Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: David1819 on October 23, 2019, 06:53:PM
-
Here is Luke wearing a "German Army Parka"
https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html (https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html)
You can see the German flag on both shoulders in the photo.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/undated-image-of-luke-mitchell-outside-his-home-in-dalkeith-after-a-picture-id829482020?s=612x612)
Is this what the police never recovered but Corrine "replaced" later on?
-
Hahaha! A photo of Luke wearing what Sandra claims never existed.
-
Hahaha! A photo of Luke wearing what Sandra claims never existed.
yes she already explained it was bought after the murder
-
Here is Luke wearing a "German Army Parka"
https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html (https://www.epicmilitaria.com/olive-bundeswehr-parka-with-liner.html)
You can see the German flag on both shoulders in the photo.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/undated-image-of-luke-mitchell-outside-his-home-in-dalkeith-after-a-picture-id829482020?s=612x612)
Is this what the police never recovered but Corrine "replaced" later on?
Why would he have been wearing a parka coat on 30th June? I am not saying he didn't because I don't know but it seems heavy attire for the height of summer.
Who actually saw him wearing this coat on 30th June?
Did he wear the coat to school on 30th June?
Was he wearing the coat when he met David High?
-
Why would he have been wearing a parka coat on 30th June? I am not saying he didn't because I don't know but it seems heavy attire for the height of summer.
Who actually saw him wearing this coat on 30th June?
Did he wear the coat to school on 30th June?
Was he wearing the coat when he met David High?
Maybe these two threads could be merged. Wasn't it Andrina Bryson who spotted a teenager in a parka along with a young female at the entrance to Roan's Dyke?
-
Maybe these two threads could be merged. Wasn't it Andrina Bryson who spotted a teenager in a parka along with a young female at the entrance to Roan's Dyke?
Yes I believe so. But she did not id Luke in an identity parade but from photographs. More importantly she was unable to identify Luke at court as the individual she observed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4054775.stm
-
Yes I believe so. But she did not id Luke in an identity parade but from photographs. More importantly she was unable to identify Luke at court as the individual she observed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4054775.stm
I think you have to be in court to be able to give an impartial judgement, and even then you might get it wrong. I am on record saying that there should be a retrial held away from the Edinburgh area due to the disgraceful press coverage leading up to the conviction.
-
I think you have to be in court to be able to give an impartial judgement, and even then you might get it wrong. I am on record saying that there should be a retrial held away from the Edinburgh area due to the disgraceful press coverage leading up to the conviction.
Yes I agree. It was a truly horrific murder and it seems the people of Scotland were determined someone was going to be held accountable regardless.
I have no idea if he's guilty or not but from my albeit limited understanding it sounds dodgy to me.
-
Eight separate witnesses testified in court that Luke Mitchell had owned and worn a green parka jacket prior to the murder (see cite below). In fact, there were actually about 20 people in total that said they had seen LM wearing a parka jacket before the murder, but they cherry-picked 8 out of those to use in court that were the most incriminating. The most incriminating of all came from a teacher at St David’s RC High School (this teacher had left just before the 2003 semester ended) who said he had seen LM walking around the school playground in the parka before the 30.06.03, and that the used to joke that LM looked like a ‘hooded monk’ with it on. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket: once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers, AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909
-
Eight separate witnesses testified in court that Luke Mitchell had owned and worn a green parka jacket prior to the murder (see cite below). In fact, there were actually about 20 people in total that said they had seen LM wearing a parka jacket before the murder, but they cherry-picked 8 out of those to use in court that were the most incriminating. The most incriminating of all came from a teacher at St David’s RC High School (this teacher had left just before the 2003 semester ended) who said he had seen LM walking around the school playground in the parka before the 30.06.03, and that the used to joke that LM looked like a ‘hooded monk’ with it on. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket: once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers, AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909
I think you need to do some more research. The Parka argument has been totally discredited in recent videos and argued on this forum (Suggest you read the posts from the last couple of weeks) to the extent that even Luke is recorded as saying he wore a green bomber jacket on the date to school and later that evening when questioned by police who took the item. No forensic evidence was forthcoming from the log burner and any of its parts. No signs of clothing materials were found. You are obviously still mesmerised by hysteria of the case and the media circus that pilloried the lad even before the trial.
More on the parka in this thread.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11074.45.html
-
(the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).
If Luke Mitchell is being pictured wearing a parka in the press alongside coverage saying he's the only suspect then the police interview locals of course they'll find some that say he had a parka.
Just like they had numerous witnesses to say he had a German army shirt.
Andrina Bryson did not allude to German flags you really need to put a source for that claim.
According to Sandra Lean AB maintained throughout her time on the stand that it was not a parka that she seen and she did not identify Luke Mitchell despite the press coverage. The first mention of a parka in the case files is from RW when she said 'it could have been a parka'.
Before this the police were questioning Luke Mitchell about a German army shirt that they already had in their possession.
Even if you were to believe he had a parka before the murder which he didn't, how would a parka stop blood transfer and keep him clean head to toe? How does a Parka stop Luke's DNA transferring to Jodi?
Where's the time to give it to his mum to burn then clean up while staying dirty? It makes no sense when you look at the parka evidence for what it is.
-
Eight separate witnesses testified in court that Luke Mitchell had owned and worn a green parka jacket prior to the murder (see cite below). In fact, there were actually about 20 people in total that said they had seen LM wearing a parka jacket before the murder, but they cherry-picked 8 out of those to use in court that were the most incriminating. The most incriminating of all came from a teacher at St David’s RC High School (this teacher had left just before the 2003 semester ended) who said he had seen LM walking around the school playground in the parka before the 30.06.03, and that the used to joke that LM looked like a ‘hooded monk’ with it on. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket: once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers, AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909
It would explain the vigilantism directed against the caravan site, though not excuse it.
-
I think you need to do some more research. The Parka argument has been totally discredited in recent videos and argued on this forum (Suggest you read the posts from the last couple of weeks) to the extent that even Luke is recorded as saying he wore a green bomber jacket on the date to school and later that evening when questioned by police who took the item. No forensic evidence was forthcoming from the log burner and any of its parts. No signs of clothing materials were found. You are obviously still mesmerised by hysteria of the case and the media circus that pilloried the lad even before the trial.
More on the parka in this thread.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11074.45.html
I’m having none of it. Yes, LM had worn a green bomber jacket to school that day, yes he was positively identified wearing the green bomber jacket on n’battle rd @ 1800 hrs by 3 boys who knew him, yes the police took the bomber jacket in the early hours of the morning of 01.07.03 .... but ..... what was LM wearing between 1638 - 1800? It wasn’t a sunny day that day — was dull and overcast most of the day and had been threatening to rain all day — so it stands to reason that LM would’ve worn a heavier jacket with hood. Now on to the crux of the matter: LM wasn’t seen after the LF&RW sighting @ 1740, until 1800. This was a busy road at peak time, so why wasn’t he seen for 20 mins? He was seen by 6 different witnesses on the nbattle rd between 1800-1815 (2 of those 6 said it wasn’t him, marion o’sullivan and derek hamilton, but I think they were mistaken). I’ll tell you why he wasn’t seen between 1740 - 1800 ... he went home via the shortcut in the woodlands to change his clothes, facilitated by CM (and he didn’t necessarily go into his house at this point to change ... cm or sm could easily had passed clothes out to him in that house/garage that was well concealed with trees, bushes, climbing ivy).
-
I’m having none of it. Yes, LM had worn a green bomber jacket to school that day, yes he was positively identified wearing the green bomber jacket on n’battle rd @ 1800 hrs by 3 boys who knew him, yes the police took the bomber jacket in the early hours of the morning of 01.07.03 .... but ..... what was LM wearing between 1638 - 1800? It wasn’t a sunny day that day — was dull and overcast most of the day and had been threatening to rain all day — so it stands to reason that LM would’ve worn a heavier jacket with hood. Now on to the crux of the matter: LM wasn’t seen after the LF&RW sighting @ 1740, until 1800. This was a busy road at peak time, so why wasn’t he seen for 20 mins? He was seen by 6 different witnesses on the nbattle rd between 1800-1815 (2 of those 6 said it wasn’t him, marion o’sullivan and derek hamilton, but I think they were mistaken). I’ll tell you why he wasn’t seen between 1740 - 1800 ... he went home via the shortcut in the woodlands to change his clothes, facilitated by CM (and he didn’t necessarily go into his house at this point to change ... cm or sm could easily had passed clothes out to him in that house/garage that was well concealed with trees, bushes, climbing ivy).
Do you think the crime was premeditated germaine?
-
If Luke Mitchell is being pictured wearing a parka in the press alongside coverage saying he's the only suspect then the police interview locals of course they'll find some that say he had a parka.
Just like they had numerous witnesses to say he had a German army shirt.
Andrina Bryson did not allude to German flags you really need to put a source for that claim.
