Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: snow66! on June 30, 2023, 07:50:PM
-
Does anyone at all know what Luke Mitchells address was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
That is, the house number of his mothers property,the house that Luke lived in before his arrest?
Its just that after looking into the case I cant seem to find this bit of information anywhere,not in any podcast or book,or anywhere else.Its just that I cant work out a complete crime scene scenario or make a final decicion about Lukes guilt without knowing the exact location of the house in relation to the surrounding woods etc.
I presume you all took the location of the house into consideration before making your final judgement on the case?
-
Does anyone at all know what Luke Mitchells address was in Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
That is the house number of his mothers property,the house that Luke lived in before his arrest?
Its just that after looking into the case I cant seem to find this bit of information anywhere,not in any podcast or book,or anywhere else.Its just that I cant work out a complete crime scene scenario or make a final decicion about Lukes guilt without knowing the exact location of the house in relation to the surrounding woods etc.
I presume you all took the location of the house into consideration before making your final judgement on the case?
It's mentioned in this article: https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-trial-shown-rock-stars-murder-pictures-2509496
-
It's mentioned in this article: https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-trial-shown-rock-stars-murder-pictures-2509496
At last! Thankyou very much Steve,well spotted.Now I can locate the property,the house numbers can be seen on google maps.
-
Well,as you can see Steve,the house is in the centre of the housing scheme away from any surrounding trees and is backed onto another row of houses so impossible to sneak in the back door.
-
Well,as you can see Steve,the house is in the centre of the housing scheme away from any surrounding trees and is backed onto another row of houses so impossible to sneak in the back door.
Maybe he just walked in and no neighbours were around to observe him go back inside his own house. Did you watch the Pat Brown video?
-
Maybe he just walked in and no neighbours were around to observe him go back inside his own house. Did you watch the Pat Brown video?
Yes I have watched most of the available podcasts Steve,she addresse's some of the obstacles like getting Jodi undressed and so on but also gets some of the facts slightly wrong.
BUT,as you can imagine Steve,I mainly concentrate on going through the crime scene scenarios,and as for no neighbours or motorists seeing Luke return to his house after the murders this seems odd,he was apparently seen at one end of the path then the other then on Newbattle Road and also sitting on a wall near to his house.
The question is,was he simply witnessed on his way back from the crime between 5.40 and 6.30 or had he already been home from the murder scene and washed up and left again at 5.40 before being witnessed by Walsh/fleming,Heatley and the push bike boys?
Both scenarios cause problems for the prosecution.
So,I am afraid this is another case of reasonable doubt for me Steve.
-
Yes I have watched most of the available podcasts Steve,she addresse's some of the obstacles like getting Jodi undressed and so on but also gets some of the facts slightly wrong.
BUT,as you can imagine Steve,I mainly concentrate on going through the crime scene scenarios,and as for no neighbours or motorists seeing Luke return to his house after the murders this seems odd,he was apparently seen at one end of the path then the other then on Newbattle Road and also sitting on a wall near to his house.
The question is,was he simply witnessed on his way back from the crime between 5.40 and 6.30 or had he already been home from the murder scene and washed up and left again at 5.40 before being witnessed by Walsh/fleming,Heatley and the push bike boys?
Both scenarios cause problems for the prosecution.
So,I am afraid this is another case of reasonable doubt for me Steve.
What I recall from the Pat Brown video: Jodi was excited to meet Luke after being grounded for smoking cannabis provided by him. She was coming from her house in Easthouses, Luke from the Newbattle opposite end of Roan's Dyke Path. Andrina Bryson spotted a couple similar to the two at the top of the path, a couple who if it was not Jodi and Luke have never come forward to eliminate themselves from a murder inquiry.
Luke was in communication with Jodi that evening via mobile telephone. Luke telephoned the speaking clock at 1654, which seems odd if he were still inside his house. Pat Brown goes into the detail of the timings, which I can't recall offhand. A search party sets out to look for Jodi around 11:30pm. Luke discovers the body and is able to give details such as the species of tree she was found by and the clasp she wore in her hair. Luke's alibi that he was mashing potatoes at home is uncorroborated.
-
What I recall from the Pat Brown video: Jodi was excited to meet Luke after being grounded for smoking cannabis provided by him. She was coming from her house in Easthouses, Luke from the Newbattle opposite end of Roan's Dyke Path. Andrina Bryson spotted a couple similar to the two at the top of the path, a couple who if it was not Jodi and Luke have never come forward to eliminate themselves from a murder inquiry.
Luke was in communication with Jodi that evening via mobile telephone. Luke telephoned the speaking clock at 1654, which seems odd if he were still inside his house. Pat Brown goes into the detail of the timings, which I can't recall offhand. A search party sets out to look for Jodi around 11:30pm. Luke discovers the body and is able to give details such as the species of tree she was found by and the clasp she wore in her hair. Luke's alibi that he was mashing potatoes at home is uncorroborated.
Yes,that is most of the prosecution case Steve,Luke going straight to the 'v' in the wall without the help of Mia,burning the parka,missing knife ,no alibi and so on.
But its when you start asking questions about the time line,the narrow window of opportunity for Luke etc. And you have proven that Luke could not have covertly returned to his house unseen after the murder by the location of the dwelling in the scheme.
One simple question Steve,at what time did Luke return home after the murder to clean up and leave his jacket to be destroyed? You will find that is not as easy to answer as you may think!
-
Yes,that is most of the prosecution case Steve,Luke going straight to the 'v' in the wall without the help of Mia,burning the parka,missing knife ,no alibi and so on.
But its when you start asking questions about the time line,the narrow window of opportunity for Luke etc. And you have proven that Luke could not have covertly returned to his house unseen after the murder by the location of the dwelling in the scheme.
One simple question Steve,at what time did Luke return home after the murder to clean up and leave his jacket to be destroyed? You will find that is not as easy to answer as you may think!
Pat Brown thinks he may have cleaned himself up in the river. In any case there's several hours left unaccounted for Luke's whereabouts if he hadn't met Jodi.
-
Pat Brown thinks he may have cleaned himself up in the river. In any case there's several hours left unaccounted for Luke's whereabouts if he hadn't met Jodi.
OK,a similar question Steve,when did Luke return home after the murder in order to tell his mother what he had done and arange an alibi.Also,his whereabouts were accounted for from about 5.40 till 9.00 that evening,leaving it a bit late to start cleaning up after that Steve,Jodi's body could have been found by that time.
Yes Luke was witnessed on the streets from around 5.45 till 6.30 when he phoned David High,then they spent the rest of the evening at the Abbey before Luke went home at 9.00.
So when exactly is Pat saying that Luke cleaned up,after 9.00? Dodgy Steve,Jodi's body may have been found by then and an APB sent out regarding Luke.
Pat needs to give an exact coherent believable time line of the crime and aftermath.
Does she do this Steve? Or anyone else for that matter.
-
OK,a similar question Steve,when did Luke return home after the murder in order to tell his mother what he had done and arange an alibi.Also,his whereabouts were accounted for from about 5.40 till 9.00 that evening,leaving it a bit late to start cleaning up after that Steve,Jodi's body could have been found by that time.
Yes Luke was witnessed on the streets from around 5.45 till 6.30 when he phoned David High,then they spent the rest of the evening at the Abbey before Luke went home at 9.00.
So when is exactly is Pat saying that Luke cleaned up,after 9.00? Dodgy Steve,Jodi's body may have been found by then and an APB sent out regarding Luke.
Pat needs to give an exact coherent believable time line of the crime and aftermath.
Does she do this Steve? Or anyone else for that matter.
I assume he cleans up directly after the murder, then proceeds to establish his alibi. Maybe you could refresh my memory as to the details of his movements from 1745-2100?
1705-1720: Witness cycling along the path hears a strangling sound from the other side of the wall.
1730: Luke calls Jodi's house but receives no reply.
1740: Luke calls again and speaks to Jodi's stepfather, who informs him Jodi has left to meet him. (Jodi had left the house at 1650 and had permission to stay out until 2200).
2241: Jodi's mother sends text to Luke's mobile phone.
2300: Search for Jodi begins.
So from 1740 to 2241 Luke has not seen Jodi, yet expresses no concern whatsoever for her welfare.
-
I assume he cleans up directly after the murder, then proceeds to establish his alibi. Maybe you could refresh my memory as to the details of his movements from 1745-2100?
1705-1720: Witness cycling along the path hears a strangling sound from the other side of the wall.
1730: Luke calls Jodi's house but receives no reply.
1740: Luke calls again and speaks to Jodi's stepfather, who informs him Jodi has left to meet him. (Jodi had left the house at 1650 and had permission to stay out until 2200).
2241: Jodi's mother sends text to Luke's mobile phone.
2300: Search for Jodi begins.
So from 1740 to 2241 Luke has not seen Jodi, yet expresses no concern whatsoever for her welfare.
OK steve,first point ,when you say cleans up directly after the murder,do you mean in the river or after he has returned home?
Time line-17.45-50,seen by Fleming and Walsh at the Newbattle end of the path while driving past,18.00 seen by the push bike boys nearer Newbattle Crescent sitting on wall,18,05,seen by Carol Heatley in driveway,18.20 seen by one of the push bike boys on his retutn,18.35 phones David High and waits for him,19.00 heads to the Abbey with David High to meet Tulloch,19.00-21.00 mucks about at Abbey and plays on Tarzan rope.The boys all head for home round about nine or so.
1740 to 2241 no concern about Jodi. Why wasn't Alan Ovens concerned when Luke phoned and told him that Jodi had not arrived?
-
OK steve,first point ,when you say cleans up directly after the murder,do you mean in the river or after he has returned home?
Time line-17.45-50,seen by Fleming and Walsh at the Newbattle end of the path while driving past,18.00 seen by the push bike boys nearer Newbattle Crescent sitting on wall,18,05,seen by Carol Heatley in driveway,18.20 seen by one of the push bike boys on his retutn,18.35 phones David High and waits for him,19.00 heads to the Abbey with David High to meet Tulloch,19.00-21.00 mucks about at Abbey and plays on Tarzan rope.The boys all head for home round about nine or so.
1740 to 2241 no concern about Jodi. Why wasn't Alan Ovens concerned when Luke phoned and told him that Jodi had not arrived?
Did Alan Ovens know Jodi and had they arranged to meet? Pat Brown suggests Luke tied up Jodi and killed her from behind, hence very little blood spatter on his clothing.
-
Did Alan Ovens know Jodi and had they arranged to meet? Pat Brown suggests Luke tied up Jodi and killed her from behind, hence very little blood spatter on his clothing.
You are getting into the more complicated questions now Steve,the killing of Jodi is beyond my understanding.OK,lets try and make some sense of it.Jodi was found tied up,but why and when was she tied up? Pat suggests that Jodi undressed voluntarily for a bit of fun with Luke,ok,I can buy that,makes sense.But did she let Luke tie her up at this stage too? And if so,what happened next? We know that Jodi was severely beaten to start with and she was hit on the back of the head,so when did the knife attack start and why did she have defensive wounds on her arm if she was bound ?
And when did the knife attack start,after the beating had finished? And remember Jodi had lost a lot of blood from other wounds before her throat was cut,she had many cuts to the face including her mouth/throat and one arm wound cut through to the bone causing severe blood loss.
It is unlikely that any of these cuts could have been inflicted from behind Steve,no?
And remember her throat was cut several times Steve,not just once.All from behind? Seems odd.
Besides,his arm at least would have been covered in blood surely?
If you read the police scenarios,I dont think anyone can decide if Jodi was stripped naked before or after she was killed or when she was tied up.But it seems a pointless exercise tying someone up once they are dead,dont you think Steve? Or indeed in the middle of the assault,and how did the defensive wounds to the arms come about if Jodi was tied up before the killer started slashing with the knife?
Cant work it out.
Anyway,yes,as far as I know Alan Ovens knew that Jodi left to meet Luke.Although as you know it is claimed that he told Luke'THEY have left'.
Anyway,I would still like to know where and when you think Luke cleaned up after the murder and when he told his mother what he had done?
-
And wasn't her clothes cut off Steve? Meaning they were probably removed after death?
Still ,they were mainly blood free as far as I know,very strange indeed,very strange!
-
You are getting into the more complicated questions now Steve,the killing of Jodi is beyond my understanding.OK,lets try and make some sense of it.Jodi was found tied up,but why and when was she tied up? Pat suggests that Jodi undressed voluntarily for a bit of fun with Luke,ok,I can buy that,makes sense.But did she let Luke tie her up at this stage too? And if so,what happened next? We know that Jodi was severely beaten to start with and she was hit on the back of the head,so when did the knife attack start and why did she have defensive wounds on her arm if she was bound ?
And when did the knife attack start,after the beating had finished? And remember Jodi had lost a lot of blood from other wounds before her throat was cut,she had many cuts to the face including her mouth/throat and one arm wound cut through to the bone causing severe blood loss.
It is unlikely that any of these cuts could have been inflicted from benind Steve,no?
And remember her throat was cut several times Steve,not just once.All from behind? Seems odd.
Besides,his arm at least would have been covered in blood surely?
If you read the police scenarios,I dont think anyone can decide if Jodi was stripped naked before or after she was killed or when she was tied up.But it seems a pointless exercise tying someone up once they are dead,dont you think Steve? Or indeed in the middle of the assault,and how did the defensive wounds to the arms come about if Jodi was tied up before the killer started slashing with the knife?
Cant work it out.
Anyway,yes,as far as I know Alan Ovens knew that Jodi left to meet Luke.Although as you know it is claimed that he told Luke'THEY have left'.
Anyway,I would still like to know where and when you think Luke cleaned up after the murder and when he told his mother what he had done?
To my knowledge there were no defensive wounds, suggesting Luke tied her up to begin with.
I think if Luke's movements are accounted for from 1745-2100 as you claim there must have been only a small window of opportunity for him to clean himself up, ditch the coat and the knife and wash himself. It puts Corinne in the picture-allegedly-as an accessory.
-
To my knowledge there were no defensive wounds, suggesting Luke tied her up to begin with.
I think if Luke's movements are accounted for from 1745-2100 as you claim there must have been only a small window of opportunity for him to clean himself up, ditch the coat and the knife and wash himself. It puts Corinne in the picture-allegedly-as an accessory.
OK thanks Steve,but if I may say so,you are simply not looking deeply enough into the events/scenario. I will give you my thoughts.
What I have been trying to draw out of you is,when did Luke return home after the murder and give Corinne the bombshell news that he had killed Jodi and ask for her help? Now surely we can agree that it was at least sometime that evening,right? So just what are the options?
Option 1.Between 5.30-5.40 [Jodi was still alive at 5.15 as witnessed by Leonard Kelly,so had still to be mutilated.Hence the killer could not have left the scene till about 5.20 If it was Luke he would take about ten minutes to get home,hence 5.30 before he gets back home]
Option 2.Witnesses Fleming and Walsh actually see Luke at 5.50 on his way home,he is then seen near his house sitting on a wall around 6.05 then again between 6.20-30,so could have sneaked in at this time for fifteen or twenty minutes.
Option 3.Between 6.35 and 7.00 when he is waiting for David High.
Option 4.At 9.00 when he returns from the Abbey.
OK,what about option 1,? Well as we can see time is very limited,and we have to believe that Luke went in,told his mother the shattering news of what he had done,change his clothes,wash?? Arrange and agree on an alibi with his mother who must have instantly accepted what Luke had done and decided to cover for him.All this in ten minutes,and we know it couldn't be much longer because Luke phoned Alan Ovens at 5.40,calmly enquiring as to Jodi's whereabouts.Quite amazing,ten minutes to sort everything out before leaving for the evening.
What about option 2? Well,much the same,although he may have had slightly longer to sort things out,although remember,he would have been sitting on the wall with blood stained clothing,very risky.
Option 3? 6.35-7.00,much the same,but remember it is claimed that Corinne had started burning the clothes by 6.30.
Option 4? Very,very unlikely that Luke did not return home to secure an alibi by this time,as pointed out Jodi could have been found by then and the police could have been present at his mums house on his return home from the Abbey.
So,as I said earlier on,every prosecution scenario has problems.
Just imagine for a moment what could have been said between Luke and his mother if he returned at 5.30.
Corrine-'Oh hi Luke,far hiv you been? Luke-Well mam,I'm afraid I've jist killed Jodi,I've been plannin tae butcher her for a while noo' C-'Och ats terrible son,but I suppose these things happen.' L-'aye mam,onyway,can ye wash ma clothes,they've got some bleed on em?' C-'aye of coorse son,yell nae be needin tae tak the blame for her murder.In fact I will burn yer clothes jist tae mak sure,ok? L-'aye great ma,n mine tae tell the police that I wiz at hame hayin ma supper at the time o' the murder ok?' C-'aye of coorse laddie,now jist you awa oot in play we yir pals n'leave yir mither tae sort a'thing oot,ok?' L -'jings aye ma,great,see ye later' C-'see ya Luke,yer a braw wee laddie,am prood o'ye'.
Or what do you think was said between mother and son Steve? And at what time?
Surely you cant have an opinion of guilt or innocence until you have gone through a complete scenario taking every option into consideration?
-
OK thanks Steve,but if I may say so,you are simply not looking deeply enough into the events/scenario. I will give you my thoughts.
What I have been trying to draw out of you is,when did Luke return home after the murder and give Corinne the bombshell news that he had killed Jodi and ask for her help? Now surely we can agree that it was at least sometime that evening,right? So just what are the options?
Option 1.Between 5.30-5.40 [Jodi was still alive at 5.15 as witnessed by Leonard Kelly,so had still to be mutilated.Hence the killer could not have left the scene till about 5.20 If it was Luke he would take about ten minutes to get home,hence 5.30 before he gets back home]
Option 2.Witnesses Fleming and Walsh actually see Luke at 5.50 on his way home,he is then seen near his house sitting on a wall around 6.05 then again between 6.20-30,so could have sneaked in at this time for fifteen or twenty minutes.
Option 3.Between 6.35 and 7.00 when he is waiting for David High.
Option 4.At 9.00 when he returns from the Abbey.
OK,what about option 1,? Well as we can see time is very limited,and we have to believe that Luke went in,told his mother the shattering news of what he had done,change his clothes,wash?? Arrange and agree on an alibi with his mother who must have instantly accepted what Luke had done and decided to cover for him.All this in ten minutes,and we know it couldn't be much longer because Luke phoned Alan Ovens at 5.40,calmly enquiring as to Jodi's whereabouts.Quite amazing,ten minutes to sort everything out before leaving for the evening.
What about option 2? Well,much the same,although he may have had slightly longer to sort thing out,although remember,he would have been sitting on the wall with blood stained clothing,very risky.
Option 3? 6.35-7.00,much the same,but remember it is claimed that Corinne had started burning the clothes by 6.30.
Option 4? Very,very unlikely that Luke did not return home to secure an alibi by this time,as pointed out Jodi could have been found by then and the police could have been present at his mums house on his return home from the Abbey.
So,as I said earlier on,every prosecution scenario has problems.
Just imagine for a moment what could have been said between Luke and his mother if he returned at 5.30.
Corrine-'Oh hi Luke,far hiv you been? Luke-Well mam,I'm afraid I've jist killed Jodi,I've been plannin tae butcher her for a while noo' C-'Och ats terrible son,but I suppose these things happen.' L-'aye mam,onyway,can ye wash ma clothes,they've got some bleed on em?' C-'aye of coorse son,yell nae be needin tae tak the blame for her murder.In fact I will burn yer clothes jist tae mak sure,ok? L-'aye great ma,n mine tae tell the police that I wiz at hame hayin ma supper at the time o' the merder ok?' C-'aye of coorse laddie,now jist you awa oot in play we yir pals n'leave yir mither tae sort a'thing oot,ok?' L -'jings aye ma,great,see ye later' C-'see ya Luke,yer a braw wee laddie,am prood o'ye'.
Or what do you think was said between mother and son Steve? And at what time?
Surely you cant have an opinion of guilt or innocence until you have gone through a complete scenario taking every option into consideration?
Leonard Kelly heard the last sounds emanating from Jodi. I'd like to know if Luke was still wearing the green jacket when he met David Tulloch around 7pm.
-
Leonard Kelly heard the last sounds emanating from Jodi. I'd like to know if Luke was still wearing the green jacket when he met David Tulloch around 7pm.
Are you saying that Jodi made her final sounds after being mutilated Steve? No matter,even if Luke got home by 5.25 it is still an extraordinary claim to suggest that he told his mother what had happened, washed ,changed ,gave his mother instructions to burn clothing,arrange an alibi[chapping tatties] then calmly make a call to Alan Ovens as he leaves the house for the evening.Amazing,not least of all the fact that his mother INSTANTLY decided to cover for Luke and was happy to send him on his way within minutes.
Surely in such circumstances,it would have taken a while for the shock to sink in,his mother may have contemplated telling Luke to hand himself in? To accept the situation and plan a cover up in a matter of minutes is indeed amazing in my opinion.Think about it Steve.
-
Leonard Kelly heard the last sounds emanating from Jodi. I'd like to know if Luke was still wearing the green jacket when he met David Tulloch around 7pm.
Cant remember what High and Tulloch said Luke was wearing Steve,but they claimed he looked cleaner than usual apparently.
-
Are you saying that Jodi made her final sounds after being mutilated Steve? No matter,even if Luke got home by 5.25 it is still an extraordinary claim to suggest that he told his mother what had happened, washed ,changed ,gave his mother instructions to burn clothing,arrange an alibi[chapping tatties] then calmly make a call to Alan Ovens as he leaves the house for the evening.Amazing,not least of all the fact that his mother INSTANTLY decided to cover for Luke and was happy to send him on his way within minutes.
Surely in such circumstances,it would have taken a while for the shock to sink in,his mother may have contemplated telling Luke to hand himself in? To accept the situation and plan a cover up in a matter of minutes is indeed amazing in my opinion.Think about it Steve.
I think the murder was executed promptly. As for Corinne, I think she was (allegedly) an accessory. She must have seen the accoutrements in the bedroom, including twenty bottles of stored urine.
-
Cant remember what High and Tulloch said Luke was wearing Steve,but they claimed he looked cleaner than usual apparently.
This would reinforce the idea that he had cleaned himself up before meeting them.
-
I think the murder was executed promptly. As for Corinne, I think she was (allegedly) an accessory. She must have seen the accoutrements in the bedroom, including twenty bottles of stored urine.
Are you saying that she anticipated that Luke may do something evil Steve?
Prepared you might say,and automatically reacted to cover for Luke?
Dr Lean says that Luke only started peeing in bottles after the murder,a PTSD sort of disorder.
-
This would reinforce the idea that he had cleaned himself up before meeting them.
Well,if he is guilty Steve,of course he would have been cleaned up by this time,although it is worth remembering that his hair and body was dirty when he was stripped at the police station later on.
-
Are you saying that she anticipated that Luke may do something evil Steve?
Prepared you might say,and automatically reacted to cover for Luke?
Dr Lean says that Luke only started peeing in bottles after the murder,a PTSD sort of disorder.
That's interesting snow66! though not normal behaviour surely by anyone's standards. As for Corinne, there's a snippet here as to how she was perceived by Jodi: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
-
That's interesting snow66! though not normal behaviour surely by anyone's standards. As for Corinne, there's a snippet here as to how she was perceived by Jodi: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
An article by Jane Hamilton Steve,she gets a lot of criticism from the innocence side as you know.
Anyway,a more reliable source about the relationship between Luke and Jodi would be her diary,I dont recall any mention of an array of knives in it,else it would have been used as evidence,she simply spoke of her great love and fondness for Luke.
Anyway,we will look at Shane Mitchells role next.
-
OK,we will look at the available evidence about Shane Mitchell then ask the same questions that we have discussed about Corrine.That is,if Luke is guilty,when did Shane find out and what was said?
So let us presume that Luke arrived home around 5.30 after killing Jodi,who was in the house?
As far as I can tell,Shane was leaving around this time for the evening,so had he left by the time Luke got back? If not and he found out that Luke had just killed Jodi,I dont think he would have gone out at all.
So,for the time being lets just say thet Shane was not present when Luke returned from the murder scene at 5.30,he had already left in the car.
Now,I am not very sure when Shane returned home that evening,but when he did surely Luke and his mum would have told him the situation and asked him to provide an alibi.Now at this stage,Shane had two choices,either agree to give Luke an alibi or to turn him in,one or the other,very simple.Yet Shane's account of things for the time of the murder got muddled by the time he was interviewed,why?
Well,we will try and answer that later,but for the moment we must assume that Shane agreed to give Luke an alibi,if not,Luke was wasting his time protesting his innocence when he was taken to the police station later on that night.No point in protesting his innocence if he hadn't sorted out an alibi with Shane as well as his mother. Pointless,right?
So,it is irrelevant what Shane was doing at the time of the murder,whether he was on the computer or whatever,he had a simple decision to make that evening,agree to give Luke an alibi or turn him in,simple as that.
YET,as the case progressed Shane gave a muddled account and said he wasn't sure if Luke was at home at the time of the murder or not,so we will ask again,why?
Well,I think this may point more to an innocent Luke.You see,if Luke was guilty,an alibi from his mother and Shane was easy,because he knew exactly when Jodi died and therefore the time he needed an alibi for,very simple and Corrine and Shane could simply cover for Luke or not,right?
But as I said,lets suppose Luke is innocent,in that case he didn't know when Jodi died and no discussion of an alibi would have taken place with his mother or Shane at all. And the likes of Shane would have been paying little attention to specific times that day,who does? Isn't it more realistic to believe that Shane simply wasn't sure where Luke was at the time of the murder and told the truth?
To put it simply,either Shane knew,just like his mother that Luke was guilty and had agreed to give him an alibi,or he simply didn't know if he was guilty or not and told the truth.What I mean is,if Shane knew that Luke was guilty,surely he would have said he saw him mashing tatties or,turned him in.The fact that he did neither must mean he did not know that Luke had killed Jodi.
Oh well,I am not doing a very good job at explaining things here,but hopefully you will get the gist generaly.
-
Amazing that people know so much about more than one case.
I'm still finding out about the Bamber case.
-
Amazing that people know so much about more than one case.
I'm still finding out about the Bamber case.
There isn't really that much to look at in the Luke Mitchell case Adam,its pretty straight forward.
I haven't been investigating it for very long.Try it,you will easily handle both cases at the same time.
Wonder if you will go for innocence or guilt?
-
Anyway,what I was trying to say is that Shane Mitchells part in the procedings seems to be confined to viewing the computer in his bedroom,when in actual fact he faced the same moral dillema as his mother that evening,whether to cover for Luke or not.
If Luke was guilty that is.
-
Oh well,Steve seems to have forsaken me.Never mind my friends we will simply continue to blether away to ourselves.
So,welcome to the Snow66 Luke Mitchell chanel,where we will be free to get up to all sorts including spamming and trolling.Spam,spam,spam,troll,troll,troll,....Jane is a chancer! Jane is a chancer!.
Oops,got carried away as usual,oh well that will be a yellow card for sure in view of the current climate.
BUT,never mind,far worse things happen at sea.
Anyway if Luke Mitchell is innocent most of our own problems pale into insignificance.But is he?
As you know,there have been other suspects put forward but for the moment we will concentrate on Luke.
Now,what I mainly want to look at for the moment is what took place in the Mitchell household from a guilty point of view on the day of the murder,the interactions between Corinne,Shane and Luke ,and see what this tells us.
OK,Luke murders Jodi and returns home at some point between 5.30 and 7.00,after that he is with his friends till around 9.00 .Now we dont know if Shane was in the house when Luke returned after the murder or just Corrine.As far as I know,Shane left about 5.30,not sure when he got back home,will check this out and comment better on this later.
Anyway,if we go by the prosecution claim that Corrine had started burning Lukes clothing by 6.30 then Luke must have been home and changed his clothes by then.Now we have already spoken about Luke telling his mum the shocking news that he had killed Jodi and a request to help him cover up the crime.
But what about later on,now I presume that Shane was home long before Jodi's mum texted Luke around 10.40 and the three of them,Corrine,Shane and Luke were frantically discussing a plan of action.
Now,by plan of action,I mean what did they think would happen next? Surely they knew that a call from Jodi's mum was imminent,now are we to believe that the trio had decided that it would be best if Luke went out and found Jodi,or did Luke decide this on his own once he left the house?
The thing is,why did Luke or his family think it was a good idea for him to be the one to find the body?
They had plenty of time to think about it,wouldn't it have been far better for Luke if Jodi wasn't found that night at all?
Isn't it more likely that Luke simply inadvertently found Jodi with the help of Mia with no thought of what the repercussions could be for this innocent action? Would he really have found the body if he was guilty?
I think he would have left Mia at home and avoided the crime scene at all costs,dont you think?
Just like Shanes witness statement,obviously all he had to do was tell the same story as Luke and his mother if everything was planned out,yet he was not sure if Luke was at home at the time of the murder or not and simply told the truth under oath as you would.
What I mean is,if Luke was guilty and Corinne and Shane aided him,why didn't they plan things out better?
You could say that Shane knew that Luke was guilty and decided not to lie for him in court,but if this was the case why not just come clean and tell the court that he knew Luke was guilty? Why just hint that he didn't know?
And if Shane does indeed know that Luke is guilty,what is the point of Luke and Corrine carrying on with their crusade without being able to count on Shanes evidence at a retrial? Pretty pointless.
Oh well,just a few more thoughts which you may wish to ponder,or sweep aside. Bye!
-
I have certainly not forsaken you snow66! I have been looking online for references to Shane, which are few and far between. For example I can't find a reference to Shane leaving the house at 5:30pm as you assert.
My own view is that the three did collaborate on an alibi for Luke in the first instance. Remember Shane's first statement to police on 7 July 2003 contained the assertion that he had witnessed Luke "mashing tatties" I think this statement was given (allegedly) due to pressure from Corinne. By 14 April 2004 something had changed in the household. I suggest that Shane had told Luke and Corinne that he wasn't prepared to lie for his brother, so the truth came out that he had been watching pornography in his bedroom and would not have been engaged in that activity had someone been present in the house at the time. At trial it was confirmed that Shane was in the house at 4:55pm and his mother returned at 5:15pm. Luke claimed to be at home between 5:00pm and 5:45pm.
-
I have certainly not forsaken you snow66! I have been looking online for references to Shane, which are few and far between. For example I can't find a reference to Shane leaving the house at 5:30pm as you assert.
My own view is that the three did collaborate on an alibi for Luke in the first instance. Remember Shane's first statement to police on 7 July 2003 contained the assertion that he had witnessed Luke "mashing tatties" I think this statement was given (allegedly) due to pressure from Corinne. By 14 April 2004 something had changed in the household. I suggest that Shane had told Luke and Corinne that he wasn't prepared to lie for his brother, so the truth came out that he had been watching pornography in his bedroom and would not have been engaged in that activity had someone been present in the house at the time. At trial it was confirmed that Shane was in the house at 4:55pm and his mother returned at 5:15pm. Luke claimed to be at home between 5:00pm and 5:45pm.
Thanks Steve,So you think that Shane was fully aware that Luke was guilty and agreed with his mother to cover for him? But then Shanes concience got the better of him and he told the truth at court,but didn't say that he KNEW Luke was guilty,he just didn't give him an alibi?
If this is the case,you could say that Shane remains neutral even if he knows Luke is guilty,and therefore if there was a re-trial would not actually aid nor hinder Luke?
But who knows,is it possible that Shane was not taken into the cover up and really did not and does not know to this day if Luke is guilty or not?
As you say Steve,there is very little info about Shane to be found.I would also like to know when he got home that night too.
As for Shane leaving the house at 5.30,this is mentioned in some of the podcasts,Sandra Leans'keeping the record straight' being one of them.
-
Thanks Steve,So you think that Shane was fully aware that Luke was guilty and agreed with his mother to cover for him? But then Shanes concience got the better of him and he told the truth at court,but didn't say that he KNEW Luke was guilty,he just didn't give him an alibi?
If this is the case,you could say that Shane remains neutral even if he knows Luke is guilty,and therefore if there was a re-trial would not actually aid nor hinder Luke?
But who knows,is it possible that Shane was not taken into the cover up and really did not and does not know to this day if Luke is guilty or not?
As you say Steve,there is very little info about Shane to be found.I would also like to know when he got home that night too.
As for Shane leaving the house at 5.30,this is mentioned in some of the podcasts,Sandra Leans'keeping the record straight' being one of them.
