looked to the guy she saw that day. Also, when she failed to id lm in court, she was simply being honest. She didn’t actually say it defo wasn’t him, but that she wasn’ sure. Big difference. And no wonder she wasn’t sure, for LM had changed considerably between summer 2003 and winter 2004; he was fatter and had much longer hair and still developing and going through puberty. He looked a good bit different — enough to cast doubt on an id. She noticed them arguing (lm’s arms by his side, palms upturned, pleading to this girl) and it was ascertaind that they had been arguing at school earlier that day, so obviously it continued when they met up. It was mentioned that, while Jodi was outgoing and laid back, she could be boisterous and confrontational; LM was said to have a very quick temper and was used to getting his own way (cm indulged & spoiled him). Then, of course, we have the rest of the considerable circumstantial evidence against him — not least his previous attacks on ex-girlfriends and teachers recommending that he seek psychological intervention in light of the disturbing content of his English essays; he was even advised to go for counselling after he tried to throttle another boy in primary school. There are red flags galore where LM is concerned, imo.

[Fairplay1]

I think you are being a tad pedantic regarding the AB sighting at 1654. That time is obviously an estimate, whereas the speaking clock was an accurate time from phone logs. I think it’s safe to say that LM had already made the call when AB drove past (she probably missed him making the call by about 30 seconds or a minute). If the quarreling couple wasn’t LM & JODJ, then who was it? Why didn’t they come forward and eliminate themselves? AB did reasonably well with he ID, considering she circumstances; she, crucially, got the longish green/khaki jacket correct and the shoulder length sandy hair (she said his hair looked like Shaggy’s from the scooby doo movie). Also, when shown the photo by the police, she was taken aback by just how similar it looked to the guy she saw that day. Also, when she failed to id lm in court, she was simply being honest. She didn’t actually say it defo wasn’t him, but that she wasn’ sure. Big difference. And no wonder she wasn’t sure, for LM had changed considerably between summer 2003 and winter 2004; he was fatter and had much longer hair and still developing and going through puberty. He looked a good bit different — enough to cast doubt on an id. She noticed them arguing (lm’s arms by his side, palms upturned, pleading to this girl) and it was ascertaind that they had been arguing at school earlier that day, so obviously it continued when they met up. It was mentioned that, while Jodi was outgoing and laid back, she could be boisterous and confrontational; LM was said to have a very quick temper and was used to getting his own way (cm indulged & spoiled him). Then, of course, we have the rest of the considerable circumstantial evidence against him — not least his previous attacks on ex-girlfriends and teachers recommending that he seek psychological intervention in light of the disturbing content of his English essays; he was even advised to go for counselling after he tried to throttle another boy in primary school. There are red flags galore where LM is concerned, imo.

I am not for one second saying Luke was a saint but that does not make him a murderer. H e certainly had something going for him with all the females he had in his life ( short life at that).  With respect Germaine you still believe AB seen Luke and Jodi I unequivocally have no faith in this , I support this by the discriptions ( initial) of what the two people were wearing , hair colour, height and the fact that her evidenc had to be altered to support a prosecution story. The appeal document also states this identification is argue able that with the not sure in dock actually means to me that the boy who's face had been plastered all over the papers she could not say it was him.  AB description please check it out she states very clearly a clothes description this is a female black baggy trousers were seen as light blue denim boot cut are you trying to say this is a positive I'd of Jodi clothes or Luke's. One last thing , she didn't see the males face so tell me how can a person pick out a picture (manipulated and not following police procedure by the way) , but how can she pick out or state that was him as you have stated if she never seen the face ? It's all these annoying anomalies that bother me , as stated in my other post this investigation was a mess the forensic evidence alone points to serious doubt or should do , Test the evidence via a credible independent expert bring some conclusions to this because this going round in circles is just that nothing can change my stance on the STAR WITNESS account I agree with the appeal Judges on this that it is an area that can be logically argued ??

[Fairplay1]

I think you are being a tad pedantic regarding the AB sighting at 1654. That time is obviously an estimate, whereas the speaking clock was an accurate time from phone logs. I think it’s safe to say that LM had already made the call when AB drove past (she probably missed him making the call by about 30 seconds or a minute). If the quarreling couple wasn’t LM & JODJ, then who was it? Why didn’t they come forward and eliminate themselves? AB did reasonably well with he ID, considering she circumstances; she, crucially, got the longish green/khaki jacket correct and the shoulder length sandy hair (she said his hair looked like Shaggy’s from the scooby doo movie). Also, when shown the photo by the police, she was taken aback by just how similar it looked to the guy she saw that day. Also, when she failed to id lm in court, she was simply being honest. She didn’t actually say it defo wasn’t him, but that she wasn’ sure. Big difference. And no wonder she wasn’t sure, for LM had changed considerably between summer 2003 and winter 2004; he was fatter and had much longer hair and still developing and going through puberty. He looked a good bit different — enough to cast doubt on an id. She noticed them arguing (lm’s arms by his side, palms upturned, pleading to this girl) and it was ascertaind that they had been arguing at school earlier that day, so obviously it continued when they met up. It was mentioned that, while Jodi was outgoing and laid back, she could be boisterous and confrontational; LM was said to have a very quick temper and was used to getting his own way (cm indulged & spoiled him). Then, of course, we have the rest of the considerable circumstantial evidence against him — not least his previous attacks on ex-girlfriends and teachers recommending that he seek psychological intervention in light of the disturbing content of his English essays; he was even advised to go for counselling after he tried to throttle another boy in primary school. There are red flags galore where LM is concerned, imo.

