Luke Mitchell

[jambogaza]

You're assuming what she says is completely true. I refuse to believe for a second that a potentially critical piece of evidence was never analysed because of lack of funds.

 

Like I said already, the fact that he's had appeals flung out since all this chat has begun speaks volumes.

 

I put her name in bold purposely whilst asking the same question as you just did.

[rossthejambo]

I put her name in bold purposely whilst asking the same question as you just did.

 

Yea I got that, wasn't really aiming my post at you in particular, probably could have worded it better.

[ellie0028]

Fair point Gasman

 

Heres all list of the appeal's so far

 

Appeal

 

In March 2006, Mitchell was granted leave to appeal against his conviction (and his length of sentence) at the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, on the grounds of the trial judge's refusal to hear the original case outside of the city.

In November 2006, Mitchell won the right to appeal against his conviction for murder. Mitchell's legal team had wanted a number of grounds for appeal to be heard but the judges said only one would be allowed. Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton said they would allow a ground of appeal claiming that the trial judge erred in refusing to move Mitchell's case out of Edinburgh following publicity ahead of the proceedings. Lord Hamilton, who was sitting with Lord Kingarth and Lord MacLean, said: "We have come, with some hesitation, to the view that this ground is arguable." "There is an argument that the trial judge failed adequately to take into account the circumstances that the publicity might have had an impact of particular strength not only in the immediate locality of the crime but in a somewhat wider area embracing the city of Edinburgh and other towns in the Lothians," he said. There was a huge media fanfare surrounding the trial and this may have affected the final outcome. The fact that the jury were not put into a hotel for the night of the decision has also been cited as a factor. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh heard Mitchell's appeal in February 2008, and in May 2008 his original conviction was upheld.

 

Appeal decision

 

On 16 May 2008, the judges' verdict was given. Sitting over the appeal were Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth and Lord Hamilton, who delivered the decision. They ruled that there was sufficient evidence in law that Mitchell could be convicted on and rejected his other grounds of appeal, yet stated that police questioning of Mitchell on 14 August 2003 had been "outrageous" and was "to be deplored."

 

Appeal against sentence refused

 

On 2 February 2011, Mitchell's appeal against sentence was refused by a two to one majority. Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, sitting with Lord Hardie and Lady Cosgrove stated that he had the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and that he understood entirely why this murder should have caused such public revulsion. Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender. He stated that justice would be done in this case if the punishment part of the sentence were fixed at 15 years. He did not consider that they were precluded from that disposal by anything said in the guidance given in HM Adv v Boyle and Ors (supra). He regretted, therefore, that he had to differ from his Lordship and her Ladyship.[10]

 

Cadder appeal refused

 

On 15 April 2011, Mitchell's bid to challenge his conviction for murder following a human rights ruling by the Supreme Court in the Cadder case was rejected. His lawyer told the Appeal Court in Edinburgh that his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during an interview. Lord Osborne sitting with Lord Hamilton (Lord Justice General) and Lord Kingarth told Mitchell that the application for leave to lodge the additional ground was refused. The appellant's appeal against sentence was finally disposed of on 2 February 2011 and in such circumstances there did not exist a live appeal in respect of which leave could be granted under section 110(4).[11]

 

Appeal to Supreme Court refused

 

In November 2011 Mitchell was refused leave to take his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on the basis that his previous appeal had been dealt with before the Cadder ruling and could therefore not be re-opened

[jambogaza]

Yea I got that, wasn't really aiming my post at you in particular, probably could have worded it better.

 

No problem.

 

Considering the diversity of opinion in this thread, it's hard to believe the Jury arrived at a conviction. Had this thread been the only source of knowledge, you'd assume a not proven verdict. But then, I wasn't at the case and what is said in the trial can often be a lot more convincing than what is reported by external sources.

[fabienleclerq]

Consider this/alan M itchel can we have a pointer to some proof of the semen found on jj body?

[Tommy Wiseau]

I find it astonishing that if the above were true that an appeal would not be heard. I can only assume it is not 100% accurate or it would have been heard/challenged in court by now.