The problem with Sandra Lean's book is that we have to take her word for almost everything. I assume she has relied heavily on Corinne as a source. Not that I'm knocking her work. As for Shane, my gut feeling is that he and Luke were not close (I may be wrong) due to the six-year age gap, and he was shocked at trial when confronted with the photographs of Jodi's mutilated body and it finally dawned on him this is what the Prosecution alleged his brother had done. I think a compromise was reached in the household that he would not categorically state Luke was not in the house at the time Jodi is purported to have been killed, but that the "mashing tatties" story would simultaneously be withdrawn.
-
The problem with Sandra Lean's book is that we have to take her word for almost everything. I assume she has relied heavily on Corinne as a source. Not that I'm knocking her work. As for Shane, my gut feeling is that he and Luke were not close (I may be wrong) due to the seven-year age gap, and he was shocked at trial when confronted with the photographs of Jodi's mutilated body and it finally dawned on him this is what the Prosecution alleged his brother had done. I think a compromise was reached in the household that he would not categorically state Luke was not in the house at the time Jodi is purported to have been killed, but that the "mashing tatties" story would simultaneously be withdrawn.
Fair enough Steve,all quite possible.But do you think Shane knew for CERTAIN that Luke was guilty? As for Sandra Leans books,I haven't read any of them,just watched many of her podcasts.
-
Fair enough Steve,all quite possible.But do you think Shane knew for CERTAIN that Luke was guilty? As for Sandra Leans books,I haven't read any of them,just watched many of her podcasts.
I think he suspected his brother might be guilty. I'd like to read Sandra Lean's books when I have time. I've watched the podcasts where the contents are summarized. A pity she doesn't post on here anymore, one presumes due to time pressures.
-
I think he suspected his brother might be guilty. I'd like to read Sandra Lean's books when I have time. I've watched the podcasts where the contents are summarized. A pity she doesn't post on here anymore, one presumes due to time pressures.
OK Sreve,if you think Shane Mitchell 'suspected' his brother may be guilty that can only mean that he wasn't taken into Corinne and Lukes confidence on the night of the murder and maybe never has been,if Luke is indeed guilty that is.
This means Shane was not present when Luke returned home after the murder,it could only have been Corinne.Shane could not have been present when Luke entered the house with bloodied clothes and confessed to what he had done to Jodi.He could not have been present when Corinne burned the parka and other items of clothing either,else he would have known for sure that Luke was guilty,right?
Luke and Corrine must have discussed what actions to take between them and keep Shane out of the cover up,keep him in the dark as it were of Lukes involvement in the crime.
This means when Shane arrived home later in the evening on the day of the murder Luke and Corrine must have been acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened that day and when the phonecalls and texts took place between Luke and Jodi's mother,Luke must have acted shocked and surprised in front of Shane,yes?
So,if Shane did not witness anything suspicious or out of the ordinary that day,just what caused him to suspect Luke? It must have been the fact that when he thought things through he realized that Luke was not at home when he returned from work that day.But that adds another question,did the Mitchells lock their house door? Was a key left under a mat?
What I am getting at is who was home first that day,Luke from school or Shane from work?
That is,who unlocked the house door? Surely if Shane returned from work and the door was locked he must have known that Luke wasn't home from school or had been home and then went out again locking the door behind him?
If Shane got home from work and the house door was open surely he would take it that Luke was inside,right? Unless as I have said,that the Mitchells had a habit of leaving the house door unlocked.
The thing is,Shane may have returned from work and found the door locked,went in and headed upstairs to his bedroom thinking he was safe to use the computer,then unbeknown to Shane Luke got home and proceeded to make supper?
Anyway,I am swapping back and forth between innocence and guilt here.
As for Dr Lean Steve,I suspect she reaches a wider audience with her podcasts than posting on here anymore,and as you say she is probably up to her eyes campaigning for Luke and other potential MOJ cases.
-
I have certainly not forsaken you snow66! I have been looking online for references to Shane, which are few and far between. For example I can't find a reference to Shane leaving the house at 5:30pm as you assert.
My own view is that the three did collaborate on an alibi for Luke in the first instance. Remember Shane's first statement to police on 7 July 2003 contained the assertion that he had witnessed Luke "mashing tatties" I think this statement was given (allegedly) due to pressure from Corinne. By 14 April 2004 something had changed in the household. I suggest that Shane had told Luke and Corinne that he wasn't prepared to lie for his brother, so the truth came out that he had been watching pornography in his bedroom and would not have been engaged in that activity had someone been present in the house at the time. At trial it was confirmed that Shane was in the house at 4:55pm and his mother returned at 5:15pm. Luke claimed to be at home between 5:00pm and 5:45pm.
Shane’s first statement said that he didn’t know or didn’t think that Luke was in the house when he came home. Of course if Shane had come back at his usual time Luke wouldn’t have been in the house but he came home later thus the phone call to the landline to tell Luke. Perhaps that’s where Shane’s vagueness about the afternoon stemmed from? Also could it be possible that Corrine simply reminded Shane what he had for dinner rather than pressurised him?
-
Shane’s first statement said that he didn’t know or didn’t think that Luke was in the house when he came home. Of course if Shane had come back at his usual time Luke wouldn’t have been in the house but he came home later thus the phone call to the landline to tell Luke. Perhaps that’s where Shane’s vagueness about the afternoon stemmed from? Also could it be possible that Corrine simply reminded Shane what he had for dinner rather than pressurised him?
Hi Faithlilly,pleased to meet you.
Have you ever found much information about Shanes movements on the day of the murder? I know Sandra Lean talks of two landline calls made to the house that day,one from Lukes granny at the caravan site and one from Shane saying he would be late home I believe,although I cant remember the time of the calls,if indeed Dr Lean divulged this.
Dr Lean says it must have been Luke that answered the phone so surely this confirms that he was home before Shane anyway.
But no,I am not sure what time Shane got home from work on the day of the murder.Presumably it all came out at court,questions like, what time did you get home that day? was your brother in the house? Did you witness him coming home at some time with blood stained clothing? Did he tell you he killed Jodi? Did you help your mother to burn clothing that night? ..and so on.I presume he answered no to most questions else it would have been an open and shut case,no?
So yes,obviously Shane must have denied in court any involvement in covering for or aiding Luke on the night of the murder.As you said Faith,it is one thing innocently mixing up with times or events of that day but another thing knowingly aiding and abbeting a murderer.
Yet,many guilters claim that Luke did indeed have a parka before the murder and than numerous witnesse's attested to this in court.The thing is it is the limited window of opportunity to carry out the murder and cover things up that gives me doubt of Mitchells guilt.
I have already asked about when Luke returned home to clean up.Some members suggest he washed in the river Esk before returning home,but this would narrow his time even further and besides he would still have to wash his clothes properly once he did get back home or burn them as claimed.
I suppose there was time to dispose of any ash or debris later that evening,but where? The woods were scoured by the police in the following days and the river was dredged by divers.And besides as I pointed out already,Jodi's body could have been found at any time,so a bit risky burning evidence at the property of her boyfriend,Corinne could have been caught in the act.
As for Luke finding the body,simply doesn't make sense if he's guilty.Although,dont they say a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime?
Anyway,having looked at the list of suspects I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Bubo has something,suggesting that Jodi may have been murdered by an unknown experienced serial killer.
Do you have a favourite suspect Faithlilly?
-
Shane’s first statement said that he didn’t know or didn’t think that Luke was in the house when he came home. Of course if Shane had come back at his usual time Luke wouldn’t have been in the house but he came home later thus the phone call to the landline to tell Luke. Perhaps that’s where Shane’s vagueness about the afternoon stemmed from? Also could it be possible that Corrine simply reminded Shane what he had for dinner rather than pressurised him?
Well,having read all your posts on the Luke Mitchell case now,I see you really are an expert on the case Faithlilly.
I have found the answers to many of my unanswered questions and have learned much about the crime scene and surrounding area.You truly put me to shame.
-
I have certainly not forsaken you snow66! I have been looking online for references to Shane, which are few and far between. For example I can't find a reference to Shane leaving the house at 5:30pm as you assert.
My own view is that the three did collaborate on an alibi for Luke in the first instance. Remember Shane's first statement to police on 7 July 2003 contained the assertion that he had witnessed Luke "mashing tatties" I think this statement was given (allegedly) due to pressure from Corinne. By 14 April 2004 something had changed in the household. I suggest that Shane had told Luke and Corinne that he wasn't prepared to lie for his brother, so the truth came out that he had been watching pornography in his bedroom and would not have been engaged in that activity had someone been present in the house at the time. At trial it was confirmed that Shane was in the house at 4:55pm and his mother returned at 5:15pm. Luke claimed to be at home between 5:00pm and 5:45pm.
Well,thanks to Parky we have the full trial testimony of Shane now Steve.And as you can see,you are right,my assertion of Shane leaving his mothers house at 5.30 is wrong,he left at 6.20.
Therefore a number of my posts will have to be updated to suit this time.
-
OK,firstly we can see that Shane leaving the house at 6.20 ties in with one of the cycle boys seeing Luke on the street around the same time.
So,if Luke is guilty,then he was on his way home from killing Jodi at this time.
If Luke is innocent,then he left his mothers house at 5.40,walked to the gate at the end of Roans Dyke path where he was seem by Fleming and Walsh around 5.50.After Jodi did not appear he made his way back towards Newbattle Abbey Crescent where he was sighted by the bicycle boys around 6.05 then the solo biker around 6.20.He finally gave up on seeing Jodi so phoned David High to meet him.
So,if Luke is innocent,no one saw him leave his mums house at 5.40.But then no one witnessed Corrine or Shane coming or going that day either did they?? Shane 's timings were linked to the computer and phone calls and Corrine was timed by CCTV of her at the local shop at 5.03 I think it was.
So there doesn't seem to be any witnesse's to the comings and goings of anyone to the Mitchell household on the day of the murders,does there? Only a sighting of look around 9.00 o'clock wasn't there?
So,we will take it that it was possible for Luke to leave his mums house at 5.40 without being noticed and was only seen by witnesse's while loitering,shall we say at various locations.
So,not much more to say if Luke is innocent,he had his supper,went down to the Newbattle end of the path to look for Jodie before returning to the crescent where he eventually phoned his friends to meet him.
Now if Luke is guilty,we have far more to consider and go through.OK,Luke kills Jodie about 5.15,just as Corrine and Shane are meeting in the kitchen looking for their supper.As I have already pointed out,common sense tells us that a discussion about Lukes absence must surely have taken place.
Anyway,the next piece of evidence we have is Luke phoning Alan Ovens at 5.40 to tell him Jodi hadn't arrived.Now,if guilty,this call must have been made somewhere between the murder scene and the Newbattle end of the path where he was seen by fleming and Walsh around 5,50.
So we have to assume that Luke managed to keep the mobile phone free of blood,although he was probably wearing gloves during the murder anyway.
The thing is,if Luke washed up in one of the available burns or rivers,surely he would have done this before making the call to Ovens,right? So,that gives Luke 25minutes max after Luke has killed Jodi to wash up before making the call at 5.40,and wasn't there an aborted call a few minutes before that?
Anyway,I suppose Luke had time to wash by a burn and change his clothes or whatever before making the call to Ovens,that cant be denied I suppose.
Right,so,Luke has carried out the murder,cleaned up,called ovens and is making his way home.If guilty,he must be intentionally loitering so that it looks like he is waiting for someone.That takes us right back to 6.20 when Shane is leaving for the evening and Luke is seen sitting on a wall by the bike boy who had the burst tyre.
So what happened next??
Well,we know Shane must have left before Luke made it back home,and we also know that Luke met up with High around seven o'clock.And wasn't there another sighting of Luke around 6.35?? If so,that leaves under half an hour for Luke to go home and wash,tell his mother to burn the parka and arrange an alibi.
We will discuss what happened from 6.30 onwards in the next post.
-
OK,firstly we can see that Shane leaving the house at 6.20 ties in with one of the cycle boys seeing Luke on the street around the same time.
So,if Luke is guilty,then he was on his way home from killing Jodi at this time.
If Luke is innocent,then he left his mothers house at 5.40,walked to the gate at the end of Roans Dyke path where he was seem by Fleming and Walsh around 5.50.After Jodi did not appear he made his way back towards Newbattle Abbey Crescent where he was sighted by the bicycle boys around 6.05 then the solo biker around 6.20.He finally gave up on seeing Jodi so phoned David High to meet him.
So,if Luke is innocent,no one saw him leave his mums house at 5.40.But then no one witnessed Corrine or Shane coming or going that day either did they?? Shane 's timings were linked to the computer and phone calls and Corrine was timed by CCTV of her at the local shop at 5.03 I think it was.
So there doesn't seem to be any witnesse's to the comings and goings of anyone to the Mitchell household on the day of the murders,does there? Only a sighting of look around 9.00 o'clock wasn't there?
So,we will take it that it was possible for Luke to leave his mums house at 5.40 without being noticed and was only seen by witnesse's while loitering,shall we say at various locations.
So,not much more to say if Luke is innocent,he had his supper,went down to the Newbattle end of the path to look for Jodie before returning to the crescent where he eventually phoned his friends to meet him.
Now if Luke is guilty,we have far more to consider and go through.OK,Luke kills Jodie about 5.15,just as Corrine and Shane are meeting in the kitchen looking for their supper.As I have already pointed out,common sense tells us that a discussion about Lukes absence must surely have taken place.
Anyway,the next piece of evidence we have is Luke phoning Alan Ovens at 5.40 to tell him Jodi hadn't arrived.Now,if guilty,this call must have been made somewhere between the murder scene and the Newbattle end of the path where he was seen by fleming and Walsh around 5,50.
So we have to assume that Luke managed to keep the mobile phone free of blood,although he was probably wearing gloves during the murder anyway.
The thing is,if Luke washed up in one of the available burns or rivers,surely he would have done this before making the call to Ovens,right? So,that gives Luke 25minutes max after Luke has killed Jodi to wash up before making the call at 5.40,and wasn't there an aborted call a few minutes before that?
Anyway,I suppose Luke had time to wash by a burn and change his clothes or whatever before making the call to Ovens,that cant be denied I suppose.
Right,so,Luke has carried out the murder,cleaned up,called ovens and is making his way home.If guilty,he must be intentionally loitering so that it looks like he is waiting for someone.That takes us right back to 6.20 when Shane is leaving for the evening and Luke is seen sitting on a wall by the bike boy who had the burst tyre.
So what happened next??
Well,we know Shane must have left before Luke made it back home,and we also know that Luke met up with High around seven o'clock.And wasn't there another sighting of Luke around 6.35?? If so,that leaves under half an hour for Luke to go home and wash,tell his mother to burn the parka and arrange an alibi.
We will discuss what happened from 6.30 onwards in the next post.
So he wasn't concerned about her welfare at all for several hours? This after she had been grounded by her mother for smoking weed, so would be excited to meet up with him again.
-
So he wasn't concerned about her welfare at all for several hours? This after she had been grounded by her mother for smoking weed, so would be excited to meet up with him again.
Well,if innocent,that is indeed what happened Steve.
And again,it is worth mentioning that no one saw Luke returning home to his mothers house around 6.30 if he is guilty.Did they??
-
Oh yes,Luke phoned David High at 6.35.So he did a lot between 6.20 and 7.00.if guilty.
Was he already home when he phoned High? Unlikely,Luke surely wouldn't go home and say..'Hi,mum,Ive just killed Jodi,I'll tell you about it in a minute after I've phoned David High to meet me at the Abbey!...
No no,he must have arranged to meet High before he went home,and this was before he knew what his mums reaction to the murder was going to be.So here's the situation,Luke has just killed Jodi and on the way back home has arranged to meet his friends within half an hour, before entering his mothers house.
Does this ring true? Of course it doesn't.Luke is essentially giving himself 25 minutes to sort things out with his mother including the time it takes to walk to the Abbey.
Why didn't Luke sort things out FIRST with his mother,alibi etc., before phoning High? Makes no sense.
If innocent of course,then Luke DIDN'T GO HOME AGAIN after phoning High to arrange anything.
Now THAT makes sense,total sense!!
Luke left his mothers house at 5.40 and didn't return till around 9.00.
I think the call to High at 6.35 is a BIG point in Lukes favour. Just think about it!!
-
And if Luke is guilty when the heck was Shane taken into the cover-up?? He didn't get home again till 9.55.
A lot more to discuss and try to make sense of.
What about Corrine,she's told the awful news then simply left to stew for two hours while Luke is out swinging on a Tarzan rope with his friends! Amazing!
Oh well,I suppose she had clothes to burn and what not.
-
And if Luke is guilty when the heck was Shane taken into the cover-up?? He didn't get home again till 9.55.
A lot more to discuss and try to make sense of.
I have long been of the belief that LM is innocent. In my investigations I looked at the MO of the killer and tried to find an alternative to LM. My candidate is Danilo Restivo. He is now a convicted murderer. The warped nature of his crimes strongly suggests that he could have been 'Stocky man'. I have a lot of evidence to back this up but unfortunately do not have the time to get involved. Those who think LM innocent should investigate this guy as an alternate perpetrator.
As they say on University Challenge here is your starter for ten
IS IT WORTH A CHECK
Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?
Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).
1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.
2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.
3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.
4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.
5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.
6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.
7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.
Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.
Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.
The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.
Danilo Restivo and his actions
Any study I suggest would conclude that he was a stalker, he was cunning, he planned meticulously especially when constructing an alibi and he was extremely DNA savvy. The Bournemouth Echo has full trial coverage and gives a lot of details. He equipped himself with duplicate clothing. He had a balaclava gloves and scissors when stopped while under close surveillance. He was wearing a black hoodie and waterproof trousers. He has thick black hair and looks stocky to podgy in photos.
His initial alibi for the HB murder was well constructed and included falsifying workplace logs.
An Italian case observer said he was taunting police saying in effect catch me if you can.
Questions arising
What detail of the HB murder was in the public domain prior to Jodie’s murder that could have facilitated a copycat/similar MO?
When did the Dorset police last have contact with Restivo and was he under any kind of surveillance prior to the close surveillance which commenced March 2004? If so what form did it take and what if any records were kept?
What event triggered the close surveillance?
When he was questioned was he (a) under arrest (b) questioned under caution or (c) merely questioned as part of general enquiries? When exactly is mid 2003?
Did Dorset police at any time inform other police forces (in England, Wales and Scotland) of the nature of the HB murder and ask them to report any similar MO.
Did Dorset police again notify other forces at any time that Restivo was on their patch or that they had lost track of him and they should keep a lookout for this person of interest?
The biggest question is; do any of the four unattributed male partial DNA samples match Restivo’s dna?
Is it worth a check?
I have removed all my opinions and speculations since if the result is negative, whilst not removing him entirely as a potential suspect, other avenue would need to be explored such as a partner.
It is an area where most people think that the perp was a local but that may not be the case.
-
I have long been of the belief that LM is innocent. In my investigations I looked at the MO of the killer and tried to find an alternative to LM. My candidate is Danilo Restivo. He is now a convicted murderer. The warped nature of his crimes strongly suggests that he could have been 'Stocky man'. I have a lot of evidence to back this up but unfortunately do not have the time to get involved. Those who think LM innocent should investigate this guy as an alternate perpetrator.
As they say on University Challenge here is your starter for ten
IS IT WORTH A CHECK
Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?
Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).
1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.
2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.
3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.
4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.
5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.
6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.
7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.
Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.
Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.
The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.
Danilo Restivo and his actions
Any study I suggest would conclude that he was a stalker, he was cunning, he planned meticulously especially when constructing an alibi and he was extremely DNA savvy. The Bournemouth Echo has full trial coverage and gives a lot of details. He equipped himself with duplicate clothing. He had a balaclava gloves and scissors when stopped while under close surveillance. He was wearing a black hoodie and waterproof trousers. He has thick black hair and looks stocky to podgy in photos.
His initial alibi for the HB murder was well constructed and included falsifying workplace logs.
An Italian case observer said he was taunting police saying in effect catch me if you can.
Questions arising
What detail of the HB murder was in the public domain prior to Jodie’s murder that could have facilitated a copycat/similar MO?
When did the Dorset police last have contact with Restivo and was he under any kind of surveillance prior to the close surveillance which commenced March 2004? If so what form did it take and what if any records were kept?
What event triggered the close surveillance?
When he was questioned was he (a) under arrest (b) questioned under caution or (c) merely questioned as part of general enquiries? When exactly is mid 2003?
Did Dorset police at any time inform other police forces (in England, Wales and Scotland) of the nature of the HB murder and ask them to report any similar MO.
Did Dorset police again notify other forces at any time that Restivo was on their patch or that they had lost track of him and they should keep a lookout for this person of interest?
The biggest question is; do any of the four unattributed male partial DNA samples match Restivo’s dna?
Is it worth a check?
I have removed all my opinions and speculations since if the result is negative, whilst not removing him entirely as a potential suspect, other avenue would need to be explored such as a partner.
It is an area where most people think that the perp was a local but that may not be the case.
Thanks very much Bubo,will check all this out.
If you go through all my posts you will find that I agreed with you that it may have been an opportunist serial killer.
Scott Forbes put forward the possibility that it may have been the Roslyn chapel murderer if that means anything to you,I cant remember his name.
Anyway,there is certainly room for doubt about Mitchells guilt as far as I can see.
-
The problem with the stocky man is that there were no confirmed, positive identifications made of Jodi Jones around 5pm walking along the Easthouses road. It had been an appeal put out in the paper of the first positive "possible" sighting of her on that road. We know that SL applies he just disappeared from the investigation - Not so at all, is it? Certainly that whatever transpired after the appeal brought this to a halt, as in it was not the young girl around the 5pm mark that day. If there had have been, it would have been used to show her last movements.
Sense over fallacy? - What SL is actually saying, is that there was nothing of the follow up on this male within LM's defence papers. Why would there have been? DF, who sourced and scoured every media report in the lead up to the trial, using many from this at the trial. Without a doubt accessed and gained everything he could of that possible sighting. He did use it at the trial, as in the actual media report itself, why?
JF had cut his hair, DF was attempting to infer that he had read the article, panicked should people think he was this stocky male mentioned in the article. The description of his hair. Ludicrous of course, JF could never have been applied as stocky. Not the brightest spark, the AD when cross examining him asked him, 'If you were here you could not have been there?' "Dunno?"
That aside - There was no forensic evidence found of any altercation taken place bar that bottom area within that woodland strip. Indicative of the young girl walking down through there with someone she knew. There was no reason for the young girl to have been wandering in there alone, and certainly not with someone closely behind her! It led to nowhere, thus, hardly likely that any opportunist would be waiting in an area off the beaten track on anyone passing by? The girl had a ban in place on using the path alone, she had no phone, why would she have wandered into an even more secluded area for no reason, alone. We see this from AW's testimony, that she would never have thought of Jodi being in the woodland, nor of anyone getting her in there against her will.
The killer had hidden her body, why would an opportunist needed to have done that? Again, indicative of someone needing time on their side? Not to say that opportunist don't do this, but that is usually around the hope of never being discovered. This was different, it was not an area where it was unlikely a discovery would never be made.
Again, we are left with clear reason why LM was suspect - There had been a sighting and a positive ID of him, this did take place at the young couples normal meeting place. She was killed in a stretch of woodland they also frequented together. She had made contact with no one else, had not means to contact anyone else after leaving home. There had been restrictions in place on when she had been allowed out, he was the only who could have learnt of this being lifted after school that day, bringing any potential, later meeting, forward. No signs of any altercation taken place outwith that area, of walking amicably into an area off the beaten track with someone she knew?
-
The problem with the stocky man is that there were no confirmed, positive identifications made of Jodi Jones around 5pm walking along the Easthouses road. It had been an appeal put out in the paper of the first positive "possible" sighting of her on that road. We know that SL applies he just disappeared from the investigation - Not so at all, is it? Certainly that whatever transpired after the appeal brought this to a halt, as in it was not the young girl around the 5pm mark that day. If there had have been, it would have been used to show her last movements.
Sense over fallacy? - What SL is actually saying, is that there was nothing of the follow up on this male within LM's defence papers. Why would there have been? DF, who sourced and scoured every media report in the lead up to the trial, using many from this at the trial. Without a doubt accessed and gained everything he could of that possible sighting. He did use it at the trial, as in the actual media report itself, why?
JF had cut his hair, DF was attempting to infer that he had read the article, panicked should people think he was this stocky male mentioned in the article. The description of his hair. Ludicrous of course, JF could never have been applied as stocky. Not the brightest spark, the AD when cross examining him asked him, 'If you were here you could not have been there?' "Dunno?"
That aside - There was no forensic evidence found of any altercation taken place bar that bottom area within that woodland strip. Indicative of the young girl walking down through there with someone she knew. There was no reason for the young girl to have been wandering in there alone, and certainly not with someone closely behind her! It led to nowhere, thus, hardly likely that any opportunist would be waiting in an area off the beaten track on anyone passing by? The girl had a ban in place on using the path alone, she had no phone, why would she have wandered into an even more secluded area for no reason, alone. We see this from AW's testimony, that she would never have thought of Jodi being in the woodland, nor of anyone getting her in there against her will.
The killer had hidden her body, why would an opportunist needed to have done that? Again, indicative of someone needing time on their side? Not to say that opportunist don't do this, but that is usually around the hope of never being discovered. This was different, it was not an area where it was unlikely a discovery would never be made.
Again, we are left with clear reason why LM was suspect - There had been a sighting and a positive ID of him, this did take place at the young couples normal meeting place. She was killed in a stretch of woodland they also frequented together. She had made contact with no one else, had not means to contact anyone else after leaving home. There had been restrictions in place on when she had been allowed out, he was the only who could have learnt of this being lifted after school that day, bringing any potential, later meeting, forward. No signs of any altercation taken place outwith that area, of walking amicably into an area off the beaten track with someone she knew?
You put your case across well Parky,I for one will ponder over everything you have pointed out.
Can you confirm that Luke phoned David High at 6.35?
-
The problem with the stocky man is that there were no confirmed, positive identifications made of Jodi Jones around 5pm walking along the Easthouses road. It had been an appeal put out in the paper of the first positive "possible" sighting of her on that road. We know that SL applies he just disappeared from the investigation - Not so at all, is it? Certainly that whatever transpired after the appeal brought this to a halt, as in it was not the young girl around the 5pm mark that day. If there had have been, it would have been used to show her last movements.
Sense over fallacy? - What SL is actually saying, is that there was nothing of the follow up on this male within LM's defence papers. Why would there have been? DF, who sourced and scoured every media report in the lead up to the trial, using many from this at the trial. Without a doubt accessed and gained everything he could of that possible sighting. He did use it at the trial, as in the actual media report itself, why?
JF had cut his hair, DF was attempting to infer that he had read the article, panicked should people think he was this stocky male mentioned in the article. The description of his hair. Ludicrous of course, JF could never have been applied as stocky. Not the brightest spark, the AD when cross examining him asked him, 'If you were here you could not have been there?' "Dunno?"
That aside - There was no forensic evidence found of any altercation taken place bar that bottom area within that woodland strip. Indicative of the young girl walking down through there with someone she knew. There was no reason for the young girl to have been wandering in there alone, and certainly not with someone closely behind her! It led to nowhere, thus, hardly likely that any opportunist would be waiting in an area off the beaten track on anyone passing by? The girl had a ban in place on using the path alone, she had no phone, why would she have wandered into an even more secluded area for no reason, alone. We see this from AW's testimony, that she would never have thought of Jodi being in the woodland, nor of anyone getting her in there against her will.
The killer had hidden her body, why would an opportunist needed to have done that? Again, indicative of someone needing time on their side? Not to say that opportunist don't do this, but that is usually around the hope of never being discovered. This was different, it was not an area where it was unlikely a discovery would never be made.
Again, we are left with clear reason why LM was suspect - There had been a sighting and a positive ID of him, this did take place at the young couples normal meeting place. She was killed in a stretch of woodland they also frequented together. She had made contact with no one else, had not means to contact anyone else after leaving home. There had been restrictions in place on when she had been allowed out, he was the only who could have learnt of this being lifted after school that day, bringing any potential, later meeting, forward. No signs of any altercation taken place outwith that area, of walking amicably into an area off the beaten track with someone she knew?
yes there is the police made a reconstruction of her doing it
-
I have long been of the belief that LM is innocent. In my investigations I looked at the MO of the killer and tried to find an alternative to LM. My candidate is Danilo Restivo. He is now a convicted murderer. The warped nature of his crimes strongly suggests that he could have been 'Stocky man'. I have a lot of evidence to back this up but unfortunately do not have the time to get involved. Those who think LM innocent should investigate this guy as an alternate perpetrator.
As they say on University Challenge here is your starter for ten
IS IT WORTH A CHECK
Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?
Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).
1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.
2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.
3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.
4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.
5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.
6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.
7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.
Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.
Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.
The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.
Danilo Restivo and his actions
Any study I suggest would conclude that he was a stalker, he was cunning, he planned meticulously especially when constructing an alibi and he was extremely DNA savvy. The Bournemouth Echo has full trial coverage and gives a lot of details. He equipped himself with duplicate clothing. He had a balaclava gloves and scissors when stopped while under close surveillance. He was wearing a black hoodie and waterproof trousers. He has thick black hair and looks stocky to podgy in photos.
His initial alibi for the HB murder was well constructed and included falsifying workplace logs.
An Italian case observer said he was taunting police saying in effect catch me if you can.
Questions arising
What detail of the HB murder was in the public domain prior to Jodie’s murder that could have facilitated a copycat/similar MO?
When did the Dorset police last have contact with Restivo and was he under any kind of surveillance prior to the close surveillance which commenced March 2004? If so what form did it take and what if any records were kept?
What event triggered the close surveillance?
When he was questioned was he (a) under arrest (b) questioned under caution or (c) merely questioned as part of general enquiries? When exactly is mid 2003?
Did Dorset police at any time inform other police forces (in England, Wales and Scotland) of the nature of the HB murder and ask them to report any similar MO.
Did Dorset police again notify other forces at any time that Restivo was on their patch or that they had lost track of him and they should keep a lookout for this person of interest?
The biggest question is; do any of the four unattributed male partial DNA samples match Restivo’s dna?
Is it worth a check?
I have removed all my opinions and speculations since if the result is negative, whilst not removing him entirely as a potential suspect, other avenue would need to be explored such as a partner.
It is an area where most people think that the perp was a local but that may not be the case.
I see Restivo was being questioned in mid 2003 for the murder of Heather Barnett.
Jodi was killed on 30th of June of course,exactly half way through 2003.
Maybe he nipped up to Scotland just before he was detained by the police for one last crime fearing the net was closing in Bubo.As you say,his whereabouts for 30th June would have to be established,obviously if he was in police custody on this date then he has a cast iron alibi.
-
there at least 2 witness 2 jodi walking down the path an or the stocky a simple google search wil confirm this
-
I see Restivo was being questioned in mid 2003 for the murder of Heather Barnett.
Jodi was killed on 30th of June of course,exactly half way through 2003.
Maybe he nipped up to Scotland just before he was detained by the police for one last crime fearing the net was closing in Bubo.As you say,his whereabouts for 30th June would have to be established,obviously if he was in police custody on this date then he has a cast iron alibi.
He could have gone to Italy. There was a murder in Italy 71 days before Jody which has been attributed to him. The police switched their attention from him to HB's ex. It is clear he was very good at creating an Alibi. Look at the crafty way he forged his work records for the HB case. I believe he said he was going to Italy and went. He then flew from Italy to Edinburgh for example and then planned and executed Jodie's murder before retuning to Italy and then returning home. In doing this he had created an Alibi for his whereabouts and executed a murder that only the true killer of HB would know of the MO. This if the similarities were discovered would further diminish the police interest in him for the HB murder.
There has not been another case anywhere in the UK since Jodie’s murder which has remotely the same MO. I have no doubt that there may well have been folk who might have wanted her dead for a variety of reasons who lived local but the nature and the scale screams deranged individual. Even if the killer was trying to make it look maniacal it was asking a lot to go that far especially for a one off. I do not need to tell you the local reactions and the police’s handling of the case.
Therefore the question becomes if not Luke then who?
I believe there is a possibility that Restivo was playing games and Jodie’s murder may have been a deliberate attempt to confuse police. He used an MO that only the HB killer would know. Unfortunately the connection, for whatever reason was not made maybe due to jurisdiction or the rain removing some of the unique identifiers associated with the HB case. It is likely that he had constructed an alibi that would almost conclusively rule him out and by using Scotland he was putting it out of his territory. Later if needed he could cite Jodie’s killing as evidence of a similar crime that could not be him and this suggested a lone deranged killer had killed her and HB. Further if he killed her elsewhere in the woods he could then have a second bite of the cherry later. Launching a second phony attack and staging her on a path where others had walked and had seen nothing. It would allow him to create a purely Scottish alibi and changes in clothing would further muddy the waters. Such a local alibi would be required if they ever had evidence he had visited Scotland.
