Luke Mitchell

[AllanM]

Thing is now all these people that are trying to get Luke Mitchell free now arent doing because he is innocent,they are trying every legal glitch possible and that doesnt prove he is innocent!

 

As far as I understand it, in order to have the conviction overturned, and get a retrial, Luke's case has to be reviewed by the SCRCC:

 

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/home.aspx

 

In order for them to look at any case, all possible avenues of appeal must be exhausted, so Luke's lawyers have been forced to go through all the possibilities before submitting the request for review.

[BoJack Horseman]

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?

 

Theory for what? What if someone else had come across the body just as quick? Does that make them the murderer?

 

Further details on the dog have been mentioned in the thread already.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Blindingly obvious? You have absolutely no idea what went on bar what you've read in the papers. You sir are a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You lack the intelligence to recognise your lack of a point.

 

 

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

 

 

[Sten Guns]

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.

 

Corrine was burning stuff?

 

:interesting:

 

Jodi died just as she was about to meet, Luke.

 

:interesting:

 

He lost a knife.

 

:interesting:

 

They were going to split up. (motive)

 

:interesting:

 

He found the body.

 

:interesting:

 

Heavy drug user.

 

:interesting:

 

Obsessed with knifes.

 

:interesting:

 

You are so blinkered man.

[Sten Guns]

Is Walter White going to give an opinion? Go on, tell us what you think big guy?

 

Or just embarrass himself by failing miserably in comically commenting on others opinions.

 

LUKE MITCHELL IS A MURDERING SCUM BAG.

 

Hope he never sees the light of day as a free man.

[jambogaza]

As far as I understand it, in order to have the conviction overturned, and get a retrial, Luke's case has to be reviewed by the SCRCC:

 

http://www.sccrc.org.uk/home.aspx

 

In order for them to look at any case, all possible avenues of appeal must be exhausted, so Luke's lawyers have been forced to go through all the possibilities before submitting the request for review.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBEUYdz03CM&feature=relmfu

 

SURELY the police followed that up! Scratches on an essay about 'killing a female in the woods' the day after the murder by a recovering drug addict.

[AllanM]

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.

 

It is a very worrying thought, and it could happen to anyone. It could happen to any of the unthinking callous people who are pronouncing opinions on a case they obviously have very little real knowledge of. If it happened to them, then they might think a bit more favourably of the Sandra Leans of this world, who devote their lives to investigating and uncovering obvious miscarriages of justice.

 

I wonder why you still say that "he probably did do it" when no-one on this forum has been able to come up with one tangible reason to link Luke Mitchell with the crime? That intrigues me.

[BoJack Horseman]

Corrine was burning stuff?

 

Stuff... they checked the ashes, there was nothing suspect in there.

 

Jodi died just as she was about to meet, Luke.

 

So? If she was on her way to KFC did Colonel Sanders murder her?

 

He lost a knife.

 

You've never lost anything?

 

They were going to split up. (motive)

 

They were 14 years old. How long do relationships last at that age?

 

He found the body.

 

He was part of the search party and was with a semi trained sniffer dog.

 

Heavy drug user.

 

Define heavy. What exactly was he taking and how does that make you a murderer?

 

Obsessed with knifes.

 

Everyone has an interest, just because his could be used as a weapon doesn't mean he's a killer.

 

You are so blinkered man.

 

You are astonishingly thick.

 

Do you actually believe what you're saying? You've listed what you believe to be irrefutable proof that he is the murderer? Like, really? If you were in the jury and these were the only pieces of evidence presented you'd call for the man to be locked up?

 

Sten has just shown why I don't like the jury verdict in the legal system. Too many plebs.

[Norm]

Corrine was burning stuff?

 

:interesting:

 

Jodi died just as she was about to meet, Luke.

 

:interesting:

 

He lost a knife.

 

:interesting:

 

They were going to split up. (motive)

 

:interesting:

 

He found the body.

 

:interesting:

 

Heavy drug user.

 

:interesting:

 

Obsessed with knifes.

 

:interesting:

 

You are so blinkered man.