 

Also I find it hard to believe that at no point when missing knives were discussed during the original trial that someone on the defence side or the family didn't go 'hey you've got that in the drawer in your office Mr Lawyer'.

 

 

 

I know, that is one thing in particular that doesn't quite stack up about these stories. The lawyer has a knife in his possession, owned by the prime suspect for the murder and therefore a critical piece of evidence that could convict or absolve Mitchell - and the lawyer forgets to mention he has it? Not a very likely tale tbf.

[EH11_2NL]

IF there is documented proof of semen traces not belonging to Luke Mitchell I find it rather far fetched that there haven't been some official moves at the highest level to review this case.

 

And if recall correctly two appeals have been turned down. Why would that be?

 

Maybe cos he done it and no amount of slavering on this forum will ever change that!

[ConsiderThis]

Actually, thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there was no forensic evidence in Huntley's house either and he certainly did it, so lack of forensics means nothing.

 

Normanthebarman, any chance of a double vodka? I'm not really aware of the details of the 2 young girls murder, but with the injuries sustained by Jodi I reckon it would be impossible not to leave a trace of himself on her and her on him. What has to be considered is how could Luke Mitchell have forensically cleaned himself to leave no trace on himself, but more to the point how could he have removed traces of his dna from the victim whilst other males dna were found to be on the clothes and body?

[ConsiderThis]

He is DEFINATLY guilty

 

You have D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y. forgotten to use your spell check today LOL

 

Seriously though, your entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious as to why you are so definite about it. Whats your opinion based on? As said, just curious.

[Peebo]

No problem.

 

Considering the diversity of opinion in this thread, it's hard to believe the Jury arrived at a conviction. Had this thread been the only source of knowledge, you'd assume a not proven verdict. But then, I wasn't at the case and what is said in the trial can often be a lot more convincing than what is reported by external sources.

 

Worth noting that one of the leading contributors to this thread stated they knew next to nothing about the case....

[Peebo]

You have D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y. forgotten to use your spell check today LOL

 

Seriously though, your entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious as to why you are so definite about it. Whats your opinion based on? As said, just curious.

 

"you're entitled", shirley?

[moogsy]

Has anyone answered why he fabricated an alibi yet?

[ConsiderThis]

Most of the time I think, but not always, Ice Cream Wars springs to mind

 

No judicial system is bullet prrof, when you hear and read screams of innocence over a sustained period of time its worth looking at

 

As it goes I would like Lukes Mum to be more vocal, lets face it had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would , she seems a tad quiet for my liking

 

That aside I reckon justice was done

 

Hi Desmondo, in Scotland there was also the Billy Allison and Stevie Johnstone case, stiched up like kippers by the police, took years but they have eventually got one of the policemen in the dock after the 2 guys convictions were overturned, then there is the David Asbury and Shirley Mckie saga, David having his case overturned and Shirley settling out of court. My minds went blank but there has been more miscarriages of justice cases in Scotland, they are not rare. Stuart Gair was another, very sad case too.

 

I can't speak for Luke Mitchell's mother, but what can she do? As far as the law is concerned her son is guilty, and the case is closed. I know she is active in the background with Lukes defence team and supporters but no amount of kicking and screaming is going to get her son free, it has to be done through the legal channels, and that is what she and her family and the defence team are trying to do, and have been trying to do for the last 8 years. If you knew how the appeal system worked you might understand why it takes so long. How she has coped over the years with the abuse she has suffered I do not know.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Hi, ConsiderThis!

 

Corinne Mitchell is posting again today on Sandra Lean's forum about 'those who are protecting the murderer' - who is she talking about? I'll take a PM?

I think this is a bit of a red herring because she knows her son committed the murder.

[ellie0028]

Theres only one person going to win here and that Sandra Lean!

 

Every where you look on the internet her name crops up,if I were a betting woman,Id bet money she has and will make money out of Luke and why no,jump on the band wagon with a high profile murderer!

