Luke’s Phone.

[Faithlilly]

Of course we know that no DNA of Jodi’s was found on Luke and none of Luke’s DNA was found on Jodi and of course we know that a myriad of implausible reasons from an all-encompassing parka to a quick dip in the local brook  have been put forward for the anomaly but what’s never been adequately explained is the lack of Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s mobile phone.

Mobile handsets in 2003 were not the flat, touchscreen models we have now but clunky handsets with deep set buttons and anyone who’s used one will know how grubby those vacant spaces around those buttons would get.

Of course after Jodi’s murder the police narrative depended heavily on Luke’s use of his mobile, from those texts from Jodi arranging to meet to the call to the speaking clock to the 17.40 call to Jodi’s landline and beyond, everything was tied to that mobile. No chance then of him using a replacement mobile. Yet where was the DNA from Jodi? That 17.40 phone call to the Jones’s house, laying the groundwork, we are told, for an alibi. That 17.40 call straight after Jodi’s murder when Luke’s hands would have been, unarguably, covered in blood and before, of course, he had any opportunity to wash his hands in that brook. Is it possible that he could have dialled those numbers without leaving even minute traces of blood or skin cells in those fiddly crevices?

 Of course some may argue that Luke could have worn gloves but that’s a degree of planning, like changing the phone chip into a different handset, that you’d have to be a stranger to logic to believe.

[Playfair1]

Of course we know that no DNA of Jodi’s was found on Luke and none of Luke’s DNA was found on Jodi and of course we know that a myriad of implausible reasons from an all-encompassing parka to a quick dip in the local brook  have been put forward for the anomaly but what’s never been adequately explained is the lack of Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s mobile phone.

Mobile handsets in 2003 were not the flat, touchscreen models we have now but clunky handsets with deep set buttons and anyone who’s used one will know how grubby those vacant spaces around those buttons would get.

Of course after Jodi’s murder the police narrative depended heavily on Luke’s use of his mobile, from those texts from Jodi arranging to meet to the call to the speaking clock to the 17.40 call to Jodi’s landline and beyond, everything was tied to that mobile. No chance then of him using a replacement mobile. Yet where was the DNA from Jodi? That 17.40 phone call to the Jones’s house, laying the groundwork, we are told, for an alibi. That 17.40 call straight after Jodi’s murder when Luke’s hands would have been, unarguably, covered in blood and before, of course, he had any opportunity to wash his hands in that brook. Is it possible that he could have dialled those numbers without leaving even minute traces of blood or skin cells in those fiddly crevices?

 Of course some may argue that Luke could have worn gloves but that’s a degree of planning, like changing the phone chip into a different handset, that you’d have to be a stranger to logic to believe.

Good point , as Findlay stated it is unrealistic that he walked away without contamination , the phone was with him when he supposedly was out meeting Jodi, arranging alibis , committing a horrific bloody murder but yet again no evidence on that phone from his touch which logically would have evidence of blood on it, in between those numbers even trace evidence would have been found on it , but yet again any incriminating evidence linking Luke to the murder or the murder scene to Luke or his mobile device which according to the prosecution he had on him at all times whilst committing murder is yet again MISSING !!

[Parky41]

Of course we know that no DNA of Jodi’s was found on Luke and none of Luke’s DNA was found on Jodi and of course we know that a myriad of implausible reasons from an all-encompassing parka to a quick dip in the local brook  have been put forward for the anomaly but what’s never been adequately explained is the lack of Jodi’s DNA on Luke’s mobile phone.

Mobile handsets in 2003 were not the flat, touchscreen models we have now but clunky handsets with deep set buttons and anyone who’s used one will know how grubby those vacant spaces around those buttons would get.