You are repeating tabloid information as your main source tell me the girl who had been threatened did she give testimony in court or did she wait till after the trial then go the tabloid with her story of how she somehow escaped with her life. Sorry but why not police, why not the cadets why not the prosecution this would have bbeen dynamite in the case against Luke , my thinking is because she would be proved a liar in a court of law but going to the bias media would get a few bob for her , come on are you being serious about that , I know it supports your bias but logic has to play a part at some point. The fishing jacket , DF excellently pointed out to a witness how is testimony was because he had seen Luke in the jacket after the murder so I'm not going to think it's beyond the realms of possibilities that the teacher did not make the same error.  Tell me this why no pictures, cctv of Luke in the jacket he wore all the time? Also who out of all the friends that hung about with Luke or in the same group why did none of those people give evidence to the jacket he wore all the time. You have simply made your mind up and support most of your believes from the tabloids which is fair enough but putting all the witness information to one side , I would like to know the overwhelming forensic evidence that states this could have been no one else but Mitchell, this to me is real undisputable hard evidence something that is totally missin in this case. Matter of time we will have some real direction when this evidence is properly examined and until that point this case is overwhelmingly flawed and overwhelming points to serious doubt , if you can't see that esp with the Forensic side then I don't feel we can debate much further. I need the science to step into this now for me to get to any real conclusion, I know you are doing the same character assignation on Luke as the media did , we have moved on from that now let's try and get some REAL evidence to finish this ??

[Germane]

You are repeating tabloid information as your main source tell me the girl who had been threatened did she give testimony in court or did she wait till after the trial then go the tabloid with her story of how she somehow escaped with her life. Sorry but why not police, why not the cadets why not the prosecution this would have bbeen dynamite in the case against Luke , my thinking is because she would be proved a liar in a court of law but going to the bias media would get a few bob for her , come on are you being serious about that , I know it supports your bias but logic has to play a part at some point. The fishing jacket , DF excellently pointed out to a witness how is testimony was because he had seen Luke in the jacket after the murder so I'm not going to think it's beyond the realms of possibilities that the teacher did not make the same error.  Tell me this why no pictures, cctv of Luke in the jacket he wore all the time? Also who out of all the friends that hung about with Luke or in the same group why did none of those people give evidence to the jacket he wore all the time. You have simply made your mind up and support most of your believes from the tabloids which is fair enough but putting all the witness information to one side , I would like to know the overwhelming forensic evidence that states this could have been no one else but Mitchell, this to me is real undisputable hard evidence something that is totally missin in this case. Matter of time we will have some real direction when this evidence is properly examined and until that point this case is overwhelmingly flawed and overwhelming points to serious doubt , if you can't see that esp with the Forensic side then I don't feel we can debate much further. I need the science to step into this now for me to get to any real conclusion, I know you are doing the same character assignation on Luke as the media did , we have moved on from that now let's try and get some REAL evidence to finish this ??

I am typing from an iphone, so will keep this brief:

The girl’s name was Karen Van Nuill (sp??). She was in cadets with LM and had dated him briefly. She probably only came forward when she did because it was relevant. She may have initially been reluctant to come forward because she was scared of LM or intimidated by a high-profile murder case. Besides, no one likes a clipe. The encounter with LM at cadets left her in fear and she was crying, and she broke up with LM as a direct result of it. Bottom line is: it was apposite and, although not used in evidence at court, was yet another piece of circumstantial evidence against LM.

LM owned a parka BEFORE the murder. 8 separate witnesses testified to this at court, and there were another 12 people who were willing to testify to this at court. Check out my posts on the German Army Parka Jacket thread on this forum. LM had many jackets, contrary to what CM said or says; L&BP took a photo circa 2003 of many jackets on the back of his bedroom door when he lived at newbattle abbey crescent (do a google image search and see for yourself).

The forensics are quite anomalous. I need to do more reasearch into the realm of forensics as there are gaps in my knowledge. There was DNA from LM on JODJ: semen on one of her bra cups and semen on her underwear. The prosecution decided to discard forensics as LM and JODJ were in an intimate relationship. Also, there were many partial profiles from LM on JODJ, so they couldn’t be used (some people think that, on the law of averages, these many partials belong to LM). LM, imo, got lucky with the forensics: the fact the body lay exposed to the elements and rainfall for 8 hours contaminated and degraded some dna. The fact that JODJ was so bloody could’ve also degraded incriminating dna. Interestingly, the clothes that LM allegedly wore all that day and confiscated by LBP in the early hours of 01.07.03  — bomber jacket, black t-shirt, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots — didn’t have any traces of JODJ’s dna on them ... not even traces that could have been innocently transferred! How odd is that!