 

 

Is she a lawyer or something?

[Jambothump]

Just add another question to the mix, did the mother ever face charges of aiding and abetting in the concealment of the crime with the clothes burning "evidence" and if not, why not ?

 

It is said the mother knows who the killer is, maybe they both do, but think LM will get off with it to protect the real killer. All I have read and seen of him in the media says that LM is sadly the the only one guilty of the child's murder.

 

jt

[Walter Bishop]

"A knife pouch was also found in Mitchell's possession on which he had marked "JJ 1989 - 2003" and "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came". This was also considered evidence on the basis that it would be unlikely for anyone but the killer to remember someone killed with a knife in this way"

 

Seen this on wiki, if innocent or guilty why have something like this in your possesion?

[Denny Crane]

Take it AllanM hasn't dropped by to answer my question? Thought not.

[AllanM]

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

 

 

Given that you have made a big play on evidence, can you provide any on the above in relation to this case only?

 

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.

[AllanM]

There seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding regarding "the burning of evidence".

 

There was no burning of evidence. One of the neighbours smelt smoke which could have come from any of the surrounding gardens, but the police took away the contents of the Mitchell's burner for investigation, and the contents were innocent.

 

The theory of "burning of evidence" was presented in court. But it was just that - a theory.. It was bolstered up by the fact that a neighbour had smelled smoke, but Corrine could not have been charged with any concealment of the crime, because there was no evidence that she concealed the crime.

[southside1874]

There seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding regarding "the burning of evidence".

 

There was no burning of evidence. One of the neighbours smelt smoke which could have come from any of the surrounding gardens, but the police took away the contents of the Mitchell's burner for investigation, and the contents were innocent.

 

The theory of "burning of evidence" was presented in court. But it was just that - a theory.. It was bolstered up by the fact that a neighbour had smelled smoke, but Corrine could not have been charged with any concealment of the crime, because there was no evidence that she concealed the crime.

 

It has been mentioned before that both Luke and his mum know who the killer was, is there any truth in this?

[Peebo]

It has been mentioned before that both Luke and his mum know who the killer was, is there any truth in this?

 

I would wager yes....

[southside1874]

I would wager yes....

 

This is possibly how it could have all went wrong for the guy then. I don't think he will get an appeal until he reveals what he knows.

[AllanM]

I am giving an answer to various questions here, but please note, that I am not an expert on the trial process, or Donald Findlay - I can only give my opinion.

 

If I had been on the jury in the Luke Mitchell case, I think I'd have chosen a "not proven" verdict, and in England, my choice would have been "not guilty". My reason for that is that I would not have been influenced by the character defamation, and I would have been looking for the proper evidence. I would not have accepted the type of "circumstantial evidence" that was presented in the case of Luke Mitchell, because it was too flimsy.

 

I may be wrong - because it is only my theory - but I think that perhaps D. Findlay thought that the case was so scanty that he would not have to conduct a proper defence, and was relying on arguing points of law. Unfortunately, the jury don't think in terms of points of law, and so they weren't really given the benefit of a robust defence. I think also, Findlay was one of an old school of "clever" men, who was more comfortable with points of law than with technical forensic reports, etc. That said, I read in a broadsheet newspaper interview with Dobbie, who lead the investigation, that the police collected over 3000 statements, and a large number of policemen spent months on the case, so it must have been an overwhelming task to scrutinise all the papers and the reports and to ascertain how to proceed.

 

Having read all the posts on this forum, however, I realised yesterday that it would not have mattered what was said in court. There was no earthly way that Luke Mitchell could have got a fair trial.

[AllanM]

It has been mentioned before that both Luke and his mum know who the killer was, is there any truth in this?

 

Someone earlier in this thread claimed that Corinne had said she knew who the killer was, but I don't remember reading that, as I said before. However, if Corrine and Luke did know who the killer is, then they would not give any information about that publicly, because it would compromise the trial process if that person was then brought to justice.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Someone earlier in this thread claimed that Corinne had said she knew who the killer was, but I don't remember reading that, as I said before. However, if Corrine and Luke did know who the killer is, then they would not give any information about that publicly, because it would compromise the trial process if that person was then brought to justice.

