Luke Mitchell

[stawberry2]

before this thread is closed , needs must will Allanm answer 1 more question ? what member of the family are you ?

[AllanM]

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

 

I have finally found your question! lol.. If you are talking about the media reporting things in a way to influence public opinion against Luke... Well, please look at the Frontline Scotland documentary at the link I provided this evening. You will see in that a number of unsavoury front page headlines etc., in relation to the case.

 

There are back copies of articles available on the internet, but most newspaper archives don't go that far back. I am loath to post any, since it seems that many people on this forum are unable to distinguish between lies made up by the tabloid press and the truth. They will print a lot of lies in order to sell papers, and I don't want to put the stuff back out there, since it should never have been allowed in the first place

[ellie0028]

Yeah this thread most likely will close soon,we are all starting to go round in circles here..Im bored with it all now,he is behind bars and I care very little for him or his mother...

 

Here my views and most likely be the last I say

 

I have believe from day one he was guilty!

 

Did the police make a balls up,aye!

 

We dont know what went on in the courts but a jury found him guilty,im sure I read the judge said he was cold and evil (I think cant be bothered checking)

 

I dont believe the real killer is still out there!

 

Corinne show's very little respect for Jody and her family and she proved that the day of the funeral and she still doesnt!

[Denny Crane]

I have finally found your question! lol.. If you are talking about the media reporting things in a way to influence public opinion against Luke... Well, please look at the Frontline Scotland documentary at the link I provided this evening. You will see in that a number of unsavoury front page headlines etc., in relation to the case.

 

There are back copies of articles available on the internet.. I am loath to post any, since it seems that many people on this forum are unable to distinguish between lies made up by the tabloid press and the truth. They will print a lot of lies in order to sell papers, and I don't want to put the stuff back out there, since it should never have been allowed in the first place

 

Given that you're the one who raised the media in the first instance (and given that you have made a huge play on evidence on this thread), can you produce examples of articles that clearly misrepresented both the Jones and Mitchell families. Saying that you are "loath to post any" is a cop-out. Also what lies did they print in relation to this case?

[Denny Crane]

Corinne show's very little respect for Jody and her family and she proved that the day of the funeral and she still doesnt!

 

Sadly Jodi seems to have been forgotten by the likes of Corinne and the rest of the conspiracy theorists. From "The Scotsman" in January, 2005.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

TO her mum she was "Toad". The affectionate nickname, which Judy Jones coined to rhyme with "Jode", was a sign of the close bond between mother and daughter.

 

Hardworking and cheerful, Jodi Jones had to grow up fast in a family hit by tragedy.

 

Her father Jimmy took his own life six years ago after suffering a bout of depression, her brother Joseph suffered ill-health.

 

In many ways a normal teenager, she swapped clothes with her sister, listened to "grunge" music and dyed her hair. But part of the sensible, strong-minded teenager desperately wanted to be different.

 

Before she met her killer at the age of 14, she started dabbling in drugs, then began skipping school.

 

Like so many young, inexperienced girls, she fell for Luke. In Jodi?s case, it had disastrous consequences.

 

Then 14, Luke was a fellow pupil at St David?s RC High School in Dalkeith. He stood out from the crowd - a rebel and a loner who, despite having few close friends, appeared to have a cool charisma the opposite sex was attracted to. He smoked, had access to a ready supply of drugs and appeared to have no fear of authority.

 

Jodi smoked cannabis with Luke and friends during school lunchtimes, and they spent most of their time together. She confided in her older sister Janine, 19, that she had lost her virginity to Luke. In her diary she wrote: "I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly. God, I think I?d die if he finished with me. When I?m not with him I want to be.

 

"No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous. I?ll have to be careful - I?ve had my trust broken too many times."

 

But the diary also hints at a darker side to the friendly, cheerful girl described by family and friends.

 

One entry reads: "Take the knife. All your pain can be taken by one slit, slit to your wrists. Be free, be happy, just like me."

 

A popular but quiet girl, Jodi was seen as the mature one of the friends in her group, a youngster who other teenagers? parents regarded as having an old head on her shoulders.

 

The third-year pupil was a bright girl, a grade-A student who worked hard and had been due to sit eight Standard Grades.

 

Friends say that before her death she had begun to experiment with clothes and started dyeing her hair different colours, like red and purple, as she developed an alternative style.