According to Sandra Lean AB maintained throughout her time on the stand that it was not a parka that she seen and she did not identify Luke Mitchell despite the press coverage. The first mention of a parka in the case files is from RW when she said 'it could have been a parka'.
Before this the police were questioning Luke Mitchell about a German army shirt that they already had in their possession.
Even if you were to believe he had a parka before the murder which he didn't, how would a parka stop blood transfer and keep him clean head to toe? How does a Parka stop Luke's DNA transferring to Jodi?
Where's the time to give it to his mum to burn then clean up while staying dirty? It makes no sense when you look at the parka evidence for what it is.
AB had only seen that couple for a few seconds while being preoccupied with 2 young kids in the back of her car. She did well to recollect what she did, including the girl she saw too. And, contrary to what SL says, AB did not say the male had thick shaggy hair; she said he had a lot of sandy hair, shoulder length hair sticking up at the back in clumps, that reminded her of the character of Shaggy from the Scooby do movie that came out around that time. Pathologist at the scene said it would be surprising if the perp did not have blood on him — not impossible. Blood spraying forward with the perp behind the victim, cutting and slashing, is a possible explanation for a lack of blood on the perp. Besides, LM was forensically aware and, imo, he had help in destroying his clothes that night and changing into other clothes. Funny how the boys that he met up with in the abbey (David High & David Tulloch) testified in court that LM was more cleaner and more kempt that evening. A lot more tidier and cleaner than his usual scruffy self. Funny that, eh? The circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming, imo.
-
Do you think the crime was premeditated germaine?
It’s hard to tell, Steveuk. My hunch is no. I think they started arguing at 1654 (ab spotted them arguing at the lane), they obviously continued arguing as they walked westward down the rdp towards nbattle, and the argument reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall (cyclist lk heard ‘strangling noises’ that gave him a fright and made him slow down). btw, luke and jodi had been arguing at school that day ... this was testified in court ... lots of info out there re this case, but some of it is now hard to find to cite.
sorry for any typos ... i’m typing from my iphone.
-
It’s hard to tell, Steveuk. My hunch is no. I think they started arguing at 1654 (ab spotted them arguing at the lane), they obviously continued arguing as they walked westward down the rdp towards nbattle, and the argument reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall (cyclist lk heard ‘strangling noises’ that gave him a fright and made him slow down). btw, luke and jodi had been arguing at school that day ... this was testified in court ... lots of info out there re this case, but some of it is now hard to find to cite.
sorry for any typos ... i’m typing from my iphone.
Did Sandra mention this in her book? By the way: could you introduce yourself in the Forum?
-
so after estroying one parker jacket he thn goes an buys one thats exatly the same not exactly credible is it.
-
so after estroying one parker jacket he thn goes an buys one thats eatly the same not exactly credible is it.
It is if the first one was bloodstained.
-
so you doent ont ineintfeid as man in a parka jackat so you but a parker jacket thats absurd.
-
so you ont ineintfeid as man in a parka jackat thats absurd.
Maybe mother and son thought it would be better to get a replacement to avoid talk, who knows? By the way: I wish people wouldn't conceal information or views as it devalues this website.
-
Maybe mother and son thought it would be better to get a replacement to avoid talk, who knows? By the way: I wish people wouldn't conceal information or views as it devalues this website.
This is a public forum and you should not IMO, identify a person as a potential killer without watertight evidence. I do not hide my views.
-
"I’ll tell you why he wasn’t seen between 1740 - 1800 ... he went home via the shortcut in the woodlands to change his clothes, facilitated by CM (and he didn’t necessarily go into his house at this point to change ... cm or sm could easily had passed clothes out to him in that house/garage that was well concealed with trees, bushes, climbing ivy)."
So he rocked up to his garage bear in mind no witnesses ever claimed that the garage door was open this is your speculation, and shouted to him mum and brother that he'd just murdered Jodi and asked for help to change and clean up, they obliged and this clean up was done in less than 15 mins taking into account the time for him to get from the Newbattle end of the path then from his house to the end of his street? Why just burn the parka why not the t-shirt trousers and shoes?
"AB had only seen that couple for a few seconds while being preoccupied"
Again how could she allude to the German army flags if this is the case?
"And, contrary to what SL says, AB did not say the male had thick shaggy hair"
I did not mention what SL says in regards to this I mentioned her in regards to AB saying it was not a parka she saw.
"Blood spraying forward with the perp behind the victim, cutting and slashing, is a possible explanation for a lack of blood on the perp."
This might go some way to explaining lack of blood transference from one particular wound that was inflicted it does not account for the whole scenario that happened. Derek Scrimger who agreed with Alan Turnbull QC that that was one possibility also agreed with Findlay that if Jodi's clothes had been removed after death that the perpetrator would likely be blood stained. Initially the police believed the attacker would be heavily bloodstained and asked the public to be aware of and report anyone with bloodstained clothing or anyone who handed bloodstained items into the dry cleaners.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI%27S+WRISTS+TIED+UP+WITH+TROUSERS%3B+Expert+tells+of+body+found+at...-a0126143100
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/DERANGED+JODI+KILLER+SOAKED+IN+HER+BLOOD%3B+Girl%27s+throat+slit+in...-a0104595665
"Funny how the boys that he met up with in the abbey (David High & David Tulloch) testified in court that LM was more cleaner and more kempt that evening. A lot more tidier and cleaner than his usual scruffy self. Funny that, eh? The circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming, imo."
Luke was forensically examined by a police doctor that night who said his hair was greasy and unwashed and he had rings of dirt around his neck and ankles and dirt under his nails, suggesting he hadn't washed at all recently. I'm more inclined to believe this over the testimony of friends who had been led to believe for 10 months leading up to trial that Luke was the only suspect.
"I think they started arguing at 1654 (ab spotted them arguing at the lane)"
The 2008 appeal puts AB's sighting at between 4:50pm and 4:55pm Luke was on the phone to the speaking clock at 4:54pm which the prosecution claimed he was out of the house possibly checking the time as he was on his way to meet Jodi. Why would he phone the speaking clock if he was already in the company of Jodi and arguing. AB made no mention of a phone and said the male that she seen had his hands outstretched in front of him.
"The circumstantial evidence against LM was overwhelming, imo."
The appeal Judges described the evidence as ;
'open to challenge' (AB's sighting), 2. capable of an innocent explanation (the 'finding' of the body) and 3. 'not unequivocal' (Luke's brother saying that he didn't know whether Luke was home or not). This was their strongest 'evidence'
All the Satanism Marilyn Manson and Black Dahlia evidence was not to be founded upon at appeal.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
This is a public forum and you should not IMO, identify a person as a potential killer without watertight evidence. I do not hide my views.
It's the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion primarily, but we discuss other topics also.
-
This is a public forum and you should not IMO, identify a person as a potential killer without watertight evidence. I do not hide my views.
No circumstantial case will ever be watertight. Never ever, by its very definition. However, LM was found guilty by a majority verdict in what was longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish criminal history. He had the best defence lawyer in the land in DF. His subsequent appeals have failed. Tells you all you need to know. Lm may very well be innocent, but I’d be extremely surprised if he was. The circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming, imo.
-
as far a ican see tere isnt even a cercumstancel case.
-
as far a ican see tere isnt even a cercumstancel case.
He found the body for a start. He was the victim's boyfriend. The alibi was provided by his mother. True it's all circumstantial. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
-
He found the body for a start. He was the victim's boyfriend. The alibi was provided by his mother. True it's all circumstantial. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
thatnot a cecumsancel ae none of that oul be consiered evence evedence.
you cant ay well hes a boyfrien so he must of done itan if the harged everyone who found i dont thinkthey woul eer fin any.
-
No circumstantial case will ever be watertight. Never ever, by its very definition. However, LM was found guilty by a majority verdict in what was longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish criminal history. He had the best defence lawyer in the land in DF. His subsequent appeals have failed. Tells you all you need to know. Lm may very well be innocent, but I’d be extremely surprised if he was. The circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming, imo.
I think you may have misread or misunderstood my post. My point was in relation to naming an alternative suspect. You cannot do that without watertight evidence on a public forum. I accept that LM was convicted according to law and that the evidence against him was circumstantial. The media circus that preceded the trial and other reporting during the ten month leading up to charging may have had an affect on some jurors. I also know this was rejected on appeal. The story (for that is what it is in a trial) produced by the prosecution we now know was a gross exaggeration on many aspects for example the Manson stuff. This too swayed the jury. Our system of justice is not perfect and mistakes are made albeit inadvertently.
I do not like to think that LM has been wronged but equally I would not want it to happen to another without a watertight case.
-
By the way: I wish people wouldn't conceal information or views as it devalues this website.
I'm unsure who you are referring to but I completely agree with this view which is why I can't understand why you keep posting links across the board to the Sun and Daily Records main articles on the case.
