Good morning, I don't have a lot of time, as I'm working today, but I'll try to answer outstanding points.
Firstly, thanks to Oncesaid for posting the transcript - I had intended to do so last night, but didn't get home until late, and got caught up in other things.
Secondly, Lithium, I'm happy to discuss the case when I have time - just because I don't respond immediately doesn't mean I have "left" or I am hiding, it just means I'm busy.
So let's take care of the "lies."
Luke did not phone the speaking clock from his landline previously, he called it from his mobile. That is a fact, verified by the phone logs. May I ask where you got the erroneous information that he called from the landline, as you have mistakenly posted that here as a fact when it is not. (Notice I'm not in any way calling you a liar, just pointing out an error which can be verified by the phone logs.)
You were also mistaken about Luke's description of Jodi's clothes, as Oncesaid has kindly demonstrated - Luke explained, several times, that he did not see Jodi after school, and was describing the clothes she wore that afternoon. If that description matches some of the clothes that Jodi was wearing when she was murdered, then a simple explanation is that Jodi didn’t change all of her clothes before leaving (Luke doesn’t describe what Jodi was wearing under her hoodie), or, alternatively, Jodi didn’t change her clothes at all – remember, we only have Judy’s say-so that Jodi changed anything, and Judy couldn’t remember what Jodi was wearing when she came in from school or when she left.
Your two “reliable sources” appear to be a media article and the appeal decision. I’ll leave the media article to one side for now – we are all aware of how easily inaccuracies creep into those, and deal with the appeal decision.
oh dear
" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "
Oh dear, indeed! He described a scrunchy that Jodi sometimes wore in her hair – he did not say he saw it that night. However, the body had been touched by AW, potentially moving Jodi’s head, and also by the first officers at the scene, before photographs were taken, so how can anyone say what was “readily visible” before the body was moved? The bit about naming the tree is just nonsense, and you’ll note this document is only prepared to go as far as “implied” he had seen her later than at school – it’s all smoke and mirrors. By the way, if you are quite insistent that this document is accurate and reliable, perhaps you can explain why the judges are quite sure that the search trio of AW, SK, and JaJ left from JUDY’s house that evening? All of the evidence says they left from AW’s – if, in fact, they left from Judy’s then there are a whole new series of questions to be answered.
You seem quite keen to brand me a liar, Lithium, in big, bold, capital letters (it’s known in some circles as raising your font
) yet each of your claims about me being dishonest have been systematically dismantled by the available evidence. I’m sorry if you don’t like that evidence, or wish it wasn’t true, but those are the facts of the matter. Your approach is quite aggressive, in my opinion – fair enough, if that’s the way you generally communicate, but, to be honest, it irks me a little when I’m doing my best to answer a whole deluge of questions, and you make demands rather than requests.
Your last quote about “honest reporting.” You speak about 20 “chapters” of evidence (makes it sound like a veritable tome) but don’t tell us what that evidence is. Witness statements are “evidence” – yes, of course they are. When they are discredited, they are unreliable evidence, and cause convictions to be overturned.
Bryson did not identify Luke in court. Normally, prior statements are not allowed to be considered as evidence unless they are adopted on the stand. Bryson did not adopt her identification on the stand, yet, in this instance, her previous statement was allowed to become evidence. That’s called changing the rules. You raised the point about the legitimacy of evidence – I’d be interested in your thoughts on the legitimacy of this rule change. So, no eyewitness identification, as defined in law, at the Easthouses end. Also, she refused to identify a parka, or agree that the jacket was like a parka, in her evidence at trial.
Fleming and Walsh were ripped apart on the stand – all of their original statements, every one of them, said they did not see the youth’s face, and could only identify him again by his hair and clothing. Luke Mitchell was wearing a suit in court. One of them said she was identifying him in the dock because of his eyes – she would never forget those eyes, she said – eyes she had never previously seen! They admitted making their “identification” from a picture in the Daily Record, weeks after the murder. May I have your thoughts on the legitimacy of an eyewitness identification made from newspaper photographs of the “prime suspect?” You might want to refer to the work done by Tim Valentine and others to check out how this sort of thing stands legitimately. So, no reliable identification at the Newbattle end either.
Cell site analysis, which would have proven conclusively if Luke’s phone had travelled from west to east and back again (showing that he was out of the house) was never obtained by the police. The Legal Aid board blocked an attempt by the defence to obtain it. Why? Were they afraid that it would destroy their case, by supporting Luke’s alibi that he was at home the whole time? It’s an awfully convenient “oversight” by the police, and a completely inexplicable decision by the Legal Aid Board.
Remember, the defence request for a second opinion on the forensic reports was also never completed.
Just because this evidence wasn’t obtained didn’t mean it didn’t exist. How can we be sure any decisions, made in the absence of this information, are safe or correct?
There was no forensic evidence of any description - no DNA, no fibres, hairs, fingerprints, shoeprints, identified as Luke’s found on the body, clothing, or at the scene. No weapon. If I were claiming that the absence of DNA evidence alone is the reason this conviction is unsafe, I’d be somewhat misguided – for what it’s worth, I don’t do stupid! But that’s not what I’m claiming at all – you misrepresent me again, Lithium.
So where is the evidence that Luke killed Jodi? There is none. You can make any song and dance you like about circumstantial evidence, but what does it “prove” in this case? The answer is nothing – it does not, and can not, prove that Luke killed Jodi. If you can, Lithium, please list the “evidence” you believe proves that Luke killed Jodi, and also why you think it proves it.
It is not a lie that evidence pointing to other people was ignored, as I have demonstrated several times in the past. It is not a lie that witnesses were pressured – there are statements to that effect which I cannot post for legal reasons, but, if you are patient, this will be verified soon enough. So, once again, Lithium, you are mistaken. I did not lie, I have not been dishonest in any way.
I have to go now, and will be away until fairly late this evening, then I’m working early tomorrow, so it might be a few days before I have time to post again.
