Luke Mitchell

[Vlad-Stupid]

No, he was given a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers based on the circumstantial evidence provided. This is not the same as being proven guilty.

 

Tom, stop trying to get a rise out of this guy, it's pretty pathetic.

 

Still guilty

[Norm]

No, he was given a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers based on the circumstantial evidence provided. This is not the same as being proven guilty.

 

Tom, stop trying to get a rise out of this guy, it's pretty pathetic.

 

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

 

I have a few questions though.

 

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

 

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

[fabienleclerq]

No, he was given a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers based on the circumstantial evidence provided. This is not the same as being proven guilty.

 

Tom, stop trying to get a rise out of this guy, it's pretty pathetic.

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?

[Norm]

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?

 

To be fair, I'd take whatever option was most likely to succeed.

[Johanes de Silentio]

So... Innocent until proven guilty unless we lock you up without proof and then it's guilty until proven innocent?

 

So it seems.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

No, he was given a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers based on the circumstantial evidence provided. This is not the same as being proven guilty.

 

Tom, stop trying to get a rise out of this guy, it's pretty pathetic.

 

In that case you could only truly be proven guilty by being caught in the act, I suppose.

 

Open the doors to Saughton please and let all these guys go.

[fabienleclerq]

To be fair, I'd take whatever option was most likely to succeed.

It all seems at bit clutching at straws, he's innocent-he was a child when he did it reduce the sentence-he's innocent.....

[Johanes de Silentio]

If you had read the whole thread, or even the previous page of posts, you'd have a better idea of why that post was moderated. A local person posted the latest local gossip about a person who should have been a suspect in Jodi's murder being linked to a recent attempted murder charge, which involved a stabbing to the throat and chest. Sandra came onto the forum a short time later, and asked that nothing more be said about this, unless it was backed up by reliable sources. Any more posts on that subject will be removed.

 

I did read that, thanks - thus proving that the forum is regularly and closely moderated, which you claimed it wasn't.

[Sten Guns]

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

 

Interesting eh?

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

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.

 

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.

[Norm]

It all seems at bit clutching at straws, he's innocent-he was a child when he did it reduce the sentence-he's innocent.....

 

Wouldn't you clutch at any and every available straw to get out of jail? Guilty or not, you'd do everything you could to get out surely?

[BoJack Horseman]

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

 

I have a few questions though.

 

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

 

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

 

Because in this case there's no hard evidence. In the eyes of the law he is absolutely guilty, that's why he's in jail. We're allowed to be sceptical though and make our own conclusions on things, regardless if it means anything. Personally, the fact that he's not 100% the murderer makes me a bit uneasy. Not because of him, I don't care about him, but the fact that the same could happen to any one of us.

 

To your other questions, I don't know or care. Both are purely circumstantial anyway.

[Norm]

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

 

Interesting eh?

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Two of your points I raised earlier and would like an answer to as well. However just being a weirdo who likes knives isn't really enough to convict someone, surely?

[AllanM]

Luke Mitchells knife miraculously went missing. Funny that!

 

The missing knife was, according to his mother, a mistake. The knife was, in fact, given over to their lawyer. He failed to make that clear in the deluge of misinformation which ensued. Furthermore, a missing knife is not a proof of guilt. I have missing knives.. I have no idea where they are. I have missing scissors, garden tools, clothing and all sorts of other things. Does that make me a murderer in your eyes? have you never lost anything??

 

 

His alibi was broken and found to be a lie. Funny that!

 

Well, actually, no. It was never found to be a lie. The police said it was a lie, and to give weight to their claims, they charged both his mother and his brother with perjury, but they dropped the charges later. I wonder why they did that? Other people who are charged with perjury are later tried and convicted of it. BTW - if his brother "broke" Luke's alibi - why then was he carted off to the police station in handcuffs and charged with perjury?

 

 

His mother was burning something in the back garden that night. Funny that!

 

You obviously have not read what I wrote before. However, the contents of the fire were found to contain no evidence of clothing being burned.

Luke was a heavy drug user and was really in to knives. Hmmmm. Interesting.