 

To be honest, that just backs up AllanM's point. He was a weird kid who liked drugs (like a large section of Scottish teenagers) and liked knives. That's hardly a smoking gun yet you have down as a killer. I would like to know what the mother was burning though, and why, not to mention when did the knife go missing.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Theory for what? What if someone else had come across the body just as quick? Does that make them the murderer?

 

Further details on the dog have been mentioned in the thread already.

 

 

It's a tough one without seeing exactly where he found her but it obviously played a big part in influencing the jury, who went to the scene of the crime and had a demonstration behind the court. That suggests to me it would have been virtually impossible for one of the search party to just stumble across her. She must have been well hidden.

 

It seems like the kind of error a panicking teenage boy who's just murdered someone would make. One slip in his cover up. Or maybe he was genuinely regretful and just wanted the body to be found for the sake of the family, who knows.

[AllanM]

Saying FACT over and over is convincing no one that he isn't a murdering piece of shit.

 

 

.. and saying that he's a murdering piece of shit doesn't mean that he is one, and is not grounds to have him locked away for 20 years...

 

neither is saying that he is anything else, such as a goth or a Marilyn Manson fan. Incidentally, he was a Nirvana fan, like Jodi. The police took away all the house computers and could find no evidence that Luke had been a Manson fan, or that he had viewed any images of the Black Dahlia murder, or any similar crime before the murder. During a later raid, they found one Marylin Manson CD, for which Mrs. Mitchell produced a receipt which showed that it was bought after the murder, plus a calendar which had come free with the CD, which was found ripped up in the waste-paper basket. So that wasn't used in court either. In fact, forensic experts who examined the body stated that there were few real similarities to the Black Dahlia at all.

[Tommy Wiseau]

Some genuinely atrocious posts on this thread. Just for information: if folk are going to troll, the best way is not to make yourself look like an utter simpleton. Hope this helps.

[BoJack Horseman]

It's a tough one without seeing exactly where he found her but it obviously played a big part in influencing the jury, who went to the scene of the crime and had a demonstration behind the court. That suggests to me it would have been virtually impossible for one of the search party to just stumble across her. She must have been well hidden.

 

It seems like the kind of error a panicking teenage boy who's just murdered someone would make. One slip in his cover up. Or maybe he was genuinely regretful and just wanted the body to be found for the sake of the family, who knows.

 

Or he genuinely went looking for her, the dog led him to the body and he found it. I'm not saying that's what happened but it's just as likely as the two scenarios that you presented. None of them can be confirmed and none can be denied. That's straight up circumstantial evidence.

 

My point still stands. If finding the body quickly is a sign of guilt then you must admit that if any other member of the search party were to have found her then they too must be guilty. Fortunately, that's not how it works.

[Vlad-Stupid]

Shares a bedroom with his mother, has a penchant for Satan and has a collection of knives :interesting:

 

Nah, clearly not attributes a deranged killer would have.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to buy a DVD of a murder to watch the day after her body was found anaw.

 

 

 

 

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Or he genuinely went looking for her, the dog led him to the body and he found it. I'm not saying that's what happened but it's just as likely as the two scenarios that you presented. None of them can be confirmed and none can be denied. That's straight up circumstantial evidence.

 

My point still stands. If finding the body quickly is a sign of guilt then you must admit that if any other member of the search party were to have found her then they too must be guilty. Fortunately, that's not how it works.

 

Your scenario obviously wasn't as likely as the other two, otherwise it wouldn't have featured so heavily in the case.

 

Again, it's tough to say for sure because I don't know the full details but the jury do and deemed it to be convincing enough to find him guilty, they don't have any reason to stitch him up or anything. like AlanM has suggested the police have done.

[Henry1874]

He is a piece of dirt that should be wiped off the face of this earth. He loves what hes done and hes not afraid to hide it. I think im gona burst with range in a minute!

[Ribble]

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.

 

Not all killers are serial killers though, IF it was someone else (like the guy from the college that had a drug enduced blackout that night) he might now be clean and in full control of his actions!

[Johanes de Silentio]

There was no time to clean himself up

 

You don't know that.

[Sten Guns]

Do you actually believe what you're saying? You've listed what you believe to be irrefutable proof that he is the murderer? Like, really? If you were in the jury and these were the only pieces of evidence presented you'd call for the man to be locked up?