AT the time of Jodi's murder, Mitchell was described as having an interest in knives, and owned a 4 inch 'skunting' blade.
That knife and its pouch were not found during an extensive police search of Mitchell's home.
During another search the following year, the pouch was recovered - featuring a number of inscriptions including the numbers 666 and "JJ 1989 - 2003", marking Jodi's birth and death.
A further quote also read: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife.
From <https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/>
This article is very misleading and conceals a lot of information.
Corrine purchased a 4 inch 'skunting' blade in December 2003 5 months after the murder. If Luke did not own it "at the time of the murder" it makes sense that it wasn't found during the initial search on the 4th of July 2003.
Dobbie believed this was a replacement knife. There is no evidence put forward to support Dobbie's theory.
Mr Dobbie said: "When we searched the house we also found a knife pouch with the inscription ‘JJ 1989-2003’ and the numbers 666 written on it and one of Jodi’s favourite quotes. It was like some kind of memorial to Jodi.
"We made inquiries and discovered that Mrs Mitchell had bought a knife which came with a pouch identical to this one in December 2003. She said she had bought it for him to go on a camping trip. But why purchase that knife. It seemed bizarre, bearing in mind Jodi had been killed and that her son was a suspect.
"We started to question whether that knife was a replacement to one he had previously."
From <https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415>
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
Professor Anthony Busuttil also said that this knife was too small to have caused the injuries inflicted on Jodi's tonsil without damaging the Luke Mitchells hand. There were no injuries on Luke's hand when he was examined. Professor Busuttil has appeared in both the recent channel 5 documentary and the 2007 BBC documentary made about this case.
"When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife."
During the section 14 interview/interrogation, police showed Luke a photograph of a knife, asking if he recognised it.
Luke confirmed that it was his fishing knife.
The detective went on to ask: Where’s that knife now?
Luke replied: I don’t know the police have probably got it.
The detective asked: You’ve no idea where it is?
Luke: Well, considering you’ve got photos of it, I take it you’ve got it, haven’t you?
The police went on to show Luke another photo of another knife, which Luke confirmed was a knife used for opening boxes at work. The detective asked again: “Where did that go?”
Luke replied: “Well, considering you’ve got the photos, you’ve got it, haven’t you?”
The detective replied: “Well, how did we get it then?”
There was nothing to say that any of these knives had been used in Jodi’s murder.
Sandra Lean
Innocents Betrayed
-
I'm unsure who you are referring to but I completely agree with this view which is why I can't understand why you keep posting links across the board to the Sun and Daily Records main articles on the case.
AT the time of Jodi's murder, Mitchell was described as having an interest in knives, and owned a 4 inch 'skunting' blade.
That knife and its pouch were not found during an extensive police search of Mitchell's home.
During another search the following year, the pouch was recovered - featuring a number of inscriptions including the numbers 666 and "JJ 1989 - 2003", marking Jodi's birth and death.
A further quote also read: "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife.
From <https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/>
This article is very misleading and conceals a lot of information.
Corrine purchased a 4 inch 'skunting' blade in December 2003 5 months after the murder. If Luke did not own it "at the time of the murder" it makes sense that it wasn't found during the initial search on the 4th of July 2003.
Dobbie believed this was a replacement knife. There is no evidence put forward to support Dobbie's theory.
Mr Dobbie said: "When we searched the house we also found a knife pouch with the inscription ‘JJ 1989-2003’ and the numbers 666 written on it and one of Jodi’s favourite quotes. It was like some kind of memorial to Jodi.
"We made inquiries and discovered that Mrs Mitchell had bought a knife which came with a pouch identical to this one in December 2003. She said she had bought it for him to go on a camping trip. But why purchase that knife. It seemed bizarre, bearing in mind Jodi had been killed and that her son was a suspect.
"We started to question whether that knife was a replacement to one he had previously."
From <https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415>
According to pathologist Professor Anthony Busuttil, the murder weapon which caused the injuries to Jodi's throat was a "stout, sharp-pointed, blade".
Professor Anthony Busuttil also said that this knife was too small to have caused the injuries inflicted on Jodi's tonsil without damaging the Luke Mitchells hand. There were no injuries on Luke's hand when he was examined. Professor Busuttil has appeared in both the recent channel 5 documentary and the 2007 BBC documentary made about this case.
"When questioned, Mitchell failed to provide an explanation over the missing knife."
During the section 14 interview/interrogation, police showed Luke a photograph of a knife, asking if he recognised it.
Luke confirmed that it was his fishing knife.
The detective went on to ask: Where’s that knife now?
Luke replied: I don’t know the police have probably got it.
The detective asked: You’ve no idea where it is?
Luke: Well, considering you’ve got photos of it, I take it you’ve got it, haven’t you?
The police went on to show Luke another photo of another knife, which Luke confirmed was a knife used for opening boxes at work. The detective asked again: “Where did that go?”
Luke replied: “Well, considering you’ve got the photos, you’ve got it, haven’t you?”
The detective replied: “Well, how did we get it then?”
There was nothing to say that any of these knives had been used in Jodi’s murder.
Sandra Lean
Innocents Betrayed
So how long was the fishing knife? Really there is so much subterfuge involved in this case.
-
So how long was the fishing knife? Really there is so much subterfuge involved in this case.
Yes I agree with that too but I see it coming from the investigation, the prosecution and the media.
It is no secret that Luke Mitchell carried a knife. Us discussing the length of his fishing knife that the police had in their possession has no bearing on anything. One would imagine that those knives would have been forensically examined and the lengths measured and checked against Jodi's injuries. They were not part of the prosecutions case or the knife that the media talks about.
-
so after estroying one parker jacket he thn goes an buys one thats exatly the same not exactly credible is it.
CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.) The crux of the matter here is that, imo, the knife bought from the catalogue was a replacement for the knife that went missing (the one that LM had to get rid of as he had used it as a murder weapon, imo). Likewise, I think this is what happened with the parka bought in July ‘03 — it was bought as a replacement. At the time the new parka was bought, I think the Mitchells were probably very confident they wouldn’t get caught — but deeply underestimated how perceptive the police were and the power of circumstantial evidence. I think Luke banked on the parka not being problematic as a.) he’d disposed of the the old one that might’ve had incriminating forensic evidence on it; b.) if the parka did become a problem, he’d banked on the change into the bomber jacket creating confusion in eyewitnesses’ accounts and rendering any potential police investigation messy and confusing (this ties in with Luke’s devious nature); c.) Luke thought he was invincible and untouchable and thought he could outsmart police in the long-run (a narcissistic personality).
-
Eight separate witnesses testified in court that Luke Mitchell had owned and worn a green parka jacket prior to the murder (see cite below). In fact, there were actually about 20 people in total that said they had seen LM wearing a parka jacket before the murder, but they cherry-picked 8 out of those to use in court that were the most incriminating. The most incriminating of all came from a teacher at St David’s RC High School (this teacher had left just before the 2003 semester ended) who said he had seen LM walking around the school playground in the parka before the 30.06.03, and that the used to joke that LM looked like a ‘hooded monk’ with it on. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket: once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers, AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves (Andrina Bryson also alluded to these).
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909
Descriptions of the outerwear are inconsistent. Andrina Bryson describes the person she observed as follows:
She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Was it outerwear with a collar or a hood? ?
Why did Andrina Bryson refer to the outerwear as a fishing-style jacket with its collar up if it was a hooded parka?
Please provide a source where Andrina Bryson refers to badges of the German national flag on the sleeves?
Research shows eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when carried out properly which in this case it wasn't. Andrina Bryson was not casually strolling along taking in the sight and sounds but moving at speed in charge of a motor vehicle. As I am sure you know she was unable to identify Luke at trial.
-
CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.) The crux of the matter here is that, imo, the knife bought from the catalogue was a replacement for the knife that went missing (the one that LM had to get rid of as he had used it as a murder weapon, imo). Likewise, I think this is what happened with the parka bought in July ‘03 — it was bought as a replacement. At the time the new parka was bought, I think the Mitchells were probably very confident they wouldn’t get caught — but deeply underestimated how perceptive the police were and the power of circumstantial evidence. I think Luke banked on the parka not being problematic as a.) he’d disposed of the the old one that might’ve had incriminating forensic evidence on it; b.) if the parka did become a problem, he’d banked on the change into the bomber jacket creating confusion in eyewitnesses’ accounts and rendering any potential police investigation messy and confusing (this ties in with Luke’s devious nature); c.) Luke thought he was invincible and untouchable and thought he could outsmart police in the long-run (a narcissistic personality).
Is there any evidence that Luke ever owned a knife capable of inflicting the wounds sustained by Jodie described by the pathologist?
Is there any evidence that Luke has been diagnosed with a mental illness or personality disorder?