 

Corinne Mitchell has stated repeatedly on Sandra Lean's forum that people know who the murderer is, and that the murderer is being 'protected'.

 

I would hope that Corinne has shared this with the police - if she has, I can only imagine that the police don't think there is anything in her claims.

 

Contributors to Sandra Lean's forum regularly accuse one particular local policeman of dishonesty, mind.

[AllanM]

You seem to spend a lot of time talking about him as if he was a little child, he wasn't. He was a young adult who on occasion took drugs and behaved like a normal small-town teenager. Not a child who went out playing with his pals."

 

I don't really view a 14 year old as a "young adult" and neither do many parents or people who have dealings with kids. Who cares if you call it "hanging out" or "playing". I read somewhere that they were playing on an old tyre swing, hence the use of the word. But really, what they were doing doesn't really matter.

[AllanM]

Corinne Mitchell has stated repeatedly on Sandra Lean's forum that people know who the murderer is, and that the murderer is being 'protected'.

 

Yes. I have read her saying that often. She believes that people know who the murderer is and are shielding him.. However, I personally do not remember her saying that she or Luke know who the murderer is. I said that earlier in this thread. Here are my words:

 

I don't remember reading that Corinne Mitchell knew who killed Jodi Jones. I could be wrong. but I don't remember reading that. What she has said very frequently is that she believes that the killer is being protected by others who might suspect or know about his guilt.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Yes. I have read her saying that often. She believes that people know who the murderer is and are shielding him. However, I personally do not remember her saying that she or Luke know who the murderer is. I said that earlier in this thread. Here are my words:

 

That's very clever.

 

So, Corinne Mitchell states that 'people' know who the murderer is, and that these 'people' are 'shielding him', but neither she nor Luke Mitchell know who these 'people' are, or who the murderer is?

 

Hmm...

 

You're quick tonight, by the way.

[Johanes de Silentio]

By far the most disturbing thing on this thread is ConsiderThis's claims that multiple semen/sperm samples were found 'in or on' Jodi's body - none of which were Luke Mitchell's - surely that cannae be right?

[southside1874]

That's very clever.

 

So, Corinne Mitchell states that 'people' know who the murderer is, and that these 'people' are 'shielding him', but neither she nor Luke Mitchell know who these 'people' are, or who the murderer is?

 

Hmm...

 

You're quick tonight, by the way.

 

Sounds like Luke may know more than he is letting go and some cop has went to get info from him. The cop has tried to show him that he should be more afraid of the law rather than the local drug dealing gangster. Luke maybe innocent of the crime but is probably "protecting" someone who is guilty. It sometimes comes about that the real criminal gets off as the minion takes the flak. Almost possible that his file has a large stamp on it saying...."do not allow to appeal until the real murderer is revealed".

 

Bargaining goes on in the courts.

[AllanM]

"Oh my god, I have sat back and watched his thread grow, allanM I`m sorry u talk some bull, was out playing with friends eh no think you will find it was way after he was seen with them, why phone her mum and ask long after she was meant to meet him where was she ? why phone the talking clock when he was meant to be in his kitchen? Why did u not say he had already stabbed her with a knife ? Oh wait cause u blind, take it from me he should rot in hell , as for his mother don`t even go there "

 

Your post is barely intelligible.

 

However, to clear things up:

 

Luke had arranged to meet Jodi. When she didn't show up, he phoned her house to ask where she was and was told she'd left, or something along these lines (the accounts of what was said to him vary). He then hung around waiting for her and eventually arranged to meet other friends.

 

According to the police "theory", Luke met jodi, they had an argument, leading to the murder, then he phoned her house to ask where she was in a cunning move to conceal the fact that he had killed her. [Which would be a mighty silly and unlikely move for him to make, if he had a cunning criminal brain, since it would have led to the body being discovered earlier, and him getting caught red-handed.]