 

No proof of this was presented in court, In fact, he was given a drug test the night of the murder, and this did not back up the claim that he was a heavy drug user, or under the influence of drugs that day. Jodi, on the other hand, had a noticeable amount of drugs in her system when she died.

 

Whilst I appreciate the conviction was probably based on a lot I circumstantial evidence, I'm delighted they arrived at the right decision. He almost got away with it!

 

There just seems to be a few lefty tree huggers out there who aren't happy the conviction wasn't super dooper strong! But that's no reason to insit a killer is freed FFS!

 

Corrine Mitchell is a nutter, lost her rag in the Reyesville one night.

 

You still have not explained why you believe that Luke Mitchell is guilty. You are not informing me or anyone else of anything useful in so far as determining why you believe that Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones.. And you also are not explaining to me why semen and sperm cells from other men were found in/on her and in her underwear and other clothing, in addition to hair, blood and saliva, also from other men.

[fabienleclerq]

Wouldn't you clutch at any and every available straw to get out of jail? Guilty or not, you'd do everything you could to get out surely?

Yes, i would clutch at every straw to get out but i wouldn't admit guilt just to reduce my sentence if i was innocent.I'd keep trying to prove my innocence, you might not agree but that's what i'd do.

[Sten Guns]

Two of your points I raised earlier and would like an answer to as well. However just being a weirdo who likes knives isn't really enough to convict someone, surely?

 

Your right, it's not enough.

 

But it helps build a picture.

 

Just like the David Gilroy conviction, loads of small peices put together to build a picture. Which on their own werent enough.

[BoJack Horseman]

In that case you could only truly be proven guilty by being caught in the act, I suppose.

 

Open the doors to Saughton please and let all these guys go.

 

Hardly. There's a difference between being caught in the act and having evidence against you.

 

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

 

Interesting eh?

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

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.

 

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.

 

The guy's guilty because he likes knives? Please let me know if you ever get called up for jury duty. It seems that if anyone makes it to the stands then they're guilty in your eyes.

[Norm]

Because in this case there's no hard evidence. In the eyes of the law he is absolutely guilty, that's why he's in jail. We're allowed to be sceptical though and make our own conclusions on things, regardless if it means anything. Personally, the fact that he's not 100% the murderer makes me a bit uneasy. Not because of him, I don't care about him, but the fact that the same could happen to any one of us.

 

To your other questions, I don't know or care. Both are purely circumstantial anyway.

 

The last two weren't aimed at you. Sorry. However when there is no hard evidence (I'm assuming you mean forensic or witnesses) then do you just let them go? Even though everything else points to that person doing it (I'm not saying this is what happened to Luke by the way)?

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

No proof of this was presented in court, In fact, he was given a drug test the night of the murder, and this did not back up the claim that he was a heavy drug user, or under the influence of drugs that day. Jodi, on the other hand, had a noticeable amount of drugs in her system when she died.

 

 

 

Oh dear.

[The Gasman]

I have little confidence in any legal system. I trust hard evidence and there doesn't seem to be much in this case. It's all circumstantial. He probably did do it but it's a harrowing thought that maybe he didn't and if that's the case, something like this could happen to anyone.

 

As the saying goes, innocent until proven guilty, and there seems to be a distinct lack of proof surrounding this case.

 

This about sums it up for me. It seemed to be trial by media, with the police then providing stories that appeared to back up other stories, but with precious little evidence or proof.

[Johanes de Silentio]

I didn't call you a liar. I said:

 

You maybe think you were blocked, but you are mistaken. I have tried to join plenty of forums and not been successful because of glitches in the system. It didn't occur to me that the forum owner might have previously plucked me from obscurity and set up a block to stop me from joining. Why would that be? I did not call you a liar. You have twisted my words and put your own interpretation on them.

 

What I meant was that posts appear immediately, with no automatic moderation. This forum - Jambos Kickback - appears to be run the same way. All the posts are subsequently read, however, and any which might be obviously incriminatory to other individuals are removed, because it is inevitable that forum members speculate about certain individuals whose DNA was linked to the crime, who were seen at the murder scene at the time of the crime, who had previously been known to be violent or attack with knives, and so on. I imagine that on Jambos' Kickback, a similar form of moderation is in place.