 

Sten has just shown why I don't like the jury verdict in the legal system. Too many plebs.

 

Your no the brightest Walter eh?

 

Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence, no?

 

Of course all the small points raised aren't irrefutable proof. But added together they paint a clear picture, in the jury's eyes, that Luke Mitchell killed her.

 

David Gilroy had cuts on his hand. If I was to act like Walter White I would be saying;

 

THATS NOT PROOF LIKESAY. HAVE YOU NEVUR CUT YOOR HANDS?!

 

Your just no getting it eh? Bless.

 

You going to give an opinion on whether he done it or not? Go on, I dare u! Be brave!!

 

Let me guess, you will dodge the question. Zzzzz

[Johanes de Silentio]

Some genuinely atrocious posts on this thread. Just for information: if folk are going to troll, the best way is not to make yourself look like an utter simpleton. Hope this helps.

 

Sorry about that, Tom!

[AllanM]

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

 

Thanks for being a voice of reason in this, Walter. Luke Mitchell was undoubtedly treated as guilty from the moment the police arrived after the body was found. The police pursued him single-mindedly, and dismissed all other potential suspects. The policeman in charge of the case lied in an interview in a broadsheet newspaper, and said that there was "no unidentified DNA" associated with the crime. In fact, the owner of some of the unidentified DNA committed a crime several years after the murder, and his DNA flagged up the match with Jodi's murder. By that time, Luke was locked up and the case was closed. I am not saying that the person whose DNA was found is guilty of any involvement in the murder of Jodi Jones, I am just saying that the police did not seriously investigate anyone else, they ignored any statements which didn't support their theory, and they lied about the evidence to bolster public confidence in the conviction.

[rossthejambo]

Not all killers are serial killers though, IF it was someone else (like the guy from the college that had a drug enduced blackout that night) he might now be clean and in full control of his actions!

 

No I suppose you're right, but considering the brutality of it all would certainly lean towards someone with a serious problem, and surely someone who was now clean having found themselves capable of committing such an atrocious act would seriously struggle to deal with what they did, or then again maybe the guilty party is currently behind bars serving time for murder.

 

This last bit isn't aimed at you Ribble btw, but all this having to prove he's innocent nonsense, surely the fact that he has been found guilty and is currently serving time would suggest that the onus is now on him to prove he's innocent rather than anything else?

[AllanM]

Deal with it said :

 

He's a creepy wee *******. He killed her. Well done all involved in the conviction.

 

Can you explain why you think he killed her? Obviously being creepy doesn't work for me. I might think you're creepy, but I wouldn't use that against you to have you flung in prison for life.

[Sten Guns]

Shares a bedroom with his mother, has a penchant for Satan and has a collection of knives :interesting:

 

Nah, clearly not attributes a deranged killer would have.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to buy a DVD of a murder to watch the day after her body was found anaw.

 

 

 

 

They had a sexual relationship.

 

(allegedly)

 

But I believe my source.

[Norm]

Shares a bedroom with his mother, has a penchant for Satan and has a collection of knives :interesting:

 

Nah, clearly not attributes a deranged killer would have.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to buy a DVD of a murder to watch the day after her body was found anaw.

 

 

 

 

 

Having a penchant for Satan? I'm pretty sure he has no belief in a made up person but was more just a sad teenage boy trying to be controversial.

 

My wife's family slept in the same room as each other until she was five. Should I be worried about her?

 

Hiring a DVD about a murder? So if he watched Taggart or Crimewatch on TV, he'd also be guilty?

 

Luke was a weird, dark little kid like thousands of weird, dark little kids across the country. I don't however see a murder epidemic of teenagers.

[Vlad-Stupid]

Deal with it said :

 

 

 

Can you explain why you think he killed her? Obviously being creepy doesn't work for me. I might think you're creepy, but I wouldn't use that against you to have you flung in prison for life.

 

Please point out where I said he was convicted for being creepy. A jury convicted him on all the evidence presented to them. I'm more than happy with that. Why would all those random people conspire to convict him? I take it you were on the jury? Or are you just pretending to know everything about the case?

