Luke Mitchell

[BoJack Horseman]

What's wrong with that?

 

That there's a group of ill informed people castigating another group of ill informed people on a subject that neither really knows anything about.

[Johanes de Silentio]

That there's a group of ill informed people castigating another group of ill informed people on a subject that neither really knows anything about.

 

So, we're only allowed to discuss stuff that we have first-hand knowledge of?

 

One Kickbacker posted that his father was on the jury, and hasn't posted since - probably for the best.

 

I have first-hand knowledge of Dalkieth, as I live there - there haven't been that many murders.

[ConsiderThis]

The used condom, that of James Falconer, was in the vicinity because he pumped some slag. (on a totally different date to the murder).

 

This was been confirmed with the Police by both him and the lassie who took the boaby.

 

OMFG, have some respect ffs. Can you please remember there was a young girl brutally murdered.

 

As for your post, I don't know where your getting your information from but it is absolute nonsense. If it was JAF that told you, he is a lying git. If a girl told you, she obviously doesnt know what he said in his statement to the police when he was arrested for another unrelated crime 3 years later, and his dna was matched to the used condom, found near the crime scene. When the condom was found at the time, (day after murder)it was said to be leaking fresh semen. If JAF had been with any girl why didnt he just say so, rather than give a whole lot of detail about sharing a room with his younger brother and needing privacy, and regularly using the woods to masterbate. Why did he admit in his statement to being in the wooded area twice that day, the day of the murder?. Why not just say he was with some girl? At no time did JAF say in a statement to the police that he was with a girl having sex in the woods. I wish he had, as his story about masterbating whilst wearing a condom, has never made sense to me.

[Tommy Wiseau]

So, we're only allowed to discuss stuff that we have first-hand knowledge of?

 

One Kickbacker posted that his father was on the jury, and hasn't posted since - probably for the best.

 

I have first-hand knowledge of Dalkieth, as I live there - there haven't been that many murders.

 

 

I've very much stayed out of this thread because there is some amount of shite being spouted from both sides of the argument, but you're being deliberately obtuse here, PA. You know exactly the kinds of posts he's talking about.

[Guest]

OMFG, have some respect ffs. Can you please remember there was a young girl brutally murdered.

 

As for your post, I don't know where your getting your information from but it is absolute nonsense. If it was JAF that told you, he is a lying git. If a girl told you, she obviously doesnt know what he said in his statement to the police when he was arrested for another unrelated crime 3 years later, and his dna was matched to the used condom, found near the crime scene. When the condom was found at the time, (day after murder)it was said to be leaking fresh semen. If JAF had been with any girl why didnt he just say so, rather than give a whole lot of detail about sharing a room with his younger brother and needing privacy, and regularly using the woods to masterbate. Why did he admit in his statement to being in the wooded area twice that day, the day of the murder?. Why not just say he was with some girl? At no time did JAF say in a statement to the police that he was with a girl having sex in the woods. I wish he had, as his story about masterbating whilst wearing a condom, has never made sense to me.

 

If he was with a girl, then would her dna not have be on the flunkie as well?

[BoJack Horseman]

So, we're only allowed to discuss stuff that we have first-hand knowledge of?

 

One Kickbacker posted that his father was on the jury, and hasn't posted since - probably for the best.

 

I have first-hand knowledge of Dalkieth, as I live there - there haven't been that many murders.

 

I never once said that. Debate on the subject is fine, I see no problem with that. Either side categorically telling the other that they are wrong based on nothing more than speculation is what I see the problem with. If the Luke Mitchell case was as cut and dry as some are making out on here then there would be absolutely no room for debate as either side would just present the evidence for their argument.

 

 

I've very much stayed out of this thread because there is some amount of shite being spouted from both sides of the argument, but you're being deliberately obtuse here, PA. You know exactly the kinds of posts he's talking about.

 

Cheers Tommy.

[ConsiderThis]

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

My mother used to wash mine strange but true.