 

She favoured the "Goth" look popular with teenagers who like the music Jodi did - bands like Nirvana, Metallica, Korn and Queens of the Stone Age.

 

But despite her popular look, Jodi thought of everyone, including herself, as an individual and those closest to her say labelling her as a "grunger" was the last thing she would have wanted.

 

At her funeral, mourners were asked to plant sunflowers, Jodi?s favourite flower.

 

For many people the sunflower - which blooms only once before withering and dying - has come to symbolise how the teenager?s life was so cruelly cut short.

 

The words to the Nirvana song, which are engraved on Jodi?s headstone, seem to sum up her attitude to life: "Come as you are, come as you were, As I?d want you to be, As a friend, as a friend."

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/the-much-loved-daughter-who-so-desperately-wanted-to-stand-out-in-the-crowd-1-959407

[AllanM]

Given that you're the one who raised the media in the first instance (and given that you have made a huge play on evidence on this thread), can you produce examples of articles that clearly misrepresented both the Jones and Mitchell families. Saying that you are "loath to post any" is a cop-out. Also what lies did they print in relation to this case?

 

I am not reposting that garbage. I have explained that if you look in the Frontline Scotland documentary, you will see headlines, and you may surf for articles yourself.

 

I like the article you posted.

 

It is not disrespecting or forgetting Jodi to wish to see justice done. I am convinced that Luke Mitchell is innocent. The fact that he and his mother have both passed lie detectors with regard to the alibi is not surprising. I believe that Jodi's killer got away with it, and Luke Mitchell has been convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

[AllanM]

We dont know what went on in the courts but a jury found him guilty,im sure I read the judge said he was cold and evil (I think cant be bothered checking)

 

 

Yes, that's why you still think he is guilty - because you cannot be bothered checking anything.

[Denny Crane]

I am not reposting that garbage. I have explained that if you look in the Frontline Scotland documentary, you will see headlines, and you may surf for articles yourself.

 

Excuse me. You were the one who made that sweeping statement so it's up to you to back it up. Stop hiding behind a lousy cop-out and back your statement up with hard evidence. Please produce these articles. If you are asking me to do your research for you, then the only conclusion one can draw is that you haven't done any of your own. Examples please or retract your earlier statement.

[ellie0028]

Yes, that's why you still think he is guilty - because you cannot be bothered checking anything.

 

 

Excuse me your wrong there but it doesnt matter what we read and post to you it will still be wrong!

 

And even after what ive read I still think it he is guilty!

 

You want to jump to the band wagon and fight to free him that up to you,doesnt me or rest of Scotland has too...we all have our views!

[AllanM]

Were they lost, or did the lawyer have them all along?

 

I'd like to know if the Lawyer had the 'missing' knife all along has it now been handed in as evidence, surely this would constitute knew evidence for an appeal? Add in the DNA stuff and the altering of statements given and I'm pretty sure LM would get off, so why is he still in Jail?

 

If you Google Luke Mitchell DNA the only News Item you get is from the Guardian and I would have thought more News Papers would have picked it up.

 

 

 

I'm more confused than ever, but it is not quite as clear cut as some posters on here have made it out to be. I'd like to see it challenged in court at an appeal to see if he is guilty or not.

 

Well, in answer to this..

 

The missing knife is a bit of a red herring.. I didn't want to go into it before, because it is so complicated.. I read an interview with Dobbie where he referred to the "missing knife". He explained that he'd found the pouch (bought after the murder and I pictured it here - that knife was with the lawyer, but having been bought after the murder it was irrelevant anyway). So, Dobbie said, that got them to thinking that maybe it had been bought to replace another knife.. So, the "missing knife" was only ever a fabrication of the the police. The article was called "Clues that snared a murderer":

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-1-959390

 

 

 

So it could well be that the DNA evidence is actually inconclusive and LM may just have got lucky/unlucky depending how you view it.

 

Also missing is a match for the semen found on her body? It doesn't say they have a profile of who's that was??

 

The forensics really need to be retested, because too many of the samples came back inconclusive. However, that won't happen unless Luke gets a retrial. There was a full DNA profile in blood and semen on her clothing and underwear, and partial DNA from semen and sperm, etc. I posted a link earlier where the DNA etc. was discussed on the Wrongly Accused Person forum. Sandra Lean has access to all the forensic reports, the court transcripts and witness statements.