 

Why not phone the talking clock? I phone the talking clock from home, and I also use my mobile in the house. What is the problem with that?

 

I did not say he had stabbed her at any point, and I find the post you made and comment about his mother to be really offensive. You know very little about her.

[AllanM]

By far the most disturbing thing on this thread is ConsiderThis's claims that multiple semen/sperm samples were found 'in or on' Jodi's body - none of which were Luke Mitchell's - surely that cannae be right?

 

I supplied a link to a page of the WAP forum where those sperm samples were discussed. Whole documents cannot be reproduced, as I have explained.

 

It is a Miscarriage of Justice forum, set up to support people who have been wrongly accused or convicted and their families, and as such, the postings tend to be supportive of the accused/convicted person, and I think that is why you see it as biased, and in respect of the views of most of the posters, you are correct. However, Sandra has spent years combing painstakingly through all the documents and has offered to show all the original documents to Mrs. Jones. She gives her assurance that information she transcribes or reports on the forum from the court documents is accurate, and given that she will soon be Dr. Sandra Lean, as a result of her academic studies in criminal law and criminology, she is staking her credibility and professional status on being accurate.

[Peebo]

I am giving an answer to various questions here, but please note, that I am not an expert on the trial process, or Donald Findlay - I can only give my opinion.

 

If I had been on the jury in the Luke Mitchell case, I think I'd have chosen a "not proven" verdict, and in England, my choice would have been "not guilty". My reason for that is that I would not have been influenced by the character defamation, and I would have been looking for the proper evidence. I would not have accepted the type of "circumstantial evidence" that was presented in the case of Luke Mitchell, because it was too flimsy.

 

I may be wrong - because it is only my theory - but I think that perhaps D. Findlay thought that the case was so scanty that he would not have to conduct a proper defence, and was relying on arguing points of law. Unfortunately, the jury don't think in terms of points of law, and so they weren't really given the benefit of a robust defence. I think also, Findlay was one of an old school of "clever" men, who was more comfortable with points of law than with technical forensic reports, etc. That said, I read in a broadsheet newspaper interview with Dobbie, who lead the investigation, that the police collected over 3000 statements, and a large number of policemen spent months on the case, so it must have been an overwhelming task to scrutinise all the papers and the reports and to ascertain how to proceed.

 

Having read all the posts on this forum, however, I realised yesterday that it would not have mattered what was said in court. There was no earthly way that Luke Mitchell could have got a fair trial.

 

Why would you have gone for "not proven", rather than "not guilty"?

[AllanM]

"Do you know the area or are you just preaching what you've read on the internet?"

 

The location of the bus stop has been explained by another poster. When talking about the area around Dalkeith, I was thinking in terms of the Lothians.

 

Are any of the other murders currently unsolved? I live in Dalkeith and honestly can't think of any off the top of my head

 

I was talking about knife crime around the area, and if you have not noticed any knife crimes in the Lothians, including the immediate vicinity around Dalkeith, then you need to spend less time on this forum and start buying proper papers which give you the news. It doesn't really make any difference if they were solved or not. The point I was making is that any one of the people who have committed murder or a violent knife crime in the Lothians could have committed the Jodi Jones murder, although, in fact, the killer of Jodi need not have been a serial killer.

 

As for trying to insinuate that the unrelated Betty Brown case might be the same murderer because its near a bus stop. For goodness sake man, get a grip. "

 

There is no reason why the same person could not have been responsible for both murders. However, I was insinuating nothing. I was merely pointing out that many people go missing every year, and citing two Edinburgh women who would never have been known of unless their bodies were found. The lady who was found in the borders was traveling from Edinburgh, by the way.

 

IF there is documented proof of semen traces not belonging to Luke Mitchell I find it rather far fetched that there haven't been some official moves at the highest level to review this case.

 

Well, do a search on the internet and you might be surprised. I have already explained that an appeal regarding that evidence can not be submitted, because Luke's lawyer should have presented that evidence in court at the original trial. Appeals have to be based on new evidence.