 

31 statements from neighbours regarding smells of smoke, no smell of smoke, on that evening, or any other evening etc One of the statements said they smelled smoke coming from a garden, didnt know which garden as the gardens all back into one another, wasnt 100% sure of the time and exact day, but that was enough for the prosecution and his statement was used, to give weight that CM was burning something in her garden. Why did the jury not get to hear any of the other 30 witness statements which would refute this?

 

As for washing clothes. Luke Mitchells clothes were taken from him immediately after the body was found when he was taken to the police station. SK's JAJ's, AW's were washed the following day, and only on request by the police days later did items of clothing belonging to them get handed in to the police, freshly laundered. This was a major failing by the police as potential evidence could have been gained by examing the clothes and footwear, worn by those that were with Luke when the body was found.

[Johanes de Silentio]

you're being deliberately obtuse here, PA. You know exactly the kinds of posts he's talking about.

 

I'm not, Tom - I don't, Tom.

[Johanes de Silentio]

If the Luke Mitchell case was as cut and dry as some are making out on here then there would be absolutely no room for debate as either side would just present the evidence for their argument.

 

It's anything but cut and dry.

[BoJack Horseman]

It's anything but cut and dry.

 

Well, that's my point?

[ConsiderThis]

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

 

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

 

Hi Ribble, I would agree that he was found guilty by the media first and jury second.

 

It was such a brutal attack, but an attack where it has been described as frenzied, the murderer also spent time with his victim, up close.

 

There was no evidence of Luke Mitchell near the body, on the body, on the clothes etc etc.

 

There was no dna from JJ on Luke Mitchell.

[doctor jambo]

The case is far from clear, but if all the things on here are true everyine involved in this is a moron.

Condoms are not often used in rape due to struggles, time to get the damn thing on etc, and if you had the foresight to pre-prepare for a rape and bring a bag, then open it, and fit it all whilst you have a traumatised victim in an uncontrolled public environment shows amazing control on the part of the perpetrator. The kind of control that would mean that he would more than likely lift the used condom and put in in his pocket- not leave pre- packaged DNA for the cops to find. He probablt didn't do it.

Mitchell's brief chould have managed to get him off, and if not for the press intrusion into a "weird kid" would have managed- mis trial

[Peebo]

There are people all over the world that have been wrongfully convicted. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination. Just have a look at Amanda Knox. I'm sure most wannabe detectives on here were convinced of her guilt at the time solely based on what they'd read in the papers. Turns out she's innocent.

 

The thing is...I believe she was guilty, or at the very least, somehow involved in the crime. But I accept her conviction has been quashed.

 

Mitchell's conviction hadn't been quashed despite appeal attempts, and remains guilty in the eyes of the law. People can't have it both ways and suggest that, because one conviction has been overturned, another one must be unsafe.

 

As I said earlier on here, lots of parallels between the two cases, I think...

[Guest]

If I remember correctly the first trial was abandoned and had to be restarted with a different jury. Anyone know why?

[jambogaza]

For me, having read a little bit into the case, the fact the prosecution tried to use some of his social tastes to blacken his character was quite sneaky and desperate. I would hope that this evidence didn't influence the judgement.

[ConsiderThis]

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

 

No, the jury never got to hear about the unidentified dna samples unfortunately.

 

There was 2 full dna matches, one from the sisters boyfriend, which was explained away that Jodi had borrowed the tee-shirt from her sister. However there was no dna or traces of the sister on her own tee-shirt when it was examined. I have never been able to fathom this part out, due to semen/sperm also being on/in the naked body, as far as I am aware this was unable to be formally identified. The other full match wasnt identified till 3 years later, that was the used condom belonging to JAF. There remains 10 unidentified dna samples. All I know is that all samples taken from the crime scene and the victim, her clothes, were tested and there was no link to Luke Mitchell. Other than that I dont really know what went wrong and why there remains 10 unidentified samples.