-
No circumstantial case will ever be watertight. Never ever, by its very definition. However, LM was found guilty by a majority verdict in what was longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish criminal history. He had the best defence lawyer in the land in DF. His subsequent appeals have failed. Tells you all you need to know. Lm may very well be innocent, but I’d be extremely surprised if he was. The circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming, imo.
Stefan Kiszko supposedly had a good defence lawyer in David Waddington who went on to become Home Secretary but it didn't prevent his case being one of the worst miscarriages of justice. The case also went to and fro the appeal courts until it was eventually overturned.
-
It’s hard to tell, Steveuk. My hunch is no. I think they started arguing at 1654 (ab spotted them arguing at the lane), they obviously continued arguing as they walked westward down the rdp towards nbattle, and the argument reached its horrific climax at 1715 behind that wall (cyclist lk heard ‘strangling noises’ that gave him a fright and made him slow down). btw, luke and jodi had been arguing at school that day ... this was testified in court ... lots of info out there re this case, but some of it is now hard to find to cite.
sorry for any typos ... i’m typing from my iphone.
Sally Ann Dixon argued with her boyfriend inside his car outside her house for over an hour. She then got out the car and attempted to walk a few metres to her front door before she was savagely murdered by Mark Dixie. Initially all concerned thought the boyfriend was responsible until DNA exonerated him.
The fact Jodie and Luke had arrangements to meet is neither here nor there. Where are the exhange of text messages between the pair allowing us to see exactly what was agreed upon?
-
CM bought LM a skunting knife from a catalogue in Dec 2003, allegedly for a future camping trip — the exact same knife that LM had previously owned but which had now, er, coveniently, went missing after the murder and which has still never been found to this day. (And we know he owned such a knife, as its pouch was found with a tribute Jodi inscribed on it.)
Not necessarily.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520)
-
Not necessarily.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-10746520)
The above press article is coming up for 12 years old. What connects the knife found with either Luke or the murders?
-
The above press article is coming up for 12 years old. What connects the knife found with either Luke or the murders?
Nothing as far as I can see and the police did not test it. Nor did they test another knife found hidden in a drystone wall. CM had no problem with either find and wanted them tested because they might have evidence of the killers DNA as well as JJ's.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-jodi-jones-killer-fresh-16534131
-
Descriptions of the outerwear are inconsistent. Andrina Bryson describes the person she observed as follows:
She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Was it outerwear with a collar or a hood? ?
Why did Andrina Bryson refer to the outerwear as a fishing-style jacket with its collar up if it was a hooded parka?
Please provide a source where Andrina Bryson refers to badges of the German national flag on the sleeves?
Research shows eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when carried out properly which in this case it wasn't. Andrina Bryson was not casually strolling along taking in the sight and sounds but moving at speed in charge of a motor vehicle. As I am sure you know she was unable to identify Luke at trial.
I just did a google image search there of ‘khakhi hip length fisherman’s jacket with collar up’ .... most of the results were indistinguishable from a parka jacket with hood up. So, that debunks this stuff that the jackets look totally different. AB, even though only seeing this couple for 2-5 seconds, got a great view of them (they were diagonally on her right hand side at the entrance to the path as she approached the roundabout. She was drawn to this couple, as they seemed to be having a quarrel: AB noticed LM standing a few yards down the path from the girl, with his arms by his sides and palms outstretched facing upwards. It was odd behaviour and she was drawn to it and managed to capture it fleetingly, like a photograph; those few fleeting seconds of this couple embedded in her mind like the snap of a photograph. And she gave a description of the male: guy with messy sandy shoulder length hair with clumps at the back, like shaggy from scooby-do movie, wearing a khaki hip length fisherman’s type jacket (such was its length that AB said the it looked like the male was wearing khaki trousers). Likewise with the girl, AB gave a decent description despite such a fleeting glance at her: girl had her back to AB, was wearing dark blue top and dark baggy trousers, dark brown hair. AB even said she was ‘taken aback’ by just how much the male she saw that day looked like a photograph of a male she had seen in a newspaper in August ‘03 (RW or LF said “oh my god, it’s him!”, when the saw lm’s photograph in a newspaper; unequivocal and certain it was the same individual they saw on n’battle rd looking suspicious and up to no good), and likewise she identified LM from a book of photographs the police had shown her (yeah, it was the only photo with long hair and a white background, but she still identified him). As for AB not identifying him in court, LM was going through puberty and still developing and growing; he looked like a completely different person by the time the trial came around. Besides, AB didn’t say it definitely wasn’t him — she said she ‘didn’t know’. She was simply being honest.
-
ytheres a simple explantion for why the knife was never found the killer took it with them.
-
ytheres a simple explantion for why the knife was never found the killer took it with them.
Makes sense to me because killers can have a favourite weapon
-
AB gave a decent description despite such a fleeting glance at her: girl had her back to AB, was wearing dark blue top and dark baggy trousers, dark brown hair.
Please don't alter the known facts to suit your own narrative there is enough confusion in this case already.
She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans.
From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>
DF's argument regarding the evidence given by RW and LF:
Counsel also drew attention to pages 344 to 345 of the transcript of proceedings of 1 December 2004, which recorded the evidence of Lorraine Fleming. She had seen news photographs and reports of the appellant. It was contended that what she described amounted to the "building up of a piece of evidence" concerning identification. It was submitted that the foregoing examples showed that media coverage had had a significant influence in relation to witnesses.
From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>
RF&LW described the person that they saw as looking 'cheesed off' and 'up to no good' no sign that he's just committed a murder at all he just stood out because he was dressed differently.
"The picture which triggered your memory is one we have not yet seen in this court. You might not like it but it has to be right."
He said whatever the picture was, it could not have been Luke Mitchell.
He added: "What it does demonstrate, does it not, is that people, however genuine, however honest, however hard they are trying, people can sometimes make mistakes which can have very serious consequences."
"Yes," agreed Mrs Fleming.
From <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4058945.stm>
"AB didn’t say it definitely wasn’t him — she said she ‘didn’t know’. She was simply being honest."
Source?
AB said Luke Mitchell was not the man she saw and that it was not a parka
AB was also supposed to be an independent witness. Her brother in law is a close family relation to Jodi's family and was in and out Jodi's Grans house in the first weeks after the murder. This was discussed at trial with DF quizzing Janine on how well she knew AB and her husband.
-Innocents Betrayed
It's great to have an opinion but it's even better to keep an open mind in the face of new information.
-
The uniform of Newbattle high at the time. There was a concert on at the school that night. Could AB's sighting be a case of mistaken identity?
-
The uniform of Newbattle high at the time. There was a concert on at the school that night. Could AB's sighting be a case of mistaken identity?
Why didn’t the couple ever come forward? It’s not too big of an area. There is a chance they decided against coming forward for fear of being wrongly accused of a murder (highly unlikely, though, imo). I think it’s also significant that there hasn’t been another such murder in Dalkeith and surrounding areas.
-
Nobody was actively searching for them. There have been no public appeals for them to come forward.
It took a long time (I don't have the exact date to hand) for the police to trace a blonde woman pushing a buggy that they believed from other witness reports to have been in the area at the same time.
They also appealed for a man who was seen near to the school with the bonnet of his car open to come forward. I'm not sure if he was ever traced.
How broad is your definition of similar? Similar in terms of young female found in the woods or similar injuries? Similar MO?
There's many reasons that have been discussed at length on this forum and others.
Some examples are;
The killer moved to a different area
They've already been apprehended for another crime
It was a one off. Not all killers are serial killer who don't stop unless they're caught, some try it once and realise they didn't enjoy it as much as they thought they would.
I'm not accusing anyone just pointing out that as unlikely as it sounds there were two offenders who knew the local area that had the propensity to brutally murder in a similar way to the way Jodi was killed. They were not known to the investigation at the time and thankfully they have both been apprehended.
-
Source?
AB said Luke Mitchell was not the man she saw and that it was not a parka
AB was also supposed to be an independent witness. Her brother in law is a close family relation to Jodi's family and was in and out Jodi's Grans house in the first weeks after the murder. This was discussed at trial with DF quizzing Janine on how well she knew AB and her husband.
-Innocents Betrayed
Jeez, are you still using different screen handles to sell your book. Case is closed my dear, no amount of pointing the finger at the Jones to a few conspiracy theorists on a forum will make one bit of difference.
-
ytheres a simple explantion for why the knife was never found the killer took it with them.
What was LM doing between 1830 and 1930? No reports of him during this time whatsover. Very strange. He phoned David High to meet up at the abbey at 1930. He phoned DH twice, to hurry him up, and yet no concern for Jodi, no phoning to see where she was or chasing her up. David High and others asked Luke where Jodi was as they found it odd they weren’t together like they usually were most evenings and Luke told them that Jodi wasn’t coming out. It’s also significant that the guys who met up with LM that evening in the abbey testified in court that LM looked a lot cleaner than usual. LM said he went home at 9pm and watched some dvds until he took Mia a walk at 1030pm, but neighbour Mr Ramage said he saw LM going home at 10pm as he settled down to watch the news. Where was LM coming from at 10pm? His statement to police was that he left the boys at the abbey at 9pm and that he went home and watched dvds in his room until 1030pm. Why? Anyway, LM had a great deal of time unaccounted for .... and certainly a lot of time to dispose/destroy incriminating evidence, and that includes the residue from the log burner.