 

And if recall correctly two appeals have been turned down. Why would that be?"

 

I believe that I saw information about the last appeal posted on the forum earlier. The 2008 appeal court documents are available to read on the Scottish Courts website. However, it won't really enable you to understand the complexity of the issues just to read them. You really have to understand the background of the case, which takes quite a lot of digging.

 

One key issue in the 2008 appeal was that a woman claimed to have seen two people who could have been Luke and Jodi together. That is really why he lost his appeal..

 

The description in question was two people, who could have been any two people: a young man in a his early 20s of medium height and build, with thick brown hair which stuck up at the back, standing beside a girl. Luke Mitchell was 3 inches smaller than Jodi at 5'4", thin, with fine, blond hair. The description of the girl's clothes was different from the clothes Jodi was wearing when she was found. Asked if Luke was the man in court, she said that his head was completely different.

 

However, at the appeal, the judge chose to believe that those two people were Luke and Jodi. You can read his conclusions in the 2008 appeal document on the Scottish Court site, along with claims of "missing" items.

[AllanM]

Sorry I cannot answer any more posts now. I will try to come back tomorrow to answer some more of the issues.

[southside1874]

The location of the bus stop has been explained by another poster. When talking about the area around Dalkeith, I was thinking in terms of the Lothians.

 

 

 

I was talking about knife crime around the area, and if you have not noticed any knife crimes in the Lothians, including the immediate vicinity around Dalkeith, then you need to spend less time on this forum and start buying proper papers which give you the news. It doesn't really make any difference if they were solved or not. The point I was making is that any one of the people who have committed murder or a violent knife crime in the Lothians could have committed the Jodi Jones murder, although, in fact, the killer of Jodi need not have been a serial killer.

 

 

 

There is no reason why the same person could not have been responsible for both murders. However, I was insinuating nothing. I was merely pointing out that many people go missing every year, and citing two Edinburgh women who would never have been known of unless their bodies were found. The lady who was found in the borders was traveling from Edinburgh, by the way.

 

 

 

Well, do a search on the internet and you might be surprised. I have already explained that an appeal regarding that evidence can not be submitted, because Luke's lawyer should have presented that evidence in court at the original trial. Appeals have to be based on new evidence.

 

 

 

I believe that I saw information about the last appeal posted on the forum earlier. The 2008 appeal court documents are available to read on the Scottish Courts website. However, it won't really enable you to understand the complexity of the issues just to read them. You really have to understand the background of the case, which takes quite a lot of digging.

 

One key issue in the 2008 appeal was that a woman claimed to have seen two people who could have been Luke and Jodi together. That is really why he lost his appeal..

 

The description in question was two people, who could have been any two people: a young man in a his early 20s of medium height and build, with thick brown hair which stuck up at the back, standing beside a girl. Luke Mitchell was 3 inches smaller than Jodi at 5'4", thin, with fine, blond hair. The description of the girl's clothes was different from the clothes Jodi was wearing when she was found. Asked if Luke was the man in court, she said that his head was completely different.

 

However, at the appeal, the judge chose to believe that those two people were Luke and Jodi. You can read his conclusions in the 2008 appeal document on the Scottish Court site, along with claims of "missing" items.

I think you have to give judges a bit more than you are giving them. I have met a few on a social level and they are very perceptive people. A cop in lothian or a youngster will not pull the wool over his eyes. If Luke is innocent then he is protecting someone else and like I said his file will have one it. Don't release until...... The guy maybe innocent but he is taking the flak and that is why he is in jail.

[AllanM]

Why would you have gone for "not proven", rather than "not guilty"?

 

One last post tonight, because it is an interesting question to me...

