Jump to content

Luke Mitchell


Johanes de Silentio

Recommended Posts

Johanes de Silentio

According to the Mail on Sunday, Luke Mitchell has passed a lie detector test, as has his mother.

 

Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable.

 

Anyway, there you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 723
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Johanes de Silentio

    119

  • AllanM

    96

  • Sten Guns

    48

  • BoJack Horseman

    37

The Real Maroonblood

According to the Mail on Sunday, Luke Mitchell has passed a lie detector test, as has his mother.

 

Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable.

 

Anyway, there you go.

He is still guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Mail on Sunday, Luke Mitchell has passed a lie detector test, as has his mother.

 

Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable.

 

Anyway, there you go.

 

 

So did Jeremy Bamber :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah... sounds like fiction to me, how did he get a lie detector test?

The prison just let the Sunday Mail in with some kit to do it :rolleyes::unsure::blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah... sounds like fiction to me, how did he get a lie detector test?

The prison just let the Sunday Mail in with some kit to do it :rolleyes::unsure::blink:

 

 

As I mentioned Jeremy Bamber took and passed a LDT in prison, think its unusual for it to be allowed but it does happen

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

Despite what Jeremy Kyle will tell you, lie detector tests are not 96% accurate.

 

I quite clearly posted "Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable."

Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad was on the jury for this case. Going by what he said there is no doubt Mitchell is guilty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite clearly posted "Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable."

 

I quite clearly didn't quote you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bert Le Clos

He is still guilty.

 

Possibly, probably.

 

One thing's for certain though, he was 100% guilty in the eye's of the media, and in all likeliehood the jury before it even got to trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Key evidence was apparently that he found the body almost straight away with the search party, a jacket he owned went missing, his alibis were rejected and that he had strange social tastes.

 

Is it true that someone else's DNA was found on Jodi Jones' body, though?

 

Slightly off topic but there is a police officer on trial just now for allegedly providing prosecutors in 1995 with false information about a murder investigation. It subsequently led to two men being wrongly convicted for it. They were both released after ten years.

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/303230-former-policeman-altered-witness-statements-in-murder-case/

Edited by jambogaza
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

Is it true that someone else's DNA was found on Jodi Jones' body, though?

 

It's been alleged that multiple unidentified DNA samples were found on Jodi's body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been alleged that multiple unidentified DNA samples were found on Jodi's body.

 

None of which were Mitchell's, apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

None of which were Mitchell's, apparently.

 

Allegedly.

 

I think he probably did murder Jodi, but I think there are problems with the safety of the conviction.

 

I hope it was Mitchell - I'd hate to think that there is someone capable of such a horrific crime on the loose.

 

Mitchell's supporters have suggested Robert Greens, who brutally attacked a girl at Roslin, as a possible alternative - I'd hope that the cops have checked that one out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember why or what it was , but when it happened , the murder and then the trial , for some reason I thought he was innocent.

Maybe I'm wrong , I hope I am , as that would mean there is still one sick f### free

Link to post
Share on other sites
The People's Chimp

My dad was on the jury for this case. Going by what he said there is no doubt Mitchell is guilty

 

It's probably for the best that you say no more about the case, or your Dad's being on the Jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ToadKiller Dog

The polygraph is pseudoscientific pish independent studies show it is not really anymore accurate than chance . To me it's up there with Derek Akora and those that speak to the dead .

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Mail on Sunday, Luke Mitchell has passed a lie detector test, as has his mother.

 

Obviously, polygraphs aren't infallible or admissable.

Anyway, there you go.

 

Which kind of makes the whole process of taking one pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

Which kind of makes the whole process of taking one pointless.

 

Yuo - Mitchell's supporters are desperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood

His mother was burning his clothes just after the murder took place.

My mother used to wash mine strange but true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember why or what it was , but when it happened , the murder and then the trial , for some reason I thought he was innocent.

Maybe I'm wrong , I hope I am , as that would mean there is still one sick f### free

 

What I didn't like about the case to start with was that he was found guilty by the press first and a jury second.

