Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.

[faithlilly]

This article confirms two things that some of us have written about for many years.

A) There was a definite bias within Lothian and Borders police towards Luke being the killer.
B) The profile constructed by the FBI was not used in court because the FBI did not believe that Luke was the killer.

From the article :

AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.

Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.

Luke Mitchell was jailed for Jodi's murder in 2005

The retired crimebuster, who was a senior member of the FBI's elite Behavioural Analysis Unit, said his experts produced a detailed profile of Jodi's killer after police asked for their opinion.

Mr Safarik said: "If you have mutilation of sexual body parts you are talking about a lust killer and that is not what you are going to find in a boy of 14.

"The fantasy development and all that dynamic would just not exist at that age.

"But because the report didn't subscribe to their theory, they ignored it."

Jodi vanished in June 2003.

Her naked body was found with stab wounds and near-decapitated close to her home in Easthouses, Midlothian.


The chilling crime was featured in documentary Murder in a Small Town.

The show sparked a petition demanding an independent inquiry into his conviction, but was blasted by tragic Jodi's family as 'despicable'.

Two Lothian and Borders detectives flew to the US to meet the FBI, but dismissed their dossier.

Mr Safarik added: "If our fresh eyes on a complex case say you are looking at the wrong place, somebody should ask 'is our investigation going in the right direction?'

"But they had confirmation bias. If you just charge somebody convenient and who you think you can convict, that's disgraceful.

"It's a disservice to the victim, the justice system, and its morally wrong.

"The real offender is still out there."

Mitchell, now 33, was caged in 2005 after a trial and has seen three appeals fail.

Police say they are not looking for anyone else in the case.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7931898/jodi-jones-cop-luke-mitchell-innocent/

[Nicholas]

Mr Safarik said: "If you have mutilation of sexual body parts you are talking about a lust killer and that is not what you are going to find in a boy of 14.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7931898/jodi-jones-cop-luke-mitchell-innocent/

Killer Luke Mitchell was almost 15 years of age when he murdered Jodi Jones and didn’t behave like your average ‘boy of 14’ around the time

It’s very possible Luke Mitchell also carried out a ‘lust’ murder linked to the paraphilia erotophonophilia

There was a reason why the police asked Luke Mitchell questions about his sexual activity and it was ALL to do with the murder he’d committed and attempting to understand his sexually deviant nature

Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out  - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????

The police also ‘DID’ think ‘in the early days’ Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated and it could be said they ‘then changed their minds (for no apparent reason)’

[faithlilly]

Killer Luke Mitchell was almost 15 years of age when he murdered Jodi Jones and didn’t behave like your average ‘boy of 14’ around the time

Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out  - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????

The police also ‘DID’ think ‘in the early days’ Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated and it could be said they ‘then changed their minds (for no apparent reason)’

I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.

The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.

[Nicholas]

I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.

The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.

On the back of this news article Sandra Lean has stated ⬇️

Sandra Lean
Is the tide finally turning?

What difference would Mark Safirak’s ‘profile’ have made - it was guesswork

Plus he never met killer Luke Mitchell

[Nicholas]

I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.

The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.

Then there’s this on Mark Safarik from 2017 by the Los Angeles Times,

‘How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars’

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html

[Mr Apples]

L&BP enlisted the help of a Prof. Paul Ekman in the original investigation, too, who has worked closely with the FBI & government departments in the USA to help with detecting liars. This article is very short, but the nub of the matter is that, in Ekman’s professional opinion, L&BP were justified in their suspicions of Luke:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3A+The+verdict%3A+LIE-PROBE+GURU+HELPED+NAIL+KILLER.-a0127488188

[faithlilly]

L&BP enlisted the help of a Prof. Paul Ekman in the original investigation, too, who has worked closely with the FBI & government departments in the USA to help with detecting liars. This article is very short, but the nub of the matter is that, in Ekman’s professional opinion, L&BP were justified in their suspicions of Luke:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3A+The+verdict%3A+LIE-PROBE+GURU+HELPED+NAIL+KILLER.-a0127488188

It would be interesting to know who L&BP approached first.

A very interesting article about the methods used by Ekman and how they have been discredited by psychologists.

https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/blueleaks-law-enforcement-police-lie-detection/

Of course this doesn’t answer why the FBI’s profile, requested by L&B, was not disclosed to the defence.

[Uncle Jr]

It would be interesting to know who L&BP approached first.

A very interesting article about the methods used by Ekman and how they have been discredited by psychologists.

https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/blueleaks-law-enforcement-police-lie-detection/

Of course this doesn’t answer why the FBI’s profile, requested by L&B, was not disclosed to the defence.

