Luke Mitchell

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

 

Mia the dog was half way through tracking training. Mia's tracker training was also done by members of the Mitchell family, not just Luke. Experts were brought in to test the dog to see how she would respond, and was it posiible that the dog reacted the way Luke (and the others said the dog reacted before the others changed their statements) said she reacted. The expert testimony would have backed Lukes claim but that evidence was not heard in court.

 

I've asked twice now, can I see the source for this accusation, please? You are suggesting Jodi's family changed their statements to help convict Luke, including her gran who had just discovered her?

[rossthejambo]

I've asked twice now, can I see the source for this accusation, please? You are suggesting Jodi's family changed their statements to help convict Luke, including her gran who had just discovered her?

 

I've asked countless times for proof of this DNA evidence and now proof that the family dog reacted in the particular way that they are suggesting. I'm not holding my breath on any sort of response.

 

It all seems fabricated in order to fit their arguement.

[Johanes de Silentio]

That sounded good when I was pished last night and it still sounds good this morning. I think you've cracked the case PA

 

Never in doubt, mate - and to think people mocked us for playing Rumpole of the Bailey!

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I've asked countless times for proof of this DNA evidence and now proof that the family dog reacted in the particular way that they are suggesting. I'm not holding my breath on any sort of response.

 

It all seems fabricated in order to fit their arguement.

 

I know the answer will be that it is contained in court transcripts that can't be put on the internet or something convenient like that. I'm a bit uncomfortable with thinly-veiled accusations that Jodi's family have somehow played a part in framing LM.

 

Incidently, had a wee read through that forum and this character that has Mitchell supporters hanging on her every word is VERY friendly with the mother. One part of the thread was about them sharing their funny stories of their time together. Corrine lost her car keys or something but they were actually in her pocket, oh how they laughed.

[ConsiderThis]

if he didnt do it then who did?

i have a 14 yr old daughter and to think there could still be a murderer out there preying on young girls freaks me out

 

Personally, I dont think he did do it, and I know I am in the minority on this thread as I'm only on page 2/3. I also dont believe that he knows himself what happened to JJ. I think he is as confused by it all like everyone else. There is nothing to suggest that this murder was the actions of a serial killer in my opinion, but I suppose anythings possible. Anyone who believes in justice and the right to a fair trial, would never publicly name who they had suspicions about. I dare say people who have researched this case may have opinions as to who could be responsible, but the long and short of it, is they dont know for sure, all they can do is look at all the information available and reach their own conclusions, is Luke Mitchell guilty or innocent?.

 

Over the years there have been several defence teams, with various professionals and non professionals looking at the paperwork in relation to this case. Due to time constraints and other issues, the access to information was limited to them, but the only information that the general public ever had to go on was the sensationalist reporting done by the tabloids, which was in no way accurate, and deliberately misleading.

 

Sandra Lean had the same view as yourself as she had teenage daughters and became involved with LM's defence team. I got to know of her work, being involved with various miscarriage of justice organisations over the years. She is well respected in the field, and is the only person who has looked at this case in detail who has actually had the guts to put herself forward and highlight the truly appalling flaws in this case. Scottish Law is a minefield, but I can assure you of this, if she didnt have official documentation to back up anything she has reported publicly online or anywhere else, she would have been arrested by now and find herself in jail. The authourites will know fine well that what she has reported over the years is based on factual information. Due to her determination, she has been threatened and abused by those who do not want the truth to be told. I dont think for a minute that if she had any suspicions at all that Luke Mitchell was responsible in any way of the murder of JJ, that she would have put herself and her reputation on the line. Some people that slag her off seem to think that she is one person who believes he is not responsible for JJ's murder. What they are not aware of is that LM has supporters from all over, legal professionals and non legal people who believe he is a miscarriage of justice and work in the background on his case, supporting and assisting the work that SL does.

 

I vaguely remember reading in a post on this thread that she must do it for the money. There is no money being involved in MOJ, none. It is a long hard struggle, which leaves you open to abuse and threats, but if you believe in justice, you do what you do, and take all the crap that comes your way.

