Luke Mitchell

I just find it highly unlikely that Mitchell committed such a horrible crime without leaving any forensic evidence at all.
He was a 14 year old boy, not a criminal mastermind.

 

Both him and his mother passed a lie detector test, and the odds on that alone are phenominal. Coupled with the fact there is nothing linking him to the crime scene, makes it an absolute media driven case.

 

What were the odds of the boyfriend finding the body ?

 

It wasn't him, it was the dog.

 

She might at least get a proper house
That looked * grim that place.

 

I think the results of polygraph tests are not admissible in court, could be wrong on that ?

 

You're right on that. Although that is a disgrace. If you watch the available podcast with the examiner, the odds on both him and his mother beating the test are almost impossible.

James English podcast with Mitchell's mother, and the polygraph examiner is eye opening.

 

I think it was mentioned that 4 or 5 of them were searching for her, given that the dog wasn't a sniffer dog i assume they must have been in the area of where her body was, or close proximity.

In other words they had to be in that area for the dog to find her, so how did thay know to search in that particular place ?


Did the boyfriend lead the group that were looking for her, i don't even know if they mentioned that ?


No more questions m'lord !

 

The dog apparently went through the break in the wall, and Luke Mitchell followed it and found the body.

They had been searching the whole area, so it wasn't a case of just stumbling upon the body at the start of the search.

 

Please, anyone interested in this case, watch the James English podcasts where he interviews the polygraph examiner, Mitchell's mother, and others.

 

There has been cases where an innocent person has failed the test and also a guilty person has passed it, so would be wrong to use it as any kind of strong evidence one way or another in a court of law, in other words it's just not conclusive.

I do agree about the odds of both of them passing it, think that would be highly unlikely.

 

I canny even remember the timeline, whether he would've had enough time to dispose of any evidence ?

 

Watched the documentary and had done a bit of reading on this case. I’m still unsure what evidence there actually is that he did it. He might have been a bit of an * with some strange ideas but that seems to be about it. People talk about motive, what was his motive?
Incredible that the jury thought he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
That hun * Findlay wasn’t doing his job properly.