The killer was likely to be wearing gloves and it is likely that they had through contact picked up male DNA partials from a variety of sources. This might have been accidental or deliberate on the killer’s part. They were then transferred to Jodie.
Advances in DNA profiling led in part to Restivo’s conviction and formed part of the evidence against him. New developments in testing allowed them to get a match chance of 1 in 57000. I cannot find the name of the new test (Senc5?) but it was conducted in 2008 on a green towel, which had long been an exhibit. He said he had used this towel to indicate the colour of the curtains HB was to make to explain his DNA. Surely it could be argued that fresh testing of key exhibits in Luke’s case might yield new DNA evidence and possibly identify the four partials more extensively. This argument could be used mentioning the Restivo case as an example/reason but without suggesting his involvement. Others might see the possible connection and spark debate.
Where was Restivo
Reports by police in newspapers suggest that he was under surveillance of some kind even before the close surveillance was instituted. Though a person of interest they moved the focus of investigation to concentrate on HB’s ex. “It meant at times we had to have him under surveillance 24 hours a day and we have to ensure we had him under control.” Former Detective Superintendent Phil James was head of the Major Crime Team from 2002-2007 before he retired. Clearly without access to the case file getting precise dates would be extremely difficult if not impossible and if they did cockup they would hardly be specific enough in memoirs or interviews as to the dates he was or was not under close watch. It is stated by police that he remained in the area but they do not say if he went away for any reason and for how long. I doubt he was being watched during the first half of 2003 because the focus shifted and the HB murder was in the run up to Christmas and New Year and time would be used creating teams, victim support, processing exhibits etc.
I think Dorset police might have cocked up in watching him. They are relatively small rural force and in summer resources are required for local events and the influx of tourists. Even they say the HB murder was their biggest crime ever. It could be that the penny finally dropped and they made the connection but said nothing. The most likely time for this might have been the beginning of March 2004 when they say 24/7 was in place. What was in the news about Luke at this time? When was he in court?
Indeed it is possible that Restivo ‘clocked them watching him at some point. He had been questioned extensively and may have felt the need to do something to ease his paranoia. He could have found a tracker which stimulated his game playing tendencies.’ Catch me if you can’. They may even have had to drop him for a while because he was showing very normal behavior. It is also possible that resources for such an operation in this area were scarce and 24/7/365 was not on. If he knew when they were watching him he could also know when they were not. It is also possible that they never made the connection because of the direction the case took in Scotland.
Newspaper report
Detectives knew they needed more and, in 2008, DNA samples were taken from a blood-stained green towel found in Mrs. Barnett's flat.
Police believed the killer used it to wipe blood off himself. Initially, only Mrs. Barnett's blood was found but another test found the DNA of another person and the match was linked to Restivo.
Crucially, when asked about the towel he said he had never seen it before and would not answer how his DNA was on it. Later he said the towel was his and that he had taken it to Mrs. Barnett's to use as a colour match for the curtains. He said he did not say this before because he had memory lapses.
My view
This you may say is ‘Unicorn’ or magical thinking even wild imaginings but any study of Restivo’s behaviour from his early days; during the disappearance of AC in Potenza to the HB murder show he is more than capable of conceiving and executing such a plan and covering his tracks. Even later (2006?) when dragged in for cutting women’s hair in public places he confessed to being a hair fetishist. They even had video of him stalking women in long grass.
-
Anyway,I think we have established if Luke is guilty then he didn't arrive home till after Shane left at 6.20.
So just to recap,Luke kills Jodi at 5.15,calls her house at 5.32 which is aborted [a mere 15 minutes after the killing] phones again at 5.38,gets through to Ovens who tells him Jodi has left.Luke is then seen by the gate at the Newbattle end by Fleming and Walsh about 5.50 then at 6.00 sitting on a wall at the end of his street by the bycycle boys.This is probably the most reliable sighting when you think about it,due to the fact that the boys actually knew who Luke was,far more reliable than a fleeting glance from a motor car by strangers who didn't know Luke from Adam.Just think about that.
The descriptions of Lukes clothing was different by the witnesses too,at least that is what I have read.
Anyway,we are discussing a guilty scenario at the moment,so,Luke is then seen at 6.20 by one of the bike boys on his return.
So,when does Luke arrive home? Did he leave it till 9.00 o'clock? Surely not,besides the claim is that the parka was being burnt around 6.30 wasn't it? So we will have to conclude that Luke walked home soon after the bike boy saw him around 6.20.
Worth pausing for just a minute here to ask why Luke loitered for around 50 minutes between the end of the path and returning home.What was the purpose? We know what he claims,that he was waiting for Jodi.But from a guilty point of view,why??
It wasn't going to give him any kind of alibi was it,and Jodi's body could have been found at any time.
Was Luke really so confident that he was forensically clean if the police picked him up before he got home? Well not if he immediately burned his jacket in the log burner.
So why loiter and waste time on the way home? Very risky! VERY RISKY!.
Never mind,this is a guilty scenario.
So,Luke arrives home about 6.30 or is it nearer 6.40 after he has called David High?
Which is it? Does he go into the house first? I hope i've got the time of the call correct?
OK,well lets just say he goes into the house around 6.30,what was said between Luke and Corrine?
Remember Luke was about to restrict the time they had to discuss and plan things by phoning David High a few minutes later at 6.35'
Now again we will pause to consider what Lukes plan of action was.I mean the murder was pre-meditated wasn't it? I mean it wasn't an accident out of the blue.We know the amount of damage that was done to Jodi as well as being stripped and tied up.
So let us look at Lukes apparent plan.
Arrange to meet Jodi after school so as to kill and mutilate her,make sure that Jodi's family knows your going to meet her,which they do,a ban has just been lifted and texts made,meet Jodi and kill her,quick wash in a burn,then immediately phone her mothers house to say she hasn't arrived,even though she's not allowed on the path herself,loiter on the streets for a further 50 minutes so that witnesses will see him for some reason???,go home and EVENTUALLY burn evidence before Jodi is found,explain to his mum where he has been and what he has done,ask her for an alibi,call David High and friends,meet them at the Abbey and muck about till 9.00 o'clock then go home,if Jodi hasn't been found then he will volunteer to go look for her if the family contacts him,he will take Mia the dog with him and pretend she finds Jodi.
Job done,Jodi killed and alibi in place.Didn't the police say that Luke was very clever??
Was that his plan? Must have been! How did he know that his mum would immediately give him an alibi and help destroy evidence when he returned home at 6.30?
How did he know that the police wouldn't be waiting for him there at 6.30 after wasting so much time on the way back?
Why did he waste so much time on the way back? What did he hope to gain?
If the police got to his house first his mother couldn't give him an alibi,she couldn't have known what Luke had done till he got home,could she? She couldn't have destroyed any evidence either.
Oh well,i've gone off track again.So,where were we? Yes,still around 6.30 when Luke has just arrived home and broken the news to Corrine who immediately agrees to cover for him and burn his parka in the log burner.Something he COULDN'T have planned,Corrine might just have easily said,'you monster,I wont help you,it's off to the slammer with you my lad!'
But,if guilty,Corrine did indeed help Luke and give him an alibi,then he left minutes later to play with his friends.Why Luke and Corrine thought this necessary I dont know,but they did.After all Luke was the one who got in touch with High and asked to meet him at the Abbey.
Dont know how meeting up with his friends helped Luke,if it was me I would have stayed at home and helped destroy evidence,wash and get my alibi straight.
But there you are,Luke's pre medditated plan included meeting his friends at 7.00 o'clock after spending a few minutes telling his mum that she had just become the mother of an evil twisted killer.
BUT,there you are,everyone plans murders differently I suppose.Who am I to judge?
Well,I suppose thats about all there is to say regarding a guilty Luke scenario.
Most of what I have said must be true if Luke is guilty.Right???
Just add in Shane being taken into the mashing tatties scenario and thats about it!
The crown rests its case.
-
How could Luke make any kind of plan of action including Shane and Corrine when he hadn't told them what he intended to do?
His plan counted on them giving him an alibi right away out of the blue for a gruesome murder.
However,the way Luke planned things loitering for more than an hour after the murder before going home put this in extreme jeopardy.
If Jodi's body was found right away and the police went to Lukes house before he got home then the game was up right away.Didn't Luke realize this?
Surely it was imperitive for Luke to get home ASAP after killing Jodi to arrange an alibi? Or should I say,PRAY that his family would give him an alibi!
And we know that Shane didn't get home again till 9.55 that evening,what if Jodi's body had been found by then and the police was sitting in the house when he got home,how could an alibi be arranged then?
No,Lukes plan was full of holes the way he executed it,especially relying on his family for an alibi on the spot.
And no doubt Shane went out most/some evenings,so Luke must have been aware that he may not be in the house when he returned at 6.30 to arrange an alibi anyway.
What was the official Crown scenario anyway? Do we know?
-
Just noticed,this thread was started on the 20th anniversary of the murder.
-
He could have gone to Italy. There was a murder in Italy 71 days before Jody which has been attributed to him. The police switched their attention from him to HB's ex. It is clear he was very good at creating an Alibi. Look at the crafty way he forged his work records for the HB case. I believe he said he was going to Italy and went. He then flew from Italy to Edinburgh for example and then planned and executed Jodie's murder before retuning to Italy and then returning home. In doing this he had created an Alibi for his whereabouts and executed a murder that only the true killer of HB would know of the MO. This if the similarities were discovered would further diminish the police interest in him for the HB murder.
There has not been another case anywhere in the UK since Jodie’s murder which has remotely the same MO. I have no doubt that there may well have been folk who might have wanted her dead for a variety of reasons who lived local but the nature and the scale screams deranged individual. Even if the killer was trying to make it look maniacal it was asking a lot to go that far especially for a one off. I do not need to tell you the local reactions and the police’s handling of the case.
Therefore the question becomes if not Luke then who?
I believe there is a possibility that Restivo was playing games and Jodie’s murder may have been a deliberate attempt to confuse police. He used an MO that only the HB killer would know. Unfortunately the connection, for whatever reason was not made maybe due to jurisdiction or the rain removing some of the unique identifiers associated with the HB case. It is likely that he had constructed an alibi that would almost conclusively rule him out and by using Scotland he was putting it out of his territory. Later if needed he could cite Jodie’s killing as evidence of a similar crime that could not be him and this suggested a lone deranged killer had killed her and HB. Further if he killed her elsewhere in the woods he could then have a second bite of the cherry later. Launching a second phony attack and staging her on a path where others had walked and had seen nothing. It would allow him to create a purely Scottish alibi and changes in clothing would further muddy the waters. Such a local alibi would be required if they ever had evidence he had visited Scotland.
The killer was likely to be wearing gloves and it is likely that they had through contact picked up male DNA partials from a variety of sources. This might have been accidental or deliberate on the killer’s part. They were then transferred to Jodie.
Advances in DNA profiling led in part to Restivo’s conviction and formed part of the evidence against him. New developments in testing allowed them to get a match chance of 1 in 57000. I cannot find the name of the new test (Senc5?) but it was conducted in 2008 on a green towel, which had long been an exhibit. He said he had used this towel to indicate the colour of the curtains HB was to make to explain his DNA. Surely it could be argued that fresh testing of key exhibits in Luke’s case might yield new DNA evidence and possibly identify the four partials more extensively. This argument could be used mentioning the Restivo case as an example/reason but without suggesting his involvement. Others might see the possible connection and spark debate.
Where was Restivo
Reports by police in newspapers suggest that he was under surveillance of some kind even before the close surveillance was instituted. Though a person of interest they moved the focus of investigation to concentrate on HB’s ex. “It meant at times we had to have him under surveillance 24 hours a day and we have to ensure we had him under control.” Former Detective Superintendent Phil James was head of the Major Crime Team from 2002-2007 before he retired. Clearly without access to the case file getting precise dates would be extremely difficult if not impossible and if they did cockup they would hardly be specific enough in memoirs or interviews as to the dates he was or was not under close watch. It is stated by police that he remained in the area but they do not say if he went away for any reason and for how long. I doubt he was being watched during the first half of 2003 because the focus shifted and the HB murder was in the run up to Christmas and New Year and time would be used creating teams, victim support, processing exhibits etc.
I think Dorset police might have cocked up in watching him. They are relatively small rural force and in summer resources are required for local events and the influx of tourists. Even they say the HB murder was their biggest crime ever. It could be that the penny finally dropped and they made the connection but said nothing. The most likely time for this might have been the beginning of March 2004 when they say 24/7 was in place. What was in the news about Luke at this time? When was he in court?
Indeed it is possible that Restivo ‘clocked them watching him at some point. He had been questioned extensively and may have felt the need to do something to ease his paranoia. He could have found a tracker which stimulated his game playing tendencies.’ Catch me if you can’. They may even have had to drop him for a while because he was showing very normal behavior. It is also possible that resources for such an operation in this area were scarce and 24/7/365 was not on. If he knew when they were watching him he could also know when they were not. It is also possible that they never made the connection because of the direction the case took in Scotland.
Newspaper report
Detectives knew they needed more and, in 2008, DNA samples were taken from a blood-stained green towel found in Mrs. Barnett's flat.
Police believed the killer used it to wipe blood off himself. Initially, only Mrs. Barnett's blood was found but another test found the DNA of another person and the match was linked to Restivo.
Crucially, when asked about the towel he said he had never seen it before and would not answer how his DNA was on it. Later he said the towel was his and that he had taken it to Mrs. Barnett's to use as a colour match for the curtains. He said he did not say this before because he had memory lapses.
My view
This you may say is ‘Unicorn’ or magical thinking even wild imaginings but any study of Restivo’s behaviour from his early days; during the disappearance of AC in Potenza to the HB murder show he is more than capable of conceiving and executing such a plan and covering his tracks. Even later (2006?) when dragged in for cutting women’s hair in public places he confessed to being a hair fetishist. They even had video of him stalking women in long grass.
Wasn't there about ten male samples of unidentified bodily fluids found on/near Jodi?
Have you told Dr Lean about your theory Bubo? She may still read the forum anyway.
-
How could Luke make any kind of plan of action including Shane and Corrine when he hadn't told them what he intended to do?
His plan counted on them giving him an alibi right away out of the blue for a gruesome murder.
However,the way Luke planned things loitering for more than an hour after the murder before going home put this in extreme jeopardy.
If Jodi's body was found right away and the police went to Lukes house before he got home then the game was up right away.Didn't Luke realize this?
Surely it was imperitive for Luke to get home ASAP after killing Jodi to arrange an alibi? Or should I say,PRAY that his family would give him an alibi!
And we know that Shane didn't get home again till 9.55 that evening,what if Jodi's body had been found by then and the police was sitting in the house when he got home,how could an alibi be arranged then?
No,Lukes plan was full of holes the way he executed it,especially relying on his family for an alibi on the spot.
And no doubt Shane went out most/some evenings,so Luke must have been aware that he may not be in the house when he returned at 6.30 to arrange an alibi anyway.
What was the official Crown scenario anyway? Do we know?
Flip it over. He had no alibi, his mother would know he was off to spend the evening with his girlfriend. Look at what is more plausible over that which sounds unbelievable. Finding her dead, what to do? He was going to be the first person the police looked at, he knew that as would his mother. 'I found her dead, I need help' over 'I've just killed her, give me an alibi and get rid of ----'
Idling time is what we are asked to believe, loitering time, which it most certainly would not have been. Those were the gaps in the Crowns case that gave rise to opportunity, to be changed, rid of anything incriminating and so forth. With no alibi, there is nothing places LM home from just after 4pm.
Personally himself - He is for the off just before 7pm, there has been around 40mins in the immediate time frame beforehand. You mention police arriving at HIS door any minute, the risk of that taking place. Not really? 5:40pm - 7pm. The body is discovered, it is reported to the police, what is there not? Any means of identification, no phone. Would her killer know there was none? Or, the parents reach out to make contact with the girl, try his house, not there, try him, where is he? Away from home. Point, up until a certain point, a safety net, there was no risk of anything pointing towards LM at all, of police barging into the home.
We can apply, it is unbelievable to think the killer would take himself off anywhere else with other people, or we can apply this is exactly what he needed to do, further alibi and keep himself away from the house, keep anyone away from the house. Such as those pals he was with, they themselves could have arrived at his home for him without phoning first?
Therefore, his plan? - What to do, I have met and killed my girlfriend, her parents know she is off to meet with me, my mother knows I am with her. I need an alibi, how am I going to get that, who can I ask to help me, what will I tell them? What else do I need to do, I need to be seen waiting on her, this happens between 6 and 6:20pm. The fires that were and weren't? Anything happening at home here? Therefore I need to keep myself away from home, to lesson risk of anyone arriving there?
-
What was the official Crown scenario anyway? Do we know?
That he had no alibi. Means and opportunity for disposal. Witnesses who saw him in places he claimed not to have been. Missing clothing and knife. That any forensics could be innocently explained away, as most know, this was a circumstantial case. Whilst there was nothing found directly linking him to the murder, neither was there anything found pointing it to that of a stranger, a another. That he had special knowledge of the location/injuries/clothing, of the victim.
-
That he had no alibi. Means and opportunity for disposal. Witnesses who saw him in places he claimed not to have been. Missing clothing and knife. That any forensics could be innocently explained away, as most know, this was a circumstantial case. Whilst there was nothing found directly linking him to the murder, neither was there anything found pointing it to that of a stranger, a another. That he had special knowledge of the location/injuries/clothing, of the victim.
So do we take it that no actual timeline/scenario was produced by the prosecution Parky?
Well I suppose they did in a way,the Bryson sighting at one end of the path then the sighting by Fleming and Walsh at the other before the parka being burned at 6.30.
Just one point,did the prosecution claim that Luke went straight home after the murder or that he went home about 6.30?
I think it was you who proposed that Luke had a quick wash in the river or burn then went straight home,is this your view Parky? We will look at that scenario too.
Alibi wise,well you cant really say that Luke has no alibi for the alleged time of the murder,his mother has never wavered in her testimony that Luke was at home at 5.15,even passing a polygraph.
As for Shane,well now that you have posted his trial testimony the most you can say is that he didn't see Luke at supper time,there was no admission obtained by the prosecution that Corrine had coached him on what to say to give Luke an alibi,was there? He never admitted to knowing Luke was guilty or being told so by Corrine.Shane said he didn't know that jodi was dead till Corrine phoned in the middle of the night and this seemed to be accepted in court,yet Luke,Shane and their mum were all at home from 9.55 until Luke went out to look for Jodi at 10.45 or whenever,therefore ,wouldn't it have been sensible to tell Shane the situation at that time? Time to give him the mashing tattie alibi? Apparently not!
Means and opportunity for disposal of evidence,well this takes us back to the two possible scenarios,straight home or home at 6.30.Its worth mentioning that unless Luke went straight home and changed,why did the bicycle boys say he was wearing a short green bomber jacket? Is that correct?
If so,that ties us 100% with Luke rushing home after the murder and dumping the parka before changing into the green bomber jacket.After all,if he was on the way home from killing jodi when the bike boys saw him,where was the parka? And what was he wearing when he met High? Was it a green bomber jacket by any chance? Small point,but may be important.
Also,if Luke went straight home after the murder,that means he walked back down to the Newbattle end of the path and then back up again to sit on the wall where he was seen by the bike boys.
Special knowledge of the location of the victim etc., Well you just posted Alice Walkers testimony where she was told that it was her idea to go back down the path to look for Jodi,and also that she saw Mia jump up against the wall.I cant remember what was said about Luke seeing her hair scrunchie,didn't AW go over the wall and cradle Jodi once Luke had seen her,hiding the scrunchie from view before the body was photographed?
So,next we will look at the straight home scenario,of course that means Shane was also in the house at this time as well as Corrine! Thats interesting,isn't it?
-
So,let us look at a scenario where Luke goes straight home after killing Jodi.
Now first of all,let us just add that Luke had about 30 minutes after the murder to get home and then return to the end of Roans dyke path where he was seen by Fleming and Walsh.
Now this includes travelling time,cleaning time,changing clothes time and telling Corrine and Shane some kind of story,so,half an hour all in.
So,it is claimed that Leonard kelly heard Jodi dying behind the wall at 5.15 but we do not know if more time was used up mutilating the body after that.Anyway it gets a bit more complicated after that.did Luke wash up in a burn or river next or head straight home? Depends how much blood was visible on him I suppose.One things for sure,it would have been tough going wearing a heavy parka jacket.
Anyway,we will assume that Luke headed straight home without washing,so shall we say ten minutes to get home from the murder scene? So,Luke enters his mums house at 5.25 at the very earliest.
Now,we have just discovered that both Shane and Corrine were in the house at this time thanks to Parky posting Shanes trial testimony.
Now let us just point out that Luke couldn't have had much more than ten minutes in the house for this scenario,as he was seen by Fleming and Walsh at the end of the path around 5.45-50.
Now this is very little time to wash and change,let alone explain to his mum and brother what he had just done.
So what was said as Luke entered? Well,must have been something like this,with Corrine and Shane in unison,'where the hell have you been,we're famished,ye ken yi wiz supposed tae hae the supper ready.
Yi should get yir lug skelpit'
So,already in hot soup Luke has to give them the bombshell news of what he has done,but wait a minute,no sooner has he opened his mouth that, he takes out his phone and tries to call Jodi's house at 5.32.It is aborted so he begins again,discussing what he has done for about six minutes before calling Alan Ovens at Jodi's house at 5.38 where he calmly talls him that Jodi hasn't arrived.Shane and Corrine sit silent in the background listening to Lukes lies.
Anyway,we're running out of time,and Luke hasn't even washed yet.What about Shane and Corrine? Are they sitting frozen with shock or have they instantly agreed to give Luke an alibi and head for the firelighters and matches?
Anyway,Luke throws off his clothes and has a shower in record breaking time ,he then pulls on some clean clothes and the green bomber jacket,he then runs down the street and stands by the gate exhausted just as Fleming and Walsh drive past.Phew!
Shane and Luke thereafter go out for the evening and act as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened.
Well,there you are,this must be near enough what happened if Luke went straight home after killing Jodi,no??
Is there any other scenario appart from Luke going home at 6.30??
-
So do we take it that no actual timeline/scenario was produced by the prosecution Parky?
Well I suppose they did in a way,the Bryson sighting at one end of the path then the sighting by Fleming and Walsh at the other before the parka being burned at 6.30.
Just one point,did the prosecution claim that Luke went straight home after the murder or that he went home about 6.30?
I think it was you who proposed that Luke had a quick wash in the river or burn then went straight home,is this your view Parky? We will look at that scenario too.
Alibi wise,well you cant really say that Luke has no alibi for the alleged time of the murder,his mother has never wavered in her testimony that Luke was at home at 5.15,even passing a polygraph.
As for Shane,well now that you have posted his trial testimony the most you can say is that he didn't see Luke at supper time,there was no admission obtained by the prosecution that Corrine had coached him on what to say to give Luke an alibi,was there? He never admitted to knowing Luke was guilty or being told so by Corrine.Shane said he didn't know that jodi was dead till Corrine phoned in the middle of the night and this seemed to be accepted in court,yet Luke,Shane and their mum were all at home from 9.55 until Luke went out to look for Jodi at 10.45 or whenever,therefore ,wouldn't it have been sensible to tell Shane the situation at that time? Time to give him the mashing tattie alibi? Apparently not!
Means and opportunity for disposal of evidence,well this takes us back to the two possible scenarios,straight home or home at 6.30.Its worth mentioning that unless Luke went straight home and changed,why did the bicycle boys say he was wearing a short green bomber jacket? Is that correct?
If so,that ties us 100% with Luke rushing home after the murder and dumping the parka before changing into the green bomber jacket.After all,if he was on the way home from killing jodi when the bike boys saw him,where was the parka? And what was he wearing when he met High? Was it a green bomber jacket by any chance? Small point,but may be important.
Also,if Luke went straight home after the murder,that means he walked back down to the Newbattle end of the path and then back up again to sit on the wall where he was seen by the bike boys.
Special knowledge of the location of the victim etc., Well you just posted Alice Walkers testimony where she was told that it was her idea to go back down the path to look for Jodi,and also that she saw Mia jump up against the wall.I cant remember what was said about Luke seeing her hair scrunchie,didn't AW go over the wall and cradle Jodi once Luke had seen her,hiding the scrunchie from view before the body was photographed?
So,next we will look at the straight home scenario,of course that means Shane was also in the house at this time as well as Corrine! Thats interesting,isn't it?
That is all very well, but you are missing something out here of vital importance - It is not what LM claimed had taken place. Who cares what the damn dog was doing, being a dog or whatever on the way down that path, to the V point and no further. It was not alerting to the body of the victim.
The victims body had been hidden some 43ft west of the V break in the wall, around 5ft in from the wall behind a "large oak tree" LM was in the woodland mere seconds, he had barely moved from the V point. Now for this claimed alert, and the reason for him giving that position, it was, his very reason he claimed, for knowing precisely where to go when entering the woodland alone. - Dog didn't make him go left, dog didn't make him be the only one to take the notion of looking into that woodland, climbing up a high wall at the Gino break and shining his torch into nothingness.
LM claimed his dog had alerted to the wall, "some distance past not quite 20yds" the V break in that wall. He narrowed this down to being exactly 43ft past and precisely "parallel" to where her body lay over that wall. He had JaJ's with SK beside him past that break. That only he returned whilst they just kept on walking down the path.
We see from those accounts that this was untrue, they had not been past the break, he had not been past the break. That when he did enter that woodland alone, it was mere seconds, that he had barely moved from the V break on the woodland side. He named the tree, her injuries, clothing and that hair tie that was not visible until the post mortem. All from more than 30ft away. - Again, highlighting why suspicion fell upon. We see just how far SK had to walk down, AW all the way, LM not so much, he had barely moved.
He claimed he had never been in there before, it is dark, wow! look at that lovely big oak tree, damn, look at all that horror, those wounds, what a lovely tree, that is a pretty bobble! in her hair! So, no dog showing him the way, he just knew which direction, he barely moved. Describing things he could not possibly have seen.
To note, the big gap DF is speaking of that the others passed, it not the V break, it is off the lane, prior to meeting with LM. AW, it was her idea to go back down the path, it is why they were there, to search the path and verges together. DF makes an astounding job of showing that the boy, who claimed never to have been in the woodland before, stating he had never seen those breaks before, was the only one to take the notion, to divert a search of the path, verges, to that woodland beyond that high, thick wall. I do wonder, was he shining his torch to the sky to see the Gino break?
5 1/2 mins, of being as 4, didn't LM do an amazing job? No dog alerting to any body, no dog where LM claimed his dog had alerted, nothing to show LM where to go, straight to that wall, a quick swift shine of his torch, after climbing up the wall, oh there is "nothing there", a few feet into the field, again shines, straight to the V break, up and over, in what he claimed was unfamiliar ground - just seconds, with nothing to guide his way, as in where in here will I go, Oh I know, lets make it left into that narrow passage with all those obstacles, I just have a hunch that there is going to be his "something" down there?
-
That is all very well, but you are missing something out here of vital importance - It is not what LM claimed had taken place. Who cares what the damn dog was doing, being a dog or whatever on the way down that path, to the V point and no further. It was not alerting to the body of the victim.
The victims body had been hidden some 43ft west of the V break in the wall, around 5ft in from the wall behind a "large oak tree" LM was in the woodland mere seconds, he had barely moved from the V point. Now for this claimed alert, and the reason for him giving that position, it was, his very reason he claimed, for knowing precisely where to go when entering the woodland alone. - Dog didn't make him go left, dog didn't make him be the only one to take the notion of looking into that woodland, climbing up a high wall at the Gino break and shining his torch into nothingness.
LM claimed his dog had alerted to the wall, "some distance past not quite 20yds" the V break in that wall. He narrowed this down to being exactly 43ft past and precisely "parallel" to where her body lay over that wall. He had JaJ's with SK beside him past that break. That only he returned whilst they just kept on walking down the path.
We see from those accounts that this was untrue, they had not been past the break, he had not been past the break. That when he did enter that woodland alone, it was mere seconds, that he had barely moved from the V break on the woodland side. He named the tree, her injuries, clothing and that hair tie that was not visible until the post mortem. All from more than 30ft away. - Again, highlighting why suspicion fell upon. We see just how far SK had to walk down, AW all the way, LM not so much, he had barely moved.
He claimed he had never been in there before, it is dark, wow! look at that lovely big oak tree, damn, look at all that horror, those wounds, what a lovely tree, that is a pretty bobble! in her hair! So, no dog showing him the way, he just knew which direction, he barely moved. Describing things he could not possibly have seen.
To note, the big gap DF is speaking of that the others passed, it not the V break, it is off the lane, prior to meeting with LM. AW, it was her idea to go back down the path, it is why they were there, to search the path and verges together. DF makes an astounding job of showing that the boy, who claimed never to have been in the woodland before, stating he had never seen those breaks before, was the only one to take the notion, to divert a search of the path, verges, to that woodland beyond that high, thick wall. I do wonder, was he shining his torch to the sky to see the Gino break?
5 1/2 mins, of being as 4, didn't LM do an amazing job? No dog alerting to any body, no dog where LM claimed his dog had alerted, nothing to show LM where to go, straight to that wall, a quick swift shine of his torch, after climbing up the wall, oh there is "nothing there", a few feet into the field, again shines, straight to the V break, up and over, in what he claimed was unfamiliar ground - just seconds, with nothing to guide his way, as in where in here will I go, Oh I know, lets make it left into that narrow passage with all those obstacles, I just have a hunch that there is going to be his "something" down there?
If all that is true and points to Lukes guilt Parky,what the hell did Luke think he was doing pretending to find Jodi? Why did he do this? What was his plan? Why did he think this would favour him if it was so obvious to others that it proved his guilt? Isn't the dog story simply true?
-
If all that is true and points to Lukes guilt Parky,what the hell did Luke think he was doing pretending to find Jodi? Why did he do this? What was his plan? Why did he think this would favour him if it was so obvious to others that it proved his guilt? Isn't the dog story simply true?
How can the dog story be true when it didn't happen? He was not past that break, he had nothing from his dog showing him the way anywhere. Flip that over again, why do killers put themselves into searches for the victim - And on that note, just how many missing people are found in that time frame? A time frame that went like this?
10:38pm a text is sent, by 10:42pm LM makes the girls mother aware that something is seriously wrong. Less than 8mins later he is into physical search mode in that 10:49pm call, initiates a search directly to the path, by 10:59pm he is upon that path. He holds back on others arriving, quite clearly expecting them to have something for the dog to scent with, they did not. He had told JuJ's he was on the path with his dog. They catch sight of each other, physically meet around the Gino break no earlier than 11:22pm. Discussion, head off, those 5 1/2 mins and bang! Seriously, no way, the position of where the body was, no one, no dog in that woodland, no dog alerting to any body, not past the break, nothing to scent with. - Again, clear and sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him, why he could not be eliminated.
NB - Even if AW had not suggested they do what they were there to do as a group, he would still have been part of searching, at some point. And, he would have had something to use for the dog. Perhaps control had him be over eager and quick? Before the police became actively involved? Who knows, but again, this is on the basis of why suspicion fell upon him. And if an alibi is already in place, disposal of anything incriminating, a warped mind, who knows?! But that is what did happen.
-
How can the dog story be true when it didn't happen? He was not past that break, he had nothing from his dog showing him the way anywhere. Flip that over again, why do killers put themselves into searches for the victim - And on that note, just how many missing people are found in that time frame? A time frame that went like this?
10:38pm a text is sent, by 10:42pm LM makes the girls mother aware that something is seriously wrong. Less than 8mins later he is into physical search mode in that 10:49pm call, initiates a search directly to the path, by 10:59pm he is upon that path. He holds back on others arriving, quite clearly expecting them to have something for the dog to scent with, they did not. He had told JuJ's he was on the path with his dog. They catch sight of each other, physically meet around the Gino break no earlier than 11:22pm. Discussion, head off, those 5 1/2 mins and bang! Seriously, no way, the position of where the body was, no one, no dog in that woodland, no dog alerting to any body, not past the break, nothing to scent with. - Again, clear and sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him, why he could not be eliminated.
NB - Even if AW had not suggested they do what they were there to do as a group, he would still have been part of searching, at some point. And, he would have had something to use for the dog. Perhaps control had him be over eager and quick? Before the police became actively involved? Who knows, but again, this is on the basis of why suspicion fell upon him. And if an alibi is already in place, disposal of anything incriminating, a warped mind, who knows?! But that is what did happen.