Good question. Unused material should be assessed and disclosed too.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure

[Parky41]

Good question. Unused material should be assessed and disclosed too.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure

Assuming, as usual of course that it was not - supporters of Mitchell have a very odd habit of repeating that which is not true. In short, the main giver of such information is somewhat renowned for claiming evidence to be undisclosed, not known to the defence, purely on the basis that it was not inclusive of the hand me downs received from DF's original defence of Mitchell. Quite the list there over time, does one really believe there is mountains of undisclosed evidence that no defence team has picked up on to use??

One does however make an interesting comment, that which is consistent to every question around the why's? Of what the defence chose not to use or introduce. A sexual element to this crime is one such area:

p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:

"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"

"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"

The problem with this analysis and the authors inability to grasp realism, is. It is not, that they would not have believed there was no sexual element to the crime, it was of proving it to be so. In line one could say with premeditated murder, believing there was an element of this here, but difficult to prove. What had to be proved was that of LM being the killer, first and foremost.

This was a circumstantial case, the burden of proof was of showing that Mitchell had carried out this murder and so forth. If there had been concrete forensic evidence to show him to be the killer, then the sexual element or premeditation would have been an option to add in to it. In short, one follows the other. But of course, most with sense know this already.

Why therefore bother at all with attempting to gain insight? - It is called investigating. The police may or not have travelled there by direction of the Crown, we do not know. Inclusive of the investigation files and disclosed, then there is simply no proof in the slightest that it was not disclosed. Not being part of DF's hand me downs does not equate to non disclosure, as we have seen with statements, R Kelly being one such statement.

Why did the police seek to gain insight here and we can look at those multiple areas of DNA. Those that have previously been discussed, that law of averages and the one clear male. From semen/sperm, underwear and LM. A route that resulted in the case progressing along a circumstantial road, the agreement made around the intimate relationship had with the deceased. That knock back in August 2003 for an arrest warrant, the DNA, was not, going to be able to be used? There was nothing that could directly place LM at the scene of crime without causing multiple problems. Without being answerable to.

[Nicholas]

p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:

"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"

"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"

The problem with this analysis and the authors inability to grasp realism, is. It is not, that they would not have believed there was no sexual element to the crime, it was of proving it to be so. In line one could say with premeditated murder, believing there was an element of this here, but difficult to prove. What had to be proved was that of LM being the killer, first and foremost.

This was a circumstantial case, the burden of proof was of showing that Mitchell had carried out this murder and so forth. If there had been concrete forensic evidence to show him to be the killer, then the sexual element or premeditation would have been an option to add in to it. In short, one follows the other. But of course, most with sense know this already.

Why therefore bother at all with attempting to gain insight? - It is called investigating.

 

[Nicholas]

p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:

"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"

"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"

‘Piquerism’ was also mentioned in the investigation into Joan Albert’s 2001 murder

If the motivation for the murder of [Name removed] was Erotophonophilia, then any possible paraphilia is relevant. Piquerism is a paraphilia as well as a form of sadism. The same could be said of Luke Mitchell's urne collection ie; another paraphilia

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg489324#msg489324

[Nicholas]

https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/kill-crazy-about-you-a-brief-overview-of-erotophonophilia-aka-lust-murder/

[rulesapply]

What happens when an expert witness proves not to be an expert at all and opines about key issues in a murder case that are beyond his areas of expertise?

For starters, the hapless wretch against whom the expert is testifying is convicted and sentenced to prison. Ultimately, however, the conviction is — or at least, in the case of People vs. King, was — overturned, and the case sent back for a retrial.

At least that's how a three-judge panel from the state's 2nd District Appellate Court saw it. In a recent decision, it unanimously concluded that former FBI agent and criminal profiler Mark Safarik should have kept many of his thoughts to himself when he testified against a husband, Shadwick King, charged with the 2014 murder of his wife, Kathleen.

More importantly, the appeals court found, Kane County prosecutors shouldn't have solicited Safarik's testimony on certain issues, and trial Judge James Hallock shouldn't have permitted him to answer.

The case is instructive because it outlines how expert testimony can — and cannot — be used in criminal cases that involve issues beyond most jurors' understanding.

[Venturi Swirl]

Then there’s this on Mark Safarik from 2017 by the Los Angeles Times,

‘How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars’

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html

A somewhat damning report of the man and his abilities and the profession of criminal profiling generally.  I can’t imagine this TV personality’s views would have made much difference in the outcome of Mitchell’s case.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out  - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????

As per usual Sandra Lean shows what a fraud and hypocrite she is

It wasn’t long ago she referred to the murder of Rachel Nickell and stated, ‘This is why police investigations HAVE to get it right’

Which they did in Mitchell’s case

Remember Paul Brittons ‘criminal profiling’

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jigsaw-Man-Paul-Britton/dp/0552144932

And one of Sandra Leans pseudonyms 🙄