-
Source?
AB said Luke Mitchell was not the man she saw and that it was not a parka
AB was also supposed to be an independent witness. Her brother in law is a close family relation to Jodi's family and was in and out Jodi's Grans house in the first weeks after the murder. This was discussed at trial with DF quizzing Janine on how well she knew AB and her husband.
-Innocents Betrayed
Does Innocents Betrayed cite the sources of its information?
It seems not. Here is one readers review -
"I bought this book after watching a documentary. I'm very sceptical of the information that is presents. Has this book been fact-checked? I'm also aware that witness statements presented in this book, are only partial. I understand laws, stop the author from presenting full witness statements, but these statements will be 1000's of words long, is the author cherry-picking what to present?
What is the authors qualifications on forensic science? Or is this just the author opinion?
This only gets 2 stars from me, I was expecting more facts after watching the documentary. I'm very sceptical of the facts that this book is presenting. I can't help but think it is more based of theory, with cherry-picked statements to back that theory up."
-
Does Innocents Betrayed cite the sources of its information?
It seems not. Here is one readers review -
"I bought this book after watching a documentary. I'm very sceptical of the information that is presents. Has this book been fact-checked? I'm also aware that witness statements presented in this book, are only partial. I understand laws, stop the author from presenting full witness statements, but these statements will be 1000's of words long, is the author cherry-picking what to present?
What is the authors qualifications on forensic science? Or is this just the author opinion?
This only gets 2 stars from me, I was expecting more facts after watching the documentary. I'm very sceptical of the facts that this book is presenting. I can't help but think it is more based of theory, with cherry-picked statements to back that theory up."
Contrary to what the above poster thinks Dr Sandra Lean isn't here to defend herself so I won't comment on her as a person or as an author. From my own research, I've found that the majority of what she says and the gist of her narrative is backed up by reporting at the time and the Judges views in the 2008 appeal.
I don't feel like I've been overly reliant on referencing Innocents Betrayed I've provided a good mix of links to the appeal documents, reporting at the time, and the documentaries that cover the case so that others can do their own research and form their own opinions without having to read Innocents Betrayed.
Your issues with Sandra Lean seem to be getting in the way of having a discussion about the case.
She is not the only person to have concerns about Luke Mitchells conviction. And no matter how much you try to discredit them all as individuals, the information they give and the narrative they tell doesn't change.
Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)
-
Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)
The good old copy and paste doing the rounds.
When did Busuttil put his name to anything?
The rest are either in it for an easy buck, or happy to promote innocent fraud. Need to do better my dear.
-
The above press article is coming up for 12 years old. What connects the knife found with either Luke or the murders?
Not every murder is synonymous with an Agatha Christie novel. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
"AB didn’t say it definitely wasn’t him — she said she ‘didn’t know’. She was simply being honest."
Source?
From an old article in The Herald:
Earlier, witness Andrina Bryson, 26, said she was ''taken aback'' when she saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in a tabloid newspaper last August.
In her evidence, she told the court she saw a male person at the entrance to the Roan's Dyke path on the day Jodi died at around 4.50pm or 4.55pm.
The male was looking towards a girl and he had his arms by his side, with his palms facing out in front of him, the court had been told.
The witness was asked about a photograph she had seen in the press.
'I saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in the paper,'' she told the court, adding: ''It looked like the same person I had seen.''
In a statement given to police, which was read out in court, the witness said: ''The person in this picture I am sure was the same person as I saw at the top of the path.''
But, asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: ''I don't know.''
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410745.witness-heard-strangling-sound-near-path-the-day-jodi-died/
-
Contrary to what the above poster thinks Dr Sandra Lean isn't here to defend herself so I won't comment on her as a person or as an author. From my own research, I've found that the majority of what she says and the gist of her narrative is backed up by reporting at the time and the Judges views in the 2008 appeal.
I don't feel like I've been overly reliant on referencing Innocents Betrayed I've provided a good mix of links to the appeal documents, reporting at the time, and the documentaries that cover the case so that others can do their own research and form their own opinions without having to read Innocents Betrayed.
Your issues with Sandra Lean seem to be getting in the way of having a discussion about the case.
She is not the only person to have concerns about Luke Mitchells conviction. And no matter how much you try to discredit them all as individuals, the information they give and the narrative they tell doesn't change.
Samantha Poling (Investigative Journalist 2007 BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=7s )
Professor Busuttil (Pathologist in the case)
Roy Ramm (Former Commander Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard)
Professor Tim Valentine (Expert in eye-witness identification)
John Scott QC (Criminal Defence Lawyer)
Dr Keith Ashcroft (Consultant Forensic Psychologist)
Nicholas Scullion (Lawyer)
Bob Smyth (Journalist who arranged the lie-detector)
Mark Safarik (Retired FBI profiler with the BAU)
Neil MacKay (Investigative Journalist previous editor of the herald)
Sara Gomes (Forensic Scientist, The Forensic Institute)
Prof Allan Jamieson (Head of the Forensic Institute)
DR Sandra Lean (Criminologist)
Terry Mullins (Professional Lie Detection & Polygraph Services Member of the American Polygraph Association)
John Sallens (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9R4BxpUPo4 )
Michael Neill (Ex-detective/private investigator Chanel 5 Doc P.2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_gm9YnOP0&t=1821s )
Richard Hoskins (criminologist, with expertise in African ritual crime)
Professor Ekman (Psychologist & Pioneer in the study of emotions facial expressions)
Fantastic post outlining the difficulty the guilty brigade that are lost and overwhelmed with hate of one person , it's really rather sad that they can't put their hate and bias aside and look logically at this case.
The weight they give to evidence like a person calling talking clock compared to a persons scientific genetic footprint being on a murder victim continues to astound me .
Anyway great to see all those credible experts listed again in support of this case being unsafe , a matter of time .
-
From an old article in The Herald:
Earlier, witness Andrina Bryson, 26, said she was ''taken aback'' when she saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in a tabloid newspaper last August.
In her evidence, she told the court she saw a male person at the entrance to the Roan's Dyke path on the day Jodi died at around 4.50pm or 4.55pm.
The male was looking towards a girl and he had his arms by his side, with his palms facing out in front of him, the court had been told.
The witness was asked about a photograph she had seen in the press.
'I saw a photograph of Luke Mitchell in the paper,'' she told the court, adding: ''It looked like the same person I had seen.''
In a statement given to police, which was read out in court, the witness said: ''The person in this picture I am sure was the same person as I saw at the top of the path.''
But, asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: ''I don't know.''
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12410745.witness-heard-strangling-sound-near-path-the-day-jodi-died/
AB identification is seriously undermined by her description esp of the female , in your minds eye imagine the picture- black/ dark hair navy hoodie and boot cut trousers lighter than top possibly denims, she does not see either of these people faces, it was a couple of seconds but I think her clothes description has the detail I would be happy with. Now picture Jodi with auburn hair goffed out in all black , black hoody with very big sign on the back ( I think it was orange)very baggy black trousers their is a lot in Jodi clothes that I would logically think stands out . I put these two images together and my logical brain says this might not be Jodi. Add the guy who is average height and build for late teens early 20's fitted out in it seems full combat gear fishing jacket and all , hair brown or ginger in a clump with his hands out , call it padentic but the prosecution say she was at a certain position that had to be 4:53/4 , Luke is calling the talking clock. Also Luke at the age of fourteen was no average size guy for adult early 20's . I simply don't give any weight to this , I feel their is enough argument to the possibility this was not Jodi and Luke. Further something that I have always questioned is her first account great discriptions with clothes detail and hair but she never seen their faces. How does someone pick out someone when she hasn't seen their face . The picture was extremely manipulative and that's not just Sandra , D Findlay goes after it in the appeal . TBH to me this point has been proved to be problem and the appeal stated as much , that was finally upheld for argument , so progress.
After all the emphasis they put on AB crucial sighting she goes to court and will not commit , I think this lady did the right thing even although it took her to get to court to say she is not sure, and their is no way she was fooled by his changed appearance she knew what she had to do and a sense of consciousness kicked in and she just wasn't sure. She never seen his face , but then sees the paper and has a omg moment as she was so taken aback by the face of Luke Mitchell , SHE NEVER SAW his FACE( sorry not being rude with caps just wanted to emphasise a point that troubled me from the beginning.