Of course after Jodi’s murder the police narrative depended heavily on Luke’s use of his mobile, from those texts from Jodi arranging to meet to the call to the speaking clock to the 17.40 call to Jodi’s landline and beyond, everything was tied to that mobile. No chance then of him using a replacement mobile. Yet where was the DNA from Jodi? That 17.40 phone call to the Jones’s house, laying the groundwork, we are told, for an alibi. That 17.40 call straight after Jodi’s murder when Luke’s hands would have been, unarguably, covered in blood and before, of course, he had any opportunity to wash his hands in that brook. Is it possible that he could have dialled those numbers without leaving even minute traces of blood or skin cells in those fiddly crevices?

 Of course some may argue that Luke could have worn gloves but that’s a degree of planning, like changing the phone chip into a different handset, that you’d have to be a stranger to logic to believe.

This again is where we have that which was in the media against that which one had access to, and manipulating around it.

Let us have a look at the manipulation here. That, 'Luke had learnt from "another source" of an agreement made to not use the DNA evidence' where she (SL) says if that is the case (it was not evidence) then DF surely broke the agreement by stating that "There was no forensic evidence linking Luke to the murder" which she says should have left the Crown free to "roll out all and any DNA evidence they had to prove their case but they failed to do so ---------" (IB p.198-99).

I have absolutely no idea if it is actually the author who is dim, or simply treats the reader as such, that elite selection of people who see inference over wording.

Not evidence, there was only a futile, pointless exercise in rolling out "all and any DNA" The reports around 'him' introduced and agreement made to leave any discussion around the presence of his DNA upon the victim/clothing to the side. Absolutely no value to either side. The Crown were not going to attempt to place him at the murder by way of his DNA, the defence were not going to attempt to say it could have been left at any time. Making two things clear. That there was "no forensic evidence linking LM directly to the murder" that any presence of his DNA was of no value. Letting the court know the case was to be heard upon circumstantial evidence.

Two separate entities. "There was no forensic evidence found linking Luke Mitchell to the murder" not that there was "No DNA found of Luke Mitchell's at the scene (clothing/victim)"

Why blank and manipulate around the actual reason for that agreement? - It allows for nonsense such as "He managed to clean all trace of himself whilst leaving others"

There was no forensic evidence found pointing this murder to that of a stranger, to, a another. Proceeding with this case around circumstantial evidence equates to having nothing that can eliminate that evidence. There is no 'silver bullet' to be found that will erase the evidence that convicted LM. SK and the presence of his sperm/semen did not erase the evidence that convicted LM, neither did it erase the presence of LM's DNA.

You are being spun a yarn, led into some fantasy of hope. That something magical could happen by re-testing the original samples. For goodness sake, one has not even been told what the actual findings of the SCCRC were, why do you think that is? It has been that claim of 'they didn't carry out enough testing adequately?' What does that even mean? That they failed to produce some 'silver bullet?' Or that they simply clarified and confirmed more so the presence of LM's DNA. That agreement made, that whilst we are going to leave LM's DNA aside, proceed purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there was no claim by the defence that only SK's DNA was found and none of LM's. Definitely however, that the presence of SK's had to be explained in full.

I asked that question on the red forum to the man who has himself as a forensic expert. What 'silver bullet' can be found to erase the case against LM? We already had before that Jury the semen/sperm of another person, someone else's DNA - wake up.

The only and main thing to highlight in this, once more is the why? Why, if SL is not playing dumb around this agreement, does she NOT know the actual reason for it? This self professed expert? Because it is not about truth and disclosure it is about deflection and bias? It is about using what can be sourced and manipulating around that which can not be sourced. - If it didn't say it in the media then it can't be true scenario? It allows for nonsense waffle, around applying multiple reasons as to why it MAY have been made, distracting from the actual reason. Where one wished to invent this 'forensic evidence' around a circumstantial case.