 

In terms of appeals, they are based on fresh evidence, so even though there were mistakes, that is not grounds for an appeal.

[AllanM]

Excuse me your wrong there but it doesnt matter what we read and post to you it will still be wrong!

 

And even after what ive read I still think it he is guilty!

 

You want to jump to the band wagon and fight to free him that up to you,doesnt me or rest of Scotland has too...we all have our views!

 

If you have indeed read more, then you wouldn't have posted that link to an article which gave a wrong impression about a forensic report. You'd have posted the more complete report which the professor gave on the Frontline documentary I posted. I posted a link to Luke's caseblog early in this thread and explained that there were links to statements and a few documentaries on the subject. One of those documentataries is the Frontline Scotland documentary, which devotes two sizable sections to the theories and opinions of the forensic scientist who examined Jodi.

[ellie0028]

Gosh Danny some of that is hard to read-

 

'Then 14, Luke was a fellow pupil at St David?s RC High School in Dalkeith. He stood out from the crowd - a rebel and a loner who, despite having few close friends, appeared to have a cool charisma the opposite sex was attracted to. He smoked, had access to a ready supply of drugs and appeared to have no fear of authority.

 

Jodi smoked cannabis with Luke and friends during school lunchtimes, and they spent most of their time together. She confided in her older sister Janine, 19, that she had lost her virginity to Luke. In her diary she wrote: "I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly. God, I think I?d die if he finished with me. When I?m not with him I want to be.

 

"No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous. I?ll have to be careful - I?ve had my trust broken too many times."

 

 

If only Jodie knew how true that last line was!

 

So they were having sex eh,tell you what is even odder,a mother sharing a bed with her son that is sexual active!

 

But of course Denny,we will be told its all made up stuff in the press and I still find it odd we never hear Luke's father or brother shouting the odds in the press!

 

Funny also everything in the press is lies, yet the LM supporters are quick to go to the press with their idea's...pot kettle black!

And if it is all lie why hasnt Corinne sued?

[ellie0028]

oh hark you Allan,sorry yet again your right and im wrong!

 

 

Still im not gonna lose any sleep!

[Denny Crane]

Gosh Danny some of that is hard to read-

 

'Then 14, Luke was a fellow pupil at St David?s RC High School in Dalkeith. He stood out from the crowd - a rebel and a loner who, despite having few close friends, appeared to have a cool charisma the opposite sex was attracted to. He smoked, had access to a ready supply of drugs and appeared to have no fear of authority.

 

Jodi smoked cannabis with Luke and friends during school lunchtimes, and they spent most of their time together. She confided in her older sister Janine, 19, that she had lost her virginity to Luke. In her diary she wrote: "I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly. God, I think I?d die if he finished with me. When I?m not with him I want to be.

 

"No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous. I?ll have to be careful - I?ve had my trust broken too many times."

 

 

If only Jodie knew how true that last line was!

 

So they were having sex eh,tell you what is even odder,a mother sharing a bed with her son that is sexual active!

 

But of course Denny,we will be told its all made up stuff in the press and I still find it odd we never hear Luke's father or brother shouting the odds in the press!

 

Funny also everything in the press is lies, yet the LM supporters are quick to go to the press with their idea's...pot kettle black!

And if it is all lie why hasnt Corinne sued?

 

Sadly conspiracy theorists need to prolong a hobby however macabre it might be.

[AllanM]

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.

 

I don't know why they were allowed.

[AllanM]

Were they lost, or did the lawyer have them all along?

 

I'd like to know if the Lawyer had the 'missing' knife all along has it now been handed in as evidence, surely this would constitute knew evidence for an appeal? Add in the DNA stuff and the altering of statements given and I'm pretty sure LM would get off, so why is he still in Jail?

 

If you Google Luke Mitchell DNA the only News Item you get is from the Guardian and I would have thought more News Papers would have picked it up.

 

One intersting bit from the piece is

 

So it could well be that the DNA evidence is actually inconclusive and LM may just have got lucky/unlucky depending how you view it.

 

Also missing is a match for the semen found on her body? It doesn't say they have a profile of who's that was??

 

I'm more confused than ever, but it is not quite as clear cut as some posters on here have made it out to be. I'd like to see it challenged in court at an appeal to see if he is guilty or not.