-
It was definitely weird the fact that CM bought LM an identical parka jacket so soon after the murder (was bought on the 08.07.03). Didn’t they both think it would come back to bite them in some way, especially as LM must have known that people saw him on 30.06.03? They didn’t think that the police would eventually deduce it was a replacement parka? Or perhaps they thought it would work in their favour — i.e., that they thought the police would think they wouldn’t be so stupid to buy a jacket that LM was wearing when he murdered Jodi? It’s definitely very odd CM buying him the new parka, don’t you think?
-
Had to open a new account, can’t get password for my old account, so just stuck a 1 on the end on my user name.
Hi Germane, I agree buying an identical jacket seems a strange thing to do, unless he did not own one to start with. I know his mum bought a parka but also said this was the only one, he did not own one before. There was no missing parka. But there were witnesses that seen him and were called to court to confirm. One, I think , was his teacher. What I was wondering is were any of the witnesses his friends or family or Jodi’s friend or family. People he hung around with all the time, these would be the people would know if he had one before July. To my knowledge the police were also never able to produce any evidence the parka existed like photos, cctv etc. I’m not sure if he had one or not but I definitely do not believe it was burnt in his back garden, more likely if he did do it, then it was dumped in a bin somewhere that was emptied the next day.
-
Admin sorted my password, thanks!
-
Did Sandra mention this in her book? By the way: could you introduce yourself in the Forum?
No. There are a lot of facts from this case that were conveniently omitted from ‘Innocents Betrayed’. Funny how SL fails to mention the 8 witnesses who testified in court that LM owned and had been seen wearing a green parka jacket with hood PRIOR to the murder (there were about 20 witnesses in total who were willing to testify in court that they had seen LM wearing a green parka jacket before the murder, but the Prosecution whittled it down to 8 to give evidence at court). The most compelling and incriminating evidence of all was the testimony from a school teacher at LM’s school who retired that 2003 semester; this teacher was very specific and made it crystal clear that he had seen LM walking around St David’s high school playground wearing the green parka BEFORE the murder and that he and fellow teachers used to joke that LM looked akin to a “hooded monk” with it on. In addition, she also fails to mention in IB the boys in the abbey who said in court that Luke looked a lot cleaner and less scruffy that evening when they met up with him, and omits the testimony of cyclist Leonard Kelly who heard disturbing strangling human noises behind the wall as he was cycling past RDP when going home to Easthouses at 1710/1715. So much more missing from Sandra Lean’s ‘Innocents Betrayed’ — for she doesn’t have access to ‘everything’ (a huge misconception that she does) and she did not attend and sit through the 9-week original trial. As a few others have stated on here already, there are a few areas of the case that SL has exploited and misrepresented in an attempt to try and muddy the waters, but, ultimately, it merely amounts to misinformation and waffle. Basically, clutching at straws.
-
Jeez, are you still using different screen handles to sell your book. Case is closed my dear, no amount of pointing the finger at the Jones to a few conspiracy theorists on a forum will make one bit of difference.
Davie what are you talking about here , who do you think Roadrunner is ...
I also think this case is far from closed my dear otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it today , the reason simply and clearly this case has serious question marks , the biggest one for me is the unexplainable , incomprehensible forensic analysis of this crime , I'm pretty shocked that you don't seem to think it has any relevance to this case . I maybe spoiled as I watch / read about the fantastic developments in Forensic science and how this type of evidence has propelled the police forward, having great techniques to identify the criminals with undisputable unmovable genetic footprint being left at a scene . I almost feel we have to forget all about the amazing advancements when it comes to the Luke Mitchell case, I m not okay with that , this was a murder a horrific one at that , I do believe we need some reassurance around this area , this is what you call undisputable evidence . We have a right to know who those unidentifiable male profiles belong to , if it's Luke then reassurance they got it right. But if like stag/Napper case the DNA provides a full profile of somebody else then we have to fix , end of.
Hope they run some tests to bring clarity for all sides
-
Had to open a new account, can’t get password for my old account, so just stuck a 1 on the end on my user name.
Hi Germane, I agree buying an identical jacket seems a strange thing to do, unless he did not own one to start with. I know his mum bought a parka but also said this was the only one, he did not own one before. There was no missing parka. But there were witnesses that seen him and were called to court to confirm. One, I think , was his teacher. What I was wondering is were any of the witnesses his friends or family or Jodi’s friend or family. People he hung around with all the time, these would be the people would know if he had one before July. To my knowledge the police were also never able to produce any evidence the parka existed like photos, cctv etc. I’m not sure if he had one or not but I definitely do not believe it was burnt in his back garden, more likely if he did do it, then it was dumped in a bin somewhere that was emptied the next day.
Totally agree with your views here , I find it suspicious that none of the people to give evidence hung out with Luke , now it would have been more compelling if his close pals , neighbours who would see him leave the house were witnesses to the magic jacket , the one he wore all the time yet not a single piece of photographic , public cctv video from around the area not one visual piece of evidence to say he ever owned the magic jacket , nothing found of any evidential value to say it was burned in the mini BBQ , no visual or solid evidence to say the magic jacket ever existed.
One of the witnesses at trial admitted to DF he remembered the jacket because of the picture of him in a long jacket in the media , his reliability in his memory was from the media , that could have happened to the teacher.
But let's talk about the teacher , we all emmediate assume he's credible , is it possible he made the same mistake as the other witness did, I just don't know with this one tbh
But again something that could have supported the teacher is the fact he said he made a comment to other teachers how he looked like a monk or something like that , they could have corroborated his account by having the teacher he mentioned the monk comment to to support his account , but alas just another piece that is missing .
-
Had to open a new account, can’t get password for my old account, so just stuck a 1 on the end on my user name.
Hi Germane, I agree buying an identical jacket seems a strange thing to do, unless he did not own one to start with. I know his mum bought a parka but also said this was the only one, he did not own one before. There was no missing parka. But there were witnesses that seen him and were called to court to confirm. One, I think , was his teacher. What I was wondering is were any of the witnesses his friends or family or Jodi’s friend or family. People he hung around with all the time, these would be the people would know if he had one before July. To my knowledge the police were also never able to produce any evidence the parka existed like photos, cctv etc. I’m not sure if he had one or not but I definitely do not believe it was burnt in his back garden, more likely if he did do it, then it was dumped in a bin somewhere that was emptied the next day.
Hi, Bullseye. Funnily enough, I was going to ask if anyone knew who these witnesses were specifically (the people who testified in court that they had seen LM wearing a green parka before the murder). The cite I provided upthread doesn’t state specifically who these 8 witnesses were. So much info is missing from this case and not in the public domain, so it’s frustrating for us people with an interest in it. Ideally, we would have every statement from the defence and prosecution, every single case file from both defence & prosecution, and also a high definition film of the entire court proceedings with high quality audio. I think he had the same parka before the murder, disposed of it and was bought a new one. 8 people saying he did is damning and incriminating, imo. Furthermore, on the Shirley McKie tapatalk website, there is a thread exclusively on the LM case and it contains some interesting — sometimes obscure — info on the case. One of the most interesting pieces of info I’ve read from that site was from a woman with the username ‘alison’, and you can tell from her posts that she’s not a troll or anyone with an agenda against either Luke or Jodi. This woman grew up near LM & JODJ and said her two children knew both LM & JODJ and said that both her children had been deeply traumatised by the case (she never mentioned if her children were called as witnesses to court; she made a point of not revealing too much of her family and personal details, which was fair enough and sensible). Anyway, this woman called alison said, categorically, that she had seen LM wearing a green parka a couple of times before the murder — one of her sightings was a couple of weeks before the murder and the other was in late May, 2003. She indicated that Jodi was with Luke in one of these sightings. She also said that if she was ever called to court and had to give the evidence of her sightings of LM with the green parka on before the murder that she would, and also claimed that CM was a liar for denying any knowledge of Luke having a parka before the murder (alison never said she had seen CM with LM when he was wearing the parka before 30.06.03, but maybe this is what she was implying by that comment?). She also said that she thought LM was guilty. This info from alison in regards to the parka was enough to convince me that LM did definitely own one before the murder.
Oh, also, this alison also said that green fibres were found but not enough to prove anything. Interesting.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-new-thread-t600-s1170.html
-
Lukes friend and people close to him would be more likely to know if he wore a parka. Be interesting to know who these 8 were, I think that’s important. The police must have interviewed everyone close to him. Wonder what docs Sandra might have on that? I know she can’t name names but something like - a close friend of Luke, a relative of Jodi, the milk man? Like you said so much info missing it really can be a guessing game on some stuff. Maybe Sandra might find the time one day to release what info she can.
-
Totally agree with your views here , I find it suspicious that none of the people to give evidence hung out with Luke , now it would have been more compelling if his close pals , neighbours who would see him leave the house were witnesses to the magic jacket , the one he wore all the time yet not a single piece of photographic , public cctv video from around the area not one visual piece of evidence to say he ever owned the magic jacket , nothing found of any evidential value to say it was burned in the mini BBQ , no visual or solid evidence to say the magic jacket ever existed.