Well,all I know is that it is claimed that Jodi's scent was carried over the wall by the overhanging ivy Parky. That is why Mia stood up and put her paws against the wall,as stated in Alice Walker and Steven Kelly's first statements.
What is your guilty Luke scenario/timeline Parky?
-
Off to try and find out what the push bike boys and David High said Luke was wearing.
Jacket wise anyway.
-
Well two sources say that the push bike boys said Luke was wearing a green bomber jacket with an orange lining.
Now as we have said,this is very important because it means that Luke must have already been home and changed out of the parka and into the bomber jacket when the boys saw him around 6.00.
So,if this has been accepted as fact then it leaves only one guilty scenario and one only.
It means that Luke went straight home after the murder.He couldn't be on his way home when the push bike boys saw him if he wasn't wearing the parka.Right? So that means if guilty Luke did indeed get home from the murder scene and back down to the entrance to Roans Dyke path within half an hour as we have already discussed.
Is this really possible?
The boys statements would have to be seen of course,but if Luke was indeed wearing a bomber jacket when the boys saw him,DID he have the opportunity time wise to have carried out the murder?
-
You know,its quite amusing,the known timeline means that whether Luke was guilty or not he must have left his mums house at 5.40.We know this because he was seen by Fleming and Walsh about 5.45 at the entrance to the path.So in a way,we have proof that Luke was indeed in the house around supper time as he claimed.He muat have either been having his supper as he said or had just arrived home to leave the parka and change into the green bomber jacket,right?
So one way or another Luke must have been telling the truth when he said he left the house at 5.40,right?
Now we could give him about another ten minutes in the house to clean up if we rule out the Fleming/Wash sighting.This would mean Luke only had to walk to the end of the street before being seen by the push bike boys at 5.55.That would give him about 40 minutes at the most after the murder to get home from the crime scene ,clean up and walk to the end of the street.And that is assuming that he had just that very minute reached the end of the street when the boys saw him.That is,he had just arrived and sat down on the wall as the boys went past.
This is also assuming that Luke left the crime scene at bang on 5.15 and not a minute longer,which is unlikely.I hope I am making all this clear?
Anyway,as we have discussed the only other possible scenario is that Luke was on his way home from the murder scene when the bike boys saw him.But this means he must have been wearing the parka at the time and not a green bomber jacket,right?
Now as I say,I dont know if the prosecution gave any kind of detailed guilty scenario/timeline or not,but to be quite honest it is no surprise if they didn't.Is a believable guilty scenario possible?
Is this why the prosecution simply concentrated on what Shane was doing in his bedroom and the claim that Luke went straight to the v break in the wall? And we know that both these claims have problems anyway.We have proven that even if Luke was not in the house at 5.15 when Shane came down stairs,he most certainly was by 5.25-30 guilty or not.The only other possibility is that Luke didn't get home till 6.30,and we have spoken of the problems with that scenario,least of all the bomber jacket.
As for Luke going straight to the crime scene,well we know that appart from him at least two of the other witnesses saw Mia standing up with her paws on the wall.
And even if this was not true,why was it so odd that Luke found Jodi?
Lets just look at what happened.Luke meets up with the others who then decide to go back down the path that Luke has just travelled up,its their idea,not his.Now on the way back Luke searches open areas and fields,now this makes sense,after all he knows Jodi isn't lying in the path,he's just travelled up the path for heavens sake.
And now that he is with the others he can give someone the dog to hold if he has to go over the wall to search,something he could not do on his own,Mia might have scarpered.Although he could have tied her to a branch or fence post I suppose.
Anyway,point being,he's doing the logical thing on the way back searching for Jodi in areas that he didnt/couldn't check on the way up the path on his own.So Luke is already looking through gaps and checking open ground long before they reach the v break.
So would it really have been odd for Luke to climb over the v break even if Mia didn't jump up on the wall?
Anyway the witnesses told the police that mia did jump up against the wall and said she had already been pulling on the lead before that.
So,if we look at all the evidence I dont see a strong case at all against Luke Mitchell,especially if you look at his window of opportunity with the available timeline and limited possible scenarios.
There has to be reasonable doubt surely.
And why did the police try to destroy all the evidence last year?
-
You know,its quite amusing,the known timeline means that whether Luke was guilty or not he must have left his mums house at 5.40.We know this because he was seen by Fleming and Walsh about 5.45 at the entrance to the path.So in a way,we have proof that Luke was indeed in the house around supper time as he claimed.He muat have either been having his supper as he said or had just arrived home to leave the parka and change into the green bomber jacket,right?
So one way or another Luke must have been telling the truth when he said he left the house at 5.40,right?
Now we could give him about another ten minutes in the house to clean up if we rule out the Fleming/Wash sighting.This would mean Luke only had to walk to the end of the street before being seen by the push bike boys at 5.55.That would give him about 40 minutes at the most after the murder to get home from the crime scene ,clean up and walk to the end of the street.And that is assuming that he had just that very minute reached the end of the street when the boys saw him.That is,he had just sat down on the wall as the boys went past.
This is also assuming that Luke left the crime scene at bang on 5.15 and not a minute longer,which is unlikely.I hope I am making all this clear?
Anyway,as we have discussed the only other possible scenario is that Luke was on his way home from the murder scene when the bike boys saw him.But this means he must have been wearing the parka at the time and not a green bomber jacket,right?
Now as I say,I dont know if the prosecution gave any kind of detailed guilty scenario/timeline or not,but to be quite honest it is no surprise if they didn't.Is a believable guilty scenario possible?
Is this why the prosecution simply concentrated on what Shane was doing in his bedroom and the claim that Luke went straight to the v break in the wall? And we know that both these claims have problems anyway.We have proven that even if Luke was not in the house at 5.15 when Shane came down stairs,he most certainly was by 5.25-30 guilty or not.The only other possibility is that Luke didn't get home till 6.30,and we have spoken of the problems with that scenario,least of all the bomber jacket.
As for Luke going straight to the crime scene,well we know that appart from him at least two of the other witnesses saw Mia standing up with her paws on the wall.
And even if this was not true,why was it so odd that Luke found Jodi?
Lets just look at what happened.Luke meets up with the others who then decide to go back down the path that Luke has just travelled up,its their idea,not his.Now on the way back Luke searches open areas and fields,now this makes sense,after all he knows Jodi isn't lying in the path,he's just travelled up the path for heavens sake.
And now that he is with the others he can give someone the dog to hold if he has to go over the wall to search,something he could not do on his own,Mia might have scarpered.Although he could have tied her to a branch or fence post I suppose.
Anyway,point being,he's doing the logical thing on the way back searching for Jodi in areas that he didnt/couldn't check on the way up the path on his own.So Luke is already looking through gaps and checking open ground long before they reach the v break.
So would it really have been odd for Luke to climb over the v break even if Mia didn't jump up on the wall?
Anyway the witnesses told the police that mia did jump up against the wall and said she had already been pulling on the lead before that.
So,if we look at all the evidence I dont see a strong case at all against Luke Mitchell,especially if you look at his window of opportunity with the available timeline and limited possible scenarios.
There has to be reasonable doubt surely.
And why did the police try to destroy all the evidence last year?
I agree, it is rather amusing.
-
I agree, it is rather amusing.
Could you help out with the times and routes Parky? To give a more accurate timeframe that is.
For instance ,just how long does it take to get from the crime scene to Lukes mums house,and how long does it take to get from his mums house to the entrance of Roan Dyke path?
I think you have mentioned short cuts back from the crime scene? Could you expand on this a little,I take it you dont think he simply used Roans Dyke path and walked up the road to Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
If this is the case,whereabouts did he enter the crescent do you think?
Did he have to cross the river Esk if he used a short cut? Were there any bridges?
Can you help me out with any of this Parky,just to get a more accurate timeframe as I say.
-
Could you help out with the times and routes Parky? To give a more accurate timeframe that is.
For instance ,just how long does it take to get from the crime scene to Lukes mums house,and how long does it take to get from his mums house to the entrance of Roan Dyke path?
I think you have mentioned short cuts back from the crime scene? Could you expand on this a little,I take it you dont think he simply used Roans Dyke path and walked up the road to Newbattle Abbey Crescent?
If this is the case,whereabouts did he enter the crescent do you think?
Did he have to cross the river Esk if he used a short cut? Were there any bridges?
Can you help me out with any of this Parky,just to get a more accurate timeframe as I say.
Ok - So good old Google maps, I believe you already located the Mitchell home. Place yourself facing way from it, slight right. The line of high back garden fences follows all the way around and into the woodland area. Very little houses at all with front facing view, just some on the same row as the Mitchell home. It is an option to lesson the risk of being seen if going home or away from it. Thing is he was not seen at all, not even in his version of events. Not even by those staying in the houses that look on to where he said he was sitting on the wall. Only seen at 10pm going home, nearly an hour later than when he claimed to have went home. - Yes the river Esk to cross, and as has been highlighted by residents and dog walkers, there are crossing points from the woodland over into the estate.
I think (with LM being the killer) there was a lot of winging it to see what would transpire. Once the deed is done, not much else one can do outwith the obvious.
Timings - Approx 7mins from house to path entrance, 2 to estate entrance, 10 for path W - E. The locus, that bottom area of the woodland strip, adds slightly more to the 7, but we have the sighting at approx 5:40pm by F&W. Lane of the AB sighting, around 6mins to where the attack commenced. Time approx in the woodland, would be in excess of 35mins. I have no desire to try and work through how long it takes to attack, kill and mutilate someone. What I did do before, is place many things that could be achieved in that time frame, to show it is actually quite a long time. Long enough for the Crown with whatever experts, to believe that is what happened.
Gaps in time, those 15mins approx from the F&W sighting, then that more expansive time from approx 6:20pm. I am rethinking this also, you see, new information is coming to light, such as LM possibly being on the phone just short of 6pm? That he was wearing a German army shirt, which is interesting, because he again claimed not to have owned one until after the murder.
NB - The path is not just a path and wall. There is several feet of undergrowth/ground between path and wall. Verge to field and field (others shining torch into these areas, checking). On to the canopy, the bottom third of the path, much more secluded area around it to check also. So this LM not seeing anything on the path itself means nothing. Plus, he had waited on the arrival of the others, he knew they were going to be searching together. On the path by 11pm, we are told he raced up it, false. Above, that 10min walk, he was not even at the top by 11:22pm.
Dog sniffing Ivy, that did make me chuckle. - Caught sight of each other around 11:22pm, AW and co walked down to physically be in his company, almost at the Gino spot. Brief discussion and off. The first thing he did was go to the wall to look over it. - I'll continue with more on this if have time.
-
Ok - So good old Google maps, I believe you already located the Mitchell home. Place yourself facing way from it, slight right. The line of high back garden fences follows all the way around and into the woodland area. Very little houses at all with front facing view, just some on the same row as the Mitchell home. It is an option to lesson the risk of being seen if going home or away from it. Thing is he was not seen at all, not even in his version of events. Not even by those staying in the houses that look on to where he said he was sitting on the wall. Only seen at 10pm going home, nearly an hour later than when he claimed to have went home. - Yes the river Esk to cross, and as has been highlighted by residents and dog walkers, there are crossing points from the woodland over into the estate.
I think (with LM being the killer) there was a lot of winging it to see what would transpire. Once the deed is done, not much else one can do outwith the obvious.
Timings - Approx 7mins from house to path entrance, 2 to estate entrance, 10 for path W - E. The locus, that bottom area of the woodland strip, adds slightly more to the 7, but we have the sighting at approx 5:40pm by F&W. Lane of the AB sighting, around 6mins to where the attack commenced. Time approx in the woodland, would be in excess of 35mins. I have no desire to try and work through how long it takes to attack, kill and mutilate someone. What I did do before, is place many things that could be achieved in that time frame, to show it is actually quite a long time. Long enough for the Crown with whatever experts, to believe that is what happened.
Gaps in time, those 15mins approx from the F&W sighting, then that more expansive time from approx 6:20pm. I am rethinking this also, you see, new information is coming to light, such as LM possibly being on the phone just short of 6pm? That he was wearing a German army shirt, which is interesting, because he again claimed not to have owned one until after the murder.
NB - The path is not just a path and wall. There is several feet of undergrowth/ground between path and wall. Verge to field and field (others shining torch into these areas, checking). On to the canopy, the bottom third of the path, much more secluded area around it to check also. So this LM not seeing anything on the path itself means nothing. Plus, he had waited on the arrival of the others, he knew they were going to be searching together. On the path by 11pm, we are told he raced up it, false. Above, that 10min walk, he was not even at the top by 11:22pm.
Dog sniffing Ivy, that did make me chuckle. - Caught sight of each other around 11:22pm, AW and co walked down to physically be in his company, almost at the Gino spot. Brief discussion and off. The first thing he did was go to the wall to look over it. - I'll continue with more on this if have time.
Thanks Parky,i'll go through all this in detail,but may need a few points clarrified.
A full scenario timeframe basically,if you think he went straight home after the murder or around 6.30?
As you may know,I mainly concentrate on timeframes and scenarios as a way of determining things Parky.
-
Ok - So good old Google maps, I believe you already located the Mitchell home. Place yourself facing way from it, slight right. The line of high back garden fences follows all the way around and into the woodland area. Very little houses at all with front facing view, just some on the same row as the Mitchell home. It is an option to lesson the risk of being seen if going home or away from it. Thing is he was not seen at all, not even in his version of events. Not even by those staying in the houses that look on to where he said he was sitting on the wall. Only seen at 10pm going home, nearly an hour later than when he claimed to have went home. - Yes the river Esk to cross, and as has been highlighted by residents and dog walkers, there are crossing points from the woodland over into the estate.
I think (with LM being the killer) there was a lot of winging it to see what would transpire. Once the deed is done, not much else one can do outwith the obvious.
Timings - Approx 7mins from house to path entrance, 2 to estate entrance, 10 for path W - E. The locus, that bottom area of the woodland strip, adds slightly more to the 7, but we have the sighting at approx 5:40pm by F&W. Lane of the AB sighting, around 6mins to where the attack commenced. Time approx in the woodland, would be in excess of 35mins. I have no desire to try and work through how long it takes to attack, kill and mutilate someone. What I did do before, is place many things that could be achieved in that time frame, to show it is actually quite a long time. Long enough for the Crown with whatever experts, to believe that is what happened.
Gaps in time, those 15mins approx from the F&W sighting, then that more expansive time from approx 6:20pm. I am rethinking this also, you see, new information is coming to light, such as LM possibly being on the phone just short of 6pm? That he was wearing a German army shirt, which is interesting, because he again claimed not to have owned one until after the murder.
NB - The path is not just a path and wall. There is several feet of undergrowth/ground between path and wall. Verge to field and field (others shining torch into these areas, checking). On to the canopy, the bottom third of the path, much more secluded area around it to check also. So this LM not seeing anything on the path itself means nothing. Plus, he had waited on the arrival of the others, he knew they were going to be searching together. On the path by 11pm, we are told he raced up it, false. Above, that 10min walk, he was not even at the top by 11:22pm.
Dog sniffing Ivy, that did make me chuckle. - Caught sight of each other around 11:22pm, AW and co walked down to physically be in his company, almost at the Gino spot. Brief discussion and off. The first thing he did was go to the wall to look over it. - I'll continue with more on this if have time.
Ok,firstly,using the wooded area and going round the houses to get onto Newbattle Abbey crescent looks like a longer route than using Newbattle road to get home,can you clarrify how long this route would take?That is,from the locus to Lukes house.In one of your posts you spoke of Luke washing in the River Esk on the way back,did you mean a quick wash to his hands and face or that he waded in and washed his clothes at the same time before walking home soaking wet?
Now,are you saying 17minutes from the locus and walking up Newbattle road,have I got that right?
Now,you seem to accept the Fleming/Walsh sighting Parky,so can you just clarrify if you think Luke was on his way home from the murder scene at this time,or had he been home first?
Not quite sure what the 35 minutes refers to?
What was Luke wearing when the push bike boys saw him,parka or Bomber?
Time on Roans Dyke path before he met search party,seems a long time,haven't really looked into that.Will do.
-
Ok,firstly,using the wooded area and going round the houses to get onto Newbattle Abbey crescent looks like a longer route than using Newbattle road to get home,can you clarrify how long this route would take?That is,from the locus to Lukes house.In one of your posts you spoke of Luke washing in the River Esk on the way back,did you mean a quick wash to his hands and face or that he waded in and washed his clothes at the same time before walking home soaking wet?
Now,are you saying 17minutes from the locus and walking up Newbattle road,have I got that right?
Now,you seem to accept the Fleming/Walsh sighting Parky,so can you just clarrify if you think Luke was on his way home from the murder scene at this time,or had he been home first?
Not quite sure what the 35 minutes refers to?
What was Luke wearing when the push bike boys saw him,parka or Bomber?
Time on Roans Dyke path before he met search party,seems a long time,haven't really looked into that.Will do.
Applying some reality over the fallacy in place. Such as:
Two people, same colour, style of heavier outer coat, same hair styles, identified quite naturally as being the same person, short distance and time apart in those quiet suburbs. The 35mins is from the sighting by AB, to before the sighting by F&W, 40mins is more accurate. This is the time for the murder taken place.
Having to clean, using what he was surrounded by, the most natural source going, leaving no trace! The only thing he would have had to clean in reality, is his face, some hair and soles of his boots. Get out of that clothing. I am not saying he did this, I am placing a little more reality over the fallacy in place, which is - That he had to have been bright red, dripping in the stuff, running the full length of that road home, for a long hot shower and change.
As said, re-thinking a little more also. One of the cyclists says he was not wearing that bomber but a German army shirt! Long and baggy. That he also thought he was on the phone. - It has come to light that some calls have been added that did not happen, no doubt some calls that took place have been omitted? I have always said that the likes of IB is based around safety nets of sourcing. Such as using what ones knows can be sourced, reliance upon that which one believed could not be sourced?
Anyway - Whatever those time scales are between sightings, nothing would be getting carried out at an even pace. We can easily shorten these. The route, if diagonal through the woodland, under cover, to the river and beyond is not longer than the length of road and up through the estate?
So we are still playing around with those 15mins and the larger time period after 6:20pm. Is 15mins enough for him to have initially removed obvious trace from his face etc, changed anything, to emerge back onto Newbattle road from the woodland, for that is where he was next seen? The sequence heading down to the entrance of his estate?
We can't play around with AW's timings, every point of contact was directly to the landline until the last call at 11:03pm then switching to mobile contact. Also witnessed leaving there. As stated, LM claimed he was on/at the path in the 10:59pm call. Communication central around Jodi's mother passing information between both parties. Last prior to meeting, just before the arrival of the police, 11:17pm - 11:20pm.
-
Applying some reality over the fallacy in place. Such as:
Two people, same colour, style of heavier outer coat, same hair styles, identified quite naturally as being the same person, short distance and time apart in those quiet suburbs. The 35mins is from the sighting by AB, to before the sighting by F&W, 40mins is more accurate. This is the time for the murder taken place.
Having to clean, using what he was surrounded by, the most natural source going, leaving no trace! The only thing he would have had to clean in reality, is his face, some hair and soles of his boots. Get out of that clothing. I am not saying he did this, I am placing a little more reality over the fallacy in place, which is - That he had to have been bright red, dripping in the stuff, running the full length of that road home, for a long hot shower and change.
As said, re-thinking a little more also. One of the cyclists says he was not wearing that bomber but a German army shirt! Long and baggy. That he also thought he was on the phone. - It has come to light that some calls have been added that did not happen, no doubt some calls that took place have been omitted? I have always said that the likes of IB is based around safety nets of sourcing. Such as using what ones knows can be sourced, reliance upon that which one believed could not be sourced?
Anyway - Whatever those time scales are between sightings, nothing would be getting carried out at an even pace. We can easily shorten these. The route, if diagonal through the woodland, under cover, to the river and beyond is not longer than the length of road and up through the estate?
So we are still playing around with those 15mins and the larger time period after 6:20pm. Is 15mins enough for him to have initially removed obvious trace from his face etc, changed anything, to emerge back onto Newbattle road from the woodland, for that is where he was next seen? The sequence heading down to the entrance of his estate?
We can't play around with AW's timings, every point of contact was directly to the landline until the last call at 11:03pm then switching to mobile contact. Also witnessed leaving there. As stated, LM claimed he was on/at the path in the 10:59pm call. Communication central around Jodi's mother passing information between both parties. Last prior to meeting, just before the arrival of the police, 11:17pm - 11:20pm.
OK thanks Parky,I will try and work out your scenario from what you have said.
-
OK,I have read many of your posts Parky,trying to get a better picture of your guilty Luke scenario.
Unfortunately you never really give a full coherent timeframe that I can see,in fact,if I may say so you are combining the two possible scenarios,and this does not work.
Let me try to explain.You are adamant that Luke was wearing the parka when F/W saw him at 5.45,yet you say Luke had been home and changed into a long green shirt by the time the push bike boys saw him at 5.55.This is not possible.Luke could not get home from the gate into Roans Dyke path and back out to the end of his street in ten minutes,no way.
But lets just look at your scenario up till that point.Andrina Bryson sees Luke at the Easthouses end of the path at 4.55,he kills Jodi and immediately phones her house but aborts the call because the moped boys can be heard on the path.He goes to the end of the path [using Roans Dyke path or the woods??] ,
he then phones Alan Ovens around 5.38 before standing by the wooden gate wearing the parka around 5.45 as F/W drive past. Why he wants to be seen by F/W I am not sure.
So,we are at 5.45 and Parky claims Luke hasn't been home yet,is that right?
Next you have Luke duck back into the woods,cross the river,giving his hands and face a quick wash and circle through the woods to get onto Newbattle Abbey crescent,right? So you actually have Luke arriving home when he should be sitting changed into the army shirt at the end of the street.
One other thing,wouldn't Luke have gone down to the river and washed before he stood at the gate?That would waste more time of course.
But why would he actually waste precious time at all going near the gate? Why not just make for the river and keep going?
Seems to have been a big part of Lukes plan to stand by the gate and be seen.Why? On the off chance that someone actually noticed him? And if it was of the uttmost importance for him to be seen at this stage,why did he later deny it was him? And worse than that,if he intended to go home and burn the parka soon after,why the hell did he want to make damned sure he was seen in it? Silly boy!
Never mind,so where were we? Oh yes,this scenario does not work,not if F/W saw Luke wearing his parka,it cant.Not unless Luke walked up Newbattle road afterwards and sat on the wall still wearing the parka at 5.55 as the push bike boys went past.He couldn,t have gone back into the woods,got the path to the river,wash,go home and change and walk to the end of the street.
So,we will repeat the two possible scenarios.Or three if you scrap the F/W sighting I suppose If there is a more plausable one please let me know.
Scenario 1. Straight home after the murder,ten minutes in house to wash change and arrange alibi with Corrine/Shane,walk down to the gate by 5.45 to be seen by F/W.Trouble is Luke has left the parka at home by then,hasn't he?? Oh dear!
In that case,the Crown case must indeed be Scenario 2. Home at 6.30. That is, F/W see Luke at 5.45-50 and then he walks up Newbattle road and sits on the wall just as the push bike boys go past,right? He then sits on the wall for half an hour still wearing the parka before going home to burn it.By golly Luke really wanted as many people as possible to see that parka before he destroyed it,didn't he.A farewell look?
Or WAS he wearing a parka while sitting on the wall? Must have been or this scenario falls flat.doesn't it?
No,the best possible guilty scenario is to scrap the F/W sighting alltogether and have Luke go straight home by 5.30 or so to change etc.,At least this gives him around 15-20 minutes at home to sort things out before walking to the end of the street at 5.50-55 in time for the push bike boys to see him.
But I dont suppose you will be too happy with cutting out the Fleming/Walsh sighting Parky?
As for the time it took Luke to walk up the path with Mia later that night,are you saying this took about 20 minutes Parky?
That doesn't seem too long,walking in the dark while searching for someone.He was probably searching all the verges you were talking about.no?
Anyway,no guilty scenario works very well in reality does it?
This takes us back to QCs occams razor theory.To make Luke guilty we have to make up an extremely far fetched illogical scenario,where as, if we take it that Luke is innocent,things fit nicely,he simply had his supper and left the house at 5.40. No getting home in record breaking time,no washing in rivers,no burning heavy parka jackets after making damned sure several witnesses had seen it,and no running straight to the murder scene like a half wit.
No,a guilty Luke just does not fit Parky. I am with Bubo,find Stocky man and you find the culprit.
And I dont mean anyone from the Dalkeith area. A devil blew in that day and drifted away again unseen,leaving a community devastated ever since. This was the work of a madman with a history of similar crimes.A sick serial killer.No one in Dalkeith fits the description.Didn't the FBI report prove this?
-
there at least 2 witness 2 jodi walking down the path an or the stocky a simple google search wil confirm this
What was he wearing nugnug?
-
Ah,found some info.
White,stocky build,5 feet seven-5 feet 10.Short brown/ginger hair,dark sweatshirt,possibly with hood,and dark trousers.He may also be carrying a backpack on his shoulder.Late teens early 20s.
Following Jodi at five o'clock.
-
Ah,found some info.
White,stocky build,5 feet seven-5 feet 10.Short brown/ginger hair,dark sweatshirt,possibly with hood,and dark trousers.He may also be carrying a backpack on his shoulder.Late teens early 20s.
Following Jodi at five o'clock.
Oh dear - It was around a first positive "possible" sighting of the girl. Click bait sensationalist headlines. An appeal for a male AND a girl to go forward. The two people in the article could not positively ID Jodi Jones, the time and date. Very much why the appeal was put out, looking for others to help confirm if was indeed her around that time. They couldn't, if they could have, they would have been used.
No doubt we will start entering into the realms of some mad conspiracy - And the obvious question is not asked, what did these two people say they thought the girl was wearing? The girl with the pushchair who saw nothing, not around 5pm on the 30th of June she didn't.
-
OK,I have read many of your posts Parky,trying to get a better picture of your guilty Luke scenario.
Unfortunately you never really give a full coherent timeframe that I can see,in fact,if I may say so you are combining the two possible scenarios,and this does not work.
Let me try to explain.You are adamant that Luke was wearing the parka when F/W saw him at 5.45,yet you say Luke had been home and changed into a long green shirt by the time the push bike boys saw him at 5.55.This is not possible.Luke could not get home from the gate into Roans Dyke path and back out to the end of his street in ten minutes,no way.
But lets just look at your scenario up till that point.Andrina Bryson sees Luke at the Easthouses end of the path at 4.55,he kills Jodi and immediately phones her house but aborts the call because the moped boys can be heard on the path.He goes to the end of the path [using Roans Dyke path or the woods??] ,
he then phones Alan Ovens around 5.38 before standing by the wooden gate wearing the parka around 5.45 as F/W drive past. Why he wants to be seen by F/W I am not sure.
So,we are at 5.45 and Parky claims Luke hasn't been home yet,is that right?
Next you have Luke duck back into the woods,cross the river,giving his hands and face a quick wash and circle through the woods to get onto Newbattle Abbey crescent,right? So you actually have Luke arriving home when he should be sitting changed into the army shirt at the end of the street.
One other thing,wouldn't Luke have gone down to the river and washed before he stood at the gate?That would waste more time of course.
But why would he actually waste precious time at all going near the gate? Why not just make for the river and keep going?
Seems to have been a big part of Lukes plan to stand by the gate and be seen.Why? On the off chance that someone actually noticed him? And if it was of the uttmost importance for him to be seen at this stage,why did he later deny it was him? And worse than that,if he intended to go home and burn the parka soon after,why the hell did he want to make damned sure he was seen in it? Silly boy!
Never mind,so where were we? Oh yes,this scenario does not work,not if F/W saw Luke wearing his parka,it cant.Not unless Luke walked up Newbattle road afterwards and sat on the wall still wearing the parka at 5.55 as the push bike boys went past.He couldn,t have gone back into the woods,got the path to the river,wash,go home and change and walk to the end of the street.
So,we will repeat the two possible scenarios.Or three if you scrap the F/W sighting I suppose If there is a more plausable one please let me know.
Scenario 1. Straight home after the murder,ten minutes in house to wash change and arrange alibi with Corrine/Shane,walk down to the gate by 5.45 to be seen by F/W.Trouble is Luke has left the parka at home by then,hasn't he?? Oh dear!
In that case,the Crown case must indeed be Scenario 2. Home at 6.30. That is, F/W see Luke at 4.45-50 and then he walks up Newbattle road and sits on the wall just as the push bike boys go past,right? He then sits on the wall for half an hour still wearing the parka before going home to burn it.By golly Luke really wanted as many people as possible to see that parka before he destroyed it,didn't he.A farewell look?
Or WAS he wearing a parka while sitting on the wall? Must have been or this scenario falls flat.doesn't it?
No,the best possible guilty scenario is to scrap the F/W sighting alltogether and have Luke go straight home by 5.30 or so to change etc.,At least this gives him around 15-20 minutes at home to sort things out before walking to the end of the street at 5.50-55 in time for the push bike boys to see him.
But I dont suppose you will be too happy with cutting out the Fleming/Walsh sighting Parky?
As for the time it took Luke to walk up the path with Mia later that night,are you saying this took about 20 minutes Parky?
That doesn't seem too long,walking in the dark while searching for someone.He was probably searching all the verges you were talking about.no?
Anyway,no guilty scenario works very well in reality does it?
This takes us back to QCs occams razor theory.To make Luke guilty we have to make up an extremely far fetched illogical scenario,where as if we take it that Luke is innocent,things fit nicely,he simply had his supper and left the house at 5.40. No getting home in record breaking time,no washing in rivers,no burning heavy parka jackets after making damned sure several witnesses had seen it,and no running straight to the murder scene like a half wit.
No,a guilty Luke just does not fit Parky. I am with Bubo,find Stocky man and you find the culprit.
And I dont mean anyone from the Dalkeith area. A devil blew in that day and drifted away again unseen,leaving a community devastated ever since. This was the work of a madman with a history of similar crimes.A sick serial killer.No one in Dalkeith fits the description.Didn't the FBI report prove this?
I agree, sick indeed. And alas, they all start somewhere, hidden in plain sight, don't they? And they do not just stop. - I'll leave you to it.
-
I agree, sick indeed. And alas, they all start somewhere, hidden in plain sight, don't they? And they do not just stop. - I'll leave you to it.
But they are usually very cunning and sneaky Parky,they dont advertise that they are going to meet their victim do they? Just doesn't make sense when you sit back and think about it,just doesn't fit.
-
But they are usually very cunning and sneaky Parky,they dont advertise that they are going to meet their victim do they? Just doesn't make sense when you sit back and think about it,just doesn't fit.
Take no notice of him he does know what he is talking about. He only had a Parka after Jodie's death. The one teacher who saw him in a Parka did not realise it belonged to another student and none of his mates said he had one. The knife was purchased after the murder and a receipt was shown to police. SL makes all these points in her well researched podcasts. He just has it in for Luke for some reason. His timelines do not work as you have shown and the idea that he would commit the murder and then behave in full view in the way that he did is nonsense, as you rightly say.
He is just using bits of evidence much of it highly contestable and most of the family used different timings at trial from their original statements. These changes cannot be challenged at trial because of the rules under Scottish law. He is manipulating them to pin the murder on Luke. If anyone is fantasising it is him
-
But they are usually very cunning and sneaky Parky,they dont advertise that they are going to meet their victim do they? Just doesn't make sense when you sit back and think about it,just doesn't fit.
Well, see there's the thing. The meeting at the earlier time was out the blue. The girl had been on a curfew, not out before 6pm on school nights. Now whilst there was an exchange of texts, they were not recovered. Now the content of those texts, the infancy of mobile phones, whilst there is no guarantee they could not be recovered, certainly any privacy between the young girl, contents, he could be assured would have been deleted by his girlfriend, out of the prying eyes of her mother?
With opportunism comes planning, should that opportunity to carry whatever out, should arise. So, it was not any pre arranged meeting time perhaps from school, the usual time. It had been brought forward by over an hour. He could very well have used this change as an opportunity to carry this murder out. He himself would know the likelihood of being seen up to the point of the meeting. All that lovely woodland?
Time from 4:40pm to 5:54pm. She was said to have been leaving to meet him directly after the last text message. Instantly that changed, she was held back by her mother a good 5 mins. He called the speaking clock tying in with her running late. That sighting by AB, had him in the lane, egging the girl to go to him. Had the meeting been arranged for just inside that woodland, next to where their initials were carved? Did LM step out into the lane to see where she was? She had arrived and he was beckoning her to him, to get her out of sight perhaps?