The old massive button phone scenario again? - Does this prove LM was not the killer? Where you are blatantly applying your intellect to this, are you not? If I was the killer I would not have been aware of such things as forensic evidence, man handling my phone with contaminated fingers. All this 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' -  Forensically aware, affluent, time and data being knocked out repeatedly, entirely indicative of someone having more than one handset, swapping sims about. That is logic, looking to reason why it was always knocked out. But the straightforward answer is that of being protected (the phone from contamination). The only planning required is awareness.

And this 'walking away from the murder with nothing upon him?' - Don't be silly now. No one nabbed LM directly after the murder. If this had happened and there was nothing upon him, then that really would have been proof of innocence. It didn't.

[Davie2]

Fantastic reading again, Parky. Logic & common sense prevails.

For goodness sake, one has not even been told what the actual findings of the SCCRC were, why do you think that is?

Simple, much of what is preached about, those answers they are looking for, will be in that letter SL got back from the SCCRC, all those years ago. It beggars belief that those in the cult, have never asked to see this letter. Unless somebody can prove me wrong, there is no law preventing, the information in that letter to be uploaded to the public domain, it's only that SL refuses to do so, all that new equipment she got from donations hahaha ok, it would be simple to upload. But no, simply she can't because it would blow her story apart.

[Faithlilly]

Fantastic reading again, Parky. Logic & common sense prevails.


Simple, much of what is preached about, those answers they are looking for, will be in that letter SL got back from the SCCRC, all those years ago. It beggars belief that those in the cult, have never asked to see this letter. Unless somebody can prove me wrong, there is no law preventing, the information in that letter to be uploaded to the public domain, it's only that SL refuses to do so, all that new equipment she got from donations hahaha ok, it would be simple to upload. But no, simply she can't because it would blow her story apart.

I wonder what you call a group of people who let Dr Lean live rent free in their heads…a hatred perhaps?

[Davie2]

I wonder what you call a group of people who let Dr Lean live rent free in their heads…a hatred perhaps?

You are probably best if you stick to uploading cosplay video's to YouTube, simply, not only you are absolutely hopeless at deflection, but you are also useless at dealing with logic & common sense.

[Faithlilly]

You are probably best if you stick to uploading cosplay video's to YouTube, simply, not only you are absolutely hopeless at deflection, but you are also useless at dealing with logic & common sense.

Cosplay videos? I had to google that one.

With those powers of detection I can see why you think Luke guilty.

[Davie2]

I can see why you think Luke guilty.

He is guilty princess, convicted by majority. In protective custody for the rest of his days, reading his devil books. And the best thing about it is >>>> There ain't a thing you can do about it.

[Faithlilly]

He is guilty princess, convicted by majority. In protective custody for the rest of his days, reading his devil books. And the best thing about it is >>>> There ain't a thing you can do about it.

Princess?

It’s almost as if feminism hadn’t happened.

But you’re right…there if nothing I can do about it but that’s not to say that there’s no one who can.

[Faithlilly]

This again is where we have that which was in the media against that which one had access to, and manipulating around it.

Let us have a look at the manipulation here. That, 'Luke had learnt from "another source" of an agreement made to not use the DNA evidence' where she (SL) says if that is the case (it was not evidence) then DF surely broke the agreement by stating that "There was no forensic evidence linking Luke to the murder" which she says should have left the Crown free to "roll out all and any DNA evidence they had to prove their case but they failed to do so ---------" (IB p.198-99).

I have absolutely no idea if it is actually the author who is dim, or simply treats the reader as such, that elite selection of people who see inference over wording.

Not evidence, there was only a futile, pointless exercise in rolling out "all and any DNA" The reports around 'him' introduced and agreement made to leave any discussion around the presence of his DNA upon the victim/clothing to the side. Absolutely no value to either side. The Crown were not going to attempt to place him at the murder by way of his DNA, the defence were not going to attempt to say it could have been left at any time. Making two things clear. That there was "no forensic evidence linking LM directly to the murder" that any presence of his DNA was of no value. Letting the court know the case was to be heard upon circumstantial evidence.