 

Perhaps I'd have gone for "not guilty" but in all honesty, although I don't want to criticise the guy, I don't think the defense did a good enough job. As I have said before, the amount of material must have been overwhelming, but according to what I have read on the WAP forum, the forensic samples were not retested for the defence, and I don't think enough of the forensic evidence was presented in court. Donald Findlay seemingly wouldn't let Luke take the stand. He let the prosecution witnesses off too lightly, especially one who was known to be at the scene of the crime at the time when Jodi was killed, who said he couldn't remember what he was doing there. There were other issues too - the eye witness evidence, which I described in my last post - could have been shot down in flames. How many 5'4" 14 year old boys could pass for being in their early 20's? However, he couldn't really have known the prejudice would have caused so much hatred, so he was probably unprepared for that.. Also, sadly, a lot of people go into law for a career.. They won't lose sleep if they lose a case in court. They get the same money.

 

A court case is like a debate. The prosecution can basically make up whatever story they want. Which they did.. The defense have to counter the prosecution case by showing evidence which disproves their theories.. But when the theories are so nebulous, then it is difficult to prove anything.. How do you prove that you are not having an "unnatural" relationship with your child, and would you really want to go there? How do you prove that you hadn't burned clothing? It is easy to fling around accusations, but far more difficult to defend yourself against them.. So in the end, presented with the case, and not being presented with evidence which went against that case, my verdict would have been that the case was not proven.

 

If, however, I had been told that there was sperm inside Jodi and semen in her underwear, I'd have gone with not guilty, without a doubt.

[Guest]

The location of the bus stop has been explained by another poster.

 

You've not answered my question Do you know the area?

 

When talking about the area around Dalkeith, I was thinking in terms of the Lothians.

 

Thats a huge difference, happily expanded to suit your argument

 

 

I was talking about knife crime around the area, and if you have not noticed any knife crimes in the Lothians, including the immediate vicinity around Dalkeith, then you need to spend less time on this forum and start buying proper papers which give you the news.

 

Thanks for the advice, which papers do you suggest?

 

It doesn't really make any difference if they were solved or not. The point I was making is that any one of the people who have committed murder or a violent knife crime in the Lothians could have committed the Jodi Jones murder, although, in fact, the killer of Jodi need not have been a serial killer.

 

Would their DNA not have been matched up with the JJ case

 

 

There is no reason why the same person could not have been responsible for both murders. However, I was insinuating nothing.

 

You're contradicting yourself

[rossthejambo]

 

If, however, I had been told that there was sperm inside Jodi and semen in her underwear, I'd have gone with not guilty, without a doubt.

 

I'm sure you would have, but is there even the slightest bit of proof that that is the case?

 

It's funny really that the scene, which was earlier described as clean, was then described as having unidentified DNA on Jodi's clothing, to now having semen inside her.

 

Sorry, but your arguement has evolved drastically to try and get people onside with you and suggesting that we have all been duped by the media (which you alluded to in an original post) is ridiculously patronising.

[Ribble]

Why not phone the talking clock? I phone the talking clock from home, and I also use my mobile in the house. What is the problem with that?

 

As seperate things they are fine but if you are using a mobile the display will tell you the time. I could understand using a landline to phone the talking clock, but why would you need to if you have a mobile?

[Ribble]

I'm sure you would have, but is there even the slightest bit of proof that that is the case?

 

It's funny really that the scene, which was earlier described as clean, was then described as having unidentified DNA on Jodi's clothing, to now having semen inside her.

 

When I referred to the murder scene being clean earlier in the thread I was making the point that if LM did do it then the scene was clean with regards to his DNA etc

[rossthejambo]

When I referred to the murder scene being clean earlier in the thread I was making the point that if LM did do it then the scene was clean with regards to his DNA etc

 

Ok fair enough, but the last 2 points still stand. DNA has gone from being on her clothing to inside her in a very short space of time on this thread from the same person. Just find it very suspicious.

 

Never mind the fact that if that was the case then I find it absolutely mind boggling that this wasn't used as part of the defence. Cue more bumf about how inept the defence legal team was.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Sounds like Luke may know more than he is letting go and some cop has went to get info from him. The cop has tried to show him that he should be more afraid of the law rather than the local drug dealing gangster. Luke maybe innocent of the crime but is probably "protecting" someone who is guilty. It sometimes comes about that the real criminal gets off as the minion takes the flak. Almost possible that his file has a large stamp on it saying...."do not allow to appeal until the real murderer is revealed".