 

That Guardian article is good.

 

 

The Scottish Legal Aid Board said they were approached for funding by the original defence team but the matter was "not concluded".

 

The reports confirm that no DNA evidence was found to link Mitchell with the crime scene. They also reveal that there were 122 items taken from the murder scene from which attempts to obtain DNA profiles proved unsuccessful, including a number of hairs and saliva on Jodi's body and clothing.Lean said she believed the real killer was still at large. "He's out there right now and some other daughter could be at risk."

 

The funding application was for retesting the forensics. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread about D Findlay not retesting the forensics. The police forensic tests seem to have ruled out Luke, but they only got one full DNA profile of someone else, and other partial profiles, even from full sperm heads. If a retrial is ordered, then hopefully the forensic material will have to be released for retesting, hopefully with more conclusive results.

[AllanM]

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

 

 

This description here is not as detailed as in her written police statement - the two people described could have been just about any two people - however, Jodi wasn't wearing a navy blue hoodie and lighter trousers, and Luke wasn't wearing a hip length jacket. I believe that the woman was shown Luke's jacket at one point, and she didn't think it was the same.

 

Thanks for posting this.

[AllanM]

"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?

 

It's a shame that his lawyer didn't want him on the stand, so he could explain things like that. I don't think too much can be read into it. He probably just wanted to commemorate her in some way, and looking around, he saw the sheath, and used that. It was Jodi's favourite Nirvana quote. The irony of it being a knife sheath probably didn't occur to him. It was bought for camping, and he probably didn't even make the connection between that particular knife and the fact that Jodi had been killed with a knife. That's what I think, but he might have been thinking something quite different. Without asking him, it's not possible to know.

[AllanM]

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.

 

Thanks for all your posts. You have a good memory for detail, and I have found them very informative. I posted a link to the image of the pouch.

 

After all he'd been through, I wouldn't be surprised if he had been so traumatised that he was scared to leave the room to go to the loo.

[AllanM]

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.

 

I have never heard of this type of thing before. Have you heard of this type of thing happening to anyone else?

 

Luke was very badly bullied by the police during the interrogation, while they tried to force him to admit to the crime for hours. A short section of the haranguing is quoted in the appeal papers on the Scottish Courts site. It is outrageous. I don't think they were trying to get him to implicate anyone else. There were two people seen at the wall at the purported time of Jodi's death, one of whom was a drug dealer, so if the police had wanted to convict him, they'd probably have managed it easily. They wouldn't have needed to involve Luke at all.

 

I have never had an impression that Luke or Corinne knew anything about the crime at all. They both gave statements saying that Luke was home cooking the tea at the time Jodi was killed, and Corrine has passed a lie detector about the alibi. People think that the brother's evidence went against the alibi, but in fact, he only said he couldn't remember if Luke was there or not.

[AllanM]

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

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

 

Yes

 

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

 

It is not a huge difference. Dalkeith and Edinburgh are in Midlothian.

 

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?

 

If you are looking for the local crimes, I'd suggest the Midlothian Advertiser.

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

 

Not if they had not been caught. And if they had been caught, it might have been matched up with Jodi's murder, but her murder case is closed.

 

[AllanM]

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.

 

I think the poster who used the word "clean" has explained that he meant clean of Luke's DNA or footprints. Someone else posted a link about the great number of samples that were taken, and I myself have posted two different links to areas of the WAP forum where the forensics were discussed and explained. It is not permitted to photocopy original documents, but there is quite a lot of detail on the WAP. There were also casts of over a dozen footprints taken around the scene.

 

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.

 

My argument may seem to have devolved as I revealed more information, but my argument has been the same since I started to write here in this forum. As for me thinking you have all been "duped", I am sorry if I have given the impression that everyone on this forum has been "duped". Obviously, there are people on this forum who can think for themselves.. However, in spite of me asking for proper reasons for people being so convinced that Luke Mitchell committed this crime, a great number of people seem to be parroting the same tired "circumstantial evidence", which, as I have already stated, does not wash with me. I find it very hard not to feel patronising, at best, towards anyone who has read everything I have written, and followed up on at least some of the links I cited, who has the gall to continue to spout the same pathetic drivel which was used against Luke Mitchell in the absence of proper evidence of his involvement in this crime.