 

I have a great amount of respect for Sandra Lean. She is polite, thoughtful, tactful, and treats all posters with respect, whatever their views are. As I said, all opinions are allowed on the forum, and Sandra doesn't post a huge amount, apart from to inform people of developments, to correct misinformation and to ask people to be careful of posting information which might incriminate other people. As I said, one series of posts on the forum was reported in tabloid newspapers.

 

Yes, I do know. I have done enough digging to know this for a fact. If you spent more time examining all the information which is in proper newspapers, Scottish court documents, plus different statements on a variety of forums which are widely available on the internet, then you would know for a fact too.

 

I read the forum. I have also read other forums which have threads devoted to Luke Mitchell. I read this one.

 

I am not ignoring views that I don't like. I have asked people on this forum to give details of any evidence of his guilt they choose. So far, the replies are far from convincing. In fact, so far no-one has said anything except to blindly repeat the rubbish they have read in trashy tabloid papers.

 

I repeat my request that you can feel free to tell me the secret information you have which points to his guilt.

 

1 - You said "I don't believe you" thereby insinuating that I am lying, which I'm not.

 

2 - I was blocked.

 

3 - Lean's forum is quite clearly regularly moderated.

 

4 - Sandra Lean posts A LOT on her forum and REGULARLY - she doesn't seem interested in views that differ from her own.

 

5 - You do not know for sure whether Luke Mitchell is guilty or innocent.

 

6 - This isn't the right forum for debating the alleged facts - Lean's forum is - she wouldn't let me on it - she doesn't want to be challenged.

 

7 - Open your eyes and remove the blinkers - try to see it from both sides.

[BoJack Horseman]

The last two weren't aimed at you. Sorry. However when there is no hard evidence (I'm assuming you mean forensic or witnesses) then do you just let them go? Even though everything else points to that person doing it (I'm not saying this is what happened to Luke by the way)?

 

No worries. I do mean forensic or witnesses. It depends what constitutes as 'everything'. In this case I wouldn't use things like finding the body quickly, liking knives, pissing in bottles, one neighbour smelling smoke or having a pony tail as evidence of guilt. Circumstantial evidence can really help when there's at least some forensic evidence to back it up. Guilty verdicts solely based on circumstantial evidence are wrong in my opinion, unless of course it's overwhelming.

[Sten Guns]

The missing knife was, according to his mother, a mistake. The knife was, in fact, given over to their lawyer. He failed to make that clear in the deluge of misinformation which ensued. Furthermore, a missing knife is not a proof of guilt. I have missing knives.. I have no idea where they are. I have missing scissors, garden tools, clothing and all sorts of other things. Does that make me a murderer in your eyes? have you never lost anything??

 

 

 

Well, actually, no. It was never found to be a lie. The police said it was a lie, and to give weight to their claims, they charged both his mother and his brother with perjury, but they dropped the charges later. I wonder why they did that? Other people who are charged with perjury are later tried and convicted of it. BTW - if his brother "broke" Luke's alibi - why then was he carted off to the police station in handcuffs and charged with perjury?

 

 

 

You obviously have not read what I wrote before. However, the contents of the fire were found to contain no evidence of clothing being burned.

 

 

No proof of this was presented in court, In fact, he was given a drug test the night of the murder, and this did not back up the claim that he was a heavy drug user, or under the influence of drugs that day. Jodi, on the other hand, had a noticeable amount of drugs in her system when she died.

 

 

You still have not explained why you believe that Luke Mitchell is guilty. You are not informing me or anyone else of anything useful in so far as determining why you believe that Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones.. And you also are not explaining to me why semen and sperm cells from other men were found in/on her and in her underwear and other clothing, in addition to hair, blood and saliva, also from other men.

 

So miraculously his mother claims the missing knife was incorrect. Smashing argument!

 

There was no evidence it was burnt clothes, but likewise there was no evidence it wasn't burnt clothes. They don't know what it was!

 

Why on earth was she burning stuff the night Jodi was murdered! Have a word with yourself man!

 

It's blindingly obvious what happened, just difficult to prove. But the jury got there, thankfully!