Two separate entities. "There was no forensic evidence found linking Luke Mitchell to the murder" not that there was "No DNA found of Luke Mitchell's at the scene (clothing/victim)"

Why blank and manipulate around the actual reason for that agreement? - It allows for nonsense such as "He managed to clean all trace of himself whilst leaving others"

There was no forensic evidence found pointing this murder to that of a stranger, to, a another. Proceeding with this case around circumstantial evidence equates to having nothing that can eliminate that evidence. There is no 'silver bullet' to be found that will erase the evidence that convicted LM. SK and the presence of his sperm/semen did not erase the evidence that convicted LM, neither did it erase the presence of LM's DNA.

You are being spun a yarn, led into some fantasy of hope. That something magical could happen by re-testing the original samples. For goodness sake, one has not even been told what the actual findings of the SCCRC were, why do you think that is? It has been that claim of 'they didn't carry out enough testing adequately?' What does that even mean? That they failed to produce some 'silver bullet?' Or that they simply clarified and confirmed more so the presence of LM's DNA. That agreement made, that whilst we are going to leave LM's DNA aside, proceed purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there was no claim by the defence that only SK's DNA was found and none of LM's. Definitely however, that the presence of SK's had to be explained in full.

I asked that question on the red forum to the man who has himself as a forensic expert. What 'silver bullet' can be found to erase the case against LM? We already had before that Jury the semen/sperm of another person, someone else's DNA - wake up.

The only and main thing to highlight in this, once more is the why? Why, if SL is not playing dumb around this agreement, does she NOT know the actual reason for it? This self professed expert? Because it is not about truth and disclosure it is about deflection and bias? It is about using what can be sourced and manipulating around that which can not be sourced. - If it didn't say it in the media then it can't be true scenario? It allows for nonsense waffle, around applying multiple reasons as to why it MAY have been made, distracting from the actual reason. Where one wished to invent this 'forensic evidence' around a circumstantial case.


The old massive button phone scenario again? - Does this prove LM was not the killer? Where you are blatantly applying your intellect to this, are you not? If I was the killer I would not have been aware of such things as forensic evidence, man handling my phone with contaminated fingers. All this 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' -  Forensically aware, affluent, time and data being knocked out repeatedly, entirely indicative of someone having more than one handset, swapping sims about. That is logic, looking to reason why it was always knocked out. But the straightforward answer is that of being protected (the phone from contamination). The only planning required is awareness.

And this 'walking away from the murder with nothing upon him?' - Don't be silly now. No one nabbed LM directly after the murder. If this had happened and there was nothing upon him, then that really would have been proof of innocence. It didn't.

DNA…absolutely no value to either side. Agreed, so shall we move on?

Now back to that phone.

‘ All this 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' -  Forensically aware, affluent, time and data being knocked out repeatedly, entirely indicative of someone having more than one handset, swapping sims about.’

Forensically aware? How so? Was there anything in Luke’s background that pointed to him in any way being forensically aware? He had never been involved with the police, had never had any reason to know anything about trace evidence etc so what evidence actually supports your claim?

Affluent? Perhaps but still no proof that he had another mobile.

Data being knocked out repeatedly? What does that even mean? Could you extrapolate?

If your points are indicative of anything it’s simply your bias. There is absolutely no evidence that Luke had more than one handset. What also has to be considered is at that time it was almost impossible for you to simply swap a SIM card from one handset to another. The handset ordinarily had to be unlocked in order to accept a sim from a different handset. Was there any evidence at all that either Luke had a second handset or had transferred his SIM card at any point?

As to protecting his phone from contamination, how do you think he did that?

[Playfair1]

You are probably best if you stick to uploading cosplay video's to YouTube, simply, not only you are absolutely hopeless at deflection, but you are also useless at dealing with logic & common sense.

You are probably best if you stick to uploading cosplay video's to YouTube, simply, not only you are absolutely hopeless at deflection, but you are also useless at dealing with logic & common sense.