[AllanM]

I will try to come back Friday to answer some of the other posts, however, I might not manage back till Saturday. I am sorry I cannot cover more of the issues, especially some excellent posts, but I shall endeavour to reply to as many as possible.

[southside1874]

I have never heard of this type of thing before. Have you heard of this type of thing happening to anyone else?

 

Luke was very badly bullied by the police during the interrogation, while they tried to force him to admit to the crime for hours. A short section of the haranguing is quoted in the appeal papers on the Scottish Courts site. It is outrageous. I don't think they were trying to get him to implicate anyone else. There were two people seen at the wall at the purported time of Jodi's death, one of whom was a drug dealer, so if the police had wanted to convict him, they'd probably have managed it easily. They wouldn't have needed to involve Luke at all.

 

I have never had an impression that Luke or Corinne knew anything about the crime at all. They both gave statements saying that Luke was home cooking the tea at the time Jodi was killed, and Corrine has passed a lie detector about the alibi. People think that the brother's evidence went against the alibi, but in fact, he only said he couldn't remember if Luke was there or not.

 

I don't get the fact that they seen folk at the scene of the crime but have done nothing about it and I don't get how someone who should have been meeting his girlfriend is all of a sudden cooking the dinner. Maybe I'm different but what you are having for dinner and who is cooking is something discussed in any household well before the cooking takes place. You just don't turn up at your house and say that "my bird never turned up to see me so therefore I'm cooking the tea" Especially at that age. He then doesn't bother going to his brothers room and asking if he wants what he is cooking?? Okay, assuming he is a different character from the norm and is cooking for himself. How does his brother not smell the food cooking?

 

On the other hand, they say she had other traces of matter on her body. This isn't investigated properly because the police think they have enough evidence to convict Luke. You have to appreciate that the law doesn't have an endless stream of cash to investigate all avenues without due cause.

The guy has been convicted and has lost the "innocent until guilty" that makes Scots law so special. In this era when Rangers appear to or try to get away with a crime with our very own eyes looking on in disbelief, do you think Luke will appeal to the law?

 

Easthouse/Dalkeith are quite small town and everyone knows what goes on. No one seems to want to say though and Luke taking the flak seems to suit.

This is a local murder carried out by local people and not some random traveler or lorry driver. If the local people want to convict Jesus, then that's the will of the local folk.

[I.J]

Genuinely can't believe this thread is still going.

 

The **** did it, alright.

 

**** me.

[AllanM]

I don't get the fact that they seen folk at the scene of the crime but have done nothing about it

 

Only the police know why they targeted Luke that first night. For some reason, they mistakenly thought that Luke had been at Jodi's that afternoon. They wrote in their notebooks that Mrs. Jones had said that her daughter had been there earlier with her boyfriend.. That was a mistake, but that's probably what started it all off. Because they thought that Luke had been with Jodi, they thought he was lying when he said he hadn't been. When the other people at the scene of the murder refused to say what they were doing there, the police might have thought they just didn't want to "grass", so the police didn't press them more to find out what they were doing there. Then the "eye witness" described two people who could have been just about anyone, but the guy was medium height in his early 20s, so he wasn't Luke, who was only 5'4" and 14 at the time, but in spite of that, the police accepted that as a sighting of Luke. They dismissed all the potential leads too early, and didn't investigate them till too late, or not at all. In all honesty, we do hear of the police just fitting up the nearest person to get cases solved quickly. I think that does happen. I don't know if that's what happened in Luke's case, but certainly, it is very strange that the police ignored all the forensic evidence.

 

and I don't get how someone who should have been meeting his girlfriend is all of a sudden cooking the dinner. Maybe I'm different but what you are having for dinner and who is cooking is something discussed in any household well before the cooking takes place. You just don't turn up at your house and say that "my bird never turned up to see me so therefore I'm cooking the tea" Especially at that age. He then doesn't bother going to his brothers room and asking if he wants what he is cooking?? Okay, assuming he is a different character from the norm and is cooking for himself. How does his brother not smell the food cooking?

 

Jodi went home from school and after spending some time with her mum, she texted Luke to arrange to see him. He texted back to say he was making the tea and would meet her after that. He peeled potatoes, etc. got them on and then his mum arrived home and they finished the dinner together. Meanwhile, Jodi changed, got something to eat, then left the house. Luke's brother couldn't remember the details of that day, and couldn't remember whether Luke was there or not.