 

Links to proof of other mens DNA / seamen on the body please? Would like to read them.

[jambogaza]

Your right, it's not enough.

 

But it helps build a picture.

 

Just like the David Gilroy conviction, loads of small peices put together to build a picture. Which on their own werent enough.

 

Gilroy's conviction was a lot more convincing than this, I think. There was a motive and physical evidence.

[Johanes de Silentio]

This about sums it up for me. It seemed to be trial by media, with the police then providing stories that appeared to back up other stories, but with precious little evidence or proof.

 

I agree that there is not much in the way of evidence, and no actual proof that Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones.

 

(that doesn't mean he didn't do it, of course)

 

I don't buy the 'trial by media' thing, though - the jury members will have been told to disregard anything they had heard or read prior to the trial.

 

Jury members should know that that can only base their decisions on the evidence presented in court.

[rossthejambo]

Just a wee bit of input from myself here. Assuming all this chat about him being innocent is true, where is the killer? Because I'm willing to wager that this killer would have killed again by now if they were out and about.

 

There's little doubt in my mind that Mitchell is guilty, the lack of evidence may well be a bit questionable but I'm fairly confident that the right person is behind bars.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Gilroy's conviction was a lot more convincing than this, I think. There was a motive and physical evidence.

 

I tend to agree.

 

In the case of Jodi Jones's murder, I don't think motive comes into it at all - that murder was the work of a depraved psychotic lunatic, imo - there can be no rational motive for what Jodi Jones's murderer did to her.

[BoJack Horseman]

So miraculously his mother claims the missing knife was incorrect. Smashing argument!

 

There was no evidence it was burnt clothes, but likewise there was no evidence it wasn't burnt clothes. They don't know what it was!

 

Why on earth was she burning stuff the night Jodi was murdered! Have a word with yourself man!

 

It's blindingly obvious what happened, just difficult to prove. But the jury got there, thankfully!

 

Links to proof of other mens DNA / seamen on the body please? Would like to read them.

 

Have a word with yourself.

[Norm]

No worries. I do mean forensic or witnesses. It depends what constitutes as 'everything'. In this case I wouldn't use things like finding the body quickly, liking knives, pissing in bottles, one neighbour smelling smoke or having a pony tail as evidence of guilt. Circumstantial evidence can really help when there's at least some forensic evidence to back it up. Guilty verdicts solely based on circumstantial evidence are wrong in my opinion, unless of course it's overwhelming.

 

Oh, I quite agree that a lot of the case seemed to be based on the fact that Luke was a strange lad and I know at the time I thought that was unfair. And certainly any conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence is always going to be on a shoogly peg. But there also needs to be reasons provided by the defence team as to why all the circumstantial events happened. I've not really seen that from Luke's team other than "We were really crap at our jobs, messed up lots of stuff, lost a vital piece of evidence but honest, you've got it all wrong, he's innocent!"

[Johanes de Silentio]

Just a wee bit of input from myself here. Assuming all this chat about him being innocent is true, where is the killer? Because I'm willing to wager that this killer would have killed again by now if they were out and about.

 

The latest appeal is based on the similarities between Jodi Jones's murder and Robert Greens's brutal attack on a Dutch girl at Roslyn.

 

(I'd hope that the cops had looked into that)

 

Corrine Mitchell has been saying for ages that they know who killed Jodi Jones - now they're saying Robert Greens did it!

 

Which is it, Corrine?

 

These are the kind of questions I'd ask if I was allowed on Sandra Lean's forum!

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

The main plank of the prosecution case was "guilty knowledge"; in finding the body quickly despite poor conditions, Mitchell demonstrated that he already knew where it was. In his defence, Mitchell claimed that he went through a distinctive "V"-shaped hole in one part of the wall to find the body, because a family dog had alerted him to something suspicious. The prosecution stated that only the killer could have known the exact location of Jodi's body. To allow the jury to explore the plausibility of these claims, a mock-up wall was erected in the Laigh Hall, below Parliament Hall within Parliament House, across the road from the High Court of Justiciary building in Edinburgh's Old Town, where the trial was being heard. A visit by the entire jury to the actual murder scene was also arranged.