 

The thing that always rankled with me was whether a 15yr old not only had the capacity to commit such a brutal attack but to do so in such a way that he left virtually no phorensic evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

It's been alleged that multiple unidentified DNA samples were found on Jodi's body.

 

Why alleged? Wasn't the evidence aired in court?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

Why alleged? Wasn't the evidence aired in court?

 

I haven't a clue what went down in court, tbh.

 

This is the thing that Mitchell's supporters are claiming, though - that they were so convinced that they had their man, that they didn't follow up on any other possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

The thing that always rankled with me was whether a 15yr old not only had the capacity to commit such a brutal attack but to do so in such a way that he left virtually no phorensic evidence.

 

Aye, people have said that before.

 

I don't think that normal rational patterns of thought apply to the warp that was able to commit a crime as brutal as that.

 

We're not dealing with a normal person/25 year old/15 year old, or whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced.

 

That's good enough for me.

 

Juries have been known to get it wrong.(policemen have also been known to tell porkies and cover up evidence)hopefully not in this case tho

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juries have been known to get it wrong.(policemen have also been known to tell porkies and cover up evidence)hopefully not in this case tho

 

Absolutely. Like I said in a previous post, there is a police officer just now on trial at the high court accused of providing false information which seen two men jailed for ten years for a murder they did not commit.

 

http://www.mojoscotland.com/case_files.html - a few other examples here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, people have said that before.

 

I don't think that normal rational patterns of thought apply to the warp that was able to commit a crime as brutal as that.

 

We're not dealing with a normal person/25 year old/15 year old, or whatever.

 

I agree but it was more the point that I found it hard to comprehend a 15yr old having the capacity to carry out a phorensically clean murder that was so brutal.

 

In most cases where crimes have been commited and leave a clean crime scene it has been commited by someone that has some sort of professional knowledge that enabled them to either plan the crime very carefully or clean up after themselves in such a way as to not leave phorensic evidence at the scene. I just found it difficult to grasp that a 15yr old would have that level of knowledge and actually thought at the time that it had been more that evidence had been missed by L&B's soco's but if I remember correctly a team from the US also went over the crime scene and found nothing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I didn't like about the case to start with was that he was found guilty by the press first and a jury second.

 

The thing that always rankled with me was whether a 15yr old not only had the capacity to commit such a brutal attack but to do so in such a way that he left virtually no phorensic evidence.

 

 

What the heck is that? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always curious to know why Lukes clothes were burned so soon after the death of the young girl :ermm:

 

I may add his mum still has it :)

Edited by desmondo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl Fredrickson

IIRC part of the issue with evidence at the crime scene was that it was left open to the elements overnight. Normally a tent like thing is place over the immediate scene where the remains are but in the instance L&B ballsed up. I am sure that the judge was critical of the police.

 

If my memory serves me correctly the case only came together due to assistance from one of the US agencies.

 

The body was behind a wall off the main path that his girlfriend would have walked down to meet him. Jodies mother assumed she was at Lukes as arranged and only raised the alarm late at night when she was worried about Jody not being home. In the ensuring search, Mitchell found Jodys body. I remember Mitchell when asked in an interview how he managed to find the body, he replied that he had trained his dog as a sniffer dog. I found this quite strange and still do.

 

Too many things bother me about this case, including something that I witnessed a few days later - I cant go into details but my own thoughts are that Mitchell was guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Denny Crane

Must admit I do love these repeat screenings of "Amateur lawyer hour" on JKB. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

I was always curious to know why Lukes clothes were burned so soon after the death of the young girl :ermm:

 

I may add his mum still has it :)

 

They deny that any clothes were burned on the night of the murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson

I'm not convinced of his guilt to be honest, no real evidence and convicted by media long before his trial

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit I do love these repeat screenings of "Amateur lawyer hour" on JKB. :rolleyes:

 

 

:lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol::lol:

 

 

These threads allow poster to express an opinion, right, wrong or indifferent

 

The replies I laugh at are from those cant handle others take on things

 

Minnesota springs to mind but TBF his lightning wit is a gift and a joy to read :huh::rolleyes:

Edited by desmondo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never trust a man with a pony tail.

