Sten Guns Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 Was this before or after she was killed? Genuine question. After. Hardly the actions of an upset boyfriend. More like the actions of a twisted killer. Why would an innocent man do that after his girlfriend died the way she did...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 That's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence to be fair. Especially the knives. Odds of someone else committing the murder must be very high. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Yeah, maybe his mum was actually burning their clothes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Norm Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 After. Hardly the actions of an upset boyfriend. More like the actions of a twisted killer. Why would an innocent man do that after his girlfriend died the way she did...... Definitely the actions of a weirdo but being a weirdo doesn't make you a killer. The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sten Guns Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 Definitely the actions of a weirdo but being a weirdo doesn't make you a killer. The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack. Or very little give L&B very poor handling of the crime scene and the supposed burning in Corrine Mitchell's back garden. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack. Only amongst those whose views of the judicial process are conditioned by CSI. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Generic Username Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I was at that BBQ. The char-grilled trainers weren't up to much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nucky Thompson Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I'm not convinced he's guilty of murder. I am convinced he's guilty of being a weirdo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 He looks guilty so that's good enough for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfstar Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 But if he was innocent why lie about being in the house with his mum, his brother states he wasnt in. The clothes being burned. The way he 'found jodie' Actions of a guilty man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Bishop Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I'm not convinced he acted alone if guilty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
redm Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 There is uncomfortable stuff in that blog but remember what it is, who writes it and what it's designed to do. There is no "he did do it" blog to balance it out, probably because that would create legal issues all of its own. I wouldn't place too much trust in anything but the court records tbh and even then... It's a funny one. The opinions on this are so very polarised. This isn't intended as a red flag for those who like some conspiracy (or defamation) but I'm told those in the "Luke is innocent" camp are all pretty convinced they know who did do it. Not just his family either. I'm not local so couldn't say one way or another but heard there's a name commonly mentioned in connection. Whether or not there's anything more to that than trying to divert attention, I don't know. Strange one. There's no doubt the circumstantial stuff was fairly convincing though. A lot of people doing very strange things doesn't help. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rossthejambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Guilty as guilty can be IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Norm Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Only amongst those whose views of the judicial process are conditioned by CSI. There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF. Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction. What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."? Edited September 9, 2013 by Normthebarman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Generic Username Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Did they no get the boy who killed off the Piley woman on circumstantial evidence as well? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sooperstar Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF. Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction. What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."? I think you'd struggle to find a motive for anyone murdering a 14(?) year old girl. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Norm Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I think you'd struggle to find a motive for anyone murdering a 14(?) year old girl. There's plenty of possible motives. I mean, his motive could have been "She liked Guns & Roses and I hate people who like Guns & Roses". A motive doesn't need to be excusable. In fact they rarely if ever are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rocco_Jambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF. Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction. What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."? That's not what the article says though. It mentions re testing, re checking and new tests which indicates that there were tests done. The person in the free Mitchell camp then says ?There was no testing of the DNA and forensic results for the defence". From reading the article at face value it would appear that some tests were done but that none were done by the defence. Why would the prosecution bother with some spurious notion of what his motive may have been when it's likely that only the killer would know what the motive was? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cade Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The main evidence seems to be "aye he defo dun it coz he's a bit o' a weirdo, ken, likesay?". The entire case was a bodge, from the crime scene being contaminated to the court case taking place in Edinburgh. It was all done wrong and it's highly unlikely that the full truth will ever be found out now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zico Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I know someone who was on the jury. He didn't talk about the details of the case, other than to say the photos were the most horrible thing he'd ever seen. He's a decent, intelligent, honest person and he had no doubt whatsoever that Mitchell was guilty. I trust his judgement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jamhammer Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I don't think stuff wasn't tested rather that advances in testing mean that stuff could be found now that wasn't found then. I think he's guilty but just on what I've read rather than any insider knowledge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hate_hibs Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 There is uncomfortable stuff in that blog but remember what it is, who writes it and what it's designed to do. There is no "he did do it" blog to balance it out, probably because that would create legal issues all of its own. I wouldn't place too much trust in anything but the court records tbh and even then... It's a funny one. The opinions on this are so very polarised. This isn't intended as a red flag for those who like some conspiracy (or defamation) but I'm told those in the "Luke is innocent" camp are all pretty convinced they know who did do it. Not just his family either. I'm not local so couldn't say one way or another but heard there's a name commonly mentioned in connection. Whether or not there's anything more to that than trying to divert attention, I don't know. Strange one. There's no doubt the circumstantial stuff was fairly convincing though. A lot of people doing very strange things doesn't help. Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sten Guns Posted September 9, 2013 Author Share Posted September 9, 2013 The main evidence seems to be "aye he defo dun it coz he's a bit o' a weirdo, ken, likesay?". Incorrect. The entire case was a bodge, from the crime scene being contaminated to the court case taking place in Edinburgh. It was all done wrong and it's highly unlikely that the full truth will ever be found out now. The truth is known. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dicksojo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Wasn't there allegations he shagged his maw? Or the dog? Or the dog shagged the maw? Can't remember. Hahaha! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brandt Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder. Years ago, when i used to muck around with a mate from Southouse. We bumped into this guy now and again. He was always very aggressive in manner, even though we were all around 13-14 year old. Hated bumping into him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmondo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Plenty innocent people been sent to prison. No saying Luke is but he's still screaming his innocence so give him every chance in the court I say.Feel sorry for Jodi's family thou they must be going through he ll Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rossthejambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Plenty innocent people been sent to prison. No saying Luke is but he's still screaming his innocence so give him every chance in the court I say.Feel sorry for Jodi's family thou they must be going through he ll Why? Guilty people scream their innocence all the time, why should he get special treatment and a second trial? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmondo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Why? Guilty people scream their innocence all the time, why should he get special treatment and a second trial? Is he getting special treatment ?? in what way ?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rossthejambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Is he getting special treatment ?? in what way ?? You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chester™ Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another? Thats sounds like you are saying no one should get a retrial, even if new evidence comes to light to show innocence, because they've already had a trial and been found guilty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rossthejambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Thats sounds like you are saying no one should get a retrial, even if new evidence comes to light to show innocence, because they've already had a trial and been found guilty. Not at all, as far as I was aware there hasn't been any new evidence in this case though. All that people seem to go on with Luke Mitchell is that he keeps saying he's innocent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmondo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 If he gets a retrial maybe just maybe he will have new evidence to offer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chester™ Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Not at all, as far as I was aware there hasn't been any new evidence in this case though. All that people seem to go on with Luke Mitchell is that he keeps saying he's innocent. Indeed. Though the fact thats its being reviewed would indicate that the SCCRC think there is something unsafe about the conviction and are doing this, to make sure. They dont review cases willy nilly nor do it because one side screams louder than another. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CJGJ Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) You don't need a retrial necessarily The case (as in any case) does deserve to be looked at and then a decision is made as to whether it needs to be taken to the next level. Unless you have access to the trial papers and any new evidence then the verdict stands in my mind.............if new light is shed on the matter then of course we have to consider the verdict. We all have our own views on the matter (much of it based on what we learned in the media). There should always be a right of appeal in the first instance and (as we have now) a body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice......there have been cases which clearly show this has happened in the past and would you like to be the man or woman imprisoned for a crime you did not commit ? Edited September 9, 2013 by CJGJ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmondo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another? Yes I do think he should get another chance, its the same for everyone else why not him ??, its not t special treatment as you say and he will get another chance like most who continue to appeal, well until he exhausts all avenues and that could take a while as that's the law.Jeremy Bamber is still protesting his innocence nearly 30yr on could be a long haul for those involved in this tragic case Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gregory House M.D. Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) It's a weird one this. For some reason I'm not entirely convinced that Mitchell was guilty. The evidence was overwhelming I've heard. The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent. Edited September 9, 2013 by Jay Gatsby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sooperstar Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) There's plenty of possible motives. I mean, his motive could have been "She liked Guns & Roses and I hate people who like Guns & Roses". A motive doesn't need to be excusable. In fact they rarely if ever are. I dare say that any prosecution would be better placed going to a jury with no motive than with something as trivial as what you have put forward. Edited September 9, 2013 by Sooperstar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The evidence was overwhelming I've heard. The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent. I do like the idea that the jury said 'this kid looks weird' and convicted him there and then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desmondo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I do like the idea that the jury said 'this kid looks weird' and convicted him there and then. Or he piddled in a jug Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ToYouToMe Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 The evidence was overwhelming I've heard. The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent. I have to agree. The odds of being murdered by a stranger are very small. Add to that the fact Mitchell found the body, what are the chances of that especially where it was located? But if there is even the smallest chance the boy is innocent, he must be given the chance to prove it. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ToYouToMe Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder. Not impossible. According to the Daily Record earlier this year, he often visited a relative in the area. But I just don't believe it. Usually frenzied knife attacks are committed by someone known to the victim. It is a very personal method of attack. Yes there are exceptions, the horrific Rachel Nickell murder for example, but generally the rule holds true. If it wasn't Mitchell he was the victim of an extraordinary series of coincidences. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CostaJambo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 He's as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ToYouToMe Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible. We'll see I guess. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Part of me would like to see him acquitted, just for the seethe factor! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tazio Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Usually frenzied knife attacks are committed by someone known to the victim. It is a very personal method of attack. The Jodi Jones wasn't frenzied, quite the opposite based on at least one of the more horrific pieces of evidence that came out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
felix Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible. GTF with your DNA hocus pocus. He pished in a jar and someone smelt burning that night. What more do you want !? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brandt Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 GTF with your DNA hocus pocus. He pished in a jar and someone smelt burning that night. What more do you want !? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_R Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I'm not convinced he acted alone if guilty. Suprised this view isn't considered more. The defence seems to be that the inconclusive evidence points to someone else. yet it seems there are just way too many coincidences and circumstantial evidence for him to be innocent (As someone else said, what are the odds on that?) Perhaps there was more than one person involved? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
punkrockcroc Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I've always, for no real reason, been convinced it wasn't him. Will be quite a smug moment for me when he's found innocent. And me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 I've always, for no real reason, been convinced it wasn't him. Will be quite a smug moment for me when he's found innocent. How come ? Wee lassie butchered He's a freak What's to be smug about ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.