To then walk all the way down into that area off the beaten track, and violently attack her! Now I am not saying this is what happened, what I am saying is, everything pointed to LM for multiple reasons. The police could not disregard those sightings. The fact she made contact with only one person, no means to contact anyone else, the only person who could have learnt of her punishment being lifted, then leaving home shortly afterwards to do just that, meet with him.
The stocky man, even if there had been a positive Identification of the girl at that time - C'mon, this possible sighting was almost directly up from her house, some distance from the lane itself. The girl had no phone, no security, nothing distracting her hearing! Banned from using the path alone, and one would certainly be aware of anyone behind them if entering into the area at all, alone. There was no forensic evidence, no signs of any altercation taken place bar within that bottom area of that woodland strip, off the beaten track.
But if we apply why there would be no signs of any struggle, abduction, force, we can apply she walked down into that area with someone she knew, someone she had frequented the woodland with?
-
Take no notice of him he does know what he is talking about. He only had a Parka after Jodie's death. The one teacher who saw him in a Parka did not realise it belonged to another student and none of his mates said he had one. The knife was purchased after the murder and a receipt was shown to police. SL makes all these points in her well researched podcasts. He just has it in for Luke for some reason. His timelines do not work as you have shown and the idea that he would commit the murder and then behave in full view in the way that he did is nonsense, as you rightly say.
He is just using bits of evidence much of it highly contestable and most of the family used different timings at trial from their original statements. These changes cannot be challenged at trial because of the rules under Scottish law. He is manipulating them to pin the murder on Luke. If anyone is fantasising it is him
"Pin the murder on Luke" - You are good, I won't even ask you to re-think that statement, I can see just how futile that would be. Entertaining but futile just the same.
-
Well, see there's the thing. The meeting at the earlier time was out the blue. The girl had been on a curfew, not out before 6pm on school nights. Now whilst there was an exchange of texts, they were not recovered. Now the content of those texts, the infancy of mobile phones, whilst there is no guarantee they could not be recovered, certainly any privacy between the young girl, contents, he could be assured would have been deleted by his girlfriend, out of the prying eyes of her mother?
With opportunism comes planning, should that opportunity to carry whatever out, should arise. So, it was not any pre arranged meeting time perhaps from school, the usual time. It had been brought forward by over an hour. He could very well have used this change as an opportunity to carry this murder out. He himself would know the likelihood of being seen up to the point of the meeting. All that lovely woodland?
Time from 4:40pm to 5:54pm. She was said to have been leaving to meet him directly after the last text message. Instantly that changed, she was held back by her mother a good 5 mins. He called the speaking clock tying in with her running late. That sighting by AB, had him in the lane, egging the girl to go to him. Had the meeting been arranged for just inside that woodland, next to where their initials were carved? Did LM step out into the lane to see where she was? She had arrived and he was beckoning her to him, to get her out of sight perhaps?
To then walk all the way down into that area off the beaten track, and violently attack her! Now I am not saying this is what happened, what I am saying is, everything pointed to LM for multiple reasons. The police could not disregard those sightings. The fact she made contact with only one person, no means to contact anyone else, the only person who could have learnt of her punishment being lifted, then leaving home shortly afterwards to do just that, meet with him.
The stocky man, even if there had been a positive Identification of the girl at that time - C'mon, this possible sighting was almost directly up from her house, some distance from the lane itself. The girl had no phone, no security, nothing distracting her hearing! Banned from using the path alone, and one would certainly be aware of anyone behind them if entering into the area at all, alone. There was no forensic evidence, no signs of any altercation taken place bar within that bottom area of that woodland strip, off the beaten track.
But if we apply why there would be no signs of any struggle, abduction, force, we can apply she walked down into that area with someone she knew, someone she had frequented the woodland with?
The problem you have is that one of the three major planks that the police relied on was witness identification. Not only are timings of the so called sightings in doubt but so are the descriptions. The Bryson one gets the clothing worn by the female/girl totally wrong and scientific tests conducted on witness identification show that this form of evidence is notoriously unreliable. Just google it and you will see that there are many detailed web sites explaining this.
-
The problem you have is that one of the three major planks that the police relied on was witness identification. Not only are timings of the so called sightings in doubt but so are the descriptions. The Bryson one gets the clothing worn by the female/girl totally wrong and scientific tests conducted on witness identification show that this form of evidence is notoriously unreliable. Just google it and you will see that there are many detailed web sites explaining this.
I think the prosecution made a big mistake using the Fleming/Walsh sighting by the gate at 5.45 Bubo.This is about the most awkward time to construct a guilty Luke scenario around.
Is he on his way home or has he already been home? Nrither option works very well as we have discussed.
And what about Carol Heatley,we haven't even included her in the scenarios yet.
Was it Barondale cottages that she saw Luke standing in a driveway,was that her?
Will check her story out and see if she makes any difference to the equation.
-
OK,Carol Heatley did indeed see Luke beside Barondale cottages at 6.05.Now as you probably know this is heading back towards the entrance to Roans Dyke path,somewhere between the end of Newbattle Abbey crescent and the entrance as it were.
So,if we put all the times together on the Newbattle end of the path we have_
Fleming/Walsh 5.45-50
Push bike boys 5.55-6.00
Carol Heatley 6.05
Push bike boy on way back 6.20-30
Ok,now bear with me,firstly we will assume that Luke has been home after the murder before ALL of these sightings took place.Therefore what takes place was simply a charade,I mean Luke knew Jodi was already dead,so waiting for her at various places was just an act.An act which he must have thought important,or why bother? Show the world that he is waiting for someone I suppose.
Anyway,as we can see, Luke walks down to the end of the path first where he is seen by F/W. at 5.45 ,then he turns around soon after,he doesn't stay there long,he then walks all the way back up to the end of his street where he is seen by the bike boys at 5.55-6.00 where he almost immediately turns AGAIN and walks back down to the driveway into Barondale cottages where Carol Heatley sees him at 6.05,he then turns again and returns to the end of his street where he is seen by the solo bike boy on his return at 6.20-30.What a carry on! Anyway he finally gives up his charade and phones David High at 6.32.
Sorry if this seems a bit confusing,but if you just look at the times of each witness you will see that it is indeed a correct statement,provided you accept that Luke has already been home after the murder.
BUT,remember Luke only had 25-30 minutes to get home from the murder scene and back to the gate at the end of Roans Dyke path to be seen by F/W.for this particular scenario.
Could he have achieved this?
Lets just suppose then,that Luke was on his way home after the murder when F/W saw him at 5.45 beside the gate.Now,we have already discussed why Luke would want to be seen.To show to the world that he is waiting for someone ie., Jodi.
NOW,if this is the case,why is there claims of Luke circling round through the trees to get onto Newbattle Abbey crescent? He's obviously desperate for F/W or whoever to see him at the end of the path,so why duck back into the woods and sneak home?
Either he wants to be seen or he doesn't? Which is it? To be seen or not to be seen,that is the question!
Now you could say he didn't want to be seen walking in the direction of his home along Newbattle road?
But he ended up doing this anyway if he went straight home after the murder,he left his mums house and wandered down to the gate at 5.45 before turning around and walking up to the end of the street at 5.55,as demonstrated above,right?
What I mean is,if Luke was on his way home when F/W saw him,why did he cry out to be seen by them and then sneak home through the woods?Besides,we know Luke didn't have time to go home and back to the end of his street in ten minutes to be seen by the bike boys.If Luke was on his way home when Fleming and Walsh saw him then he must have simply walked up Newbattle Road soon after and sat on the wall where the bike boys saw him.
Oh well,I suppose your all sick of reading about the various scenarios,but if the prosecution cant tell us how Luke carried out the murder,how then can we accept that he is guilty?
Has an official guilty scenario ever been published by the Crown?
-
I think the prosecution made a big mistake using the Fleming/Walsh sighting by the gate at 5.45 Bubo.
Clearly not considering the Jury agreed with the prosecutions case.
-
Clearly not considering the Jury agreed with the prosecutions case.
Hi Dave,hope your well.
What do you think? Was Luke on his way home when F/W saw him,or had he already been home and made his way back?
Confusing,isn't it?
-
Hi Dave,hope your well.
What do you think? Was Luke on his way home when F/W saw him,or had he already been home and made his way back?
Confusing,isn't it?
Witness timings are often approximates based on memory. The text messages and computer data are more reliable.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
-
Witness timings are often approximates based on memory. The text messages and computer data are more reliable.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
Ok,thanks Dave.So where was Luke at 5.40 do you think?
-
Ok,thanks Dave.So where was Luke at 5.40 do you think?
Not far from the crime scene.
-
Not far from the crime scene.
Thanks Dave.So F/W must have seen Luke on his way back home then?
-
Thanks Dave.So F/W must have seen Luke on his way back home then?
Luke was seen returning home at 10pm
"The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
-
Witness timings are often approximates based on memory. The text messages and computer data are more reliable.
4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke
4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back
4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.
4.53pm - 5.16pm - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.
5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.
5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.
the police recondtruction iddeo clearly shows jodi lrgt at 5pm
-
the police recondtruction iddeo clearly shows jodi lrgt at 5pm
Well,all the times had to be changed to fit in with a guilty Luke I suppose nugnug.
-
Luke was seen returning home at 10pm
"The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder."
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)
Thanks Dave,I think I have read that before.
So,the whole case hinges on the sightings of Luke at both ends of the path,the jury were basically told that if they believed the witnesses saw Luke at each end then it was enough to convict him.
Is that right Dave? Among other things like his dodgy alibi,phoning the speaking clock,burning evidence and getting rid of the knife around 10.00 o'clock.
So,no detailed scenario whatsoever? Is that good enough Dave? Not for me.
And why did Luke make sure that someone saw him at the Newbattle end of the path Dave?
Why didn't he just sneak home through the woods unseen? None of it makes sense,does it?
-
Oh yes,Luke going straight to the murder scene of course!
-
From LM's side - That he was on the wall at the entrance of his estate by 17:32pm, whilst omitting the calls at first, this is where he said he made them from. Told at 17:38pm she had already left to meet him. He at one point said he walked to the cottages and no further, checking to see if she were in sight. We know this is true, that he was at the cottages touching 6pm. The girl from his story had been away from home over 20mins in what is a 17min walk approx.
That when he called his mother it was from Newbattle road, leaving then to go into the Abbey to meet with the boys. So, this is another hr approx of real time he claimed to be waiting around in one spot for the girl. Around 80mins on Newbattle road, with sightings of where he claimed to be, only being between two times, just short of 6pm until around 6:20pm approx.
Now his claim was that dinner was over early, he was walking out to meet with her but not going very far at all. The girl had never walked to his alone, this was to have been the first time. She had never before failed to turn up for a meeting between them, again this was to have been the first time. There was a ban in place from using the path alone due to the risk involved, its isolation. Therefore by the time of calling his mother, it had been a good 80mins from being told she had already left. We know he called the boys back chasing them up. But nothing back to the girl whom for the first time ever failed to keep to their arrangement.
There had clearly been an arrangement made most days from school to meet in the evening, nothing from phone logs to show anything to the contrary. Again this day was different, whatever plans had been made at school were changed. The girls curfew time had been lifted, and we see it was actually Jodi who's time had been restricted until 6pm. That change came after school that day, and as stated, she made contact with LM, reason for contact around that change? Bringing their meeting time forward, leaving home shortly after the last text to meet with him.
-
From LM's side - That he was on the wall at the entrance of his estate by 17:32pm, whilst omitting the calls at first, this is where he said he made them from. Told at 17:38pm she had already left to meet him. He at one point said he walked to the cottages and no further, checking to see if she were in sight. We know this is true, that he was at the cottages touching 6pm. The girl from his story had been away from home over 20mins in what is a 17min walk approx.
That when he called his mother it was from Newbattle road, leaving then to go into the Abbey to meet with the boys. So, this is another hr approx of real time he claimed to be waiting around in one spot for the girl. Around 80mins on Newbattle road, with sightings of where he claimed to be, only being between two times, just short of 6pm until around 6:20pm approx.
Now his claim was that dinner was over early, he was walking out to meet with her but not going very far at all. The girl had never walked to his alone, this was to have been the first time. She had never before failed to turn up for a meeting between them, again this was to have been the first time. There was a ban in place from using the path alone due to the risk involved, its isolation. Therefore by the time of calling his mother, it had been a good 80mins from being told she had already left. We know he called the boys back chasing them up. But nothing back to the girl whom for the first time ever failed to keep to their arrangement.
There had clearly been an arrangement made most days from school to meet in the evening, nothing from phone logs to show anything to the contrary. Again this day was different, whatever plans had been made at school were changed. The girls curfew time had been lifted, and we see it was actually Jodi who's time had been restricted until 6pm. That change came after school that day, and as stated, she made contact with LM, reason for contact around that change? Bringing their meeting time forward, leaving home shortly after the last text to meet with him.
Yes Parky,you put your points over well.
But like Dave or any other person who thinks Luke Mitchell is guilty,unless you can give me a complete scenario/timeframe of events,I must continue to have doubt of LMs guilt.
-
Thanks Dave,I think I have read that before.
So,the whole case hinges on the sightings of Luke at both ends of the path,the jury were basically told that if they believed the witnesses saw Luke at each end then it was enough to convict him.
Is that right Dave? Among other things like his dodgy alibi,phoning the speaking clock,burning evidence and getting rid of the knife around 10.00 o'clock.
So,no detailed scenario whatsoever? Is that good enough Dave? Not for me.
And why did Luke make sure that someone saw him at the Newbattle end of the path Dave?
Why didn't he just sneak home through the woods unseen? None of it makes sense,does it?
It's not just that. He denied the fire in the garden then later admitted to the fire. The jacket he was wearing that day was never found. Inference being him and his mum burned it in the fire. Then his knife went missing but the pouch was found with Jodie's initials and date of death carved into in. The victim said she was going to meet Luke before she was killed.
-
Yes Parky,you put your points over well.
But like Dave or any other person who thinks Luke Mitchell is guilty,unless you can give me a complete scenario/timeframe of events,I must continue to have doubt of LMs guilt.
Until you give me a complete timeframe and scenario for all 36 dead bodies found in John Wayne Gacys basement. I must continue to have doubt of John Wayne Gacys guilt. :))
-
Well,all the times had to be changed to fit in with a guilty Luke I suppose nugnug.
i dont think they woul of done a reconstruction ideo giing the time as 5pm if it wasnt 5pm it kind of eafeats the object of doing one
-
Until you give me a complete timeframe and scenario for all 36 dead bodies found in John Wayne Gacys basement. I must continue to have doubt of John Wayne Gacys guilt. :))
Yes,fair enough Dave,I get your point.
But the thing is the Mitchell case is tied together by different times, witnesses and events that have to be explained.And it simply isn't easy to link them all together with a guilty scenario.
When does LM get home?When is the parka burned? How could he get home without walking up Newbattle road while wearing the parka? Nothing can be fitted together very easy.He just didn't seem to have the time available.At least Bamber has an obvious window of opportunity,but Mitchell? I just cant see it Dave,I just cant see it.Can you?
-
Yes Parky,you put your points over well.
But like Dave or any other person who thinks Luke Mitchell is guilty,unless you can give me a complete scenario/timeframe of events,I must continue to have doubt of LMs guilt.
The scenario was - That he met with Jodi just after she had left home, murdered her. That the sighting by F&W was him making his way away from the scene. He had to cross that road, there was no other way to get into the woodland beside his estate. Why was he standing at the gate with his head down, looking to the ground? Then quickly looking up to see the car moving away. Then nothing for a good 15mins. Then seen touching 6pm until around 6:20pm, then nothing until in the boys company in the Abbey.
What did he need to do? He needed out of that clothing, he needed very little of himself cleaned, the clothing and knife needed disposed of, he needed alibi, he needed to be seen to be waiting on the girl. And the crown showed he had means and opportunity to do so. No one knows exactly what took place.
Clearly the contention by the Crown was he was seen meeting a girl, murdered in a woodland strip they frequented together, seen again at the wooden gate after leaving the scene. That the call to the Jones house was putting alibi in place, to make it seem like they had not met by this point. That he placed himself around the entrance of the estate to further alibi, to make himself seen, seen to be waiting on a meeting he claimed was taken place later. That this was a window of opportunity, moving out of sight again, after being seen several times in that short period of time. He above all needed alibi and he needed to be seen waiting on a girl they (police etc) would know had left to meet with him. Of the cyclist hearing noises from the woodland, strange enough to make his stop and listen out for anything else.
That his alibi was shown to be false, that SM had been coached by his mother in what to say. That he owned/wore the clothing he was seen in pre-murder. We hear from 8 witnesses whom where chosen from a selection of more who gave statements around parka. That he did carry/use a brown handled skunting knife pre-murder. That he had guilty knowledge of where the victims body was, injuries, clothing and so forth, the time factors. The clear differences in accounts from him over that of the other three.
This is by no means all of it - But certainly being seen, clothing and knife gone. A story with gaping holes and extraordinary explanations. A story that was filled to the brim with lies which were exposed.
Again, it is not about guilt/innocence and more to do with highlighting why he was a suspect, why he could not be eliminated. I don't for one minute buy into this conspiracy nonsense doing the rounds. Clear and sound reasons, strong circumstantial evidence. That there was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere.
-
i dont think they woul of done a reconstruction ideo giing the time as 5pm if it wasnt 5pm it kind of eafeats the object of doing one
Yes thats true nugnug,but then that would have been too late for the Andrina Bryson sighting.
And as you know,they had to start with a time of 5.15 for the murder,which suited a guilty LM then work around it.
-
The scenario was - That he met with Jodi just after she had left home, murdered her. That the sighting by F&W was him making his way away from the scene. He had to cross that road, there was no other way to get into the woodland beside his estate. Why was he standing at the gate with his head down, looking to the ground? Then quickly looking up to see the car moving away. Then nothing for a good 15mins. Then seen touching 6pm until around 6:20pm, then nothing until in the boys company in the Abbey.
What did he need to do? He needed out of that clothing, he needed very little of himself cleaned, the clothing and knife needed disposed of, he needed alibi, he needed to be seen to be waiting on the girl. And the crown showed he had means and opportunity to do so. No one knows exactly what took place.
Clearly the contention by the Crown was he was seen meeting a girl, murdered in a woodland strip they frequented together, seen again at the wooden gate after leaving the scene. That the call to the Jones house was putting alibi in place, to make it seem like they had not met by this point. That he placed himself around the entrance of the estate to further alibi, to make himself seen, seen to be waiting on a meeting he claimed was taken place later. That this was a window of opportunity, moving out of sight again, after being seen several times in that short period of time. He above all needed alibi and he needed to be seen waiting on a girl they (police etc) would know had left to meet with him. Of the cyclist hearing noises from the woodland, strange enough to make his stop and listen out for anything else.
That his alibi was shown to be false, that SM had been coached by his mother in what to say. That he owned/wore the clothing he was seen in pre-murder. We hear from 8 witnesses whom where chosen from a selection of more who gave statements around parka. That he did carry/use a brown handled skunting knife pre-murder. That he had guilty knowledge of where the victims body was, injuries, clothing and so forth, the time factors. The clear differences in accounts from him over that of the other three.
This is by no means all of it - But certainly being seen, clothing and knife gone. A story with gaping holes and extraordinary explanations. A story that was filled to the brim with lies which were exposed.
Again, it is not about guilt/innocence and more to do with highlighting why he was a suspect, why he could not be eliminated. I don't for one minute buy into this conspiracy nonsense doing the rounds. Clear and sound reasons, strong circumstantial evidence. That there was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere.
Yes,again very good,I see where your coming from Parky,I get your arguments for guilt,although the 4 inch knife was not capable of inflicting the wounds.
But again,no credible time line I'm afraid.Luke simply hasn't got time to get home through the woods,dump the jacket and walk to the end of his street within 10 minutes,maybe 15.
-
Yes,again very good,I see where your coming from Parky,I get your arguments for guilt,although the 4 inch knife was not capable of inflicting the wounds.
But again,no credible time line I'm afraid.Luke simply hasn't got time to get home through the woods,go home,dump the jacket and walk to the end of his street within 10 minutes,maybe 15.
Really, it is 7mins the normal way at a normal pace. That is from the actual path to house. Back onto Newbattle road a shorter distance still, from where he was seen. One is not going at any normal pace, however, allowing for any brief clean, not traipsing anything on his feet. We are working around 10 -15mins max here. 3-4 mins time distance home, couple of minutes that brief clean, probably plonking the coat at this point? Home for another jacket etc. and back out to the road via the woodland? Taking into consideration, what was vital, he needed changed and he needed to be seen to be waiting ASAP?
This, without being seen - That's just it, he wasn't seen. Not from 5:30pm until touching 6pm where he was supposed to have been. Not from 6:20pm until 7pm on that road. Nothing until actually with the boys well after 7pm. Yet we see, that when he actually was around the entrance of the estate, he was seen and several times.
In his story, not seen leaving home, not seen walking through the estate to the entrance. He actually said he was home just after 9pm, his mother said he was home at that time, he left the boys around that time. We see that this was actually false, he was seen arriving home alone, no dog, around 10pm. Not seen by SM at home and not seen by SM when he exited the estate some time shortly after 6:20pm.
Whatever was being burnt in the Mitchell garden was enough for it to be denied? Not rocket science - 6 houses, Mitchell centre with one over the back. 5 of them were not having a fire that evening, only one of them was, smoke, seen alight, strange smell. Little clues, he said the call to his mother around 7pm was asking if Jodi had been to the house, that she was in the garden and may have not heard her?
Ok, so she could not have gotten past him, but how did he know his mother was in the garden at that time? He was supposed to have been away from home from 5:30pm? No concern with her, knowing her son had been away that length of time, around 90mins later and tells her to tell Jodi he would be in the Abbey if she arrived? Claims to be home around 9pm just after, the same again, nothing. But he wasn't home anyway?
-
Really, it is 7mins the normal way at a normal pace. That is from the actual path to house. Back onto Newbattle road a shorter distance still, from where he was seen. One is not going at any normal pace, however, allowing for any brief clean, not traipsing anything on his feet. We are working around 10 -15mins max here. 3-4 mins time distance home, couple of minutes that brief clean, probably plonking the coat at this point? Home for another jacket etc. and back out to the road via the woodland? Taking into consideration, what was vital, he needed changed and he needed to be seen to be waiting ASAP?
This, without being seen - That's just it, he wasn't seen. Not from 5:30pm until touching 6pm where he was supposed to have been. Not from 6:20pm until 7pm on that road. Nothing until actually with the boys well after 7pm. Yet we see, that when he actually was around the entrance of the estate, he was seen and several times.
In his story, not seen leaving home, not seen walking through the estate to the entrance. He actually said he was home just after 9pm, his mother said he was home at that time, he left the boys around that time. We see that this was actually false, he was seen arriving home alone, no dog, around 10pm. Not seen by SM at home and not seen by SM when he exited the estate some time shortly after 6:20pm.
Whatever was being burnt in the Mitchell garden was enough for it to be denied? Not rocket science - 6 houses, Mitchell centre with one over the back. 5 of them were not having a fire that evening, only one of them was, smoke, seen alight, strange smell. Little clues, he said the call to his mother around 7pm was asking if Jodi had been to the house, that she was in the garden and may have not heard her?
Ok, so she could not have gotten past him, but how did he know his mother was in the garden at that time? He was supposed to have been away from home from 5:30pm? No concern with her, knowing her son had been away that length of time, around 90mins later and tells her to tell Jodi he would be in the Abbey if she arrived? Claims to be home around 9pm just after, the same again, nothing. But he wasn't home anyway?
I think I will need to visit the crime scene and surrounding area and check the times and distances for myself Parky.
-
although the 4 inch knife was not capable of inflicting the wounds.
A lock knife, a 4 inch blade doubling in length. Skunting knife. Used for hunting, camping and survival. What do you imagine such a knife does when being used for hunting? Think of a surgeon and a scalpel used in surgery? The size, the type surgery they are used for, wide and varied. It is a myth applying that the size of knife was not capable of such injuries.
Used to also deflect from the absolute fact he had one pre-murder, that it disappeared. There is no, what does it matter, it couldn't have caused those injuries, it matters a great deal
-
A lock knife, a 4 inch blade doubling in length. Skunting knife. Used for hunting, camping and survival. What do you imagine such a knife does when being used for hunting? Think of a surgeon and a scalpel used in surgery? The size, the type surgery they are used for, wide and varied. It is a myth applying that the size of knife was not capable of such injuries.
Used to also deflect from the absolute fact he had one pre-murder, that it disappeared. There is no, what does it matter, it couldn't have caused those injuries, it matters a great deal
I'll check what Busittal said Parky.
-
Really, it is 7mins the normal way at a normal pace. That is from the actual path to house. Back onto Newbattle road a shorter distance still, from where he was seen. One is not going at any normal pace, however, allowing for any brief clean, not traipsing anything on his feet. We are working around 10 -15mins max here. 3-4 mins time distance home, couple of minutes that brief clean, probably plonking the coat at this point? Home for another jacket etc. and back out to the road via the woodland? Taking into consideration, what was vital, he needed changed and he needed to be seen to be waiting ASAP?
This, without being seen - That's just it, he wasn't seen. Not from 5:30pm until touching 6pm where he was supposed to have been. Not from 6:20pm until 7pm on that road. Nothing until actually with the boys well after 7pm. Yet we see, that when he actually was around the entrance of the estate, he was seen and several times.
In his story, not seen leaving home, not seen walking through the estate to the entrance. He actually said he was home just after 9pm, his mother said he was home at that time, he left the boys around that time. We see that this was actually false, he was seen arriving home alone, no dog, around 10pm. Not seen by SM at home and not seen by SM when he exited the estate some time shortly after 6:20pm.
Whatever was being burnt in the Mitchell garden was enough for it to be denied? Not rocket science - 6 houses, Mitchell centre with one over the back. 5 of them were not having a fire that evening, only one of them was, smoke, seen alight, strange smell. Little clues, he said the call to his mother around 7pm was asking if Jodi had been to the house, that she was in the garden and may have not heard her?
Ok, so she could not have gotten past him, but how did he know his mother was in the garden at that time? He was supposed to have been away from home from 5:30pm? No concern with her, knowing her son had been away that length of time, around 90mins later and tells her to tell Jodi he would be in the Abbey if she arrived? Claims to be home around 9pm just after, the same again, nothing. But he wasn't home anyway?
He wasn't seen for 'ten' minutes Parky.
F/W 5.45 then push bike boys ten minutes later around 5.55.And as I have said,that is counting on Luke crossing the road immediately after being seen by F/W and arriving at the end of his street just as the bike boys go past.
You said 5.30 until 6.00.
Anyway,I am assuming you are familiar with the area,so tell me if I get this right.
Luke crosses the road after F/W go past,he enters the woods on the other side,he crosses the Ochre burn,makes his way through the trees until he comes to the River Esk.Is that right so far?
If so,how does he cross the river? Are there any wooden bridges or logs in that area?
Anyway,he somehow crosses the river and what looks like another burn,before emerging onto the open grass area where he circles round and enters Newbattle Abbey crescent,he walks past about six or seven houses and hes home.
Is this the route you are talking about Parky? And you maintain this can be done in 3-4 minutes?
-
OK,I have measured both routes with a scale rule,that is through the woods to Lukes house and straight up Newbattle road to Lukes house using the path entrance as the starting point'
Now,using as direct a path as possible through the woods,this route is actually about 20 meters longer than using Newbattle road.Check it out.
Yet you say this route can be done in 3-4 minutes Parky over rough ground and crossing waterways.
How is this possible if it takes 7minutes by road?
Have you actually timed it yourself?
-
OK,I have measured both routes with a scale rule,that is through the woods to Lukes house and straight up Newbattle road to Lukes house using the path entrance as the starting point'
Now,using as direct a path as possible through the woods,this route is actually about 20 meters longer than using Newbattle road.Check it out.
Yet you say this route can be done in 3-4 minutes Parky over rough ground and crossing waterways.
How is this possible if it takes 7minutes by road?
Have you actually timed it yourself?
You are on the wrong side of the road, the gate sighting by F&W is north of the path entrance, opposite side. N and further down (metal now) We are applying here your times, the absolute minimum time, where you are trying to work out if he had went home at this point - When truth is, we do not know that he did. It is on the assumption he had to have went home, showered, fully changed and back on to the road to be seen, to be waiting on the girl.
This 7mins, what I have said, always - Is that if someone is not just walking along at an even pace then this time is shortened. If they are moving at haste, shorter still. Basically, if they are moving at twice the pace then the time is halved, that is not even running full out. That is simple logic. Now LM did not have to go the distance of 7mins and back anyway (10mins). There is nearly 4/5mins knocked off that from where he was seen at the cottages. So, we are talking 9/10 mins here at a normal pace. To house the normal way and back out. 7 to house, 3 back to cottages.
What would it have taken him to clean his coupon and soles of footwear? Absolutely no time at all, and again, this is not the time frame we are applying for setting about any further clean up, this most certainly would have come after disappearing from around 6:20pm.
So, this 9/10 mins of moving time. Easily halved. The remainder for brief clean and grabbing other clothing.
Let's apply 8mins moving time, that is only 2mins less of the normal pace. A couple of mins for the most basic of clean and change. Clean (obvs) not within the house. There would have been virtually nothing of him exposed to the elements, that is simple fact. And it is of course the very minimum of time, working from this 17:45pm until 17:55pm. SL had it worked out at a minimum of 13mins. Damn, if he ran like marathon man whilst in the woodland both ways, even less. But keeping it real and doubling that pace is more than feasible for any moving time, darting about?
-
Ok, so down, heading north still from the old wooden gate (F&W), one, if leaving it until then, can enter woodland via the Esk Trail, almost across from BTH. This is the main area of the woodland, to the right of the path in there, that lies adjacent to the housing estate he lived in.
My 5:30 - 6pm was using LM's story. He is the one who would have had to leave home at half past to make the call for 17:32pm from the wall at the estate entrance. He was not seen at the estate entrance at all between those times, nor walking down through the estate.
It was the Crowns contention, that when LM was seen at the cottages, this was him making his way to the entrance and not the other way around, that he had not walked from the entrance up to the cottages.
You were applying that he just had to be seen, I was showing that he most certainly was not, not where he claimed to be for the best part of 80mins and more, bar that small window of opportunity from touching 6pm until around 6:20pm, not even by SM when exiting the estate.
-
Ok, so down, heading north still from the old wooden gate (F&W), one, if leaving it until then, can enter woodland via the Esk Trail, almost across from BTH. This is the main area of the woodland, to the right of the path in there, that lies adjacent to the housing estate he lived in.
My 5:30 - 6pm was using LM's story. He is the one who would have had to leave home at half past to make the call for 17:32pm from the wall at the estate entrance. He was not seen at the estate entrance at all between those times, nor walking down through the estate.
It was the Crowns contention, that when LM was seen at the cottages, this was him making his way to the entrance and not the other way around, that he had not walked from the entrance up to the cottages.
You were applying that he just had to be seen, I was showing that he most certainly was not, not where he claimed to be for the best part of 80mins and more, bar that small window of opportunity from touching 6pm until around 6:20pm, not even by SM when exiting the estate.
I,m completely lost now Parky,I will need a while to study your last two posts and get my bearings.
-
I,m completely lost now Parky,I will need a while to study your last two posts and get my bearings.
I think he is leading you up the Garden (Roans Dyke) path.
-
I,m completely lost now Parky,I will need a while to study your last two posts and get my bearings.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8775001,-3.068906,3a,90y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuPspnWU3xkGdzaWjY_erg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
This is the gate of the sighting, used to be wooden.
-
I think he is leading you up the Garden (Roans Dyke) path.
That was LM.
-
I think he is leading you up the Garden (Roans Dyke) path.
Maybe Bubo,maybe.
Parky is obviously someone who knows every detail of the case by heart.
-
Oh well,I have been watching some LM videos and TV shows for a change. I watched one where Scott Forbes walked through the crime scene with someone calling themself Hawaii Five o. It was quite imformative and spoke of the limited time LM had to carry out the crime,although they didn't go into much fine detail,the like of which we are trying to determine here.
Dr Lean did a podcast called 'keeping the record straight',it may be posted here on the forum.It gives details of all the witness timings and statements,but again doesn't really give any actual scenarios as it were.Of course the defence scenario is simple,Luke was at home between 4.45 and 5.30 and then walked to the end of the street to see if Jodi was coming.so I dont suppose Dr Lean or Scott Forbes sees a need to explain any further.