 

Murderers belong in jail, theres no doubt about that. Lets just make sure when they are locking people up for a crime such as this that they have got the right person. An honest and transparent investigation would be a good start, followed by the right to a fair trial. Manipulating people to change statements, bullying and threatening child witnesses to change statements all to fit with your thoery, not following basic police routine procedures, ballsing up the crime scene, lying to the public, feeding the press with misleading information, not following up potential suspects, ruling out people from the enquiry before the dna test results were known etc, etc. This was never an honest investigation, and I believe that L&B police were incompetent when investigating the murder of JJ, and I hope that one day they are held accountable for it. Thinking there could still be a murderer out there freaks me out too.

[ConsiderThis]

If you're going to quote me to make a point, I'd appreciate it if you used it in context. At no point did I, or indeed anyone here, say he was guilty because he was a weirdo (which he was. I mean who keeps bottles of their own piss and has a hunting knife with their girlfriends initials carved on it?). If you read my post again (go on, you know you want to) you'll quite clearly see the point I was making was that, just because you are a weirdo, it doesn't make you a killer.

 

I quite clearly also said, right at the very start of the post, that I couldn't say if he was guilty or not as I wasn't at the trial and don't know the details.

 

I've got an open mind about this case, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's you who has been blinded by all the hyperbole.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

 

Hi, just noticed your comments about the bottles of urine. When Luke was taken to the police station immediately after they all had found the body he was stripped and put in a paper suit, nail scrapings taken, photos, body photo takens etc then he was questioned till 7 o'clock in the morning. He had been part of a group who had just found a murder victim, his girlfriend, then was singled out from the crowd and put in the police car.

 

A doctor came to the home, he was suffering from trauma and was given medication from the doctor. The tablets made him drowsy, and would knock him off to sleep and make him unsteady on his feet. He was 14, I have taken tablets like this myself and they can give terrible side effects. Anyway, this is where the bottles of urine that were found in his room came from. A medical expert explained that from what he had been subjected too it would not be unusual or sinister, for him to pee in bottles, and not get rid of them. He explained it far better, and went into much more detail, I just cant remember the medical jargon and full explanation.

 

He didnt have a hunting knife with his girlfriends intials carved on it.

 

It was a leather pen knife pouch. Will try and find you a picture of it, think it had dates on it too.

[Walter Bishop]

Hi, just noticed your comments about the bottles of urine. When Luke was taken to the police station immediately after they all had found the body he was stripped and put in a paper suit, nail scrapings taken, photos, body photo takens etc then he was questioned till 7 o'clock in the morning. He had been part of a group who had just found a murder victim, his girlfriend, then was singled out from the crowd and put in the police car.

 

A doctor came to the home, he was suffering from trauma and was given medication from the doctor. The tablets made him drowsy, and would knock him off to sleep and make him unsteady on his feet. He was 14, I have taken tablets like this myself and they can give terrible side effects. Anyway, this is where the bottles of urine that were found in his room came from. A medical expert explained that from what he had been subjected too it would not be unusual or sinister, for him to pee in bottles, and not get rid of them. He explained it far better, and went into much more detail, I just cant remember the medical jargon and full explanation.

 

He didnt have a hunting knife with his girlfriends intials carved on it.

 

It was a leather pen knife pouch. Will try and find you a picture of it, think it had dates on it too.

 

After reading all your posts on this thread you have no negative things at all to say about LM. I assume you are a member of his family or a close friend?

 

Do you have an idea or is there any whispers in LM`s home area of who actually committed this horrible crime if it wasnt him?

[jambogaza]

The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.

 

vs

 

[27] The appellant did not give evidence. His position was outlined in a number of statements which he gave to police officers, both as a witness and subsequently under caution as a suspect in the case. His position throughout these statements was that he had been at home during the period in which the Crown case suggested the deceased was murdered. He saw the deceased at lunchtime on the day of the murder. She had taken the school bus home after school and he had walked. He had not seen her alive after that point. He had returned home at around 1600 or 1605 and the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner. Arrangements were made for the deceased to come down to the Newbattle area but no time was arranged for the meeting.

 

[28] The last text was sent at about 1640. The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715. The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived.