 

I assume AlanM has some theory for this?

[Sten Guns]

Have a word with yourself.

 

 

 

I think it's blindingly obvious to judge and jury what she was burning.

 

I make no apologies if you don't have the intelligence to understand my point.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[rossthejambo]

The latest appeal is based on the similarities between Jodi Jones's murder and Robert Greens's brutal attack on a Dutch girl at Roslyn.

 

(I'd hope that the cops had looked into that)

 

Corrine Mitchell has been saying for ages that they know who killed Jodi Jones - now they're saying Robert Greens did it!

 

Which is it, Corrine?

 

These are the kind of questions I'd ask if I was allowed on Sandra Lean's forum!

 

I'm not really aware of that case tbh.

 

I wouldn't believe a single word his mother said tbh with you.

[AllanM]

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

 

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

 

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

 

My apologies, Normthebarman.. You are quite correct - your post was a neutral one. I was describing the general trend of the thread, and it wasn't helpful for me to directly quote from your statement under those circumstances. I don't think I have been blinded by the hyperbole, though. I have really done a lot of reading about this particular issue, and am open to any new information which is available.

[jambogaza]

I tend to agree.

 

In the case of Jodi Jones's murder, I don't think motive comes into it at all - that murder was the work of a depraved psychotic lunatic, imo - there can be no rational motive for what Jodi Jones's murderer did to her.

 

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.

[rossthejambo]

The main plank of the prosecution case was "guilty knowledge"; in finding the body quickly despite poor conditions, Mitchell demonstrated that he already knew where it was. In his defence, Mitchell claimed that he went through a distinctive "V"-shaped hole in one part of the wall to find the body, because a family dog had alerted him to something suspicious. The prosecution stated that only the killer could have known the exact location of Jodi's body. To allow the jury to explore the plausibility of these claims, a mock-up wall was erected in the Laigh Hall, below Parliament Hall within Parliament House, across the road from the High Court of Justiciary building in Edinburgh's Old Town, where the trial was being heard. A visit by the entire jury to the actual murder scene was also arranged.

 

I assume AlanM has some theory for this?

 

 

Family dog eh? Not partially trained police sniffer dog?

 

:interesting:

[Tazio]

A respected intellectual from Edinburgh University claimed not so long ago that it was a fact that the holocaust didn't happen and was all lies.

 

Great word fact.

[Johanes de Silentio]

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.

 

That's a pickle, right enough - a forensic expert at the case said there is no way that Mitchell could have committed such a crime and leave clean.

 

Sandra Lean will say that there can be no explanation for this, but she can't know.

 

Mitchell claims that he had no prior knowledge of the 'Black Dalhia' Elizabeth Short murder.

 

He also claims that he wasn't overly familiar with Marilyn Manson, though!

[ellie0028]

Family dog eh? Not partially trained police sniffer dog?

 

:interesting:

 

Cornnie Mitchell will tell you otherwise lol

[Vlad-Stupid]

As it stands, yes he is. Incessant use of 'Deal With It' is still borderline retarded though.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[The Gasman]

 

I don't buy the 'trial by media' thing, though - the jury members will have been told to disregard anything they had heard or read prior to the trial.

 

Jury members should know that that can only base their decisions on the evidence presented in court.

 

Hmmmm......

 

You're right, but, human nature being what it is, I'm not sure how easy / possible it actually is to not allow these things to influence your thought process, even just subconsciously....

 

There was a media feeding frenzy over this case in general, and Luke's "guilt" in particular, and that makes me uneasy about the systems ability to deliver a fair trial and/or a safe conviction.

 

A classic recent example of this was Christopher Jefferries (Jo Yeates landlord) who was singled out by the media in her case. Everyone "new" he was guilty, they just needed to find the proof to back that up. Only he wasn't guilty. The police caught the actual murderer, and secured a conviction against him in court. I can't help but wonder how Jefferries might have fared had Vincent Tabak not been caught...?

 

I do absolutely agree with you that lack of proof of guilt does not necessarily prove innocence, but that is the assumption we have to make.

[jambogaza]

That's a pickle, right enough - a forensic expert at the case said there is no way that Mitchell could have committed such a crime and leave clean.