 

Bargaining goes on in the courts.

 

So...

 

Jodi Jones was killed by local drug dealers;

 

Luke Mitchell is taking the rap for them, and refuses to name them;

 

Luke Mitchell thinks that taking the rap for a brutal murder is preferable to the consequenses of naming the murderer?

 

Corinne Mitchell, meanwhile, claims that people are protecting the murderer.

 

One of the people protecting the murderer is Luke Mitchell?

 

So, Luke Mitchell knows who murdered his girlfriend, refuses to name them, and still expects to be cleared and freed?

 

Hmm...

[ellie0028]

And just to add to the whole the killer is being protected/we know who he is blah blah blah the whole time Luke Mitchell has been in jail there has never been another horrible murder like that!

 

They always say a killer like to keep a reminder if what they have done,for all you know that was the knife case with the details that Luke had engraved on it...

 

 

And I tell you whatelse,not a one point has Luke Mitchell durning his trial ever broke down,he remained cool and calm,while everyone else is crying/shouting/screaming and people in that court room saw some horrible stuff,he remained cold...a clever young man eh.

 

Sorry still wont change my mind,you wouldnt waste you life in Jail coving for someone else, not after they have killed your girlfriend,who he said he loved...

 

The apple doesnt fall far from the tree,the mother needs to have a long hard look at herself

[southside1874]

So...

 

Jodi Jones was killed by local drug dealers;

 

Luke Mitchell is taking the rap for them, and refuses to name them;

 

Luke Mitchell thinks that taking the rap for a brutal murder is preferable to the consequenses of naming the murderer?

 

Corinne Mitchell, meanwhile, claims that people are protecting the murderer.

 

One of the people protecting the murderer is Luke Mitchell?

 

So, Luke Mitchell knows who murdered his girlfriend, refuses to name them, and still expects to be cleared and freed?

 

Hmm...

 

 

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

[ConsiderThis]

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.

 

Hi Bagger, this is one of the things that I find most upsetting. Lothian Borders police did leave the victims naked body unprotected all night, approx 8 hours. When the body was found the head of the investigation DI Dobbie failed to have a tent erected to preserve evidence and protect the body. This is basic procedure but yet even the basics went out the window in this case. A pathologist had arrived shortly after the body was found but she couldnt get over the v at the wall as she said she had a bad back. How the stupid woman pathologist didn't look for other access to the locus I will never understand. The thought of this poor girl being left all alone and unprotected makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomache.

 

Someone mentioned on this thread the US investigators had come over to the crime scene, and I see the US is mentioned again. You are right "the case only came together" with help from the US. What happened was SKY had got wind that LM was not to attend the funeral of JJ. They contacted CM and asked if the family would do an interview on the day of the funeral, but said interview would not be aired till later in the year. Well, we all know they didnt stick to that assurance. The SKY interview was done by James Mathews and the police took formal steps to obtain a copy of the tape and flew to California where they showed it to the man known as the "Human Lie Detector" Professor Paul Ekman, who apparantely is the world authority on the analysis of facial expression. After viewing the tape he supported police suspicions about Luke. The findings of Prof. Ekman kept the focus of the inquiry on Mitchell, as there was no evidence. The prosecution also played the tape to the jury as they said that because he didnt cry when being interviewed that this backed the crowns case that he lacked emotion.

 

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.

[rossthejambo]

 

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 this already about so many different pieces of quite clearly crucial evidence, but why not? Again, I refuse to believe that there is a defence lawyer out there who is so inept at their job that they wouldn't have brought such crucial evidence up in court.

[ConsiderThis]

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

 

Thats what I like to see, someone with an open mind.

[Sten Guns]

Thats what I like to see, someone with an open mind, someone who agrees with me.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Do you believe Luke is innocent, or are you just not happy about how the conviction was brought about?