 

 

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html

[Denny Crane]

Sorry I wasn't able to get onto this forum earlier today. I have read the whole thread, and will try to address some of the points raised.

 

First of all

 

 

 

I am not sure which evidence you are looking for. Can you explain which aspect of evidence you're interested in? I have already provided a link to some information about the semen, sperm, hair, saliva and blood, etc. However, legal restrictions forbid the posting of full documents on the internet, so you will never see full documents relating to the case reproduced on the internet. You will only ever see extracts, summaries and passages from documents or reports.

 

As I explained before, Sandra Lean has access to court transcripts, forensic reports, witness statements gathered by the police, and a lot more. For legal (and copyright?) reasons she cannot post these or photocopies of them, but she does try to share a great deal of information when she is able to. You can read over the caseblog site here to see various quotes taken from legal documents, etc. There are several documentaries:

 

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/documentaries/frontline-scotland-documentary/

 

The Scottish courts site, where you can see the appeal documents is here:

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/

 

Old newspapers can also be a source of information, or can give an idea of the type of prejudical poison which preceded Luke's trial. The more you read, with an open mind, the more you will learn.

 

I asked you to justify your sweeping statement on the media in relation to their reporting of this case. Stop fudging the issue and directly address what was initially asked of you. Post #149 for original question should you need to remind yourself.

[ConsiderThis]

Was there not a documentary a few years back which suggested a man who was studying at a local college or something may have been the true pepetrator? Not saying I agree but the case is an intriguing one.

 

There was a documentary which mentioned this guy. It doesnt mean that he was responsible though. He had been at the Newbattle end of the path approx 5-5.30 on the day of the murder. He looked very similar to Luke at the time. He was known to drink and take drugs and was drunk on the day in question apparently. He arrived at a friends house and had fresh scratch marks on his face and blood shot eye, not sure if it was a black eye, and said he couldnt remember what had happened the previous evening. His friend and the friends girlfriend contacted the police about him. The friend drove this guy to the police station 2 or 3 days after the murder and he gave his details to the police. The police said they would be in contact. He was heavily into Marilyn Manson and it was claimed he wrote an essay at college about killing a girl in the woods, he also carried knives etc.

 

It wasn't till 3 years later, when put under pressure the police made contact with him. Due to changes in officers at the time of the murder enquiry, and the fact he had another 2 aliases was the reason given for the failure to follow up on him.

[ellie0028]

lol but all along the brother Shane was upstairs having a ****!

 

now if I was meeting someone and they never turned up,dont think id go off and do something else,surly he would have been worried about his girlfriend not turning up,apart from phoning her home,doesnt seem he did anything else but go off with his mates..In this day and age its easy to find out where someone is,if they are running late..surly bells would start ringing that 4 hours later or so,he still hasnt heard from his girlfriend..

[Johanes de Silentio]

He was heavily into Marilyn Manson and it was claimed he wrote an essay at college about killing a girl in the woods, he also carried knives etc.

 

I knew him.

 

I don't know that he was heavily into Marilyn Manson, tbh.

 

While it was claimed that he wrote a short story about killing a girl in the woods, College staff say that no such story was submitted - the guy had been studying a creative writing course - any stories he wrote probably would have been submitted for assessment.

 

He did seem to have a penchant for the macabre, but I never knew him to carry knives.

[Sten Guns]

Why on earth did Corrine buy Luke a knife in Dec 2003, when Jodi had just been butchered by a knife in July 2003.

 

What an incredibly stupid thing to do. She isn't right in the head.

[rossthejambo]

I find it funny that to mention Mitchell's interests is bad and wrong yet bringing this person up and mentioning all the stuff he was allegedly into is fine and dandy.

[HMFC 1874]

Why on earth did Corrine buy Luke a knife in Dec 2003, when Jodi had just been butchered by a knife in July 2003.

 

What an incredibly stupid thing to do. She isn't right in the head.

 

 

Be prepared for a perfectly reasonable excuse or simply that it's a lie.