[desmondo]

No, the jury never got to hear about the unidentified dna samples unfortunately.

 

There was 2 full dna matches, one from the sisters boyfriend, which was explained away that Jodi had borrowed the tee-shirt from her sister. However there was no dna or traces of the sister on her own tee-shirt when it was examined. I have never been able to fathom this part out, due to semen/sperm also being on/in the naked body, as far as I am aware this was unable to be formally identified. The other full match wasnt identified till 3 years later, that was the used condom belonging to JAF. There remains 10 unidentified dna samples. All I know is that all samples taken from the crime scene and the victim, her clothes, were tested and there was no link to Luke Mitchell. Other than that I dont really know what went wrong and why there remains 10 unidentified samples.

 

 

Maybe they aint unidentified and that you are really AlanM

[Johanes de Silentio]

No, the jury never got to hear about the unidentified dna samples unfortunately.

 

There was 2 full dna matches, one from the sisters boyfriend, which was explained away that Jodi had borrowed the tee-shirt from her sister. However there was no dna or traces of the sister on her own tee-shirt when it was examined. I have never been able to fathom this part out, due to semen/sperm also being on/in the naked body, as far as I am aware this was unable to be formally identified. The other full match wasnt identified till 3 years later, that was the used condom belonging to JAF. There remains 10 unidentified dna samples. All I know is that all samples taken from the crime scene and the victim, her clothes, were tested and there was no link to Luke Mitchell. Other than that I dont really know what went wrong and why there remains 10 unidentified samples.

 

That's incredible.

[rossthejambo]

For me, having read a little bit into the case, the fact the prosecution tried to use some of his social tastes to blacken his character was quite sneaky and desperate. I would hope that this evidence didn't influence the judgement.

 

I think it's naive to think that the prosecution wouldn't use his social tastes, particularly if some of it relates to the case, in order to back up what they're trying to prove, particularly if their case involves circumstantial evidence like this one.

[rossthejambo]

No, the jury never got to hear about the unidentified dna samples unfortunately.

 

There was 2 full dna matches, one from the sisters boyfriend, which was explained away that Jodi had borrowed the tee-shirt from her sister. However there was no dna or traces of the sister on her own tee-shirt when it was examined. I have never been able to fathom this part out, due to semen/sperm also being on/in the naked body, as far as I am aware this was unable to be formally identified. The other full match wasnt identified till 3 years later, that was the used condom belonging to JAF. There remains 10 unidentified dna samples. All I know is that all samples taken from the crime scene and the victim, her clothes, were tested and there was no link to Luke Mitchell. Other than that I dont really know what went wrong and why there remains 10 unidentified samples.

 

Is there any real evidence of this? Because earlier on all that was said was about how the scene was clean, and now there were 10 dna samples kicking about the scene that have been unidentified.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Is there any real evidence of this? Because earlier on all that was said was about how the scene was clean, and now there were 10 dna samples kicking about the scene that have been unidentified.

 

DNA samples is one thing - sperm/semen samples, though?

 

None of which are Mitchell's?

[jambogaza]

I think it's naive to think that the prosecution wouldn't use his social tastes, particularly if some of it relates to the case, in order to back up what they're trying to prove, particularly if their case involves circumstantial evidence like this one.

 

It's circumstantial evidence which I hope was shot up in flames by his defence. It's fairly obvious that he had some tastes that weren't considered mainstream but does that make him a murderer? Like I said in previous posts, don't really have comprehensive knowledge of this case but I'd be fairly shocked if the prosecution tried to use his social tastes as a key bit of evidence.

[rossthejambo]

DNA samples is one thing - sperm/semen samples, though?

 

None of which are Mitchell's?

 

Aren't they one and the same thing?

 

And like I said, I'd like some real evidence of this rather than what a few people on the internet have said and is now being passed on as gospel before I start crying foul.

[ConsiderThis]

Yuo - Mitchell's supporters are desperate.