 

 

On the other hand, they say she had other traces of matter on her body. This isn't investigated properly because the police think they have enough evidence to convict Luke. You have to appreciate that the law doesn't have an endless stream of cash to investigate all avenues without due cause.

The guy has been convicted and has lost the "innocent until guilty" that makes Scots law so special. In this era when Rangers appear to or try to get away with a crime with our very own eyes looking on in disbelief, do you think Luke will appeal to the law?

 

 

I think the plans are that Luke will appeal through the SCCRC, hoping for a retrial, and that is what all his supporters want - they want the forensic evidence and other stuff to be properly investigated, etc.

 

Easthouse/Dalkeith are quite small town and everyone knows what goes on. No one seems to want to say though and Luke taking the flak seems to suit.

This is a local murder carried out by local people and not some random traveler or lorry driver. If the local people want to convict Jesus, then that's the will of the local folk.

 

Well, I have read theories that some people know who did it and are covering it up, but it alarms me that they'd let a boy of that age take the rap for that crime, if they know who did carry it out. I don't get involved in that speculation though. I have no opinion about who did it.

[Guest]

You got your cup final ticket yet AllanM?

[Guest]

It is not a huge difference. Dalkeith and Edinburgh are in Midlothian.

 

 

 

If you are looking for the local crimes, I'd suggest the Midlothian Advertiser.

 

 

Not if they had not been caught. And if they had been caught, it might have been matched up with Jodi's murder, but her murder case is closed.

 

 

 

 

• Edinburgh is a wee bit bigger than Dalkeith
• Midlothian Advertiser = well known for its hard hitting reports on local crimes, as well as stories about cats stuck up trees and auntie bettys scones
• How come the woodland ###### was identified years later by his DNA then

[1874robbo]

I remember watching a documentary on this a good while back now, they had some guy on it who went to college up newbattle way, he had a room mate who he said had acted really weird that day and the guy felt he had done the crime.

He approached the police and told them but he said the police never even questioned his room mate, the guy was very upset and crying on the programme.

Did anyone else see this particular programme.

[desmondo]

It would help some if Al and his Alter Ego Con concise there replys,to much repetition in there elongated posts and thats become boring

 

And the above two mentioned(well one) are nothing sort of obsessional and that alones a worry

[Sten Guns]

AllanM, gonnae stop pretending Luke was peeling tatties.

 

A witness saw him with Jodi at 4.55.

 

Wearing a jacket he was known to often wear and was miraculously never seen again post murder....... Oh, mind that burning smell.

 

FFS man, the ***** did it.

[stawberry2]

Yeah this thread most likely will close soon,we are all starting to go round in circles here..Im bored with it all now,he is behind bars and I care very little for him or his mother...

 

Here my views and most likely be the last I say

 

I have believe from day one he was guilty!

 

Did the police make a balls up,aye!

 

We dont know what went on in the courts but a jury found him guilty,im sure I read the judge said he was cold and evil (I think cant be bothered checking)

 

I dont believe the real killer is still out there!

 

Corinne show's very little respect for Jody and her family and she proved that the day of the funeral and she still doesnt!

 

Well said, couldn`t have put it better myself x

[Johanes de Silentio]

I remember watching a documentary on this a good while back now, they had some guy on it who went to college up newbattle way, he had a room mate who he said had acted really weird that day and the guy felt he had done the crime.

He approached the police and told them but he said the police never even questioned his room mate, the guy was very upset and crying on the programme.

Did anyone else see this particular programme.

 

Yup - Frontline Scotland, I think it was.

 

In a curious twist, the guy from the programme went on to graduate in Law, and was employed by Luke Mitchell's legal team - the firm that employed him have now dropped him a year into his legal training.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Worst thread ever, and that is saying something.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Worst thread ever, and that is saying something.

 

Away back to your tedious economics threads, then.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Away back to your tedious economics threads, then.

 

 

 

A little more relevant to the world than a no-mark who was tried by his peers and found guilty and who has never had grounds for appeal.

[Johanes de Silentio]

A little more relevant to the world than a no-mark who was tried by his peers and found guilty and who has never had grounds for appeal.

 

It's all about opinions, Geoff - I happen to think that morals/ethics and justice are more important than just about anything else economics.