[fabienleclerq]

Deal with it said :

 

 

 

Can you explain why you think he killed her? Obviously being creepy doesn't work for me. I might think you're creepy, but I wouldn't use that against you to have you flung in prison for life.

A jury found him guilty.

[Alan_R]

Luke Mitchell will eventually be released from prison, and acknowledged to be an innocent victim who was treated abominably..

 

 

Is it not a criminal offence to carry knives and deal drugs anyway?

[Vlad-Stupid]

1. Having a penchant for Satan? I'm pretty sure he has no belief in a made up person but was more just a sad teenage boy trying to be controversial.

 

2. My wife's family slept in the same room as each other until she was five. Should I be worried about her?

 

3. Hiring a DVD about a murder? So if he watched Taggart or Crimewatch on TV, he'd also be guilty?

 

4. Luke was a weird, dark little kid like thousands of weird, dark little kids across the country. I don't however see a murder epidemic of teenagers.

 

1. Where did I say he believed in Satan?

 

2. :Vlad-Stupid:

 

3. Who the **** watches stuff like that the day after their GF was brutally murdered?

 

4. Nobody suggests otherwise

[BoJack Horseman]

Your scenario obviously wasn't as likely as the other two, otherwise it wouldn't have featured so heavily in the case.

 

Again, it's tough to say for sure because I don't know the full details but the jury do and deemed it to be convincing enough to find him guilty, they don't have any reason to stitch him up or anything. like AlanM has suggested the police have done.

 

Completely agree with you. I have no idea how damning the evidence was. I just find it astonishing that there's folk on here claiming to know for a fact that he did it. It's more than likely that he did. I don't believe our justice system is corrupt enough to send down a 14 year old for kicks, but from what I know, he's not 100% the killer. It's not irrefutable, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Your no the brightest Walter eh?

 

Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence, no?

 

Of course all the small points raised aren't irrefutable proof. But added together they paint a clear picture, in the jury's eyes, that Luke Mitchell killed her.

 

David Gilroy had cuts on his hand. If I was to act like Walter White I would be saying;

 

THATS NOT PROOF LIKESAY. HAVE YOU NEVUR CUT YOOR HANDS?!

 

Your just no getting it eh? Bless.

 

You going to give an opinion on whether he done it or not? Go on, I dare u! Be brave!!

 

Let me guess, you will dodge the question. Zzzzz

 

I've never claimed to be overly intelligent, although I am safe in the knowledge that I am considerably smarter than you.

 

I'll assume that you tried to read my posts but couldn't so chose to draft this unintelligible response instead. I've stated already that I know very little about the case so I couldn't possibly even begin to hazard a guess as to whether he did it or not. What I do know is that the evidence against Luke Mitchell is entirely circumstantial and the whole case makes me a bit uneasy because of that.

 

Miscarriage of justice isn't a new thing Sten. There's many men behind bars that shouldn't be. There's many innocent men that have been 'proven' guilty in a court of law. Luke Mitchell could very very easily be one of these cases. Chances are he's not, but that doesn't stop it being a possibility.

[Sten Guns]

Luke Mitchell sets out to meet Jodi.?

 

They meet, she tells him it's time to split up as he has been pumping other birds.

 

He isn't happy and is stoned out his box for a change. Flies in to a rage with his knife and brutally kills her.

 

He pretends to phone her home to see where she is. Aye good one, Luke.

 

He goes home, his loving mum burns his clothes. They hide the knife.

 

Luke helps look for Jodi, amazingly he finds the body. Blames the dug.

 

A knife is miraculously missing.

 

A fire was miraculously innocently lit that night?!

 

The brother breaks the alibi.

 

A bunch of leftys aren't happy the conviction isn't 100% irrefutable and find it trendy to try and get one over the legal system.

 

Bolt, bunch of throbbers. Attempting to free a killer that evil.?

 

Well done to L&B, The Judge and The Jury. You got the right person despite the difficulty in proving it.?

[BoJack Horseman]

Your no the brightest Walter eh?

 

I'm not one to jump on spelling or grammar, but just to let you know, in this context, the irony involved here hasn't eluded me.