 

Hi PA, Luke's supporters werent aware that a polygraph was being asked of him or his mother. His defence team, I have no idea why, asked Corrine on the Tuesday to do one, she agreed and it was done on the Thursday. Luke had asked to do one but it wasnt until he done it that his supporters read about it in the paper just like everyone else. Again it was his defence team that arranged it, think he had 3 days tops to train himself to beat it. Years ago he had asked to do one and was told no, told it would never happen ever.

 

As the results are not admissable in court, he didnt need to do it. It could have backfired big time publicly. I think the fact that he and his mother jumped at the chance, says a lot. Taking the polygraph wasnt about trying to pull a fast one to get him released, it was about trying to show to the public that they were telling the truth about the things the prosecution claim they did.

[Sten Guns]

OMFG, have some respect ffs. Can you please remember there was a young girl brutally murdered.

 

So why on earth do you want the killer freed!

 

All because you weren't satisfied that the conviction was as damning as you would have wished, and not because you know he is innocent?!

 

Strange.

 

As for your post, I don't know where your getting your information from but it is absolute nonsense. If it was JAF that told you, he is a lying git. If a girl told you, she obviously doesnt know what he said in his statement to the police when he was arrested for another unrelated crime 3 years later, and his dna was matched to the used condom, found near the crime scene. When the condom was found at the time, (day after murder)it was said to be leaking fresh semen. If JAF had been with any girl why didnt he just say so, rather than give a whole lot of detail about sharing a room with his younger brother and needing privacy, and regularly using the woods to masterbate. Why did he admit in his statement to being in the wooded area twice that day, the day of the murder?. Why not just say he was with some girl? At no time did JAF say in a statement to the police that he was with a girl having sex in the woods. I wish he had, as his story about masterbating whilst wearing a condom, has never made sense to me.

 

Why does it matter where James masterbates! He didn't do it! Donald Findlay dropped interest in Falconer because he clearly realised he was clutching at straws! Your sound incredibly desperate to free a killer.

 

ConsiderThis, do you believe in God?

[rossthejambo]

 

ConsiderThis, do you believe in God?

 

Some of your patter on this thread has been incredibly shite but this do you believe in God pish is unreal. It's totally irrelevant and trolling at it's absolute worst.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Aren't they one and the same thing?

 

I think they can be.

 

IF semen was found on Jodi's body, and it wasn't Mitchell's, and it wasn't the boy from Newtongrange who went over to the woods for a ****, then what the actual ****?

[BoJack Horseman]

The thing is...I believe she was guilty, or at the very least, somehow involved in the crime. But I accept her conviction has been quashed.

 

Mitchell's conviction hadn't been quashed despite appeal attempts, and remains guilty in the eyes of the law. People can't have it both ways and suggest that, because one conviction has been overturned, another one must be unsafe.

 

As I said earlier on here, lots of parallels between the two cases, I think...

 

And what's your basis for that? Probably what you've read, taken in and drawn your own conclusions from, which is fine. But if you then tried to spout your own conclusions as actual fact, that's when problems arise and it's what some on here are doing, on both sides of the argument.

 

I wasn't using the Knox example as a case for Luke Mitchell being innocent. I was using it to show that even though a judge and jury has convicted someone, mistakes can be made.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Hi PA, Luke's supporters werent aware that a polygraph was being asked of him or his mother. His defence team, I have no idea why, asked Corrine on the Tuesday to do one, she agreed and it was done on the Thursday. Luke had asked to do one but it wasnt until he done it that his supporters read about it in the paper just like everyone else. Again it was his defence team that arranged it, think he had 3 days tops to train himself to beat it. Years ago he had asked to do one and was told no, told it would never happen ever.

 

As the results are not admissable in court, he didnt need to do it. It could have backfired big time publicly. I think the fact that he and his mother jumped at the chance, says a lot. Taking the polygraph wasnt about trying to pull a fast one to get him released, it was about trying to show to the public that they were telling the truth about the things the prosecution claim they did.