[HMFC 1874]

There was a documentary which mentioned this guy. It doesnt mean that he was responsible though. He had been at the Newbattle end of the path approx 5-5.30 on the day of the murder. He looked very similar to Luke at the time. He was known to drink and take drugs and was drunk on the day in question apparently. He arrived at a friends house and had fresh scratch marks on his face and blood shot eye, not sure if it was a black eye, and said he couldnt remember what had happened the previous evening. His friend and the friends girlfriend contacted the police about him. The friend drove this guy to the police station 2 or 3 days after the murder and he gave his details to the police. The police said they would be in contact. He was heavily into Marilyn Manson and it was claimed he wrote an essay at college about killing a girl in the woods, he also carried knives etc.

 

It wasn't till 3 years later, when put under pressure the police made contact with him. Due to changes in officers at the time of the murder enquiry, and the fact he had another 2 aliases was the reason given for the failure to follow up on him.

 

NothIng to do with this point but an earlier one you made, how do you the search party witnesses changed their statement?

 

Genuine question.

[Sten Guns]

Be prepared for a perfectly reasonable excuse or simply that it's a lie.

 

She also took her 14 year old for a tattoo. Lied about it in court.

 

Her Finger prints were then found on the consent form.

 

Corrine's credibility - smashed once again.

 

The buying him a knife thing though, incredible.

[ConsiderThis]

Thing is now all these people that are trying to get Luke Mitchell free now arent doing because he is innocent,they are trying every legal glitch possible and that doesnt prove he is innocent!

 

Hi ellie, lie detectors are not admissable in court, so both postive results from the polygraph, his and his mothers, wont get him released.

 

Neither will listing all the known facts of the case which supports his innocence, get him released.

 

The appeal system works with points of law, and that is what has to be adhered to, they make the rules and the legalities have to be followed.

 

Why would anyone attempt to get someone free, by whatever means, if they thought they were responsible of a brutal murder, of a young girl?

 

This 14 year old girl, someones daughter and sister, neice and grandaughter, was stabbed repeatedly, stripped of clothing, humiliated beyond belief, had certain areas of her body cut with precision after death, and left there to rot.

 

Do you seriously believe that anyone would attempt in any way to help someone get released if they thought that person was responsible for this henious crime?

[Johanes de Silentio]

I have to say I felt it was distasteful for Luke and Corinne to visit Jodi's grave on the day of the funeral dressed as if they were on their way to a biker's rally - especially as Jodi's family had asked for them to keep away.

 

Fair enough if they wanted to pay their respects, but they could have done so another time, and with a wee bit more decorum.

[ConsiderThis]

You shouldn't have to prove your innocence.

 

Your right there, but you have to try when you have been wrongly accused and convicted.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Your right there, but you have to try when you have been wrongly accused and convicted.

 

That's what I said!

[desmondo]

The Mitchael's were asked/told to stay away from the proceedings yet took it upon themselves to visit the Grave and grant TV interview on the day of the funeral which they had declined for Months, strange behaviour to say the least, it was like them telling all that they were in control and had no respect for Jodi's family, none

 

Anyway, nobody wants to touch the case with a barge pole, you would think all the Big Wigs,TV Investigators,The Press and even personalities would be showing support with all this circumstantial evidence you have at your disposal,but i dont see no one bar some unqualified paralegal who's out for self gain IMO

 

I dont doubt your conviction(pardon the pun)Consider but I think your on to plums

[ConsiderThis]

Why isn't being found guilty by a jury of your peers the same as being proved guilty? I thought that, according to our legal system, that's exactly what it is?

 

I have a few questions though.

 

What happened to the knife that went missing? Did Luke just say he lost it and didn't know?

 

Why was Luke's mum burning stuff? Did she normally burn stuff in her garden?

 

Can't remember if I answered this but there was no missing knife. The issue about the knives is so confusing. Corinne when being questioned had been asked about a knife. When she went home she got the knife, called the solicitor and gave him the knife in question with the instruction to take it to the police. The police also had 2 knives which I believe were found in Lukes home which he said belonged to him. They also had all the knifes from the kitcher drawer and knife block.