Still at the old let's try and belittle to put a stop to any sensible logical debate , somethings never change .

Let's be clear if their is one person who has an abundance of logic and common sense it's Faithfully , just review the short to the point answers that blows Parkys essays of pure imagination filled with fancifull words to distract as most of the comments are so utterly confusing and have zero logic and certainly do not follow a common sense approach , they certainly don't follow any evidence, did he get washed in the brook , did he run through the streets naked , just cause their is no ACTUAL REAL evidence doesn't mean anything  (the expert view from Parky of the Internet) , you people are a danger to a good fair society .

Police investigation described as a shambles by the liaison officer, the highest of  judge states the investigation was deplorable , they were outrageous .  How many more adjectives that all mean POOR AND INCOMPETENT do you people need . Wakey Wakey

Then their is all the actual EXPERTS , people who have a career, reputation they are not going to support and put their reputation at stake unless their expertise drives them to a certain conclusion.  . Even the forensic expert who examined Jodi does not support , still nothing , no bells ringing 🔔📢📢

That's before you get to your most hated ones Dr Lean and SForbes , not even going to use these as the fact that the investigation was beyond poor is enough for me to say this needs a review .  Sadly you may see the wrong but you can turn a blind eye , I simply can't unsee the problems with this and it starts way before Sandra Lean got on the scene , she is a messenger who highlighted it all together. The media slander before court , does that sound fair would you have been happy if it was your kid who faced the wrath of the media before stepping in to court .  So if you think he had a fair trial then you are too far gone .

You are a dwindling few but really it's pure and simple logic that  directs most sensible people to their reasons for wanting it reviewed .  Do you think thousands and thousands of people have been put into trance and we all want to let murderers out in the street , catch a grip . 

it starts with the investigation their is enough information that could logically lead you to being untrusting of the investigation. Described as a SHAMBLES, DEPORABLE , OUTRAGEOUS. DF was flabbergasted with the knowledge of the lead detective not being aware of basic processes, still nothing in your wee brain that is saying hold on a minute this may be flawed , how deplorable did they get , how outrageous did they get on a 14 year old kid, maybe you and your pal should WAKE THE HELL  UP 📢📢

[Davie2]

This is quite the rant, and an aggressive tone at that, and you are talking about sensible logical debate. Ummmm ok.

Police investigation described as a shambles by the liaison officer, the highest of  judge states the investigation was deplorable , they were outrageous .

Non of that makes Luke innocent.

Then their is all the actual EXPERTS , people who have a career, reputation

Are we going to go down this route again? Most of those experts may have built careers, but they most certainly have ruined their own reputations.

Do you think thousands and thousands of people have been put into trance

We have millions put into a trance and vote Tory, 10'000's put into a trance & turn themselves into suicide bombers. What's your point?

DF was flabbergasted with the knowledge of the lead detective not being aware of basic processes

You got a link for that, i would be highly interested in reading DF words for myself.

[Faithlilly]

This is quite the rant, and an aggressive tone at that, and you are talking about sensible logical debate. Ummmm ok.

Non of that makes Luke innocent.

It does however introduce reasonable doubt with regard to the conviction.

Are we going to go down this route again? Most of those experts may have built careers, but they most certainly have ruined their own reputations.

I’d be grateful if you could provide a list of experts of a similar calibre who support Luke’s conviction? 

We have millions put into a trance and vote Tory, 10'000's put into a trance & turn themselves into suicide bombers. What's your point?

A rather weak comparison

You got a link for that, i would be highly interested in reading DF words for myself.

The prosecution’s own witnesses testified to the shoddiness of the investigation.

[Davie2]

Do you just sit & refresh this forum minute after minute?

Anyway quote properly will ya.

[Faithlilly]

Do you just sit & refresh this forum minute after minute?

Anyway quote properly will ya.

Back on topic please.