 

This. Apart from Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi. When they had ponytails. I liked Quo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This. Apart from Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi. When they had ponytails. I liked Quo.

 

And Seagal - Law Enforcer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is obviously innocent. The trial by jury was a trick with mirrors.

 

What happened to Luke Mitchell could have happened to any one of us. They can make up a pack of lies and plaster it all over the papers, and people read it and believe it. Luke Mitchell was strip-searched at the police station the same night the body was found, and the forensic scientist noted that his hair was unwashed, his nails were dirty, he had no scratches or bruises on him, and there was no evidence of any association with the crime. According to Sandra lean, who is a graduate and specialist in criminal law and has extensively researched this case and a lot of the police logs and witness statements, Jodi's body, underwear and clothing had saliva, semen, sperm, hair and blood from other men, and none of it was Luke Mitchell's.

 

The jury weren't told about the DNA or any of the proper evidence. For example. there were eyewitness statements from the search party which described the dog pulling Luke over to the wall, and standing up on it's hind legs, sniffing over the wall. The dog had been trained independently by an outside trainer - it was half-way through a tracker course, and there is nothing strange about that. The jury were not told about those statements describing the dog.

 

The police raided the Mitchell house several times, and found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in the murder, or any covering up of the murder. They took all the vehicles associated with the family and the business, and found no trace of anything. They also took away ashes from the garden barbecue and tested those and found nothing. They interviewed many neighbours and managed to find someone who had smelled smoke around that evening, even though they couldn't say where the smell was coming from, and they got them to testify to that in court, to give the impression that it was proof that clothing had been burned. They didn't mention that they had tested the ashes, and found them to be harmless, or that all the other neighbours had not smelled smoke at all that night.

 

Think of it logically - 14-year old boy kills his girlfriend in a rage, then phones her family to ask where she is, because she is late, thus alerting them immediately that she is missing, then dashes home and tells his mum he's killed her, throws off his clothes, and dives out so he'll be seen out by friends from his school shortly after the time of the murder, relaxed, not out of breath, miraculously cleansed of any trace of blood or DNA, in spite of not having time to take a shower. Meanwhile, his mum, who let him go back out to play after he'd told her he'd killed his girlfriend, spends her evening burning the clothing. It is totally ludicrous and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the Wrongly Accused website where you'll find a lot more about the case. Everything on there is carefully vetted by Sandra Lean, who has staked her professional status on it being accurate.

 

In my view, Luke Mitchell was assumed guilty by the bully-boy policeman who was in charge of the investigation, and the media helped to influence public opinion to ensure that the judge and jury thought he was guilty before the case was tried. It is both a tragedy and a disgrace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johanes de Silentio

I think he is obviously innocent. The trial by jury was a trick with mirrors.

 

What happened to Luke Mitchell could have happened to any one of us. They can make up a pack of lies and plaster it all over the papers, and people read it and believe it. Luke Mitchell was strip-searched at the police station the same night the body was found, and the forensic scientist noted that his hair was unwashed, his nails were dirty, he had no scratches or bruises on him, and there was no evidence of any association with the crime. According to Sandra lean, who is a graduate and specialist in criminal law and has extensively researched this case and a lot of the police logs and witness statements, Jodi's body, underwear and clothing had saliva, semen, sperm, hair and blood from other men, and none of it was Luke Mitchell's.

 

The jury weren't told about the DNA or any of the proper evidence. For example. there were eyewitness statements from the search party which described the dog pulling Luke over to the wall, and standing up on it's hind legs, sniffing over the wall. The dog had been trained independently by an outside trainer - it was half-way through a tracker course, and there is nothing strange about that. The jury were not told about those statements describing the dog.

 

The police raided the Mitchell house several times, and found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in the murder, or any covering up of the murder. They took all the vehicles associated with the family and the business, and found no trace of anything. They also took away ashes from the garden barbecue and tested those and found nothing. They interviewed many neighbours and managed to find someone who had smelled smoke around that evening, even though they couldn't say where the smell was coming from, and they got them to testify to that in court, to give the impression that it was proof that clothing had been burned. They didn't mention that they had tested the ashes, and found them to be harmless, or that all the other neighbours had not smelled smoke at all that night.