But,personally,I would like them to write something or do a podcast explaining the possible scenarios,linking together all the witness statements and what they said Luke was wearing at the time.
This would give all those with an interest in the case a better understanding of what allegedly took place between 4.55 and 5.55 and help them decide if Mitchell is guilty or not.
Or of course,any other member of the public could do a podcast of their own explaining the possible scenarios, instead of repeating the usual stuff.Does that sound like something you could do? Yes you! You who have been looking into the case for a while and find things dont add up very well regarding the prosecution case. Or do you think it does add up? Well please enlighten me,enlighten everyone why LM is obviously guilty.Will you give it a go??
So,there you are,this has been an appeal for detailed scenarios from Dr Sandra Lean,Scott Forbes B.A.[Hons]LL.B,LP or you sitting at home reading this,eager to get involved in the case.
Thankyou and bye!
-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8775001,-3.068906,3a,90y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuPspnWU3xkGdzaWjY_erg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
This is the gate of the sighting, used to be wooden.
OK,thanks Parky.So lets just clarify for all the viewers the significance of this gate for starters.
This is the gate where Luke Mitchell was allegedly seen by F/Walsh around 5.45.
Now the position of the gate seems to be about 40 meters further up from the entrance to Roans Dyke path, on the opposite side of the road and heading in the direction of Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Now,first question.How did LM end up in this location,that is, where had he just came from?Second question,where did he go next?
Now Parky,and Dave I believe,think LM was on his way home from killing Jodi when he was seen standing by the gate,so had he just crossed the road and walked up from the entrance to RDP? Is that what your saying boys? If not,please explain where he came from.
So,next,how did he travel home to his mothers house from here? Could you just clarify this Parky? I haven't quite grasped which route you mean he took from this point.Its probably just me being thick,but I just haven't grasped what route through the woods you mean yet,sorry.
Anyway,far more importantly.If Luke Mitchell was trying to sneak home unseen after the murder in order to make it appear that he had just emerged from his mothers house around 5.50-55 to look for Jodie,why did he stop and loiter in full view on a busy road when everyone was driving home from work?
This is a very important question for me,and should be for everyone else too in my opinion.Why did LM decide to stand up and look 'suspicious' by a gate on the main road if he was in the process of sneaking home unseen? How long was he standing there? How many people saw him? Wasn't that plan over?
Why didn't Luke jump the gate and hide if he heard a car coming? Why didn't he get off the main road and out of view ASAP? Apparently he was just standing there in no rush.
If LM wanted to get home unseen,and obviously this would have been imperative to his plan surely,why didn't he bolt across the road and into the woods straight across from the entrance to RDP? What the hell was he doing 40 meters further up the road standing by a gate for the world to witness??? Why was he standing there? Why? Can you give me a rational explanation for this Parky? Dave? Anyone?
-
OK,thanks Parky.So lets just clarify for all the viewers the significance of this gate for starters.
This is the gate where Luke Mitchell was allegedly seen by F/Walsh around 5.45.
Now the position of the gate seems to be about 40 meters further up from the entrance to Roans Dyke path, on the opposite side of the road and heading in the direction of Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Now,first question.How did LM end up in this location,that is, where had he just came from?Second question,where did he go next?
Now Parky,and Dave I believe,think LM was on his way home from killing Jodi when he was seen standing by the gate,so had he just crossed the road and walked up from the entrance to RDP? Is that what your saying boys? If not,please explain where he came from.
So,next,how did he travel home to his mothers house from here? Could you just clarify this Parky? I haven't quite grasped which route you mean he took from this point.Its probably just me being thick,but I just haven't grasped what route through the woods you mean yet,sorry.
Anyway,far more importantly.If Luke Mitchell was trying to sneak home unseen after the murder in order to make it appear that he had just emerged from his mothers house around 5.50-55 to look for Jodie,why did he stop and loiter in full view on a busy road when everyone was driving home from work?
This is a very important question for me,and should be for everyone else too in my opinion.Why did LM decide to stand up and look 'suspicious' by a gate on the main road if he was in the process of sneaking home unseen? How long was he standing there? How many people saw him? Wasn't that plan over?
Why didn't Luke jump the gate and hide if he heard a car coming? Why didn't he get off the main road and out of view ASAP? Apparently he was just standing there in no rush.
If LM wanted to get home unseen,and obviously this would have been imperative to his plan surely,why didn't he bolt across the road and into the woods straight across from the entrance to RDP? What the hell was he doing 40 meters further up the road standing by a gate for the world to witness??? Why was he standing there? Why? Can you give me a rational explanation for this Parky? Dave? Anyone?
He was reported by Lorraine Fleming as keeping his head down. Maybe he was waiting for someone to pass on foot to give him an alibi, one of his clique. I wonder if Sandra Lean could clear this up? She used to frequent this site, but now seems to have deserted us.
-
He was reported by Lorraine Fleming as keeping his head down. Maybe he was waiting for someone to pass on foot to give him an alibi, one of his clique. I wonder if Sandra Lean could clear this up? She used to frequent this site, but now seems to have deserted us.
Sorry Steve,but you have missed the point.He didn't want to be seen at this stage.
He had to get home from the crime scene unnoticed by a soul.
The plan was to emerge from his mums house later on as if he had just had his supper and was off out to look for Jodi at the end of his street.This was when he wanted to be seen.
NOT 15 minutes earlier on his way home,that was game over!
I have put in a request as you can see for Dr Lean or anyone else to explain the various scenarios Steve.
-
Sorry Steve,but you have missed the point.He didn't want to be seen at this stage.
He had to get home from the crime scene unnoticed by a soul.
The plan was to emerge from his mums house later on as if he had just had his supper and was off out to look for Jodi at the end of his street.This was when he wanted to be seen.
NOT 15 minutes earlier on his way home,that was game over!
I have put in a request as you can see for Dr Lean or anyone else to explain the various scenarios Steve.
Well, Andrina Bryson purportedly saw him and Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at 4:50pm. The second sighting by Lorraine Fleming was 50 minutes later at the Newbattle end. Isn't it possible he had killed Jodi within that time span, hurried home and then loitered by the gate to concoct an alibi?
-
Well, Andrina Bryson purportedly saw him and Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at 4:50pm. The second sighting by Lorraine Fleming was 50 minutes later at the Newbattle end. Isn't it possible he had killed Jodi within that time span, hurried home and then loitered by the gate to concoct an alibi?
Well,we have discussed that possibility already Steve,but Parky and Dave believe LM was on his way home when Fleming and Walsh saw him[if it was LM at all that is,of course]
So,we are discussing that/their scenario at the moment.
If you go through the recent posts you can see the problems with a scenario where LM goes straight home after the murder and then back down to the gate when he was seen by F/W.For one thing,he wouldn't be wearing the parka,and time wise,very tight.And it means the sequence of events would have been odd.It means LM would have left his mums house and went straight down to the gate at 5.45 before turning around soon after and walking back up to the wall at the end of his street to be seen by the bike boys at 5.55,before tuning around AGAIN to walk down to Barondale cottages to be seen by Carol Heatley,then turning around again and walking back up to the wall where the returning bike boy sees him at 6.20-30. Now thats just plain silly Steve!
If you study the various possibilities for LM being the killer,none are very coherent,logical or very likely.
Anyway,as you know Steve,I mostly study the crime scene scenarios and little else.I go over the various possible scenarios in both the Jeremy Bamber case and now the LM case too again and again and again,over and over in my mind,looking for things that simply dont add up.
Did LM have a window of opportunity to carry out the crime Steve?Did he really?
-
Did LM have a window of opportunity to carry out the crime Steve?Did he really?
[/quote][/color]
So it is time and scenario only and not any evidence? Opportunity and time to carry out etc?
50mins time scale for the meet, murder and out of there. No one can show that this was never doable, ever.
Newbattle road is just over a mile long, a person can jog a mile easily in 9/10mins. Re look those distances along with the full length of the road itself, which runs from Newtongrange to Eskbank. What is being showing is that it was more than doable, to cover those distances and be out of that coat/footwear, and any most basic clean, which is all that was required at this point in time.
So, what was absolutely doable is covered, he most certainly did have opportunity and means, there is nothing that can show this to have ever been impossible. Then we apply the following which is vital to those timescales, the reason as to why he would need to have done this in the shortest time possible, which is vital to it all.
You know what those factors are?
-
So it is time and scenario only and not any evidence? Opportunity and time to carry out etc?
50mins time scale for the meet, murder and out of there. No one can show that this was never doable, ever.
Newbattle road is just over a mile long, a person can jog a mile easily in 9/10mins. Re look those distances along with the full length of the road itself, which runs from Newtongrange to Eskbank. What is being showing is that it was more than doable, to cover those distances and be out of that coat/footwear, and any most basic clean, which is all that was required at this point in time.
So, what was absolutely doable is covered, he most certainly did have opportunity and means, there is nothing that can show this to have ever been impossible. Then we apply the following which is vital to those timescales, the reason as to why he would need to have done this in the shortest time possible, which is vital to it all.
You know what those factors are?
There you have it, that was the scenario, it will always be the scenario. He met the girl and murdered her, he set to putting alibi in place firstly by calling the Jones house. That was his first thought after carrying out the deed, 'I need to have this time frame covered. Make it seem I had not met her therefore not murdered her?'
Absolutely, that he then attempted to cross the road without being seen, make his way to being changed and initially cleaned. A car came and he put his head down. That he got out of that coat, and came back out on to Newbattle road, making his way down to the entrance. Placing himself into further alibi, placing himself in different clothing to that which he had been seen in, and placing himself away from there to be seen waiting somewhere else.
Once he had been seen, a safety time of alibi, he then took himself away from Newbattle road, for any further clean up, for putting alibi in place and disposal of evidence. That after he left the boys at 9pm he then had further time for putting anything else into motion. That he had communication with his mother, which was not about seeing if the girl had been to the house, but discussing anything to do with covering up whatever he had told her took place in that first hour?
And then we add in the missing clothing, the knife, his drug habit, the extraordinary stories of being idling about for the best part of 80mins. The absolute fact the girl had never walked the path to his alone before, that she had never failed to not turn up to meet with him. That he had been the only one contacted to know of any change in her punishment, she had no means to contact anyone else. Then we move on to that search and the absolute fact he lied, his dog had not alerted to any body, he had not been where he claimed on that path, he had no reason for knowing where to go when entering that woodland. The time scale there, seconds in that woodland, shown he had barely moved beyond that wall, that he could not have seen what he claimed and so forth.
That he most certainly did have another girl on the go, he was planning to spend a week with her. That JJ may very well have found this out, that a confrontation may have taken place setting him off. That there was talk of already falling out at school that day, was he already angry? Seeming confrontational when seen by AB, beckoning the girl to go to him. Adoration turning to confrontation for a lad who was shown to not handle confrontation at all?
And on it goes, by no means all of it - He had the time, he had both means and opportunity. The sequence of events and sightings tied in with this. We have LK hearing noises. We have no evidence, forensic or otherwise of any altercation taken place anywhere bar that bottom area of the woodland strip. There was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere.
-
There you have it, that was the scenario, it will always be the scenario. He met the girl and murdered her, he set to putting alibi in place firstly by calling the Jones house. That was his first thought after carrying out the deed, 'I need to have this time frame covered. Make it seem I had not met her therefore not murdered her?'
Absolutely, that he then attempted to cross the road without being seen, make his way to being changed and initially cleaned. A car came and he put his head down. That he got out of that coat, and came back out on to Newbattle road, making his way down to the entrance. Placing himself into further alibi, placing himself in different clothing to that which he had been seen in, and placing himself away from there to be seen waiting somewhere else.
Once he had been seen, a safety time of alibi, he then took himself away from Newbattle road, for any further clean up, for putting alibi in place and disposal of evidence. That after he left the boys at 9pm he then had further time for putting anything else into motion. That he had communication with his mother, which was not about seeing if the girl had been to the house, but discussing anything to do with covering up whatever he had told her took place in that first hour?
And then we add in the missing clothing, the knife, his drug habit, the extraordinary stories of being idling about for the best part of 80mins. The absolute fact the girl had never walked the path to his alone before, that she had never failed to not turn up to meet with him. That he had been the only one contacted to know of any change in her punishment, she had no means to contact anyone else. Then we move on to that search and the absolute fact he lied, his dog had not alerted to any body, he had not been where he claimed on that path, he had no reason for knowing where to go when entering that woodland. The time scale there, seconds in that woodland, shown he had barely moved beyond that wall, that he could not have seen what he claimed and so forth.
That he most certainly did have another girl on the go, he was planning to spend a week with her. That JJ may very well have found this out, that a confrontation may have taken place setting him off. That there was talk of already falling out at school that day, was he already angry? Seeming confrontational when seen by AB, beckoning the girl to go to him. Adoration turning to confrontation for a lad who was shown to not handle confrontation at all?
And on it goes, by no means all of it - He had the time, he had both means and opportunity. The sequence of events and sightings tied in with this. We have LK hearing noises. We have no evidence, forensic or otherwise of any altercation taken place anywhere bar that bottom area of the woodland strip. There was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere.
Well,youv'e certainly covered everything there Parky. Well except the questions I actually asked you that is. I will need a while to answer your scenario and evidence anyway.
-
There you have it, that was the scenario, it will always be the scenario. He met the girl and murdered her, he set to putting alibi in place firstly by calling the Jones house. That was his first thought after carrying out the deed, 'I need to have this time frame covered. Make it seem I had not met her therefore not murdered her?'
Absolutely, that he then attempted to cross the road without being seen, make his way to being changed and initially cleaned. A car came and he put his head down. That he got out of that coat, and came back out on to Newbattle road, making his way down to the entrance. Placing himself into further alibi, placing himself in different clothing to that which he had been seen in, and placing himself away from there to be seen waiting somewhere else.
Once he had been seen, a safety time of alibi, he then took himself away from Newbattle road, for any further clean up, for putting alibi in place and disposal of evidence. That after he left the boys at 9pm he then had further time for putting anything else into motion. That he had communication with his mother, which was not about seeing if the girl had been to the house, but discussing anything to do with covering up whatever he had told her took place in that first hour?
And then we add in the missing clothing, the knife, his drug habit, the extraordinary stories of being idling about for the best part of 80mins. The absolute fact the girl had never walked the path to his alone before, that she had never failed to not turn up to meet with him. That he had been the only one contacted to know of any change in her punishment, she had no means to contact anyone else. Then we move on to that search and the absolute fact he lied, his dog had not alerted to any body, he had not been where he claimed on that path, he had no reason for knowing where to go when entering that woodland. The time scale there, seconds in that woodland, shown he had barely moved beyond that wall, that he could not have seen what he claimed and so forth.
That he most certainly did have another girl on the go, he was planning to spend a week with her. That JJ may very well have found this out, that a confrontation may have taken place setting him off. That there was talk of already falling out at school that day, was he already angry? Seeming confrontational when seen by AB, beckoning the girl to go to him. Adoration turning to confrontation for a lad who was shown to not handle confrontation at all?
And on it goes, by no means all of it - He had the time, he had both means and opportunity. The sequence of events and sightings tied in with this. We have LK hearing noises. We have no evidence, forensic or otherwise of any altercation taken place anywhere bar that bottom area of the woodland strip. There was nothing found pointing this murder elsewhere.
OK,as far as timeframe and scenario goes Parky,if you prove LM didn't have the opportunity one need go no further.Has this been proved? Well thats what we are trying to determine.Time was indeed tight to say the least.
You say 50 minute time scale,but the thing is LM was allegedly seen 30 minutes after the murder by F/W.
So everything has to revolve around that time from there on in,agreed? The 50 minute window of opportunity is broken up at this point,giving us a specific time and location after the murder has taken place.
OK,you have decided that it was doable for LM timewise,but you still haven't explained what LM was doing 40 meters up from the entrance to RDP. Did he cross the road there? I see there is a bit of a brae at the other side of the road,did he come over that brae and cross the road to the gate? And which route did he take home from the gate thereafter?
You go from 'a car came and he put his head down' to 'that he got out of that coat'.....I need the bit in between Parky,route from gate to house.Otherwise your scenario is incomplete.
Now,missing clothing.Well LM denies owning a parka till after the crime as you know and no debris was found,not much more can be said.
Knife? Well.to be honest,if I was innocent and being treated as a prime suspect I would get rid of any knives I owned too.Wouldn't you Parky?
Drug habbit? Drugs have been rife in Scotland for many years now.Was LM taking enough to turn him into a homicidal maniac? That would be a very rare occurrance indeed I would imagine,no?
Jodi never walked the path alone! All I can say to that is I have no idea.Had anyone ever met her on the RDP alone? Had any neighbours seen Jodi going to LM house on her own to meet him? No idea.What did the police determine on this issue? You say its an actual 'fact' that Jodi didn't ues the path on her own,but Jodi is the only one who could have answered that question for sure.
Search for Jodi? Well we know LM didn't lie over this issue,about Mia jumping up at the wall and Luke showing no emotion,the others changed their statements.
Luke Mitchell had another girlfriend and a confrontation set him off? Ok,dont know how many girlfriends LM had,but heres where we get a contradiction in the police case.Is it an unplanned killing where LM snapped and killed Jodi over girlfriend issues or is it a copycat killing of the Black Dahlia murder inspired by an obsession with Marilyn Manson? Which one is it? Cant be both.
Could it really have been a crime of passion in a sudden fit of rage,accidental you might say? Well no,obviously not.If that was the case Jodi would have been either hit over the head,strangled or just possibly stabbed.Luke would have immediately realised what he had done and panicked,leaving the scene ASAP. This did not happen as we know,the killer stayed at the scene for several minutes intentionally carrying out further obscene acts on the body.This was no argument that got out of hand,the killer,whoever it was new EXACTLY what he was goingto do to his victim,no doubt about it.So I think we can rule out the girlfriend nonsense,no?
Did LM really plan to meet and kill Jodi in this manner with the thought of getting away with it? How?
Did he plan to run home and wash, then burn incriminating evidence right away before Jodi's body was found? Was he counting on help from his family? What did he have in place?
We know he didn't have time to shower and burn clothes himself before being seen at the end of his street at 5.55. Did he just intend to bung the parka and other clothes into the fire and leave it? Had he everything planned for a one man operation? How did he know who would be in the house when he got back from the murder? When was he going to arrange an alibi? How did he know his family would give him an alibi?
There are so many things that LM could not have planned in advance.
Oh well,thats some questions and answers for you anyway Parky.
-
OK,as far as timeframe and scenario goes Parky,if you prove LM didn't have the opportunity one need go no further.Has this been proved? Well thats what we are trying to determine.Time was indeed tight to say the least.
You say 50 minute time scale,but the thing is LM was allegedly seen 30 minutes after the murder by F/W.
So everything has to revolve around that time from there on in,agreed? The 50 minute window of opportunity is broken up at this point,giving us a specific time and location after the murder has taken place.
OK,you have decided that it was doable for LM timewise,but you still haven't explained what LM was doing 40 meters up from the entrance to RDP. Did he cross the road there? I see there is a bit of a brae at the other side of the road,did he come over that brae and cross the road to the gate? And which route did he take home from the gate thereafter?
You go from 'a car came and he put his head down' to 'that he got out of that coat'.....I need the bit in between Parky,route from gate to house.Otherwise your scenario is incomplete.
Now,missing clothing.Well LM denies owning a parka till after the crime as you know and no debris was found,not much more can be said.
Knife? Well.to be honest,if I was innocent and being treated as a prime suspect I would get rid of any knives I owned too.Wouldn't you Parky?
Drug habbit? Drugs have been rife in Scotland for many years now.Was LM taking enough to turn him into a homicidal maniac? That would be a very rare occurrance indeed I would imagine,no?
Jodi never walked the path alone! All I can say to that is I have no idea.Had anyone ever met her on the RDP alone? Had any neighbours seen Jodi going to LM house on her own to meet him? No idea.What did the police determine on this issue? You say its an actual 'fact' that Jodi didn't ues the path on her own,but Jodi is the only one who could have answered that question for sure.
Search for Jodi? Well we know LM didn't lie over this issue,about Mia jumping up at the wall and Luke showing no emotion,the others changed their statements.
Luke Mitchell had another girlfriend and a confrontation set him off? Ok,dont know how many girlfriends LM had,but heres where we get a contradiction in the police case.Is it an unplanned killing where LM snapped and killed Jodi over girlfriend issues or is it a copycat killing of the Black Dahlia murder inspired by an obsession with Marilyn Manson? Which one is it? Cant be both.
Could it really have been a crime of passion in a sudden fit of rage,accidental you might say? Well no,obviously not.If that was the case Jodi would have been either hit over the head,strangled or just possibly stabbed.Luke would have immediately realised what he had done and panicked,leaving the scene ASAP. This did not happen as we know,the killer stayed at the scene for several minutes intentionally carrying out further obscene acts on the body.This was no argument that got out of hand,the killer,whoever it was new EXACTLY what he was goingto do to his victim,no doubt about it.So I think we can rule out the girlfriend nonsense,no?
Did LM really plan to meet and kill Jodi in this manner with the thought of getting away with it? How?
Did he plan to run home and wash, then burn incriminating evidence right away before Jodi's body was found? Was he counting on help from his family? What did he have in place?
We know he didn't have time to shower and burn clothes himself before being seen at the end of his street at 5.55. Did he just intend to bung the parka and other clothes into the fire and leave it? Had he everything planned for a one man operation? How did he know who would be in the house when he got back from the murder? When was he going to arrange an alibi? How did he know his family would give him an alibi?
There are so many things that LM could not have planned in advance.
Oh well,thats some questions and answers for you anyway Parky.
I'm going off Wikipedia for the timeframe. Post #125.
Luke Mitchell had another girlfriend. He hadn't been courting Jodi for weeks due to her being grounded for drug use. I know it's a stretch to then claim he killed her since she was subsequently surplus to requirements. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SECRET+LOVE+OF+KILLER%3B+EXCLUSIVE+JODI+KILLER%27S+NEW+GIRL+REVEALED.-a0127912079
Sometimes murders are not Agatha Christie mysteries. Luke was in contact with Jodi via mobile telephone that evening. He was seen with her by Andrina Bryson. If it wasn't them the couple have not come forward in a murder investigation to eliminate themselves from the inquiry.
Luke had no alibi. He named a species of tree Jodi was lain against, and described a clasp in her hair. He was obstructive during police questioning.
The skunting knife was never found, though the pouch was, inscribed with "JJ 1989-2003". He had boasted on a previous occasion of being able to slit someone's throat.
-
I'm going off Wikipedia for the timeframe. Post #125.
Luke Mitchell had another girlfriend. He hadn't been courting Jodi for weeks due to her being grounded for drug use. I know it's a stretch to then claim he killed her since she was subsequently surplus to requirements. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SECRET+LOVE+OF+KILLER%3B+EXCLUSIVE+JODI+KILLER%27S+NEW+GIRL+REVEALED.-a0127912079
Sometimes murders are not Agatha Christie mysteries. Luke was in contact with Jodi via mobile telephone that evening. He was seen with her by Andrina Bryson. If it wasn't them the couple have not come forward in a murder investigation to eliminate themselves from the inquiry.
Luke had no alibi. He named a species of tree Jodi was lain against, and described a clasp in her hair. He was obstructive during police questioning.
The skunting knife was never found, though the pouch was, inscribed with "JJ 1989-2003". He had boasted on a previous occasion of being able to slit someone's throat.
Thanks Steve,so do you think the girlfriends had anything to do with the killing? Or was LM simply a psychotic copy cat killer obsessed with satanism?
-
Absolute nonsense - That is repeating the lie?
Search for Jodi? Well we know LM didn't lie over this issue,about Mia jumping up at the wall and Luke showing no emotion,the others changed their statements
That all time lie to place focus upon Jodi's family, where we see exactly who has been lying and for whom! 'That they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds' 'That by four weeks later they all said the dog did nothing and he went directly to the V' 'That by the time of the trial the Jury were not made aware of their first accounts, or of any changes' - All been a crock of s**t
For the benefit of those caught up and not caught up in the lie. The search trio had always said LM went directly to the V with his dog, that they had not changed their account within 4 weeks, that the Jury most certainly did hear of their first accounts, of them agreeing thus adopted as evidence. That this was never about 'dog and wall' It was always about the lies that LM had told from his very first account forward.
That "they had been some distance past not quite 20yards" Still "20yards" then "25yards" then drawing a map with X marks the spot, of being directly "parallel" to where the body lay over the wall, which as we know was 43ft past the V break. Why did he lie? He was attempting to show why he knew exactly where to go when entering the woodland, this claimed alert, of a dog coming to a halt, sticking its nose in the air and sniffing - Pretty comical if nothing else. That "they" had been him, dog, SK and JaJ's, that he returned to access the woods whilst they kept on walking - Lies. So yes, in its most basic sense, there was the dog and wall, who changed the goal posts, who lied and moved them to another place entirely = LM.
JaJ's and her change from "all being in hysterics" to LM not being. Was she lying? or reliving those screams in her head when giving that first account? Did LM say he was in hysterics, no. Did AW or SK say he was in hysterics, no. Did JaJ's say in her change that SK was in hysterics, no, she still spoke of him retching etc. So, not just about LM, she was clarifying who was doing what, wasn't she?
The emergency services of him being fine, the police, the same. His own mother is trying to get a hold of him and he blanks her, reaches out to no one, not her, his brother or father. Hysterics, upset, needing anything? - So context, JaJ's and that change, that clarification, of her stating it wasn't that everyone was the same as her and her gran, screaming in hysterics?
-
Absolute nonsense - That is repeating the lie?
That all time lie to place focus upon Jodi's family, where we see exactly who has been lying and for whom! 'That they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds' 'That by four weeks later they all said the dog did nothing and he went directly to the V' 'That by the time of the trial the Jury were not made aware of their first accounts, or of any changes' - All been a crock of s**t
For the benefit of those caught up and not caught up in the lie. The search trio had always said LM went directly to the V with his dog, that they had not changed their account within 4 weeks, that the Jury most certainly did hear of their first accounts, of them agreeing thus adopted as evidence. That this was never about 'dog and wall' It was always about the lies that LM had told from his very first account forward.
That "they had been some distance past not quite 20yards" Still "20yards" then "25yards" then drawing a map with X marks the spot, of being directly "parallel" to where the body lay over the wall, which as we know was 43ft past the V break. Why did he lie? He was attempting to show why he knew exactly where to go when entering the woodland, this claimed alert, of a dog coming to a halt, sticking its nose in the air and sniffing - Pretty comical if nothing else. That "they" had been him, dog, SK and JaJ's, that he returned to access the woods whilst they kept on walking - Lies. So yes, in its most basic sense, there was the dog and wall, who changed the goal posts, who lied and moved them to another place entirely = LM.
JaJ's and her change from "all being in hysterics" to LM not being. Was she lying? or reliving those screams in her head when giving that first account? Did LM say he was in hysterics, no. Did AW or SK say he was in hysterics, no. Did JaJ's say in her change that SK was in hysterics, no, she still spoke of him retching etc. So, not just about LM, she was clarifying who was doing what, wasn't she?
The emergency services of him being fine, the police, the same. His own mother is trying to get a hold of him and he blanks her, reaches out to no one, not her, his brother or father. Hysterics, upset, needing anything? - So context, JaJ's and that change, that clarification, of her stating it wasn't that everyone was the same as her and her gran, screaming in hysterics?
OK thanks Parky,you've made your position clear on the finding of Jodi.I may have to look into it again.
-
Been scouring the web for any useful info,and it seems there is definately an alternative route from the crime scene to Luke's street,this seems to have been accepted and even discussed by the sccrc by the sound of things.
So where is this route? Why isnt it common knowledge and discussed more widely?
I want to know this route and see how it ties in with where LM was sighted at certain times.
If Parky knows the route he seems reluctant to divulge it.
Has anyone come across any information regarding this 'alleged' route?
We need it for completion.
-
Thanks Steve,so do you think the girlfriends had anything to do with the killing? Or was LM simply a psychotic copy cat killer obsessed with satanism?
Probably the latter.
-
Probably the latter.
Thanks Steve.
There is just so much that doesn't add up with Luke being a copy cat killer.The FBI profile even said he didn't fit the bill,he wasn't old enough.Besides,it doesn't make sense arranging to meet someone then killing them,that must be a first surely.Not what your typical serial killer does is it? Dont they usually attack strangers, not their lovers?
Why couldn't an experienced killer have murdered Jodi? He, or even she [ do female serial killers exist?] He/she could have trayeled from anywhere in mid summer to the Edinburgh area,the city is brimming full at that time of year.
Stocky man could have been scouring the surrounding area for suitable ambush spots with his shoulder bag full of equipment.Including change of clothes and balaclave to keep him all but blood free for his getaway through the woods.After all,this is how LM allegedly escaped until he was spotted beside the gate.Stocky man could have slinked away without suspicion using any route of his choosing,no problem.
What about Luke,he didn't plan things very well if guilty,did he? Why did he wear his parka jacket if he knew there was a chance it would get blood stained? Why not wear something old and tatty that no one would remember about if he had to get rid of it? Why wear a cumbersome jacket at all for that matter if he intended to sprint home ASAP? None of it makes sense if LM was as clever as he is made out to be.
-
Yes,all that Stocky man had to do was put his bloodied clothes in his shoulder bag and wander back to his
Travelodge at a leisurely pace and wash up.No association or link with the victim whatsoever,and unlikely to leave much DNA at the locus.
Luke on the other hand,oh dear,what a shambles.
First mistake,he knew his victim,better to attack an unknown stranger in a different neighbourhood.
Second mistake,he was the victims boyfriend and had arranged to meet her.Not an ideal situation for a would be serial killer.
Third mistake,everyone knew he was going to meet his victim.
Fourth mistake,he wore the clothes that everyone associated with him and caused suspicion when they disappeared.
Fifth mistake,he wasn't fast enough crossing the road on the way home and was seen.
Sixth mistake,for some reason he thought it best to lead a search party directly to the victim and describe things that could not possibly be seen.
What a silly laddie!
-
One other point about stocky man being Restivo.
Like many others I presume,I found the damage to Jodi's tonsils particularly gruesome and weird.
It is worth remembering that part of the blame for triggering Restivo's killing spree was the trauma of a botched operation on his tonsils.
Could the damage to Jodi's tonsils have been a kind of signature?
Bubo has probably pointed this out this fact before,but I think it is worth mentioning again while we are re-examining the possibility of a visiting nutter to Dalkeith.
Another interesting fact that Dr Lean talks of is a botanist looking for'Malacca cane' at the crime scene.
And it seems no trees containing malacca wood was found at the locus.Now,Malacca cane' is a particularly hard wood similar to Rattan and is mainly used for making walking sticks including 'Sword Sticks'.That is,as you probably know,a walking stick with a concealed long bladed knife.
Was this what the police were considering when they [found??] traces of Malacca cane at the scene or on the victim?
A heavy Sword Stick would certainly fit the bill as the ideal murder weapon,capable of inflicting a severe brain contusion and also deep cuts to the tonsils.
And who would give a second glance to someone using a seemingly innocent walking aid? No one!
Yes,I agree with Bubo,and others, who think there is a very real possibility that an experienced serial killer visited Dalkeith that day.I dont think ANY of the suspects that have been put forward were capable of carrying out such an atrocity.
-
One other point about stocky man being Restivo.
Like many others I presume,I found the damage to Jodi's tonsils particularly gruesome and weird.
It is worth remembering that part of the blame for triggering Restivo's killing spree was the trauma of a botched operation on his tonsils.
Could the damage to Jodi's tonsils have been a kind of signature?
Bubo has probably pointed this out this fact before,but I think it is worth mentioning again while we are re-examining the possibility of a visiting nutter to Dalkeith.
Another interesting fact that Dr Lean talks of is a botanist looking for'Malacca cane' at the crime scene.
And it seems no trees containing malacca wood was found at the locus.Now,Malacca cane' is a particularly hard wood similar to Rattan and is mainly used for making walking sticks including 'Sword Sticks'.That is,as you probably know,a walking stick with a concealed long bladed knife.
Was this what the police were considering when they [found??] traces of Malacca cane at the scene or on the victim?
A heavy Sword Stick would certainly fit the bill as the ideal murder weapon,capable of inflicting a severe brain contusion and also deep cuts to the tonsils.
And who would give a second glance to someone using a seemingly innocent walking aid? No one!
Yes,I agree with Bubo,and others, who think there is a very real possibility that an experienced serial killer visited Dalkeith that day.I dont think ANY of the suspects that have been put forward were capable of carrying out such an atrocity.