 

Another story about a missing knife. JOF, local drug dealer and his cousin GD who were riding an illegal motorbike, the bike being witnessed propped against the wall on Roans Dyke path at the v in the wall at 5.15pm on the day of the murder, 5.15pm being the approx time of death which was given. They did not go forward to the police of their own accord. JOF cut his long hair off, and they both got rid of the moped the following day after their cousin was murdered. Busy bees for people I would have thought would have been in mourning of their cousin/second cousin but there you go.

 

An appeal was made on the tv for the boys on the moped to come forward, which was 5 days after the murder. JOF was witnessed visibly shaken by the appeal and both were forced to go to the police. They both couldnt remember what they were doing there, and couldnt remember where they were when there bike was witnessed at the v, but not them. This is the v that the prosecution claim Jodi went over with someone she knew.

 

JOF remembers a knife which he just so happened to have himself which he said was Lukes,which he had picked up in someones house with the intentions of giving it back to Luke. This couldnt have been the murder weapon either as it was not in Lukes possession. The murder weapon was never found. GD and JOF were ruled out of the investigation before the dna results were completed,and within 24 hours of attending the police station and both of them gave statements and testimony for the crown against LM. I'm not suggesting that they had any involvement in the murder of JJ, but what I am saying is that the police were so desperate to get witness statements against LM, they ignored lines of enquiry that should have been closely scrutinised.

[Sten Guns]

Luke and Jodi were both seen together around 4.50 and 4.55 at the start of the path.

 

Luke was then seen alone at 5.30.

 

Strange eh?

 

His alibi was smashed. He wasn't at home. Why lie!?

 

A knife was missing, contrary to your last post, ConsiderThis. Only the pouch was found.

 

Witnesses clearly state their was burning from Corrine's garden that night. Hmmm.

 

We also have Luke deciding not to raise the alarm despite Jodi not turning up. Funny that!

 

Thankfully the Judge and Jury nailed the evil killer in what was clearly a very, very tricky conviction.

 

I hope the little creep who was obsessed with drugs, the devil, knives and violence never see's the light of day as a free man.

[desmondo]

Can the Mods put a message at the top of this thread telling AllanM and ConsiderThis to read to the end of the thread then start posting, replying to things from days ago is helping this discussion at all.

 

It is most annoying!!!!

 

 

I think Al and Con are the same person

[HMFC 1874]

That and they are probably just going back and forward to posts they think they have an answer for.

 

My thoughts aswell.

 

Seem to be selective in which questions they answer.

 

I asked Alan a question back in page 13, an the same to considerthis, not an answer between them.

[tneafry]

Luke and Jodi were both seen together around 4.50 and 4.55 at the start of the path.

 

Luke was then seen alone at 5.30.

 

Strange eh?

 

His alibi was smashed. He wasn't at home. Why lie!?

 

A knife was missing, contrary to your last post, ConsiderThis. Only the pouch was found.

 

Witnesses clearly state their was burning from Corrine's garden that night. Hmmm.

 

We also have Luke deciding not to raise the alarm despite Jodi not turning up. Funny that!

 

Thankfully the Judge and Jury nailed the evil killer in what was clearly a very, very tricky conviction.

 

I hope the little creep who was obsessed with drugs, the devil, knives and violence never see's the light of day as a free man.

 

I have read almost all posts on this thread and the below is what I have taken from it.

 

Your 1st point is valid, why would you lie about being home, if someone is in my house, you know about it.

 

Alan M said the knife was not missing, the lawyer had it and even then the knife was not big enough to have mutilated JJ like she was. can you or Alan M prove your points?

 

Alan M also said there was only 1 witness, you have said more than 1 and they have said it was coming from the backgarden of their house, Alan M says 1 neighbour smelt smoke but did not know where from. Alan M has also said the police checked log burner but nothing found so this point looks irrelevant.

 

Alan M says luke phoned JJ's mum, is this not raising the alarm or is this not true?

[jambogaza]

What would the Police gain from protecting someone who committed a savage murder? A ridiculously desperate theory if you ask me. If her son is innocent, it is time she stopped destroying any chance he has of proving this by mouthing off such nonsense.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Can the Mods put a message at the top of this thread telling AllanM and ConsiderThis to read to the end of the thread then start posting, replying to things from days ago is helping this discussion at all.