[Sten Guns]

Completely agree with you. I have no idea how damning the evidence was. I just find it astonishing that there's folk on here claiming to know for a fact that he did it. It's more than likely that he did. I don't believe our justice system is corrupt enough to send down a 14 year old for kicks, but from what I know, he's not 100% the killer. It's not irrefutable, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

 

I've never claimed to be overly intelligent, although I am safe in the knowledge that I am considerably smarter than you.

 

I'll assume that you tried to read my posts but couldn't so chose to draft this unintelligible response instead. I've stated already that I know very little about the case so I couldn't possibly even begin to hazard a guess as to whether he did it or not. What I do know is that the evidence against Luke Mitchell is entirely circumstantial and the whole case makes me a bit uneasy because of that.

 

Miscarriage of justice isn't a new thing Sten. There's many men behind bars that shouldn't be. There's many innocent men that have been 'proven' guilty in a court of law. Luke Mitchell could very very easily be one of these cases. Chances are he's not, but that doesn't stop it being a possibility.

 

Why on earth are you picking at the individual arguments?

 

When you clearly know nobody is saying any of them is irrefutable proof of guilt?

 

When you clearly know he was convicted on a series of circumstantial peices of evidence that paint one big picture?

[Tommy Wiseau]

Sorry about that, Tom!

 

 

Not every post, silly Billy I think it's fairly obvious to most reading this thread who is - through design or through utter stupidity - making themselves look utterly stupid.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about the case to be making personal judgements on whether he is guilty or not - that's why we have trials by jury. I'm not holding too much stock in the clearly bias information presented on this thread by both sides. From all I have read about the case, though, I am far from satisfied that the conviction is safe - that's not to say I think he's innocent, rather I have never been convinced of his guilt. One thing I do agree with is the trial by media aspect - regardless of whether the jury were told to ignore the media coverage in the lead up to the case or not, it's only human nature to be influenced by it, even on a subconscious level. I mean, who actually gives a shit if he listened to Marilyn Manson or not? I find it incredible that formed the basis of any part of the media coverage, let alone the trial - yet this will have played a part in forming the picture that Mitchell was dangerous and a potential killer.

[BoJack Horseman]

Luke Mitchell sets out to meet Jodi.?

 

They meet, she tells him it's time to split up as he has been pumping other birds.

 

He isn't happy and is stoned out his box for a change. Flies in to a rage with his knife and brutally kills her.

 

He pretends to phone her home to see where she is. Aye good one, Luke.

 

He goes home, his loving mum burns his clothes. They hide the knife.

 

Luke helps look for Jodi, amazingly he finds the body. Blames the dug.

 

A knife is miraculously missing.

 

A fire was miraculously innocently lit that night?!

 

The brother breaks the alibi.

 

A bunch of leftys aren't happy the conviction isn't 100% irrefutable and find it trendy to try and get one over the legal system.

 

Bolt, bunch of throbbers. Attempting to free a killer that evil.?

 

Well done to L&B, The Judge and The Jury. You got the right person despite the difficulty in proving it.?

 

Got ourselves a regular Sherlock Holmes here lads. I hope for the sake of the country that you've handed your CV into Scotland Yard. Actually, a link to this post should suffice, you clearly know your shit.

[Denny Crane]

@ AllanM

 

Could you address the point raised on post 150 of this thread? Thanks.

[BoJack Horseman]

Not every post, silly Billy I think it's fairly obvious to most reading this thread who is - through design or through utter stupidity - making themselves look utterly stupid.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about the case to be making personal judgements on whether he is guilty or not - that's why we have trials by jury. I'm not holding too much stock in the clearly bias information presented on this thread by both sides. From all I have read about the case, though, I am far from satisfied that the conviction is safe - that's not to say I think he's innocent, rather I have never been convinced of his guilt. One thing I do agree with is the trial by media aspect - regardless of whether the jury were told to ignore the media coverage in the lead up to the case or not, it's only human nature to be influenced by it, even on a subconscious level. I mean, who actually gives a shit if he listened to Marilyn Manson or not? I find it incredible that formed the basis of any part of the media coverage, let alone the trial - yet this will have played a part in forming the picture that Mitchell was dangerous and a potential killer.