It's highly implausible that Restivo just happened to be in the area, when Mitchell and Jodi were in mobile telephone contact that afternoon. Aren't walking sticks the preserve of old men anyway? https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/restivo-danilo.htm
-
It's highly implausible that Restivo just happened to be in the area, when Mitchell and Jodi were in mobile telephone contact that afternoon. Aren't walking sticks the preserve of old men anyway? https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/restivo-danilo.htm
Well,if the innocence team ever get the remaining DNA evidence tested we may find out if Restivo had anything to do with the crime Steve.The police had him under surveillance in mid 2003 too,so they may know where Restivo was on 30th June.
So,lets not rule hm out until we are sure.
-
Well,if the innocence team ever get the remaining DNA evidence tested we may find out if Restivo had anything to do with the crime Steve.The police had him under surveillance in mid 2003 too,so they may know where Restivo was on 30th June.
So,lets not rule hm out until we are sure.
I believe you are wrong about surveillance check the facts. Court evidence evidence outlined below.
The court heard the first operation lasted from March – June 2004 consisting of 57 days of surveillance in total in daytime hours.
Following events at Throop Mill in May of that year, where Restivo was observed watching women and found in possession of a knife, scissors and a change of clothes, it was increased due to “risk assessment”.
From June 16 for a period he was watched 24 hours. There was covert monitoring – bugging, in his house and car.
Another operation was carried out between October 2005 and August 2007 in which he was kept under observation by officers for a total of 147 days, mainly daytime hours.
-
It's highly implausible that Restivo just happened to be in the area, when Mitchell and Jodi were in mobile telephone contact that afternoon. Aren't walking sticks the preserve of old men anyway? https://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/restivo-danilo.htm
On what scientific basis are you making this statement. If he was stalking JJ (his modus operandi) it was a case of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the saying goes and DR would be unaware of her on going communications with LM.
You make statements with no reasoning. We have no knowledge of his whereabouts on that day.
Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.
-
On what scientific basis are you making this statement. If he was stalking JJ (his modus operandi) it was a case of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the saying goes and DR would be unaware of her on going communications with LM.
You make statements with no reasoning. We have no knowledge of his whereabouts on that day.
Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.
As far as I'm aware Jodi had been grounded for several days at least for ingesting weed. I'm not sure whether she was attending school and then returning straight home during that period or was housebound for the duration. It's a stretch to say Restivo was observing her throughout that time. Nobody came forward to say they had seen a stranger in the vicinity matching his description on the evening of 30 June 2003, unlike the Andrina Bryson sighting, for example.
-
As far as I'm aware Jodi had been grounded for several days at least for ingesting weed. I'm not sure whether she was attending school and then returning straight home during that period or was housebound for the duration. It's a stretch to say Restivo was observing her throughout that time. Nobody came forward to say they had seen a stranger in the vicinity matching his description on the evening of 30 June 2003, unlike the Andrina Bryson sighting, for example.
The same Andrina Bryson who incorrectly described the clothes that JJ was wearing. Her identification is rubbish. There was I believe a sighting of a man near the school standing by a car in the days leading up to the murder. Whoever that was could have followed her home and commenced to watch her behaviour. She could have been earmarked. DR was an accomplished stalker as any study of him would conclude. Dorset police have a video of him watching women while skulking in long grass. He worked in computing and was able to falsify his work place records to show he was working when HB was murdered.
To say he was incapable of being a suspect is I suggest wishful thinking.
He was a cunning and well practiced psychotic killer and evaded capture for years.
I believe I am right in saying that she would have walked the path daily whilst attending school even if she was not seeing LM. It is possible she was accompanied by school friends on this walk.
-
The same Andrina Bryson who incorrectly described the clothes that JJ was wearing. Her identification is rubbish. There was I believe a sighting of a man near the school standing by a car in the days leading up to the murder. Whoever that was could have followed her home and commenced to watch her behaviour. She could have been earmarked. DR was an accomplished stalker as any study of him would conclude. Dorset police have a video of him watching women while skulking in long grass. He worked in computing and was able to falsify his work place records to show he was working when HB was murdered.
To say he was incapable of being a suspect is I suggest wishful thinking.
He was a cunning and well practiced psychotic killer and evaded capture for years.
I believe I am right in saying that she would have walked the path daily whilst attending school even if she was not seeing LM. It is possible she was accompanied by school friends on this walk.
It's a credible sighting. Danilo Restivo is hardly a character who blends into the landscape. How on earth could he have been stalking Jodi for a period of time, where would he have stayed and why did nobody come forward to place him in the environs? https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+Driver+saw+male+and+a+girl+near+site+where...-a0125465540
-
I believe you are wrong about surveillance check the facts. Court evidence evidence outlined below.
The court heard the first operation lasted from March – June 2004 consisting of 57 days of surveillance in total in daytime hours.
Following events at Throop Mill in May of that year, where Restivo was observed watching women and found in possession of a knife, scissors and a change of clothes, it was increased due to “risk assessment”.
From June 16 for a period he was watched 24 hours. There was covert monitoring – bugging, in his house and car.
Another operation was carried out between October 2005 and August 2007 in which he was kept under observation by officers for a total of 147 days, mainly daytime hours.
Yes,you are right Bubo,it says..
'Restivo was questioned by police in mid 2003 and released without charge'
No mention of surveillance at that time it seems.
-
It's a credible sighting. Danilo Restivo is hardly a character who blends into the landscape. How on earth could he have been stalking Jodi for a period of time, where would he have stayed and why did nobody come forward to place him in the environs? https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES+MURDER+TRIAL%3A+Driver+saw+male+and+a+girl+near+site+where...-a0125465540
It is not a credible sighting. She completely describes clothing which is 100% different from that which JJ was wearing. Indeed she says she was wearing a blue hoody and did not see her face. JJ had an orange embroidered animal on THE BACK of a black hoody.
The area is often frequented by tourists and visitors so the sight of one man near the school might not have registered. People would visit the country park. A short distance from the school. Further people who live in relatively quiet peaceful areas are more inclined to ignore the fact that a serial killer was on the loose and to that extent they could only conceive it had to be someone local.
They feel safe and secure. They do not see strangers as malevolent beings waiting to do some dastardly deed like burglary or murder. They go about their lives feeling safe and secure and do not regard someone who they do not recognise as a suspicious character.
I live opposite a path that leads to a golf course and extensive woodlands. I see people enter the path all the time. I do not make a mental note of all and sundry. It is part of the natural flow and the landscape. There is a junior school round the corner and many students cross through the woods to attend an academy on the other side.
Your problem is Blind Faith Disease. You cannot open your mind to possibilities outside your own terms of reference as to how the world is.
Thus all police are righteous and upstanding. Police do not make mistakes. These beliefs you adhere to despite the fact that there is clear evidence to the contrary that this is not always the case.
-
It is not a credible sighting. She completely describes clothing which is 100% different from that which JJ was wearing. Indeed she says she was wearing a blue hoody and did not see her face. JJ had an orange embroidered animal on THE BACK of a black hoody.
The area is often frequented by tourists and visitors so the sight of one man near the school might not have registered. People would visit the country park. A short distance from the school. Further people who live in relatively quiet peaceful areas are more inclined to ignore the fact that a serial killer was on the loose and to that extent they could only conceive it had to be someone local.
They feel safe and secure. They do not see strangers as malevolent beings waiting to do some dastardly deed like burglary or murder. They go about their lives feeling safe and secure and do not regard someone who they do not recognise as a suspicious character.
I live opposite a path that leads to a golf course and extensive woodlands. I see people enter the path all the time. I do not make a mental note of all and sundry. It is part of the natural flow and the landscape. There is a junior school round the corner and many students cross through the woods to attend an academy on the other side.
Your problem is Blind Faith Disease. You cannot open your mind to possibilities outside your own terms of reference as to how the world is.
Thus all police are righteous and upstanding. Police do not make mistakes. These beliefs you adhere to despite the fact that there is clear evidence to the contrary that this is not always the case.
I doubt Newbattle has much tourist activity. Why didn't the young couple come forward to eliminate themselves from a murder enquiry if it wasn't Jodi and Luke?
-
I doubt Newbattle has much tourist activity. Why didn't the young couple come forward to eliminate themselves from a murder enquiry if it wasn't Jodi and Luke?
Wake up Steve. Come out of your rose coloured world where The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. They could have been foreign tourists who left the country or were not local and returned home and never studied the case in any way. Or they never existed. It maybe was someone looking for their five minutes of fame or to get some weird satisfaction of being involved with the case. They do exist, these people who crave attention for some small amount of notoriety. On the other hand it maybe because her husband was a relative of JJ's family.
-
I doubt Newbattle has much tourist activity. Why didn't the young couple come forward to eliminate themselves from a murder enquiry if it wasn't Jodi and Luke?
The Jury were given very good direction over eye witness testimony. - The Judge went over everything around the fallibility of such, of looking at everything as a whole.
AB did not simply say the top was blue, with clarification of colours etc she had said it was a dark top with slightly lighter coloured bottoms. Dark blue/navy, trousers baggy around the bottom, possibly bootcut, possibly jeans. exhibit 146 "black or very dark navy hooded top"
The descriptions of both were not off the scale, the witness had been driving in her car, not walking past two people etc. So it was of seeing two people within minutes of the victim leaving home, sighting at a place the couple often met. Hair possibly contained which it had been. The logo was not an animal, had the top been worn loosely, the logo easily partially covered, the sighting was side on.
It is like Faith just now, from transcripts, saying everyone saw LM in something different, attempting to place it again as off the scale, far from it. All of dark green clothing, not and never the bomber with bright orange lining.
-
Wake up Steve. Come out of your rose coloured world where The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. They could have been foreign tourists who left the country or were not local and returned home and never studied the case in any way. Or they never existed. It maybe was someone looking for their five minutes of fame or to get some weird satisfaction of being involved with the case. They do exist, these people who crave attention for some small amount of notoriety. On the other hand it maybe because her husband was a relative of JJ's family.
I think you are the one who needs to wake up. I do however agree, some who want their moment of fame, notoriety by becoming involved in the case, putting themselves to the fore. Now being exposed for repeatedly, blatantly lying. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Husband a relative of JJ's family - It is no surprise you are so off the mark with most everything. Spouting out nonsense, adding arms and legs to something at the drop of a hat. AB's husband, or her brother in law Mark, was a friend of the victims cousin. Nothing directly linking them, AB unknown to the JJ family, she didn't know them.
-
The Jury were given very good direction over eye witness testimony. - The Judge went over everything around the fallibility of such, of looking at everything as a whole.
AB did not simply say the top was blue, with clarification of colours etc she had said it was a dark top with slightly lighter coloured bottoms. Dark blue/navy, trousers baggy around the bottom, possibly bootcut, possibly jeans.
The descriptions of both were not off the scale, the witness had been driving in her car, not walking past two people etc. So it was of seeing two people within minutes of the victim leaving home, sighting at a place the couple often met. Hair possibly contained which it had been. The logo was not an animal, had the top been worn loosely, the logo easily partially covered, the sighting was side on.
It is like Faith just now, from transcripts, saying everyone saw LM in something different, attempting to place it again as off the scale, far from it. All of dark green clothing, not and never the bomber with bright orange lining.
Hardly an accurate description, possibly this possibly that. Now it is side on not the back. We know that under Scottish law testimony which differs from original statements has to accepted unchallenged. Sorry about the animal just my memory but she did not identify the logo. Timing is guess work and purely coincidental and I never said they were off the scale. I do not think you have made the case for a positive ID.
-
I think you are the one who needs to wake up. I do however agree, some who want their moment of fame, notoriety by becoming involved in the case, putting themselves to the fore. Now being exposed for repeatedly, blatantly lying. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Husband a relative of JJ's family - It is no surprise you are so off the mark with most everything. Spouting out nonsense, adding arms and legs to something at the drop of a hat. AB's husband, or her brother in law Mark, was a friend of the victims cousin. Nothing directly linking them, AB unknown to the JJ family, she didn't know them.
Thank you for clarifying the possible link between AB and a family relative. I knew there was a tentative link but could not remember the exact relationship. She did not know the family I agree. So there was a link albeit not a direct relationship.
I find the AB sighting weak evidence.
-
The MOST important piece of evidence in this case should be that of Jodi's mother and Alan Ovens.
If ANY timing in this case is important,it is the time that Jodi left her mothers house on the day of the murder.You see,without knowing this time Andrina Brysons alleged sighting means nothing,does it?
Brysons sighting has to tie in roughly with the time Jodi's mother said she left that day.After all it only took about three minutes for Jodi to walk from her mothers house to the entrance to RDP.
Now,it is claimed that ABs first statement says she saw Luke and Jodi at the path around 5.30-5.45,or at least her husband did.This was of course changed by till and bank receipts later on.
The thing is,what time did Judith Jones or Alan Ovens say Jodi left in their first statements? Does anyone know?
Surely this is the most important question of the whole case.This timing has the potential to clear Luke Mitchell by giving him an alibi for the time of the murder obviously.
If we just take a look at the timing of 4.50 when Luke and Jodi met at the entrance to the path, it makes little sense really.I mean,to achieve this they both must have skipped having their supper,now why would they do this? After all,they had seen each other at school that day,so why the desperation to meet on an empty stomach? What did they exchange by text? [Jodi] I can meet you tonight after supper Luke!
[Luke] Forget supper,lets meet right away. [Jodi],yes ok then,mums making lasagne but I'll just tell her I'm not hungry] Does that sound reasonable?
Or maybe Jodi had something to eat earlier when she got home from school ? Was this a common procedure?What did her mother say?
Did Jodi have something to eat earlier before she left to meet Luke? A simple question surely.
Any info about if and when Jodi eat that day anyone? Isnt this an important question?
Surely the police asked these sort of questions?
So,has Judith Jones and Alan Ovens first statements been disclosed?
They are all we really need to see,arent they?
-
The MOST important piece of evidence in this case should be that of Jodi's mother and Alan Ovens.
If ANY timing in this case is important,it is the time that Jodi left her mothers house on the day of the murder.You see,without knowing this time Andrina Brysons alleged sighting means nothing,does it?
Brysons sighting has to tie in roughly with the time Jodi's mother said she left that day.After all it only took about three minutes for Jodi to walk from her mothers house to the entrance to RDP.
Now,it is claimed that ABs first statement says she saw Luke and Jodi at the path around 5.30-5.45,or at least her husband did.This was of course changed by till and bank receipts later on.
The thing is,what time did Judith Jones or Alan Ovens say Jodi left in their first statements? Does anyone know?
Surely this is the most important question of the whole case.This timing has the potential to clear Luke Mitchell by giving him an alibi for the time of the murder obviously.
If we just take a look at the timing of 4.50 when Luke and Jodi met at the entrance to the path, it makes little sense really.I mean,to achieve this they both must have skipped having their supper,now why would they do this? After all,they had seen each other at school that day,so why the desperation to meet on an empty stomach? What did they exchange by text? [Jodi] I can meet you tonight after supper Luke!
[Luke] Forget supper,lets meet right away. [Jodi],yes ok then,mums making lasagne but I'll just tell her I'm not hungry] Does that sound reasonable?
Or maybe Jodi had something to eat earlier when she got home from school ? Was this a common procedure?What did her mother say?
Did Jodi have something to eat earlier before she left to meet Luke? A simple question surely.
Any info about if and when Jodi eat that day anyone? Isnt this an important question?
Surely the police asked these sort of questions?
So,has Judith Jones and Alan Ovens first statements been disclosed?
They are all we really need to see,arent they?
Autopsy notes on JJ's stomach contents might give clues as to when she last ate and possibly what she ate.
-
Autopsy notes on JJ's stomach contents might give clues as to when she last ate and possibly what she ate.
Yes,that did cross my mind Bubo.
-
The MOST important piece of evidence in this case should be that of Jodi's mother and Alan Ovens.
If ANY timing in this case is important,it is the time that Jodi left her mothers house on the day of the murder.You see,without knowing this time Andrina Brysons alleged sighting means nothing,does it?
Brysons sighting has to tie in roughly with the time Jodi's mother said she left that day.After all it only took about three minutes for Jodi to walk from her mothers house to the entrance to RDP.
Now,it is claimed that ABs first statement says she saw Luke and Jodi at the path around 5.30-5.45,or at least her husband did.This was of course changed by till and bank receipts later on.
The thing is,what time did Judith Jones or Alan Ovens say Jodi left in their first statements? Does anyone know?
Surely this is the most important question of the whole case.This timing has the potential to clear Luke Mitchell by giving him an alibi for the time of the murder obviously.
If we just take a look at the timing of 4.50 when Luke and Jodi met at the entrance to the path, it makes little sense really.I mean,to achieve this they both must have skipped having their supper,now why would they do this? After all,they had seen each other at school that day,so why the desperation to meet on an empty stomach? What did they exchange by text? [Jodi] I can meet you tonight after supper Luke!
[Luke] Forget supper,lets meet right away. [Jodi],yes ok then,mums making lasagne but I'll just tell her I'm not hungry] Does that sound reasonable?
Or maybe Jodi had something to eat earlier when she got home from school ? Was this a common procedure?What did her mother say?
Did Jodi have something to eat earlier before she left to meet Luke? A simple question surely.
Any info about if and when Jodi eat that day anyone? Isnt this an important question?
Surely the police asked these sort of questions?
So,has Judith Jones and Alan Ovens first statements been disclosed?
They are all we really need to see,arent they?
Sequence - Girl was on punishments, not allowed out until 6pm on school nights. Lifted once home from school that day. She made contact with only Mitchell, leaving home shortly after the exchange of texts to do just that. No means to contact anyone else. She had been ready to leave home when her mother held her back several minutes, tying in with Mitchell calling the speaking clock, she was running late.
Establishing time. Her parents stating she had left home shortly after the father had gotten in from work. CCTV footage used to time route from station to house, estimated time in house before leaving. He had seen the girl when going into the rest room, front door closing whilst in it, no Jodi upon exiting rest room. Left home by 4:55pm.
Couple seen at their usual meeting place, the lane. AB's timings were taken from the til mechanism initially, found to be faulty, bank statement used because of this. Route and timing, tying in with Jodi leaving home.
Girl entered woodland strip, walked into an area off the beaten track with zero evidence of any altercation, abduction taken place outwith that area. A woodland strip she frequented with Mitchell.
And yes, yada yada yada - All weak, nothing to back anything up, clearly wasn't Mitchell in the lane, clearly not the girl, clearly no girl on the road walking along it, clearly no abduction anywhere else, (bar aliens it would seem). Miraculously the girl was plonked into that area, murdered, and her killer exited by the same means of transport, a real beam me up Scotty kind of killing.
Mitchell had a strong alibi, he was absolutely at home and nowhere else. Because, whilst it is unfathomable to have him as a killer, that child, the wee boy. It is completely fathomable to have every kind of far out scenario of any other killer, everything else fits from whatever other planet, just not Mitchell.
-
Sequence - Girl was on punishments, not allowed out until 6pm on school nights. Lifted once home from school that day. She made contact with only Mitchell, leaving home shortly after the exchange of texts to do just that. No means to contact anyone else. She had been ready to leave home when her mother held her back several minutes, tying in with Mitchell calling the speaking clock, she was running late.
Establishing time. Her parents stating she had left home shortly after the father had gotten in from work. CCTV footage used to time route from station to house, estimated time in house before leaving. He had seen the girl when going into the rest room, front door closing whilst in it, no Jodi upon exiting rest room. Left home by 4:55pm.
Couple seen at their usual meeting place, the lane. AB's timings were taken from the til mechanism initially, found to be faulty, bank statement used because of this. Route and timing, tying in with Jodi leaving home.
Girl entered woodland strip, walked into an area off the beaten track with zero evidence of any altercation, abduction taken place outwith that area. A woodland strip she frequented with Mitchell.
And yes, yada yada yada - All weak, nothing to back anything up, clearly wasn't Mitchell in the lane, clearly not the girl, clearly no girl on the road walking along it, clearly no abduction anywhere else, (bar aliens it would seem). Miraculously the girl was plonked into that area, murdered, and her killer exited by the same means of transport, a real beam me up Scotty kind of killing.
Mitchell had a strong alibi, he was absolutely at home and nowhere else. Because, whilst it is unfathomable to have him as a killer, that child, the wee boy. It is completely fathomable to have every kind of far out scenario of any other killer, everything else fits from whatever other planet, just not Mitchell.
All the points you mention are dealt with in Dr Lean and Scott Forbes books as you no doubt know Parky.
Obviously you dont agree with them.
I dont think Dr Lean or Scott Forbes rule out the possibility of a serial killer visiting the area,although we know who their preffered suspect is.
Wont you at least entertain the possibility that an unknown killer visited the area Parky? What makes you so sure of Mitchells guilt with such little firm evidence?
What I think may have happened is the killer escaped leaving little trace.Vanished into thin air you may say.And because of this the police believed that Luke Mitchell had to be the killer and convinced Jodi's family that this was indeed the case.
Therefore when the timings of all the witnesses were put together and they saw that it was doubtful that Luke had the time to carry out the murder they convinced themselves that some of the witnesses got their timings slightly wrong.After all,this had to be the case if Mitchell was guilty,and when the witnesses were told by the police that there was no doubt of this, they were more than happy to alter their statements in order to snare the evil little so and so.Who wouldn't?
This included saying that Luke went straight over the V break.
Now no one is suggesting anyone altered their statement for any other reason than making sure an evil killer was locked away,and the police probably believe they got the right man too.
But did they?
I will always have doubt of his guilt unless he makes a confession or conclusive evidence turns up.
Who knows maybe the real killer will confess some day!
-
All the points you mention are dealt with in Dr Lean and Scott Forbes books as you no doubt know Parky.
Obviously you dont agree with them.
I dont think Dr Lean or Scott Forbes rule out the possibility of a serial killer visiting the area,although we know who their preffered suspect is.
Wont you at least entertain the possibility that an unknown killer visited the area Parky? What makes you so sure of Mitchells guilt with such little firm evidence?
What I think may have happened is the killer escaped leaving little trace.Vanished into thin air you may say.And because of this the police believed that Luke Mitchell had to be the killer and convinced Jodi's family that this was indeed the case.
Therefore when the timings of all the witnesses were put together and they saw that it was doubtful that Luke had the time to carry out the murder they convinced themselves that some of the witnesses got their timings slightly wrong.After all,this had to be the case if Mitchell was guilty,and when the witnesses were told by the police that there was no doubt of this, they were more than happy to alter their statements in order to snare the evil little so and so.Who wouldn't?
This included saying that Luke went straight over the V break.
Now no one is suggesting anyone altered their statement for any other reason than making sure an evil killer was locked away,and the police probably believe they got the right man too.
But did they?
I will always have doubt of his guilt unless he makes a confession or conclusive evidence turns up.
Who knows maybe the real killer will confess some day!
Many are not caught for the crimes they carry out because there is insufficient evidence. Does not mean that a suspect is not the offender. You are leaning entirely towards Mitchell not being the killer, basing this upon sufficiency of evidence. Not an easy case by any means obtaining that guilty verdict. My posts as I have pointed out, are of highlighting realistic reason as to why he because suspect in her murder. Not some utter nonsense of a policeman writing something down wrong, not because they just needed to get someone, and not this massive conspiracy nonsense in place just now.
I have always said, that had the evidence not been enough to produce that guilty verdict, then the police would not have been looking for a substitute. Or had there not been enough evidence for the Crown to take the case on, equally an alternate killer would not have been sought.
You keep saying about some killer swooning in on the area and swooning back out again, you offer absolutely nothing with any rationale as to how they did this? Let us just place absolute realism around the area here.
The attack began and ended (forensic evidence) within the bottom area of that woodland strip, an area off the beaten track, not somewhere used as a walk way anywhere. If formed no part of any trails. We could actually apply this to the whole strip. There was a man made break in the wall, the V break. Which was used by locals as a short cut, or youngsters to play in it. Who knows really. But nothing anyone from out the area would know about.
Some rationale and realism here. The girl had been banned from using the path alone, we hear of the bottom half especially, and we can see why. It works further away from houses/school and becomes enclosed. This is where the V break is, under that canopy we hear of in the transcripts. May she have decided to walk this? When there is no evidence of her doing so ever, not even from Mitchell, until that evening he claimed she was to be walking to his. A girl we are told who had a level head, no phone, why on earth would she have been wandering in the woodland alone, completely secluded area, when already aware of risk, the ban on the path, due to areas that were secluded? Once you have battled through that, where are you placing your opportunist? Surely not hanging about in that area off the beaten track, not used as a walk way, be waiting until the cows come home on some youngster wandering into there for no reason? Can't have gotten her over that V break, seriously? Jump over there will you, I have a knife, she obliges, does she just wait there for them getting over? of course bloody not. Can't have been the break off the lane? Again no evidence of any altercation, next to a house, near to the school, a 5 min walk to where the attack commenced, how the hell did he magic her down there?
The stocky man where there were no confirmed sightings, positive ID's made of the girl, walking along that road around 5pm on the day she died. But c'mon. As above, walking into secluded areas with someone on her tail, what a crock of s**t.
And you are entering into conspiracy when talking of altering statements etc - Taken from the pages of books, when we see now that this did not take place in anyway important. No one ever agreed with Mitchells line of events on that path, and JaJ's saying he was not in hysterics fits in exactly with how everyone else had him, including himself!
-
Many are not caught for the crimes they carry out because there is insufficient evidence. Does not mean that a suspect is not the offender. You are leaning entirely towards Mitchell not being the killer, basing this upon sufficiency of evidence. Not an easy case by any means obtaining that guilty verdict. My posts as I have pointed out, are of highlighting realistic reason as to why he because suspect in her murder. Not some utter nonsense of a policeman writing something down wrong, not because they just needed to get someone, and not this massive conspiracy nonsense in place just now.
I have always said, that had the evidence not been enough to produce that guilty verdict, then the police would not have been looking for a substitute. Or had there not been enough evidence for the Crown to take the case on, equally an alternate killer would not have been sought.
You keep saying about some killer swooning in on the area and swooning back out again, you offer absolutely nothing with any rationale as to how they did this? Let us just place absolute realism around the area here.
The attack began and ended (forensic evidence) within the bottom area of that woodland strip, an area off the beaten track, not somewhere used as a walk way anywhere. If formed no part of any trails. We could actually apply this to the whole strip. There was a man made break in the wall, the V break. Which was used by locals as a short cut, or youngsters to play in it. Who knows really. But nothing anyone from out the area would know about.
Some rationale and realism here. The girl had been banned from using the path alone, we hear of the bottom half especially, and we can see why. It works further away from houses/school and becomes enclosed. This is where the V break is, under that canopy we hear of in the transcripts. May she have decided to walk this? When there is no evidence of her doing so ever, not even from Mitchell, until that evening he claimed she was to be walking to his. A girl we are told who had a level head, no phone, why on earth would she have been wandering in the woodland alone, completely secluded area, when already aware of risk, the ban on the path, due to areas that were secluded? Once you have battled through that, where are you placing your opportunist? Surely not hanging about in that area off the beaten track, not used as a walk way, be waiting until the cows come home on some youngster wandering into there for no reason? Can't have gotten her over that V break, seriously? Jump over there will you, I have a knife, she obliges, does she just wait there for them getting over? of course bloody not. Can't have been the break off the lane? Again no evidence of any altercation, next to a house, near to the school, a 5 min walk to where the attack commenced, how the hell did he magic her down there?
The stocky man where there were no confirmed sightings, positive ID's made of the girl, walking along that road around 5pm on the day she died. But c'mon. As above, walking into secluded areas with someone on her tail, what a crock of s**t.
And you are entering into conspiracy when talking of altering statements etc - Taken from the pages of books, when we see now that this did not take place in anyway important. No one ever agreed with Mitchells line of events on that path, and JaJ's saying he was not in hysterics fits in exactly with how everyone else had him, including himself!
OK,pretty sensible answer Parky.
Well,lets say that the visiting serial killer is unlikely,but by no means impossible,what do you think of Scott Forbes theory of stocky man? Do you rule out his explaination too?
-
All the points you mention are dealt with in Dr Lean and Scott Forbes books as you no doubt know Parky.
Obviously you dont agree with them.
I dont think Dr Lean or Scott Forbes rule out the possibility of a serial killer visiting the area,although we know who their preffered suspect is.
Wont you at least entertain the possibility that an unknown killer visited the area Parky? What makes you so sure of Mitchells guilt with such little firm evidence?
What I think may have happened is the killer escaped leaving little trace.Vanished into thin air you may say.And because of this the police believed that Luke Mitchell had to be the killer and convinced Jodi's family that this was indeed the case.
Therefore when the timings of all the witnesses were put together and they saw that it was doubtful that Luke had the time to carry out the murder they convinced themselves that some of the witnesses got their timings slightly wrong.After all,this had to be the case if Mitchell was guilty,and when the witnesses were told by the police that there was no doubt of this, they were more than happy to alter their statements in order to snare the evil little so and so.Who wouldn't?
This included saying that Luke went straight over the V break.
Now no one is suggesting anyone altered their statement for any other reason than making sure an evil killer was locked away,and the police probably believe they got the right man too.
But did they?
I will always have doubt of his guilt unless he makes a confession or conclusive evidence turns up.
Who knows maybe the real killer will confess some day!
The V-break in the wall is interesting. The serial killer has scouted the Roan's Dyke Path on a previous occasion and decided upon this location to dump the body. So Luke is coming from the Newbattle end and Jodi sets off from her house to the Easthouses side. The serial killer is hanging around waiting for Jodi, whom he has been stalking for several days, strikes up a conversation with her and entices her down the path to the V-break. He then has to persuade her to climb over the wall or attacks her on the path and throws her body over the wall before committing the mutilations.
Meanwhile Luke does nothing. Jodi hasn't appeared for the date. Luke makes no contact with her family. He whiles away the hours.
I'm sorry, but the scenario just won't wash.
-
The V-break in the wall is interesting. The serial killer has scouted the Roan's Dyke Path on a previous occasion and decided upon this location to dump the body. So Luke is coming from the Newbattle end and Jodi sets off from her house to the Easthouses side. The serial killer is hanging around waiting for Jodi, whom he has been stalking for several days, strikes up a conversation with her and entices her down the path to the V-break. He then has to persuade her to climb over the wall or attacks her on the path and throws her body over the wall before committing the mutilations.
Meanwhile Luke does nothing. Jodi hasn't appeared for the date. Luke makes no contact with her family. He whiles away the hours.
I'm sorry, but the scenario just won't wash.
So you have Luke and Jodi meeting at the Easthouses end, then walking two thirds of the way back along the path in full view before going through the v Steve?
-
You see,putting the time of death at 5.15 means that Luke and Jodi must have walked along the path and climbed through the v just before the moped boys and Leonard Kelly arrived on the path.
And if Luke knew who owned the moped,then he also knew that they used the v break to access their hut,so why would he risk killing Jodi a few meters from the V when he knew the moped boys could climb through it at any moment?
And how did LM get to the Easthouses end of the path,did he stick to the woodland strip to avoid meeting anyone? Little sense in that really when he emerged at the Easthouses end in full view and then walked back to the V with Jodi in full view.
The Crown case doesn't seem very credible for a killer who wants to avoid being seen and accociated with the crime.
-
The V-break in the wall is interesting. The serial killer has scouted the Roan's Dyke Path on a previous occasion and decided upon this location to dump the body. So Luke is coming from the Newbattle end and Jodi sets off from her house to the Easthouses side. The serial killer is hanging around waiting for Jodi, whom he has been stalking for several days, strikes up a conversation with her and entices her down the path to the V-break. He then has to persuade her to climb over the wall or attacks her on the path and throws her body over the wall before committing the mutilations.
Meanwhile Luke does nothing. Jodi hasn't appeared for the date. Luke makes no contact with her family. He whiles away the hours.
I'm sorry, but the scenario just won't wash.
Why not JJ is waiting at East houses when approached by the killer. He says he is lost. They strike up a conversation. His story is plausible. She says she is waiting for her boyfriend. He knows the path and the V. He needs to Walk the path to Newbattle. Whatever is said over say a two minute chat he appears kind and gentle. She says she is not to walk the path alone. She tells him to walk the path. He says he will accompany her and she can show him the V where he can cut through and walk across the field to get back to his destination. She feels no threat from him and they set off together. As they approach the V he strikes her on the back of the head maybe with a brick from the wall. He carries/manipulates her over the V and hides her body after tying her up and killing her.
He hears the moped and conceals himself and the body. When the moped leaves he repositions the body and completes his activities. He leaves the scene discretely by a means other than the path.
Such an event is possible. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the area but something along these lines cannot be ruled out.