 

It is most annoying!!!!

 

It is very nippy and is stifling the debate.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Very few posts on Sandra Lean's forum in the last couple of days.

 

Multiple members may be sharing the two accounts in the names of AllanM and ConsiderThis to spread their gospel on here.

 

I strongly suspect that Sandra and Corinne themselves may have posted on this very thread, which is fine.

 

Wonder how long it took them to Google the answers to the questions you need to join Kickback?

[Sten Guns]

Outline of the Crown case at trial

 

[14]In his address to the jury the Advocate depute relied on a number of circumstantial adminicles and highlighted three "key" chapters of evidence.

[15]The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.

[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.

[17] Thereafter the Crown relied on a variety of other circumstantial adminicles to implicate the appellant.

[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".

[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4?July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30?June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it.

[20] The appellant had an interest in knives, having been seen, in particular, with a 4 inch lock-knife, contained in a pouch (a "skunting" knife), in the months prior to the murder (a sample knife was lodged as a production). That knife and pouch were not found during the police search of the appellant's house on 4?July 2003. The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder. The suggestion was made that he could have disposed of the knife at that time. Another knife and pouch were purchased for him in December 2003 by his mother, Corinne Mitchell. During a search of the appellant's home on 14?April 2004, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers "666"; an inscription which read "JJ 1989 - 2003", these being the years of the deceased's birth and death; and the words "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.

[21] Two days after the murder the appellant purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, "The Golden Age of the Grotesque", which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as "The Black Dahlia", who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that, while the circumstances of death were not identical, there was some similarity between the location and type of injury inflicted upon the deceased, and those inflicted upon the actress Elizabeth Short. There was no evidence that the appellant had accessed this website.

[22] Evidence was also led about generally unusual behaviour by the appellant. There was some evidence that he had an interest in Satanism, which was expressed in essays which he wrote and in graffiti which appeared on his school books.

[23] Another circumstance relied on by the Crown was a comment made by the appellant to the witness David High on the evening of 30 June to the effect that the deceased would not be coming out on that evening. This comment was made after the appellant had spoken to Alan Ovens and been informed that the deceased had left to meet him. The Crown invited the inference that the appellant knew the deceased was already dead.

[24] The Crown led evidence to undermine the credibility of Corinne Mitchell. In particular, evidence was led that she was present when the appellant obtained a tattoo in October 2003, and that she had confirmed his age as being over 18. This tattoo depicted a skull with flames coming from it. Mrs?Mitchell had stated to members of staff - "that's really him". The Crown's position was that this evidence demonstrated an unhealthy relationship between the appellant and his mother, to the point where she was indulging inappropriate behaviour on his part, and undermined her evidence in support of his alibi. The witness denied several of these allegations. Evidence from members from staff at the tattoo parlour, as well as expert fingerprint evidence of a consent form signed in the name of an acquaintance of Mrs?Mitchell with the appellant's fingerprints upon it, was led. This evidence was subject to a defence objection. It was admitted but the jury was directed that it was only relevant to Mrs?Mitchell's credibility.

[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14?August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.

[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.

?

[ellie0028]

Wonder what the Luke tag team will say to that case report....no doubt it will be wrong...

[HMFC 1874]

Wonder what the Luke tag team will say to that case report....no doubt it will be wrong...

 

Of course it's wrong. After all they dont just think the boy is innocent, they KNOW it

[AllanM]

I have just read through the rest of the posts, however, there are quite a few from yesterday which I still need to address.

 

I would like to point out that people should try to be more patient, as there are many different requests and posts here. Quite apart from the difficulty and time involved in dotting back and forward to find them all, there isn't time to answer the all, particularly since I am having to repeat myself multiple times. If people would go back and read over my posts more carefully, then they will see that some of the questions which are being repeated have already been answered.