 

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are problems with the evidence used to convict Luke Mitchell.

 

Now, if you don't care for the topic, dinnae bother wi' it - there's a good lad.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It's all about opinions, Geoff - I happen to think that morals/ethics and justice are more important than just about anything else economics.

 

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are problems with the evidence used to convict Luke Mitchell.

 

Now, if you don't care for the topic, dinnae bother wi' it - there's a good lad.

 

 

True, I don't really care but I was intrigued to see what had driven it to 17 pages in case someone had made a James of themselves!

 

Turns out "someone" was plural!

 

If there are problems with the evidence then his lawyers will have a basis for appeal. End of story. Not aware of one yet though.

[Johanes de Silentio]

True, I don't really care but I was intrigued to see what had driven it to 17 pages in case someone had made a James of themselves!

 

Turns out "someone" was plural!

 

If there are problems with the evidence then his lawyers will have a basis for appeal. End of story. Not aware of one yet though.

 

Aye, we've had a few car crashes, to be fair!

 

They keep coming up with new grounds for appeal - so far without success.

[ConsiderThis]

When I first came to this thread I thought it best to start at the beginning and answer any questions that I thought may be of help, and give my opinions like everyone else.

 

I came on today and decided to read through all the thread, to see what sort of queries people had and also what opinions people had who had continued to comment on the thread, with there being 17 pages. My heads bursting and it has taken me hours to read.

 

The easiest way for me to reply to any questions is to go back to where I left off. If anyone can suggest another way which would be easier for other readers, I'm all ears, as it is very confusing and time consuming for me as well as everyone else.

 

I am not on this thread to convince people that Luke Mitchell is innocent. Neither am I posting false information and blatant lies, unlike some members of this forum, which I hope to address, when I get back round to their posts. As said, I would hope that people who know nothing of the case would keep an open mind, regardless if their view is innocence or guilt, until they have read more from both sides of the fence.

 

I am also not AlanM, and have no idea who it is. If there is anyway that the admin of this site could prove we are not one of the same people I would be grateful. Unfortunately I have no way of proving the allegation myself.

 

I am also not related to, any of the Mitchell family, or Sandra Lean and her family for that matter, and no I cant prove that either, but my understanding is that since the official caseblog was set up on the WAP website, that Lukes mother and Sandra Lean only post on that forum.

 

Why would members ask that this thread be shut down?

 

It just so happens this thread is about Luke Mitchell due to him being found guilty of JJ's murder. People have different opinions about this case, is it not possible to have a reasonable debate? If people are convinced the right person is behind bars, they should be delighted, but why deliberately makes posts to cause offence and distruption of the thread?

 

I need to log off soon, but will try and answer a few posts before I go.

[ConsiderThis]

Ok, so a jury found him guilty after seeing the evidence.Good enough for me, how many appeals do we waste time and money on?

If i remember corectly they tried to get his sentence reduced because he was a child at the time of the crime, which to me is almost an admission of guilt. You would try overturn the verdict rather than reduce the sentence if you were innocent no?

 

Yes they found him guilty after seeing the evidence presented to them at the trial. They didn't see or hear all the evidence and I believe that if they had we wouldnt be discussing this today. Yes there was an appeal against sentence, but in all fairness, if this guy or any other moj protesting their innocence, (and they are indeed innocent), why not appeal against sentence if you get the chance?. The opportunities to prove your innocence are few and far between, and I dont see an appeal against sentence as an admisssion of guilt at all. In fact all the individuals that I know who eventually had their convictions overturned and were proven factually innocent, had all appealed against there sentence.

 

To my knowledge the ones I know of, they tried to appeal what they possible could in their case to prove innocence, but admitting guilt was something they would never do, even though it meant they would spend much longer in prison, risking never being released at all, as they would not be eligible for parole.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Why would members ask that this thread be shut down?

 

I really don't know - bar one or two minor bun fights, it's been reasonable, imo.

[desmondo]

AlCon should keep there/his/her replies short, lost the will to live reading some and accept that others on here see a guilty verdict as the right one

 

The verdict or posters opinion on Luke wont be changed on a football forum either

[ConsiderThis]

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

Interesting eh?

There is no missing knife belonging to LM, the knives were accounted for. However the murder weapon was never found. You will say the murder weapon belonged to LM, I will say it belonged to someone else.