One of the witnesses at trial admitted to DF he remembered the jacket because of the picture of him in a long jacket in the media , his reliability in his memory was from the media , that could have happened to the teacher.
But let's talk about the teacher , we all emmediate assume he's credible , is it possible he made the same mistake as the other witness did, I just don't know with this one tbh
But again something that could have supported the teacher is the fact he said he made a comment to other teachers how he looked like a monk or something like that , they could have corroborated his account by having the teacher he mentioned the monk comment to to support his account , but alas just another piece that is missing .
Hi, Fairplay1. You make valid points in most of your posts. I’m not trying to be smart here or anything like that. but do you honestly think a teacher would not be able to differentiate between seeing a pupil from his high school before the 30.06.03 and after? All 8 witnesses were crystal clear that their sightings of LM in the parka were BEFORE the murder. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket. Once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves). But, yes, it would be interesting to know who the other 6 witnesses were and what they said in court. The link I provided upthread says it was ‘family, friends, neighbours and teachers’. Remember, the police had about 20 separate
witnesses who were willing to testify that LM had the jacket
before 30.06.03, but only used 8 in court. They all can’t be wrong, surely? And 8 is surely enough to prove, unequivocally, that he did?
-
Hi, Fairplay1. You make valid points in most of your posts. I’m not trying to be smart here or anything like that. but do you honestly think a teacher would not be able to differentiate between seeing a pupil from his high school before the 30.06.03 and after? All 8 witnesses were crystal clear that their sightings of LM in the parka were BEFORE the murder. Another important piece of evidence came from a young lad who said he had seen LM with the green parka on in an off-licence — called Eskbank Trading — before the murder. Donald Findlay tried to trip this lad up by asking him how he knew LM had this jacket. Once the lad answered, “because of the murder and everything”, DF gleefully inferred that that had meant this lad only saw LM with the parka on in the newspapers AFTER the murder. However, the young lad went on to clarify that he had definitely seen LM with it on BEFORE the murder and that another reason he remembered this was because his mother owned the exact same jacket (the lad also spoke of the distinctive badges of the German national flag on the sleeves). But, yes, it would be interesting to know who the other 6 witnesses were and what they said in court. The link I provided upthread says it was ‘family, friends, neighbours and teachers’. Remember, the police had about 20 separate
witnesses who were willing to testify that LM had the jacket
before 30.06.03, but only used 8 in court. They all can’t be wrong, surely? And 8 is surely enough to prove, unequivocally, that he did?
Hi Germane , hope you are well
All those witnesses and it seems none of them particularly knew him. The teacher is not infallible because he's a teacher , if that boy got mixed up with the picture in the paper then their is also a chance others may have done so , not a certainty but possible. DF proved that boys recollection of the jacket is because of the paper , he can say all he wants after the fact but he was proven to be unreliable by his own admission of the murder and Luke in a long jacket.
What happened to that teacher, I heard he left the school not long after the murder , did he just leave was he asked to leave who knows . All I'm saying is the identification of that jacket being owned before the murder would have carried more weight if it was from people who seen him every day , even his neighbours.
I also have been speaking to someone who was friends with both Jodi and Luke and She comes across very fair and honest and very balanced , I have asked her straight out and she gave a resounding No to this jacket , this was a person who was friends with Jodi and Luke so I'm not buying the magical jacket there is not one piece of photographic evidence of its existence, not one shred of residue from the mini BBQ to indicate a cleanup not one but of ash.
Now , I must pick you up on something , I believe I asked you some weeks ago was their any evidence of fibres found on Jodi say from a fishing style jacket, I know the answer to this but then you mention this woman had mentioned their was fibres , I don't know if I'm picking you up right with this but it's the first time I have heard someone mention fibres on Jodi so wanted to know if that was just here say from some woman on the net or was it fact.
I always found it interesting the story of the fishing jacket which Luke had to have on as that would protect him from blood yet their were no fibres found on Jodi , I can only assume that because if such fibres were on body the prosecution would have used it to support him having the magic jacket on, but sadly like most of this case when we get to real evidence it's yet again missing much like the knife is missing .
Just wish the evidence they used gave me the same reassurance as you have , Why did they not ask his pal from the abbey who was giving evidence about the fishing jacket if he wore it all the time surely this guy would have been good to ask , he was already giving evidence why is it only people that do not hang around with Luke that gave evidence- that has me yet again suspicious
-
Hi Germane , hope you are well
All those witnesses and it seems none of them particularly knew him. The teacher is not infallible because he's a teacher , if that boy got mixed up with the picture in the paper then their is also a chance others may have done so , not a certainty but possible. DF proved that boys recollection of the jacket is because of the paper , he can say all he wants after the fact but he was proven to be unreliable by his own admission of the murder and Luke in a long jacket.
What happened to that teacher, I heard he left the school not long after the murder , did he just leave was he asked to leave who knows . All I'm saying is the identification of that jacket being owned before the murder would have carried more weight if it was from people who seen him every day , even his neighbours.
I also have been speaking to someone who was friends with both Jodi and Luke and She comes across very fair and honest and very balanced , I have asked her straight out and she gave a resounding No to this jacket , this was a person who was friends with Jodi and Luke so I'm not buying the magical jacket there is not one piece of photographic evidence of its existence, not one shred of residue from the mini BBQ to indicate a cleanup not one but of ash.
Now , I must pick you up on something , I believe I asked you some weeks ago was their any evidence of fibres found on Jodi say from a fishing style jacket, I know the answer to this but then you mention this woman had mentioned their was fibres , I don't know if I'm picking you up right with this but it's the first time I have heard someone mention fibres on Jodi so wanted to know if that was just here say from some woman on the net or was it fact.
I always found it interesting the story of the fishing jacket which Luke had to have on as that would protect him from blood yet their were no fibres found on Jodi , I can only assume that because if such fibres were on body the prosecution would have used it to support him having the magic jacket on, but sadly like most of this case when we get to real evidence it's yet again missing much like the knife is missing .
Just wish the evidence they used gave me the same reassurance as you have , Why did they not ask his pal from the abbey who was giving evidence about the fishing jacket if he wore it all the time surely this guy would have been good to ask , he was already giving evidence why is it only people that do not hang around with Luke that gave evidence- that has me yet again suspicious
Hi, Fairplay1. I’m fine, thanks. Hope you are, too. The young lad who testified in court about LM owning and wearing a parka before 30.06.03 indicated that the press coverage and pictures of LM in the media wearing a green parka (with the German national flag on the sleeves) jogged his memory and made him recollect seeing LM in Eskbank Trading BEFORE the murder wearing a jacket that was identical to the jacket LM was wearing throughout the investigation; he made it clear under oath, like all the other eye witnesses who were called to give evidence regarding the green parka, that he wasn’t confused. He clarified that his sighting was unambiguously prior to the murder. The young lad even went on to add that what also made him recollect seeing LM in the shop wearing the parka before 30.06.03 was the fact that his mother owned the exact same jacket (the young lad drew attention to the distinctive German national flags on the sleeves of the jacket). I would expect the other 7 witnesses, including the HS teacher who retired at the end of the 2002/2003 semester, clarified their sightings regarding LM in the parka before the 30.06.03, as I would expect the other 13 eyewitnesses would’ve had they been summoned to court (the Crown had 20 witnesses in total who said they had seen LM in the parka before the murder, but only 8 of those were called to court). We’ve already discussed previously the inability to ascertain what evidence was led at court because of the fact that about 95% of that evidence is not — and will likely never be — in the public domain. As I said, though, this was an investigation that lasted ariund 15 months and a trial that lasted 9 weeks (for years it was the longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish legal history), so it’s not as though it wasn’t methodical or thorough. Even though a considerable amount of the evidence led at court is not in the public domain, I am very confident that the evidence that is available to us tells us that LM was guilty. I’m also reliably informed that the evidence that isn’t in the public domain — which is roughly around 95% of the case — only incriminates LM further. It’s also significant that DF, one of the finest and most eminent defence lawyers in the land, couldn’t prove LM’s innocence or get a not proven verdict. He also never put LM on the stand — for he knew that this disturbed teenager would have further incriminated himself with his attitude, demeanour and lack of emotion. The only time LM showed emotion was when he took unwell in court one day — probably because he knew that he was going to jail for murder and hadn’t outsmarted the police as he had thought.
The forum member alison from the Shirley Mckie tapatalk website mentioned that green fibres had veen found but not enough to prove anything. She didn’t mention if these fibres were found at the locus or in the CM’s log burner. (I provided a link upthread to alison’s posts ... just read through that other forum when you have time and form your own opinion.)