 

Sandra Lean will say that there can be no explanation for this, but she can't know.

 

Mitchell claims that he had no prior knowledge of the 'Black Dalhia' Elizabeth Short murder.

 

He also claims that he wasn't overly familiar with Marilyn Manson, though!

 

I'm quite hesitant to take a standpoint on the case, to be honest. I attended the High Court for Gilroy's case and from what I seen and heard, he was guilty without reasonable doubt. But the media reports didn't real match that feeling. So it is difficult to say without knowing the complete ins and outs of the trial itself.

[Norm]

My apologies, Normthebarman.. You are quite correct - your post was a neutral one. I was describing the general trend of the thread, and it wasn't helpful for me to directly quote from your statement under those circumstances. I don't think I have been blinded by the hyperbole, though. I have really done a lot of reading about this particular issue, and am open to any new information which is available.

 

Apology accepted.

[Johanes de Silentio]

I do absolutely agree with you that lack of proof of guilt does not necessarily prove innocence, but that is the assumption we have to make.

 

I would agree with that.

[AllanM]

She obviously doesny get the press you think she merits then, as I've seen next to nothing

 

 

Maybe Lukes Mummy should have spoke up during the investigation, if my memory serves me right she and Luke waited till the day of Jodies funeral to talk to Sky, why was that and why so long ??

 

 

And how do Jodies family feel about lukes apparent innocence ??

 

The media wanted to portray Luke as a sensational murderer to sell their papers. These journalists don't care what lies they print as long as they get off with it. Corinne has been stating all along that Luke is innocent, and that he was with her at the time when the police say Jodi was killed. The media was not sympathetic, and did not publish what she said. In the Miscarriage of Justice video link I provided above, Corinne says that she went to the Press Complaints Commission and got nowhere. I read a lot of rubbish about the case in the press myself, and the press were not wanting to publish anything positive which would dilute their wonderful money-spinner.

 

Jodie's family are convinced that Luke is guilty, but it seems they were not convinced of that at the start of the investigation. Sandra Lean believes that they were manipulated by the police and that this led to them changing their statements and evidence over the course of the months before the trial in order to convict Luke. There are links on the WAP forum which are direct quotes from their statements in the police files which demonstrate how the stories changed over the months.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Corinne has been stating all along that Luke is innocent, and that he was with her at the time when the police say Jodi was killed.

 

The press are scum - no doubt about it.

 

Corrine says that they know who murdered Jodi - who does she think it is?

[AllanM]

if he didnt do it then who did?

 

 

Well, there are so many suspects in the case who were not investigated, and were never requested to give a DNA sample, that I can think offhand of about 9 known people, and of course, it might have been someone who has passed below the radar completely.

 

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

 

Yes - it is worrying. I would be especially concerned if I were you because with an online ID as "ASSASSIN" that would be part of the circumstantial case against you.

[AllanM]

I'm doing my best to deal with replies one at a time.. Please let me know if I miss one out. I am still interested to have any information about proper evidence which links Luke Mitchell to the murder of Jodi Jones.

 

Circumstantial evidence is normally that - evidence. For example, photographs of scratches, cuts and bruises which point to a violent struggle.. or a video-tape of someone buying multiple bin-bags and a saw shortly before a dismembered body is found in dumped in wasteground, in bin-bags.

 

The circumstantial evidence in Luke Mitchell's case was nothing.. There were no scratches and bruises indicative of a struggle, although Jodi is known to have fought for her life, and was several inches taller than Luke. There were no signs of anything untoward - Luke phoned the family when Jodi didn't appear for their meeting, hung around (seen by schoolfriends) then called other friends and went to play with them for the rest of the evening. There was no time to clean himself up, and no proof that his mother had burned evidence.. In fact, the proof was there in police reports that he had not cleaned himself up and nothing untoward had been burned in the garden.

[jambogaza]

.

Yes - it is worrying. I would be especially concerned if I were you because with an online ID as "ASSASSIN" that would be part of the circumstantial case against you.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

 

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

[Guest]

You should get yourself over to the UFO thread AllanM, thats the place where fantasy and made up bullshit is the order of the day