[AllanM]

 

The police took away all the house computers and could find no evidence that Luke had been a Manson fan, or that he had viewed any images of the Black Dahlia murder, or any similar crime before the murder. During a later raid, they found one Marylin Manson CD, for which Mrs. Mitchell produced a receipt which showed that it was bought after the murder, plus a calendar which had come free with the CD, which was found ripped up in the waste-paper basket. So that wasn't used in court either. In fact, forensic experts who examined the body stated that there were few real similarities to the Black Dahlia at all.

 

I wrote the above quote earlier, and Ellie posted a newspaper story which seemed to contradict what I had said.

 

 

Extract from the press article :

 

JODI Jones' horrific wounds were similar to those seen in pictures of a murdered would-be Hollywood starlet, a court heard yesterday.

 

A leading pathologist compared her murder to images painted by the Goth rock star Marilyn Manson of the killing of Elizabeth Short.

 

Short - nicknamed the Black Dahlia - was butchered in Hollywood in 1947 at the age of 22.

 

The Jodi murder trial jury was yesterday shown morgue photos of the 14-year-old as well as a grisly picture from Manson's website of Short cut in two at her stomach.

 

Jodi's boyfriend, Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies killing her, was a fan of Manson.

 

Professor Anthony Busuttil, who has performed homicide post mortem examinations all over the world, said he had rarely seen such extensive mutilation injuries as those inflicted on Jodi.

 

Asked whether he saw any likeness between the injuries to Jodi and the pictures of Short, the professor said: "In terms of the location and the type of injuries there is a similarity. The same variety of cutting and slashing injuries."

 

The professor is only quoted here in part. His view was indeed that any similarities were only superficial, and he did not think that the injuries were necessarily indicative of any foreknowledge of the Manson murder.

 

You can see the professor being interviewed about this and other matters in a television documentary still available to view on the internet. The link is here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm

[Johanes de Silentio]

I have just read through the rest of the posts, however, there are quite a few from yesterday which I still need to address.

 

I would like to point out that people should try to be more patient, as there are many different requests and posts here. Quite apart from the difficulty and time involved in dotting back and forward to find them all, there isn't time to answer the all, particularly since I am having to repeat myself multiple times. If people would go back and read over my posts more carefully, then they will see that some of the questions which are being repeated have already been answered.

 

The most patronising thing I've ever read on Kickback - and I've read Shaun Lawson's posts!

[AllanM]

On the point of someone knowing whether or not someone else is in the house, I would disagree that one would know. Luke said he was home making the tea and so did his mum. His brother said he couldn't remember. If he was in an upstairs bedroom with his door shut, he might not have heard Luke coming in, and Luke might not have realised he was home. To automatically assume that any of these people are lying is ignoring this obvious fact. The police charged Corinne with perjury to bolster up the notion that she was lying, but in fact they dropped the charges later, and now Corinne has passed a lie detector, which might not be admissible in a UK court yet, but they are used in courts in other countries of the world.

[AllanM]

With regard to the sperm and semen evidence, I have already posted a link to information which details the findings from the labwork..

 

Additionally, you will find more information at this link:

 

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-relevant-maps/45/

 

There's a post with links to images which show areas of the body and clothing where semen, hairs etc. were found.

[AllanM]

The most patronising thing I've ever read on Kickback - and I've read Shaun Lawson's posts!

 

It's hard not to patronise in light of the majority of posts I have read here.

The infantile attitudes, lack of civility, lack of consideration and dearth of content is lamentable.

[Johanes de Silentio]

It's hard not to patronise in light of the majority of posts I have read here.

The infantile attitudes, lack of civility, lack of consideration and dearth of content is lamentable.

 

:smackdown:

[AllanM]

This is the picture of the knife pouch. Incidentally, it was bought some time after the murder, so it was not a trophy of the murder. The quote on it was Jodi's favourite quote from Nirvana. She had it written on her bedroom wall.

 

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/52042946.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD06466C2ACE7794393B95801145371FBDC3576EB867F3ADE0B01E70F2B3269972

[Denny Crane]

The media wanted to portray Luke as a sensational murderer to sell their papers. These journalists don't care what lies they print

 

I've asked the below question before many times over on this thread but, hope springs eternal that you will eventually stop ducking out of answering it.

What evidence do you have of the media doing this in relation to this case?