 

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?

[Johanes de Silentio]

ConsiderThis, do you believe in God?

 

ConsiderThis is adding a lot to this thread - it might be better if you were to cut pish like this out.

[BoJack Horseman]

ConsiderThis, do you believe in God?

 

 

Embarrassing.

[Tazio]

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?

[ConsiderThis]

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

 

I may add his mum still has it

 

Desmondo, have you ever seen a picture of the log burner that was supposed to be used to burn clothing, boots etc?

 

If your interested I will try and find one for you. I wouldnt even describe it as a log burner. The so called log burner was taken away and there was no evidence of anything having been burned, ie jackets, boots, items of clothing. Also when Luke was witnessed by people who knew him, near his home, at a time when he was supposed to have just committed murder, he was wearing the same cothes then as he was when he was taken to the police station after the body was found.

 

Need to log off now, but I will try and find the picture later if you want to see it.

[Sten Guns]

ConsiderThis is adding a lot to this thread - it might be better if you were to cut pish like this out.

 

It is relevant to my next point.

 

So you can kindly GTF and leave me be. Stick to replying to posts directed at you.

 

I don't particularly give a toss if you think it's pish. I'll decide.

 

Thank you

[Johanes de Silentio]

It is relevant to my next point.

 

So you can kindly GTF and leave me be. Stick to replying to posts directed at you.

 

I don't particularly give a toss if you think it's pish. I'll decide.

 

Thank you

 

1 - it's not relevant

 

2 - you're being wide

 

3 - we can all decide what we think is pish

 

4 - thanks

[Sten Guns]

 

I have stated on countless occasions that I have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case

 

36 posts. 4th highest.

 

 

 

Embarrassing.

 

Oh the irony

 

[Peebo]

And what's your basis for that? Probably what you've read, taken in and drawn your own conclusions from, which is fine. But if you then tried to spout your own conclusions as actual fact, that's when problems arise and it's what some on here are doing, on both sides of the argument.

 

I wasn't using the Knox example as a case for Luke Mitchell being innocent. I was using it to show that even though a judge and jury has convicted someone, mistakes can be made.

 

Fair dues, but then there are also plenty of examples where the courts get it right...but yes, mistakes happen.

 

My opinions on both cases have been formed from reading a lot about them, and the evidence presented. As i said earlier, neither case is anywhere near being clear cut. Both have very little in the way of forensic support, and really heavily on circumstantial evidence- which is not really all that unusual.

 

For Knox/Sollecito, if (as I expect), the prosecution wins its appeal, they will again be guilty, as far as the law goes...

[BoJack Horseman]

36 posts. 4th highest.

 

 

Oh the irony

 

 

What's the relevance? Many of my posts have been in reply to your drivel. I've not been making a tit of myself Sten, that's you. Zero irony involved.

 

Fair dues, but then there are also plenty of examples where the courts get it right...but yes, mistakes happen.

 

My opinions on both cases have been formed from reading a lot about them, and the evidence presented. As i said earlier, neither case is anywhere near being clear cut. Both have very little in the way of forensic support, and really heavily on circumstantial evidence- which is not really all that unusual.

 

For Knox/Sollecito, if (as I expect), the prosecution wins its appeal, they will again be guilty, as far as the law goes...

 

I'm agreeing with your whole post here, but to the highlighted part, that's my point. DI Guns seems to think because Luke Mitchell is behind bars that this is irrefutable proof of his guilt. I was just pointing out that that's not always the case and pointed to the Amanda Knox as an example.

 

As I've said before, the chances are that Mitchell is very much guilty. I won't claim to know that for a fact though, and neither should anyone else on here.

[jambogaza]

Desmondo, have you ever seen a picture of the log burner that was supposed to be used to burn clothing, boots etc?