 

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Plenty of kids have knives, doesnt mean they go around using them on other people. Funnily enough there were several people relating to this case who also "liked knives", and were known to have used them on other people before and after the murder of JJ. Not saying that they murdered JJ, but thought I should point this out to you, since you mentioned it.

 

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

The witness claimed to have smelled smoke about 7 ish and then again at 10 ish, which might have, (not positive) been the evening of the murder. He wasnt sure what garden the smell was coming from, as all the gardens back onto each other. Corinne denied burning anything that evening, and there was no evidence that she did. Why did the jury not get to hear from all the other neighbours?

 

There is LOADS about this case you don't know. There will be a barrow full of information that lead to his conviction that isn't in the public domain.

 

Right, so the LOADS about the case, AND the barrow full of information that lead to his conviction that isn't in the public domain, WHY did they not present all the load and barrow full of evidence in court at the trial? All the prosecution had was ridiculous circumstantial evidence which wasnt even corroborated, so why not wheel in the barrow full instead of information, and nail this conviction, so we could all rest easy that they had got the killer of JJ?

 

Regardless of how happy you are with the evidence presented, he did it, well done to the jury.

 

So close to getting away with it too. Worrying.

 

I am not happy, but I dont think the jury were going to come to any other verdict than guilty tbh. Had they heard other evidence which was witheld, I do believe that there could have been a different verdict, would have been, IMO.

[Johanes de Silentio]

The verdict or posters opinion on Luke wont be changed on a football forum either

 

Should we just not discuss anything, then? We're not likely to influence team selections either, are we? Or transfers?

[ConsiderThis]

What disturbs me about this case is that a 14 year old boy was able to leave a clean scene despite perpetrating a vicious and bloody attack. The prosecution, apparently, claimed that Mitchell took a keen interest in a murder case from the 40s which I guessed was a ploy to imply he had some knowledge alongside his knowledge of knives.

 

Hi jambogaza, the crime scene was far from clean. Items of clothing and underwear was found strewn near the victim, which had blood, saliva, hairs, semen, on the items and also on the trainers. The body of JJ also had numerous hairs, semen, spermheads on her body. There was also blood on the wall, and on a branch of wood, it was anything but clean, but yet no scratches, brusing, signs of a struggle on LM, no link whatsoever of LM on JJ or vice versa, no trace of him being at the scene but yet there was ten sets of footprints, 3 casts taken, none of the prints matching LM footwear. So who do the hairs belong to, and the saliva and sperm because they were tested for LM, and they didnt belong to him?

[Tommy Wiseau]

It would be helpful if you backed up some of these assertions, CT, as without the source evidence people will rightly be sceptical that the open and shut case you are painting resulted in a conviction for LM.

[ConsiderThis]

It would be helpful if you backed up some of these assertions, CT, as without the source evidence people will rightly be sceptical that the open and shut case you are painting resulted in a conviction for LM.

 

Hi TW, what I find odd is that the majority of people on this thread who have been reading the Daily Record and Sun for years about this case, have never questioned the newspapers source/s, its credibilty, but yet when I post information that can be backed up in a court of law, I have so far, been asked if I believe in God, been lied to, been accused of being someone else, and having my posts and the details in them, questioned. I have no reason to lie. I will try and provide links when I can, will post honestly and be as accurate as I can.

 

I only came on here this morning because I've got toothache, and having a day doing nothing and I've been here for hours lol No housework done, no tea made, nothing. Best log off now.

[milky_26]

Hi TW, what I find odd is that the majority of people on this thread who have been reading the Daily Record and Sun for years about this case, have never questioned the newspapers source/s, its credibilty, but yet when I post information that can be backed up in a court of law, I have so far, been asked if I believe in God, been lied to, been accused of being someone else, and having my posts and the details in them, questioned. I have no reason to lie. I will try and provide links when I can, will post honestly and be as accurate as I can.

 

I only came on here this morning because I've got toothache, and having a day doing nothing and I've been here for hours lol No housework done, no tea made, nothing. Best log off now.

i believe most people on here dont read either of these awful rags

[ellie0028]

I know I dont read any of those rags either!

 

fact the only paper I sometimes read is the Evening News at my parents house and that to see to qoute my stepdad 'who has stopped smoking'