 

I hope you're ready for a well thought rebuttal from Detective Inspector Guns.

[Sten Guns]

I'm not one to jump on spelling or grammar, but just to let you know, in this context, the irony involved here hasn't eluded me.

 

When using my iPhone, at my desk, at work, on a football forum, it's the least of my worries.

[Norm]

1. Where did I say he believed in Satan?

 

2. :Vlad-Stupid:

 

3. Who the **** watches stuff like that the day after their GF was brutally murdered?

 

4. Nobody suggests otherwise

 

1. So you're saying liking a made up character who's bad means you're a killer.

?

 

2. An outstanding response. The JKB equivalent of "Na-na-na-na-na".

 

3. Dark and weird people, obviously.

 

4. But you did imply that because Luke was a weirdo he's likely to be guilty.

[AllanM]

He got proven guilty.Fact

 

So yes he does have to prove his innocence if he wants out.

 

A friends family member was on the prosecution....Defo Guilty IMO.

 

I have explained that the police were very selective about the information they chose to use for the prosecution. They spent months amassing statements and boasted that they had collected thousands of them. Why then, was so little proper information presented? Why were the majority of the prosecution witnesses related to Jodi's family? Why, with a crime-scene, forensic reports on Luke Mitchell and the body, ashes from a barbecue, several searches of the house and related vehicles, access to CCTV images and access to statements from a number of people who were using the path that day, was nothing tangible presented as evidence of the crime.

 

The type of evidence which was presented was:

 

Cheeky school essays - very common from 14-year old children - it is the most challenging age when kids are most likely to get cheeky and question authority.. Cheeky school essays do not prove that someone is a murderer.

Claims that Luke was a goth - not true, and certainly not proof that he is a murderer.

Claims that he was two-timing Jodi - with a girl he hadn't seen since the previous summer - before he met Jodi. However, even if he was two-timing Jodi, it doesn't make him a murderer. It was just another lie which was presented in lieu of proper evidence to flesh out a paltry case in the absence of anything else.

 

The worst "evidence" were insinuations that he had in an "unnatural relationship" with his mother. This enabled the police at a single stroke to destroy the reputation of both Luke and his mother. There was absolutely no evidence to back it up, and charges were never pressed with regard to child abuse, in spite of three searches of the house. Indeed, according to Mrs. Mitchell's speech at the Miscarriage of Justice day, they arrested Luke in the small hours of the morning, CSI style by breaking down his bedroom door rather than using a handle, which led to him being badly bruised as the door landed on him, so presumably they saw for themselves that he was in his own bedroom, in his own bed. Even so, whether or not he was a victim of child abuse, it does not make him a killer. Mrs. Mitchell was never charged with child abuse, because the police never seriously believed that Luke was being abused. They implied it purely to blacken both Luke's character and that of his mother, to prejudice the public against her. It was absolutely disgusting and disgraceful.

[Tommy Wiseau]

@ AllanM

 

Could you address the point raised on post 150 of this thread? Thanks.

 

 

Was this when you asked for evidence of journalists making things up?

 

Surely a Kickback Kopite, of all people, shouldn't have trouble with that assertion?

[Sten Guns]

I hope you're ready for a well thought rebuttal from Detective Inspector Guns.

 

[Vlad-Stupid]

Allan M, how do you know all the evidence that was presented?

[Denny Crane]

Was this when you asked for evidence of journalists making things up?

 

In relation to this case yes. Not to mention the other claims AllanM made about the media's coverage of this case.

[Tazio]

Allan M, how do you know all the evidence that was presented?

 

And index how does he know the exact process that the police worked with.

 

I'm no expert but the police generally don't let conspiracy theorist have access to all their case notes.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Allan M, how do you know all the evidence that was presented?

 

Quite clear they all come from biased views on that other forum.

[Johanes de Silentio]

One thing I do agree with is the trial by media aspect - regardless of whether the jury were told to ignore the media coverage in the lead up to the case or not, it's only human nature to be influenced by it, even on a subconscious level. I mean, who actually gives a shit if he listened to Marilyn Manson or not? I find it incredible that formed the basis of any part of the media coverage, let alone the trial - yet this will have played a part in forming the picture that Mitchell was dangerous and a potential killer.