 

If your interested I will try and find one for you. I wouldnt even describe it as a log burner. The so called log burner was taken away and there was no evidence of anything having been burned, ie jackets, boots, items of clothing. Also when Luke was witnessed by people who knew him, near his home, at a time when he was supposed to have just committed murder, he was wearing the same cothes then as he was when he was taken to the police station after the body was found.

 

Need to log off now, but I will try and find the picture later if you want to see it.

 

Can I ask, is it true that the Mitchells sacked Donald Findlay? And if so, why?

[Peebo]

What's the relevance? Many of my posts have been in reply to your drivel. I've not been making a tit of myself Sten, that's you. Zero irony involved.

 

 

 

I'm agreeing with your whole post here, but to the highlighted part, that's my point. DI Guns seems to think because Luke Mitchell is behind bars that this is irrefutable proof of his guilt. I was just pointing out that that's not always the case and pointed to the Amanda Knox as an example.

 

As I've said before, the chances are that Mitchell is very much guilty. I won't claim to know that for a fact though, and neither should anyone else on here.

 

My point is that Mitchell's guilt is proved by him being behind bars as much as Knox' innocence is proved by her walking around in Seattle.

[ellie0028]

Surley if you knew who the killer was and your son was in jail for the murder,you be doing everything to name and shame who you think the killer is,not just keep stating the real killer is out there!

 

And the 1 question I would like to ask is Why would you let an interview be filmed and shown on the day of the poor lassies funeral?

 

Very low,in fact for me I made up my mind there and then that Corinne was a very bitter woman right from the start for even allowing it to happen,they had so little respect for JJ and her family.

 

Thing is if Luke serve's his time,he is still going to be young enough to live the rest of his life,something JJ had taking away from here!

 

Aye the police cocked up big time,but clutching a straws looking for glitches to free someone still doesnt make them innocent,but im sure they will keep fighting for this and mark my words if it does happen and he is set free,they will sue for millions..yet you cant put a price on freedom but I bet they can..

 

Lets not forget how much this has cost the tax payers so far,so aye everyone is entitled to their own opinion!

[JKBMod 7]

I don't want to have to start banning individual posters from this thread so stay on topic please.

[Sten Guns]

Right, on topic.

 

I really want to know from ConsiderThis and AllanM why Luke lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murder?

[Sten Guns]

Double post

[jambogaza]

I really want to see the evidence regarding the DNA, where is it? If it is true then surely everyone would be demanding a retrial/appeal as it would appear he was innocent

The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body.

 

The latter individual was identified three years later when he committed a crime and provided a match on the DNA database.

 

Guardian 2009

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/02/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-appeal

[rossthejambo]

The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body.

 

The latter individual was identified three years later when he committed a crime and provided a match on the DNA database.

 

Guardian 2009

 

http://www.guardian....di-jones-appeal

 

Key phrase there, hasn't he had appeals thrown out since 2009?

[ellie0028]

Yip and also in 2011

 

'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]

Mitchell's original defence team had a copy of the reports but never raised them in court because of issues over who would pay for an expert opinion on the documents, according to Sandra Lean, an author studying wrongful convictions, who has been campaigning on Mitchell's behalf. The original defence team refused to discuss the case with the Guardian.

 

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

 

Would the verdict have been different if the money was found to provide and analyse this evidence in court? Surely that's seriously important evidence that should have been discussed in court?

[rossthejambo]

Mitchell's original defence team had a copy of the reports but never raised them in court because of issues over who would pay for an expert opinion on the documents, according to Sandra Lean, an author studying wrongful convictions, who has been campaigning on Mitchell's behalf. The original defence team refused to discuss the case with the Guardian.

 

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

 

Would the verdict have been different if the money was found to provide and analyse this evidence in court? Surely that's seriously important evidence that should have been discussed in court?

 

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.

[The Gasman]

Yip and also in 2011

 

'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'

 

This appeal (2011) wasn't "flung out" they refused to hear it, based on a point of law.

 

Not quite the same thing...