It is even possible that he leaves the body out of view and that is why 'masturbate man' never saw the body, He could have returned later to perform more vile acts or maybe he was moving JJ when the cyclist went past.
-
Why not JJ is waiting at East houses when approached by the killer. He says he is lost. They strike up a conversation. His story is plausible. She says she is waiting for her boyfriend. He knows the path and the V. He needs to Walk the path to Newbattle. Whatever is said over say a two minute chat he appears kind and gentle. She says she is not to walk the path alone. She tells him to walk the path. He says he will accompany her and she can show him the V where he can cut through and walk across the field to get back to his destination. She feels no threat from him and they set off together. As they approach the V he strikes her on the back of the head maybe with a brick from the wall. He carries/manipulates her over the V and hides her body after tying her up and killing her.
He hears the moped and conceals himself and the body. When the moped leaves he repositions the body and completes his activities. He leaves the scene discretely by a means other than the path.
Such an event is possible. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the area but something along these lines cannot be ruled out.
It is even possible that he leaves the body out of view and that is why 'masturbate man' never saw the body, He could have returned later to perform more vile acts or maybe he was moving JJ when the cyclist went past.
Bugger "Occam's Razor" that clear set of circumstances running in line. Let's go all out here into Peter Pan land. Marvellous stuff. Now why on earth can your imagination not reach into the realms of LM being the actual killer?
How's about. Girl texted boyfriend and said, hey my punishment has been lifted, you want to meet earlier. 'sure, where and when' Get you at out usual place, where the initials are carved into the tree, I'll fire you a text when I'm leaving the house, 'cool, see you soon'.
All ready for the off and her mother holds her back a few minutes, boy is waiting just inside the woodland on her, where is she? Calls the speaking clock to check the time, walks out of the woodland into the lane and there she is. Boy is not happy, he does not like to be kept waiting. Palms out turned beckoning her to him, get a shifty on here will ya! She goes to him and they walk down through the woodland, arguing having a smoke? Get off the beaten track and he violently attacks her. That red mist over takes. Deed done and he becomes icily calm. That opportunity he had been fantasizing about is now reality --------------
Sadly for him and fortunately for the safety of others, several wheels are firmly set in motion. Wing it as best he can, gets rid of incriminating forensic evidence and puts alibi in place.
But you are correct. Much better to apply all and everything around there being no forensic evidence, invent multiple scenarios. A killer not caught. Just not the boy who may have been that very killer, not caught through lack of evidence. If he had not been clocked by others, If there had been a united front and strength to the alibi.
-
Bugger "Occam's Razor" that clear set of circumstances running in line. Let's go all out here into Peter Pan land. Marvellous stuff. Now why on earth can your imagination not reach into the realms of LM being the actual killer?
How's about. Girl texted boyfriend and said, hey my punishment has been lifted, you want to meet earlier. 'sure, where and when' Get you at out usual place, where the initials are carved into the tree, I'll fire you a text when I'm leaving the house, 'cool, see you soon'.
All ready for the off and her mother holds her back a few minutes, boy is waiting just inside the woodland on her, where is she? Calls the speaking clock to check the time, walks out of the woodland into the lane and there she is. Boy is not happy, he does not like to be kept waiting. Palms out turned beckoning her to him, get a shifty on here will ya! She goes to him and they walk down through the woodland, arguing having a smoke? Get off the beaten track and he violently attacks her. That red mist over takes. Deed done and he becomes icily calm. That opportunity he had been fantasizing about is now reality --------------
Sadly for him and fortunately for the safety of others, several wheels are firmly set in motion. Wing it as best he can, gets rid of incriminating forensic evidence and puts alibi in place.
But you are correct. Much better to apply all and everything around there being no forensic evidence, invent multiple scenarios. A killer not caught. Just not the boy who may have been that very killer, not caught through lack of evidence. If he had not been clocked by others, If there had been a united front and strength to the alibi.
I understand your position entirely. Given that LM has protested innocence from the get go I believe it is reasonable to look for alternative narratives which might explain what happened. We have a case where all the evidence is circumstantial and it is cases like this which can lead to a MOJ. Given the media interest surrounding the case and the obvious anguish of JJ's family and the public at large he was virtually convicted before he set foot in a courtroom.
Whilst I accept that children can murder (given the recent case of the trans killed in the park by two teenagers) and including the earlier Bulger case, I cannot see a 14 year old commit a murder with the characteristics displayed in this case as a solo effort.
To me the killer would need to be deranged and capable of committing the act with malice aforethought complete with a well constructed alibi. Luke has displayed no earlier behaviours which point to anything other than a wayward teenager. He has no record of nasty threatening incidents or verbalisation of a manic nature beyond that which would mark him out as a dangerous individual. True he may have shown interest in some darker aspects of life but there is no earlier evidence to suggest this was anything but normal teenage banter.
Even the pathologist does not believe he did it.
Also there is other unidentified male DNA
I could have been more accepting of him as the guilty partner if she had been stabbed a few times but the MO in this case is well beyond the normal angry boy.
I am not sure why the police thought a 14 year old could plan and execute such a murder and did not examine whether an unknown third party may have been involved.
IS IT WORTH A CHECK
Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?
Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).
1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.
2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.
3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.
4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.
5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.
6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.
7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.
Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.
Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.
The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.
Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.
-
I understand your position entirely. Given that LM has protested innocence from the get go I believe it is reasonable to look for alternative narratives which might explain what happened. We have a case where all the evidence is circumstantial and it is cases like this which can lead to a MOJ. Given the media interest surrounding the case and the obvious anguish of JJ's family and the public at large he was virtually convicted before he set foot in a courtroom.
Whilst I accept that children can murder (given the recent case of the trans killed in the park by two teenagers) and including the earlier Bulger case, I cannot see a 14 year old commit a murder with the characteristics displayed in this case as a solo effort.
To me the killer would need to be deranged and capable of committing the act with malice aforethought complete with a well constructed alibi. Luke has displayed no earlier behaviours which point to anything other than a wayward teenager. He has no record of nasty threatening incidents or verbalisation of a manic nature beyond that which would mark him out as a dangerous individual. True he may have shown interest in some darker aspects of life but there is no earlier evidence to suggest this was anything but normal teenage banter.
Even the pathologist does not believe he did it.
Also there is other unidentified male DNA
I could have been more accepting of him as the guilty partner if she had been stabbed a few times but the MO in this case is well beyond the normal angry boy.
I am not sure why the police thought a 14 year old could plan and execute such a murder and did not examine whether an unknown third party may have been involved.
IS IT WORTH A CHECK
Where EXACTLY was Danilo Restivo on the evening of 30/06/03?
Similarities between the Heather Barnett murder (12/11/2002) and that of Jodie Jones (30/06/2003).
1 Head wounds; both had blunt force injuries to the back of the head with no weapon found, though a hammer was attributed in HB’s case. However the pathologist in the Jones case said it could also have been made by forcing her head against something hard like a wall.
2 Neck wounds; both suffered massive mutilation injuries with a bladed weapon to the neck area almost severing the head.
3 Breast area; both had been mutilated in this area. Barnett’s were fully removed. Jones’s left breast had been attacked.
4 Both crime scenes had evidence of a struggle before death.
5 Clothes; both victims had their clothes cut off.
6 Elements of symmetry/quirkiness; it is said that HB’s incised breasts were placed either side of her head. Jodie’s brassiere cups were placed one inside the other.
7 Hair; HB had some of her hair placed by one hand with the hair of another woman next to the other. Jodie had some of her hair pulled out and some of her hair was around her fingers. The uncovered body overnight with rain may be a factor either as a cause or adjuster of volume or positioning. It seems to me from pictures that all three women had auburn hair.
Danilo Restivo tied up his first victim the Italian Alisa Claps and Jodie was tied up. He was also suspected of tying up two children and cutting one with a knife. Settled out of court in Italy when he was younger.
Alisa Claps only had her own hair by the body.
The attack on Jodie is more severe but with some deranged killers the violence escalates a bit each time.
Restivo's conviction yesterday for Heather Barnett's murder brings to a close an extraordinary story, but many mysteries remain. Some observers are convinced that a compulsive, psychotic killer such as Restivo must have commited more murders between 1993 and 2002. Over the years he has been linked to many other deaths, particularly to a series of brutal murders in southern France and Spain. In September 1997 a young French-Algerian woman from Perpignan, Moktharia Chaib, was stabbed and her breasts, as well as other body parts, removed. Marie Hélène Gonzalez had, in 1998, been brutally mutilated, having disappeared in Perpignan. In 1999, in Puerto de Alcuida, Majorca, a British woman called Yvonne O'Brien was stabbed 40 times and one of her breasts was removed. On Easter Day 2003 a South Korean woman adopted by an Italian family, Erika Ansermin, disappeared. Her body has never been found but a photograph of her, downloaded from an Italian news channel, was found on Restivo's computer.
Untrue. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534
-
Untrue. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534
This is not evidence given at trial under oath. When were these accusations made post or pre trial?
It seems these were part of a newspaper report post trial in 2005 shortly after his conviction. How much were they paid for their stories?
-
This is not evidence given at trial under oath. When were these accusations made post or pre trial?
It seems these were part of a newspaper report post trial in 2005 months after his conviction. How much were they paid for their stories?
How much have the Mitchells been paid for theirs? We know the granny wanted X amount if including a pic of her grandson. The Sky interview, a good few bucks there then, and every damn story since then - I'll let you go try and count all those pounds up for them. But no, of course they would not have been paid, just others who have spoken to the media then? Or SF's and the selling of a story? The documentaries, the books, ching ching ching!
-
How much have the Mitchells been paid for theirs? We know the granny wanted X amount if including a pic of her grandson. The Sky interview, a good few bucks there then, and every damn story since then - I'll let you go try and count all those pounds up for them. But no, of course they would not have been paid, just others who have spoken to the media then? Or SF's and the selling of a story? The documentaries, the books, ching ching ching!
Oh dear you are wound up matey. Instead of accepting my post you throw your toys out of the pram. I was making the point that their stories were not given under oath. I do not see Luke's mum rolling in dosh. She is a broke and diminished woman. I do not believe it is right to sell stories by either side. Most of the monies from the defence side are used to fund research and tests and pay legal fees.
-
Oh dear you are wound up matey. Instead of accepting my post you throw your toys out of the pram. I was making the point that their stories were not given under oath. I do not see Luke's mum rolling in dosh. She is a broke and diminished woman. I do not believe it is right to sell stories by either side. Most of the monies from the defence side are used to fund research and tests and pay legal fees.
Oh dear, has one offended you. Quick to dish insults and mock people, instantly up in arms when criticised in what you post yourself. - One got your point, that was easy to see. Is what they said true, had they given evidence of any attacks etc. Good point, the added bit of money however is why you were being criticised and rightly so. Zero proof they were lying, and zero proof of being paid for lying, selling tall tales.
On the other hand, sit tight now - There is an abundance of proof coming forward of multiple lies being told, from people who have been paid for peddling lies
-
Oh dear, has one offended you. Quick to dish insults and mock people, instantly up in arms when criticised in what you post yourself. - One got your point, that was easy to see. Is what they said true, had they given evidence of any attacks etc. Good point, the added bit of money however is why you were being criticised and rightly so. Zero proof they were lying, and zero proof of being paid for lying, selling tall tales.
On the other hand, sit tight now - There is an abundance of proof coming forward of multiple lies being told, from people who have been paid for peddling lies
You have a habit of using the word lies. I was only posing a question. When you are called into question as to your accuracy of events you are quick to attack others of lying. In this post the word lies appears 8 times.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11550.msg532764.html#msg532764
You appear to be saying you must not accuse people of lying but you are free to make such claims.
I await the forthcoming proof of multiple lies.
-
You have a habit of using the word lies. I was only posing a question. When you are called into question as to your accuracy of events you are quick to attack others of lying. In this post the word lies appears 8 times.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11550.msg532764.html#msg532764
You appear to be saying you must not accuse people of lying but you are free to make such claims.
I await the forthcoming proof of multiple lies.
Take a deep breath now, easy does it, simple baby steps for you coming up. - I stated right from the start the reason why I took to studying this case intricately, which was based upon multiple lies I knew were being touted out. Setting myself an area of study, which was around reason as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, remained there and could not be eliminated. If I could see blatant lies then what else were they lying about? A group of us setting different tasks. Mines suspicion, lies, the use of language for manipulation.
So, you put a post up in my response to Faith, she had accused me of lying and came back with some awful response because she could not show that I had been lying, empty words, same old.
All those points I made around others lying were true, it has taken for the release of transcripts for many others to see those lies that have been peddled, selling tall tales.
Now I suggest you read over what you cited there then you go read the transcripts, do your own graft. As for accuracy, does that come under not providing endless cites to back something up? You mean, just like people taken the word of someone because they have had access that others have not, like Faith has said many times. I trust Dr Lean, because unlike you she has access, I don't need proof of anything from her? - Oops!
Lean and the four met at the junction of the paths - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear from the first statements - False.
Lean and AW "cradled" the body - False.
Lean and 'they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds - False.
Lean and the search trio got there too quickly - False.
Lean and within 4 weeks they said the dog did nothing at all - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear of any possible connections with AB - False.
The list really is endless and nothing of Mr Fibs yet, from a book 'fact checked' by Ms Lean - Oops.
Yes, those with sense realise the why, the lies, the false narrative, to take focus away from Mitchell, place it elsewhere, attempt to show they may have been acting out of self interest - Lies. Not even a snifter of any truth that anyone was acting out of self interest. But we know that people who lie repeatedly are doing just that, starting with Mitchell who did nothing but lie, proven beyond all doubt. You can howl to the moon about innocence, you can never dispute the many lies that fell from his lips around most anything.
See, lots and lots of the mention of lies - It has always been the basis of most of my posts, reason for studying.
-
Take a deep breath now, easy does it, simple baby steps for you coming up. - I stated right from the start the reason why I took to studying this case intricately, which was based upon multiple lies I knew were being touted out. Setting myself an area of study, which was around reason as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, remained there and could not be eliminated. If I could see blatant lies then what else were they lying about? A group of us setting different tasks. Mines suspicion, lies, the use of language for manipulation.
So, you put a post up in my response to Faith, she had accused me of lying and came back with some awful response because she could not show that I had been lying, empty words, same old.
All those points I made around others lying were true, it has taken for the release of transcripts for many others to see those lies that have been peddled, selling tall tales.
Now I suggest you read over what you cited there then you go read the transcripts, do your own graft. As for accuracy, does that come under not providing endless cites to back something up? You mean, just like people taken the word of someone because they have had access that others have not, like Faith has said many times. I trust Dr Lean, because unlike you she has access, I don't need proof of anything from her? - Oops!
Lean and the four met at the junction of the paths - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear from the first statements - False.
Lean and AW "cradled" the body - False.
Lean and 'they all agreed with Luke then changed their minds - False.
Lean and the search trio got there too quickly - False.
Lean and within 4 weeks they said the dog did nothing at all - False.
Lean and the Jury did not get to hear of any possible connections with AB - False.
The list really is endless and nothing of Mr Fibs yet, from a book 'fact checked' by Ms Lean - Oops.
Yes, those with sense realise the why, the lies, the false narrative, to take focus away from Mitchell, place it elsewhere, attempt to show they may have been acting out of self interest - Lies. Not even a snifter of any truth that anyone was acting out of self interest. But we know that people who lie repeatedly are doing just that, starting with Mitchell who did nothing but lie, proven beyond all doubt. You can howl to the moon about innocence, you can never dispute the many lies that fell from his lips around most anything.
See, lots and lots of the mention of lies - It has always been the basis of most of my posts, reason for studying.
Thanks for your open and frank response. I do not wish to get into a debate about who is telling the truth and who is telling lies. It is likely that both sides of the argument have changed their stories. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some of the examples are driven by genuine false recollections where people begin to doubt what actually happened or was said at various different times, especially when corrected by the remembrances of others. It can also happen because individuals question their own memories over the passage of time.
The trouble with the case is that much of the case against LM is based on sightings, timings, and press reports of who said what and when and because so so much of the case discussion dialogue revolves around these aspects it becomes impossible to see the real truth irrespective of whether people are lying or merely incorrectly recalling events.
Because of this the truth has become obscured to such an extent that the issues involved have been lost in a mire of seemingly contradictory facts.
I have deliberately not studied these elements for the reasons I outline.
There has been little focus on an alternative narrative such as the one I am making.
If we move away from a mishmash of alternative overlapping scenarios we can see that there are other possibilities as to what might actually have happened.
Why are there 4 unidentified male DNA traces in the case for example? How might this be explained.
Why does the pathologist doubt the wounds could have been made by the weapon said to be used?
You have based your conclusions on elements that are seriously open to doubt as I have described. Perhaps you should address other elements of the case which remain to be answered.
-
Thanks for your open and frank response. I do not wish to get into a debate about who is telling the truth and who is telling lies. It is likely that both sides of the argument have changed their stories. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that some of the examples are driven by genuine false recollections where people begin to doubt what actually happened or was said at various different times, especially when corrected by the remembrances of others. It can also happen because individuals question their own memories over the passage of time.
The trouble with the case is that much of the case against LM is based on sightings, timings, and press reports of who said what and when and because so so much of the case discussion dialogue revolves around these aspects it becomes impossible to see the real truth irrespective of whether people are lying or merely incorrectly recalling events.
Because of this the truth has become obscured to such an extent that the issues involved have been lost in a mire of seemingly contradictory facts.
I have deliberately not studied these elements for the reasons I outline.
There has been little focus on an alternative narrative such as the one I am making.
If we move away from a mishmash of alternative overlapping scenarios we can see that there are other possibilities as to what might actually have happened.
Why are there 4 unidentified male DNA traces in the case for example? How might this be explained.
Why does the pathologist doubt the wounds could have been made by the weapon said to be used?
You have based your conclusions on elements that are seriously open to doubt as I have described. Perhaps you should address other elements of the case which remain to be answered.
Agree Bubo,it has nothing to do with anyone telling lies,its simply the lack of evidence against Luke Mitchell that gives supporters doubt of his guilt.
Plain and simple.
-
Dont you see Parky,the things you point out that have 'may' have been lied about mean very little anyway.
The four meeting at junction of paths. Dont understand the relevance.
Jury did not hear about first statements. Well obviously they did, Findlays main arguments regarded the changing of statements. Did Dr Lean actually say the jury didn't hear the first statements, or merely that witnesses CHANGED theit statements?
Alice Walker cradled Jodi. Well again,so what? Means nothing one way or another due to the fact that onlt Lukes clothing was tested.
Search party agreed with Luke then changed their minds. Well it definately looks like it reading their different statements,and again a major part of Findlays questioning.Why did Findlay grill the witnesses so much over this issue if there was no change in their statements as the case progressed?
Search team got there too quickly. Again,maybe maybe not,but has nothing to do with Lukes guilt,so who cares?
Dog did nothing. Well again the witnesses spoke of the dog with its paws up against the wall.And again,I think the finding of Jodi by Luke story has been blown out of all proportion.A desperate story by the prosecution because of the lack of evidence against LM. I mean,just think about it for a minute,what we had was a group of people who were on that path for one reason,to find Jodi,and that is what they did.
Luke had been looking over other breaks in the wall on the way down the path,so even if he did go straight over the wall at the V break,what about it? Wasn't that the logical thing to do? Surely only an idiot would have ignored a point in the wall where you could gain access even if the dog reacted or not.
Now if Luke had scrambled and struggled to get over the high wall at a part where there was no damage and found Jodi,then THAT would have been suspicious,yes.
But to climb over where there was a break,so what? Good lord,wouldn't it have been more suspicious if he didn't go over the wall at a break?
Andrina Bryson. Well again,Janine Jones was quizzed by Findlay about knowing Andrinas brother in law Bill Bryson.Did Dr Lean try to say this did not happen?
The point is Parky,it seems your only reason for thinking LM is guilty is based on what you see as lies being told. And if the lies are about trivial issues like the above,I dont see they make much difference anyway.
Dont you see Parky,the likes of Bubo is simply looking for some hard evidence against LM,arguing about who may or may not be telling lies over trivial issues means nothing,and is no basis for forming an opinion of guilt.
-
Don't play silly beggars now. The post was in response as to why one spoke a lot of lies. Interesting that both of you however have absolutely no problem with liars, because you see no wrong in using innocents, lying about them, whilst those lying, on the other hand are claiming to be truth and Justice seekers. Nothing to do with whether the lies have any bearing on proving guilt or innocence legally, and everything to do with lying, plain and simple.
You (one of you), has already made it abundantly clear that you accept fully every lie that Mitchell told, brushing them off with, who cares, wouldn't you lie, get rid of knives etc if a suspect in a murder. Just because he was a compulsive liar does not make him a murderer, that kind of attitude. For a lot of them (lies) it clearly did, he is serving 20yrs and more in prison. One could hardly tell the truth around a lot of things when he was acting from self interest, to cover up the murder that had taken place.
Which formed the basis of the post, that of self interest. An actual liar, proven liar, attempting to place self interest in others by telling multiple lies themselves. Which shows who it is that has actually been acting out of self interest, peddling lies to gain support for a compulsive liar and convicted murderer.
Dog and wall - And? But as you have again shown, so what if he was lying, who cares, does not show he knew where the body was. 4 people and one of them, only one of them, gives a false account of where the dog was at the wall, omitting the Gino break entirely from his first account. Has them all well past the V break, claiming this is where his dog alerted him, showing him the way to go. - Did not happen, no dog showed him where to go, he knew where to go. The dog only went with him to the V break and not past, this is what DF could never show from any statement because it did not happen. But again, you are correct, so what, who cares if someone lied repeatedly out of self interest - Thank goodness the Jury did.
-
Don't play silly beggars now. The post was in response as to why one spoke a lot of lies. Interesting that both of you however have absolutely no problem with liars, because you see no wrong in using innocents, lying about them, whilst those lying, on the other hand are claiming to be truth and Justice seekers. Nothing to do with whether the lies have any bearing on proving guilt or innocence legally, and everything to do with lying, plain and simple.
You (one of you), has already made it abundantly clear that you accept fully every lie that Mitchell told, brushing them off with, who cares, wouldn't you lie, get rid of knives etc if a suspect in a murder. Just because he was a compulsive liar does not make him a murderer, that kind of attitude. For a lot of them (lies) it clearly did, he is serving 20yrs and more in prison. One could hardly tell the truth around a lot of things when he was acting from self interest, to cover up the murder that had taken place.
Which formed the basis of the post, that of self interest. An actual liar, proven liar, attempting to place self interest in others by telling multiple lies themselves. Which shows who it is that has actually been acting out of self interest, peddling lies to gain support for a compulsive liar and convicted murderer.
Dog and wall - And? But as you have again shown, so what if he was lying, who cares, does not show he knew where the body was. 4 people and one of them, only one of them, gives a false account of where the dog was at the wall, omitting the Gino break entirely from his first account. Has them all well past the V break, claiming this is where his dog alerted him, showing him the way to go. - Did not happen, no dog showed him where to go, he knew where to go. The dog only went with him to the V break and not past, this is what DF could never show from any statement because it did not happen. But again, you are correct, so what, who cares if someone lied repeatedly out of self interest - Thank goodness the Jury did.
Wow now you are accusing Snow with examples that are not contained in his post and putting a different slant on both our positions. I take exception to such blatant misrepresentation. Any more of this and I will report you to the moderators. If you wish to criticise our positions quote the post and highlight the bits with which you take issue. Yor latest post comes across as a 'rant' rather than serious debate.
-
Wow now you are accusing Snow with examples that are not contained in his post and putting a different slant on both our positions. I take exception to such blatant misrepresentation. Any more of this and I will report you to the moderators. If you wish to criticise our positions quote the post and highlight the bits with which you take issue. Yor latest post comes across as a 'rant' rather than serious debate.
I'm sure they can speak for themselves, you certainly are majorly aggrieved. Again, dishing whatever out but have serious problems when criticism is returned.
Are you saying I am wrong? - My post was to do with lies in response to your attack of my speaking a lot about lies. You asked for examples. I explained and I gave examples. The response from both of you was in line with not really caring about any lies, they did nothing about Mitchell's/guilt innocence. My post was about self interest and not proving guilt/interest. Need I go on?
I think you need to calm down a little, take a breath and go through your responses. If you want debate then do so adultly, and not instantly diving in and mocking someone when they first returned to post here. I get the feeling this is more to do with whom I am highlighting as liars more than anything else. If this is personal to you then I apologize.
-
I am reading Alan Towers trial evidence at the moment,it gives a detailed account of Lukes statement for 27-30th june. Will comment on it later on.
In the mean time,dont blow a fuse anyone!
Has any of you read Towers statement yet?
See you later!
-
Well,we only have the trial transcript of the prosecution questioning Alan Towers in the mean time.
Its mainly to do with Luke omiting his calls to Jodis house at 5.32 and 5.38.Although Luke must have known that Alan Ovens would talk about the 5.38 call anyway.
Oh before I go any further,in case you dont know who Alan Towers is,he seems to be one of the police officers who took Luke from the school to the police station in the small hours after the murder.and was the first to take a statement from Luke.
It seems Luke also got the time wrong when he phoned David High,he told Towers it was about 6.00 o'clock,when in actual fact it was 6.32,an hour after Luke claims he left the house.
Also,because Alan Ovens told Luke that Jodi had left the prosecution made a big deal about Luke saying he thought she had changed her mind about meeting up.
So,there you are,but as I say we dont have the defence examination of Towers yet.
-
Don't play silly beggars now. The post was in response as to why one spoke a lot of lies. Interesting that both of you however have absolutely no problem with liars, because you see no wrong in using innocents, lying about them, whilst those lying, on the other hand are claiming to be truth and Justice seekers. Nothing to do with whether the lies have any bearing on proving guilt or innocence legally, and everything to do with lying, plain and simple.
You (one of you), has already made it abundantly clear that you accept fully every lie that Mitchell told, brushing them off with, who cares, wouldn't you lie, get rid of knives etc if a suspect in a murder. Just because he was a compulsive liar does not make him a murderer, that kind of attitude. For a lot of them (lies) it clearly did, he is serving 20yrs and more in prison. One could hardly tell the truth around a lot of things when he was acting from self interest, to cover up the murder that had taken place.
Which formed the basis of the post, that of self interest. An actual liar, proven liar, attempting to place self interest in others by telling multiple lies themselves. Which shows who it is that has actually been acting out of self interest, peddling lies to gain support for a compulsive liar and convicted murderer.
Dog and wall - And? But as you have again shown, so what if he was lying, who cares, does not show he knew where the body was. 4 people and one of them, only one of them, gives a false account of where the dog was at the wall, omitting the Gino break entirely from his first account. Has them all well past the V break, claiming this is where his dog alerted him, showing him the way to go. - Did not happen, no dog showed him where to go, he knew where to go. The dog only went with him to the V break and not past, this is what DF could never show from any statement because it did not happen. But again, you are correct, so what, who cares if someone lied repeatedly out of self interest - Thank goodness the Jury did.
Ah,so it is Luke Mitchell you mostly accuse of lying then Parky?
Well that makes perfect sense if he is guilty.If Mitchell is guilty then obviously he lied about killing Jodi and has continued to do so ever since,that goes without saying.
And seeing you are totally convinced of Mitchells guilt,it also goes without saying that you regard him as a compulsive liar.And thats fair enough,makes sense.
But for those of us who doubt LM's guilt,we are obviously willing to believe that his version of events may just be the truth.And if we believe that LM is telling the truth then we may have to doubt some of the evidence and witness statements against him.
Yes,you are right,I did say I would lie to the police if I thought I was being railroaded,who wouldn't?
-
Well,we only have the trial transcript of the prosecution questioning Alan Towers in the mean time.
Its mainly to do with Luke omiting his calls to Jodis house at 5.32 and 5.38.Although Luke must have known that Alan Ovens would talk about the 5.38 call anyway.
Oh before I go any further,in case you dont know who Alan Towers is,he seems to be one of the police officers who took Luke from the school to the police station in the small hours after the murder.and was the first to take a statement from Luke.
It seems Luke also got the time wrong when he phoned David High,he told Towers it was about 6.00 o'clock,when in actual fact it was 6.32,an hour after Luke claims he left the house.
Also,because Alan Ovens told Luke that Jodi had left the prosecution made a big deal about Luke saying he thought she had changed her mind about meeting up.
So,there you are,but as I say we dont have the defence examination of Towers yet.
I've not studied the latest properly yet - If the lad has been told his girlfriend had left to meet him, then being on a road (claimed) idling in one spot for the best part of 80mins, on a claimed 'maybe' meeting. Then saying they thought they had just changed their mind. Not so much a big deal at the time, an information gathering statement, certainly turned into such. Saying Jodi's mother had told him she hadn't seen her since leaving the house at 6 to meet with him, again turned into a bigger deal. Saying they had all walked past that break some distance yada yada, again turned into a bigger deal. Saying the girl was to be going to Newbattle and on it goes. Being home at an earlier time etc etc etc.
Information gathering from the main people - Checked over and seeing what exactly checked out. One keeps applying he had to be some mastermind to do X, Y or Z. I have always disagreed with this, winging it as best one could in the aftermath of it all. Many wheels firmly in motion that he had no control over. So yes, investigating, checking everything over and seeing exactly what checked out.
This transcript from Mitchell could and should have been put out there a long time ago, it has been said many times. His data, his legally to do as he wished with. Why would it have been kept hidden? Could it possibly be that false narrative in place, the hype, embellishment of actual truth, laying it on thick to gain support?
We are told that the police scrubbed the data from his phone - Not true.
Told he was instantly separated from others and whisked away - Not true.
Taken to Dalkeith, treated differently when we see why he was actually taken there.
His mother saying he had been stripped and examined forensically all over by the time of her arrival - Not true.
I'm going to stop there, I see a massive lack of credibility. If his accounts did not check out, seen to lack credibility, tied in with so much more, then again, it is as I have always maintained - Clear reasons as to why he became suspect. Not interested in his guilt/innocence as such. Interested in there being no evidence of some conspiracy, that the police just decided to fit the boy up. He clearly could not be eliminated for sound reason.
And yes I do firmly believe that LM lied repeatedly. There is absolute proof that he did. I wonder if we will get to see transcripts of his interviews, recorded, also. The point of others lying, to place focus upon others will always be an issue. They cannot show, prove at all, that anyone else was lying, so they lied instead about them. Also been proving to be absolutely true. Strength in any argument should not merit having to lie.
-
I've not studied the latest properly yet - If the lad has been told his girlfriend had left to meet him, then being on a road (claimed) idling in one spot for the best part of 80mins, on a claimed 'maybe' meeting. Then saying they thought they had just changed their mind. Not so much a big deal at the time, an information gathering statement, certainly turned into such. Saying Jodi's mother had told him she hadn't seen her since leaving the house at 6 to meet with him, again turned into a bigger deal. Saying they had all walked past that break some distance yada yada, again turned into a bigger deal. Saying the girl was to be going to Newbattle and on it goes. Being home at an earlier time etc etc etc.
Information gathering from the main people - Checked over and seeing what exactly checked out. One keeps applying he had to be some mastermind to do X, Y or Z. I have always disagreed with this, winging it as best one could in the aftermath of it all. Many wheels firmly in motion that he had no control over. So yes, investigating, checking everything over and seeing exactly what checked out.
This transcript from Mitchell could and should have been put out there a long time ago, it has been said many times. His data, his legally to do as he wished with. Why would it have been kept hidden? Could it possibly be that false narrative in place, the hype, embellishment of actual truth, laying it on thick to gain support?
We are told that the police scrubbed the data from his phone - Not true.
Told he was instantly separated from others and whisked away - Not true.
Taken to Dalkeith, treated differently when we see why he was actually taken there.
His mother saying he had been stripped and examined forensically all over by the time of her arrival - Not true.
I'm going to stop there, I see a massive lack of credibility. If his accounts did not check out, seen to lack credibility, tied in with so much more, then again, it is as I have always maintained - Clear reasons as to why he became suspect. Not interested in his guilt/innocence as such. Interested in there being no evidence of some conspiracy, that the police just decided to fit the boy up. He clearly could not be eliminated for sound reason.
And yes I do firmly believe that LM lied repeatedly. There is absolute proof that he did. I wonder if we will get to see transcripts of his interviews, recorded, also. The point of others lying, to place focus upon others will always be an issue. They cannot show, prove at all, that anyone else was lying, so they lied instead about them. Also been proving to be absolutely true. Strength in any argument should not merit having to lie.
Yes,well I haven't finished reading Towers testimony yet either Parky.I suppose it will take a while to study all the latest statements/trial testimonies and weigh things up.