 

I would hope that the jury would focus on the evidence, rather than what was printed in scandal sheets, Tom.

 

They (the media/the prosecution/whoever) brought the Marilyn Manson/Black Dalhia thing into it to suggest an interest in the macabre - smacks of desparation, tbh.

[Peebo]

Luke Mitchell sets out to meet Jodi.?

 

They meet, she tells him it's time to split up as he has been pumping other birds.

 

He isn't happy and is stoned out his box for a change. Flies in to a rage with his knife and brutally kills her.

 

He pretends to phone her home to see where she is. Aye good one, Luke.

 

He goes home, his loving mum burns his clothes. They hide the knife.

 

Luke helps look for Jodi, amazingly he finds the body. Blames the dug.

 

A knife is miraculously missing.

 

A fire was miraculously innocently lit that night?!

 

The brother breaks the alibi.

 

A bunch of leftys aren't happy the conviction isn't 100% irrefutable and find it trendy to try and get one over the legal system.

 

Bolt, bunch of throbbers. Attempting to free a killer that evil.?

 

Well done to L&B, The Judge and The Jury. You got the right person despite the difficulty in proving it.?

 

Pretty much sums up the most likely scenario for me, based on all I've read about it. Certainly more likely than a random bogeyman doing it, in my opinion.

 

I see some parallels with the original Knox/Sollecito conviction, and believe there is enough strong circumstantial evidence to point toward guilt in both cases. Neither clear cut, though.

[Taffin]

Car crash thread, with Sten drunk at the wheel.

[jambobrett]

I've got a pretty open mind about all of this. Pardon my ignorance but can anyone clear this up for me. What exactly would the Jones family have to gain from framing Mitchell? Surely they want justice for their daughter? So why, since this is what they're being accused of, would they change their statements?

 

It's pretty weird. I'm a few years older than Mitchell and there's a few similarities. I listened to a lot of (terrible) bands like Manson and Murderdolls around that age. I was also regularly stoned out my box. I know that this can trigger latent illnesses like schizophrenia, but in reality it's much more likely to calm someone down. I'd barely be able to lift a knife, never mind stab someone. If it was acid or other hallucinogens then I might be more convinced.

 

I've always had a bit of an interest in serial killers and unsolved murders too, including The Black Dahlia Murder although more with how the cases were tackled and the psychiatric evaluations of the murderers. A lot of folk probably thought I was "weird" too but it's not really evidence of wrong doing. Still, I never kept bottles of my own urine nor did I have a "fascination" with knives. All this "satanist" chat is nonsense as far as I can tell. Seems to me that Mitchell had a pretty strange upbringing and was just rebelling. What I would say is that his mother always struck me as being a bit strange but then all I know of her is the media reports.

 

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth. When this all came about, I was still pretty young too and I was convinced of his guilt at the time. I didn't know much of it though and I'm less so now. I'm still by no means an expert or well informed but these are my opinions and gut feelings. Still, if anybody could clear up my initial point (AllanM maybe?) that would be appreciated.

[AllanM]

Can I ask AllanM did you just join here so you argue your case about luke Mitchell or do you have an interest in Heart of even football..

 

I joined out of interest in the case, after I saw the debate had started. I am interested in knowing about this case, and I was hoping I might learn a bit more about it as some local people might have been members of this forum. So far, unfortunately, no-one seems to be able to give any reason for thinking he's guilty, which disappoints me. I kinda have always thought that the Scots had brains and had healthy cynicism about the gutter press. I should have remembered about Edinburgh's witch trials. They made Edinburgh notorious way back then, and I think that this case will make Edinburgh and the Scottish justice system notorious in times to come.

 

I believe he is guilty from day one ive believed that!

 

You actually brag that you believed it from day one, before you had heard or learned anything about the case! You sound proud of yourself! I feel sorry for you. One day, your words might come back to haunt you. One day, you might not be so quick to judge. One day, you might feel utterly ashamed of yourself, but I doubt if that will happen, because that would mean that you had grown some brains. I doubt if that is physically possible. You are what you are.