[Denny Crane]

It's hard not to patronise in light of the majority of posts I have read here.

The infantile attitudes, lack of civility, lack of consideration and dearth of content is lamentable.

 

So is your inability to answer a simple question.

[AllanM]

Luke and Jodi were both seen together around 4.50 and 4.55 at the start of the path.

 

I have already posted to explain that this was not a sighting of Jodi and Luke. The man was in his early 20s, and the eye witness stated in court that Luke's head was different. Also, the description of Jodi's (and Luke's) clothes did not match what they were wearing that day.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Innocent or guilty, a few of the things in the Crown case are ludicrous, by the way.

 

The whole Marilyn Manson / Black Dahlia bit reads as utterly spurious, in particular (actually laughable in some ways), but in general some of the articles just smack of a lack of credible evidence. To be clear, this is not a comment on his guilt or innocence - or of the case in its entirety as there are clearly things that don't stack up in his story - but the fact some of these articles contributed to evidence in a case like this does make be a bit uneasy.

[Denny Crane]

I would like to point out that people should try to be more patient, as there are many different requests and posts here. Quite apart from the difficulty and time involved in dotting back and forward to find them all, there isn't time to answer the all, particularly since I am having to repeat myself multiple times. If people would go back and read over my posts more carefully, then they will see that some of the questions which are being repeated have already been answered.

 

Regular JKB users over the years have had no such difficulties. Why are you so special? This is just another lame way of you ducking questions that may or may not pop whatever theory you subscribe to in relation to this case.

[AllanM]

So is your inability to answer a simple question.

 

I am answering questions. For one thing, I have told you all where you can go to find the answers to some of the questions, and in some cases, I have posted links to supply the answers, if you'd only view the links I have posted.

 

Since you seem unable to do this, you will just have to be patient, and I will endeavour to answer as many questions, or points, as I can. My time, unfortunately, is limited. It would considerably speed matters up if people would be so kind as to direct others to the posts to where I have already posted answers, links or information elsewhere in the thread, because I am having to repeat myself so often.

 

I have no need to duck questions. If I didn't know the answer to a question, I would simply say so. However, in terms of finding links, images, etc., although I have read a great deal, and viewed a lot of information, I have never taken note of where it was that I read or viewed the information, so it takes time to both search back through this thread to find the outstanding questions, then where appropriate, find the information I need in order to post an answer. I do remember a lot off the top of my head, but at times, I prefer to just check on facts before I post. I don't know why you would not understand that if there are 14 pages of material, mostly questions, then it will take time to go through them all to answer them.

[ASSASSIN]

i say close this thread

[Denny Crane]

I am answering questions. For one thing, I have told you all where you can go to find the answers to some of the questions, and in some cases, I have posted links to supply the answers, if you'd only view the links I have posted.

 

Since you seem unable to do this, you will just have to be patient, and I will endeavour to answer as many questions, or points, as I can. My time, unfortunately, is limited. It would considerably speed matters up if people would be so kind as to direct others to the posts to where I have already posted answers, links or information elsewhere in the thread, because I am having to repeat myself so often.

 

I have no need to duck questions. If I didn't know the answer to a question, I would simply say so. However, in terms of finding links, images, etc., although I have read a great deal, and viewed a lot of information, I have never taken note of where it was that I read or viewed the information, so it takes time to both search back through this thread to find the outstanding questions, then where appropriate, find the information I need in order to post an answer. I don't know why you would not understand that if there are 14 pages of material, mostly questions, then it will take time to go through them all to answer them.

 

Go back a page - I've asked it again. You are deliberately ducking it because I suspect you know damn well that you cannot answer it by your own means. Care to prove me wrong? I doubt it.

[Denny Crane]

On page four of this thread, AllanM states in post #144 that: "...The media wanted to portray Luke as a sensational murderer to sell their papers. These journalists don't care what lies they print as long as they get off with it."

 

On post #149 I ask AllanM the following: "Given that you have made a big play on evidence, can you provide any on the above

in relation to this case only?"

 

AllanM has continually ducked this question in relation to the media's reporting of the trial.