Look, this was a murder investigation and trial. A considerable amount was at stake (understatement), both for the deceased and the accused. The police had to get it right, and I believe they did. The forensics were not conclusive, so a very robust and strong circumstantial case was needed and I think the Prosecution achieved this and the right person was and is incarcerated. This case had its flaws. Most notably, for me, anyway, was the initial crime scene management; the body should have been covered and not moved from its original position, and each item of Jodi’s clothing should have been put in protective bags separately and not bundled together in a heap like they were. A lot of people reference the police’s ‘deplorable’ and ‘outrageous’ tactics used during their interrogations of the Mitchells, but I think these unorthodox tactics were necessary in order for the police to go toe to toe with a devious and cunning family who, imo, lied throughout the investigation and trial, literally trying to get away with murder (SM, in fairness, told the truth under oath). Besides, the Judge at the trial and the Judges who oversaw LM’s appeal all agreed that the police interrogations of LM throughout the investigation did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Obviously, no one can be 100% certain if LM was guilty as there was no direct evidence. The only way we will ever know is if the killer makes a full confession
-
Hi, Fairplay1. I’m fine, thanks. Hope you are, too. The young lad who testified in court about LM owning and wearing a parka before 30.06.03 indicated that the press coverage and pictures of LM in the media wearing a green parka (with the German national flag on the sleeves) jogged his memory and made him recollect seeing LM in Eskbank Trading BEFORE the murder wearing a jacket that was identical to the jacket LM was wearing throughout the investigation; he made it clear under oath, like all the other eye witnesses who were called to give evidence regarding the green parka, that he wasn’t confused. He clarified that his sighting was unambiguously prior to the murder. The young lad even went on to add that what also made him recollect seeing LM in the shop wearing the parka before 30.06.03 was the fact that his mother owned the exact same jacket (the young lad drew attention to the distinctive German national flags on the sleeves of the jacket). I would expect the other 7 witnesses, including the HS teacher who retired at the end of the 2002/2003 semester, clarified their sightings regarding LM in the parka before the 30.06.03, as I would expect the other 13 eyewitnesses would’ve had they been summoned to court (the Crown had 20 witnesses in total who said they had seen LM in the parka before the murder, but only 8 of those were called to court). We’ve already discussed previously the inability to ascertain what evidence was led at court because of the fact that about 95% of that evidence is not — and will likely never be — in the public domain. As I said, though, this was an investigation that lasted ariund 15 months and a trial that lasted 9 weeks (for years it was the longest trial of a single-accused in Scottish legal history), so it’s not as though it wasn’t methodical or thorough. Even though a considerable amount of the evidence led at court is not in the public domain, I am very confident that the evidence that is available to us tells us that LM was guilty. I’m also reliably informed that the evidence that isn’t in the public domain — which is roughly around 95% of the case — only incriminates LM further. It’s also significant that DF, one of the finest and most eminent defence lawyers in the land, couldn’t prove LM’s innocence or get a not proven verdict. He also never put LM on the stand — for he knew that this disturbed teenager would have further incriminated himself with his attitude, demeanour and lack of emotion. The only time LM showed emotion was when he took unwell in court one day — probably because he knew that he was going to jail for murder and hadn’t outsmarted the police as he had thought.
The forum member alison from the Shirley Mckie tapatalk website mentioned that green fibres had veen found but not enough to prove anything. She didn’t mention if these fibres were found at the locus or in the CM’s log burner. (I provided a link upthread to alison’s posts ... just read through that other forum when you have time and form your own opinion.)
Look, this was a murder investigation and trial. A considerable amount was at stake (understatement), both for the deceased and the accused. The police had to get it right, and I believe they did. The forensics were not conclusive, so a very robust and strong circumstantial case was needed and I think the Prosecution achieved this and the right person was and is incarcerated. This case had its flaws. Most notably, for me, anyway, was the initial crime scene management; the body should have been covered and not moved from its original position, and each item of Jodi’s clothing should have been put in protective bags separately and not bundled together in a heap like they were. A lot of people reference the police’s ‘deplorable’ and ‘outrageous’ tactics used during their interrogations of the Mitchells, but I think these unorthodox tactics were necessary in order for the police to go toe to toe with a devious and cunning family who, imo, lied throughout the investigation and trial, literally trying to get away with murder (SM, in fairness, told the truth under oath). Besides, the Judge at the trial and the Judges who oversaw LM’s appeal all agreed that the police interrogations of LM throughout the investigation did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Obviously, no one can be 100% certain if LM was guilty as there was no direct evidence. The only way we will ever know is if the killer makes a full confession
Hi Germane
Guess what forum I've been reading for the past week the the tapa site with
the poster Alison lol . I wanted to go back 10 years maybe for different reasons than yourself as you will probably notice their is a few posters who completely support miscarriage and who have now changed their view , very dramatically might I say. I want to know what/why they changed , so totally sidetracked for a while.
So Alison , who seen Luke with the fishing jacket on , she is a random person who is saying he had it on yet when pushed to give a detail account of this sighting she digresses, not saying she is lying but she did not give evidence and was not at court ( neither was I ). Is it at all possible Alison may be covering for the real murderer , well we don't know . It's just a random person adding their bit but not actually involved.
To follow on from this I was on one of the many utube videos ( sorry can't remember which one ) where another random by the name of Elizabeth stated " my daughter gave evidence in court and she showed the court a picture of Luke in the fishing jacket with her daughter and a few other friends", I jumped on this comment as I knew she was lying if such a photograph existed it would not only have been reported on it would be in all the papers, it was embarrassing and I told the poster to show us proof , alas I still await that photo.
So here's my take on the fishing jacket/army shirt and bomber - of the six people who gave evidence why was none of them friends, neighbours who would surely have seen him coming and going in the the jacket that made him look like a monk. That evidence would have been more weight for me from people who hung out or seen him every day .
My next question would be around the police investigation and how they gathered these witnesses to support the fishing jacket , did they come forward after the picture in the newspaper or before- this in my view can only be answered by an Enquiry into the police investigation methods to obtain the evidence. These questions will only be answered by an Independent Enquiry which will look at the police investigation , their methods and like I say did these witnesses come forward before the picture in the paper or after, if after their is doubt as memory can be confused esp when their are ways to create confusion Ie the paper , not saying anybody is lying I'm just saying depending on dates etc it's possible for them like the boy at court to be mistaken. (Second area of convictions being overturned is witness recollection being wrong , the number one spot is DNA proving that the person they said was guilty was wrong and that is due to Forensic evidence clarifying who is guilty and who is not)
Following on from this why not one single picture not any cctv evidence of Luke in the jacket he wore all the time , so no photographic evidence or evidence even in the ashes of fibres , man made fibres of any kind found - I don't blame anybody else but the police investigation for this lack of supporting evidence of the existence of the jacket.
On the point of the boy at trial I'm not sure why you see his evidence as you do, DF asked him where his recollection was from he stated from the murder and all, that to me means his recollection of the jacket was via the newspaper with Luke in the new jacket after the murder, simply my interpretation of this is he was not a reliable witness as his memory is from a picture after the murder, maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
My biggest problem with this area is why none of the people who hung out with Luke even David High who gave evidence surely he would have been the best person to ask about the fishing jacket but to my knowledge this was not put to him. So just another piece that is missing , I would even believe a neighbour of the Mitchell's who could say yeah I seen him in the coat that he looked like a monk- nothing from these type of witnesses and that has me questioning it.
The police investigation has been slated to the point I have little faith in their competence to carry out a satisfactory investigation with supporting evidence , another example the teacher mentioned he spoke to other teachers about how he looked like a monk how about the teachers he made this statement to where are they , even just one of them to support the comment would have been good for me but alas again any type of supporting corroborating evidence like most of this case is missing.
For me Germane it's all about that police investigation, nothing to do with anything else but their failures to even the most basic areas ie crime scene , and the lack of any forensic evidence is not okay not in today's world . I sometimes forget this happened in 2003 as the lack of real solid unchangable evidence could have us thinking it was the 1980's , I am very disappointed as you can probably read with the quality of that investigation. The foundations of this case are in this investigation and that is why 20 years on this case will not go away, as the many flaws and missing pieces stands out to me. It's everything that is missing that leads me to question the conviction and in my opinion this again is down to the incompetent investigation. I only hope that an Enquiry can answer some of these missing areas for every bodies sake . The jacket is missing, the muder weapon is missing , the deleted crucial texts are missing. The forensic analysis to implicate Luke mitchel is one of the biggest flashing red flags that again is missing.
One last wee point I have read the forum that you mention Alison I have yet to come across the fibres on Jodi but to be fair I've got a few pages to go , but this is not fact again I feel it is some random who wants to be part of something and has the missing pieces. No fibres of a fishing style jacket were found on Jodi body if it was their this would have only supported the prosecution story that the perp was wearing a fishing style jacket , they did not bring this up in evidence in court so I can only assume no fibres were found or they would have used it. This supports my thoughts on " aliison" if she did say it she is like a lot of random posters making it up .
I actually think we are at least discussing it , my problem is the evidence used and the completely incompetent police investigation that leads me to uncertainty.