 

Think of it logically - 14-year old boy kills his girlfriend in a rage, then phones her family to ask where she is, because she is late, thus alerting them immediately that she is missing, then dashes home and tells his mum he's killed her, throws off his clothes, and dives out so he'll be seen out by friends from his school shortly after the time of the murder, relaxed, not out of breath, miraculously cleansed of any trace of blood or DNA, in spite of not having time to take a shower. Meanwhile, his mum, who let him go back out to play after he'd told her he'd killed his girlfriend, spends her evening burning the clothing. It is totally ludicrous and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the Wrongly Accused website where you'll find a lot more about the case. Everything on there is carefully vetted by Sandra Lean, who has staked her professional status on it being accurate.

 

In my view, Luke Mitchell was assumed guilty by the bully-boy policeman who was in charge of the investigation, and the media helped to influence public opinion to ensure that the judge and jury thought he was guilty before the case was tried. It is both a tragedy and a disgrace.

 

Sandra Lean's forum is horrendously one-sided - I tried to join it in the hope of some balance, but she wouldn't let me join.

 

Not doing her or her causes any good by not allowing a balanced debate.

 

Not a good sign.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is obviously innocent. The trial by jury was a trick with mirrors.

 

What happened to Luke Mitchell could have happened to any one of us. They can make up a pack of lies and plaster it all over the papers, and people read it and believe it. Luke Mitchell was strip-searched at the police station the same night the body was found, and the forensic scientist noted that his hair was unwashed, his nails were dirty, he had no scratches or bruises on him, and there was no evidence of any association with the crime. According to Sandra lean, who is a graduate and specialist in criminal law and has extensively researched this case and a lot of the police logs and witness statements, Jodi's body, underwear and clothing had saliva, semen, sperm, hair and blood from other men, and none of it was Luke Mitchell's.

 

The jury weren't told about the DNA or any of the proper evidence. For example. there were eyewitness statements from the search party which described the dog pulling Luke over to the wall, and standing up on it's hind legs, sniffing over the wall. The dog had been trained independently by an outside trainer - it was half-way through a tracker course, and there is nothing strange about that. The jury were not told about those statements describing the dog.

 

The police raided the Mitchell house several times, and found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in the murder, or any covering up of the murder. They took all the vehicles associated with the family and the business, and found no trace of anything. They also took away ashes from the garden barbecue and tested those and found nothing. They interviewed many neighbours and managed to find someone who had smelled smoke around that evening, even though they couldn't say where the smell was coming from, and they got them to testify to that in court, to give the impression that it was proof that clothing had been burned. They didn't mention that they had tested the ashes, and found them to be harmless, or that all the other neighbours had not smelled smoke at all that night.

 

Think of it logically - 14-year old boy kills his girlfriend in a rage, then phones her family to ask where she is, because she is late, thus alerting them immediately that she is missing, then dashes home and tells his mum he's killed her, throws off his clothes, and dives out so he'll be seen out by friends from his school shortly after the time of the murder, relaxed, not out of breath, miraculously cleansed of any trace of blood or DNA, in spite of not having time to take a shower. Meanwhile, his mum, who let him go back out to play after he'd told her he'd killed his girlfriend, spends her evening burning the clothing. It is totally ludicrous and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the Wrongly Accused website where you'll find a lot more about the case. Everything on there is carefully vetted by Sandra Lean, who has staked her professional status on it being accurate.

 

In my view, Luke Mitchell was assumed guilty by the bully-boy policeman who was in charge of the investigation, and the media helped to influence public opinion to ensure that the judge and jury thought he was guilty before the case was tried. It is both a tragedy and a disgrace.

 

Wow first post!! Is this some Mitchell Family Spin. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow first post!! Is this some Mitchell Family Spin. :thumbsup:

note the name AllanM :whistling:

 

in all fairness it was a good post by the guy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...