UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 11, 2021, 12:43:56 PM
-
If LM was responsible what motive was given? A warped interest in the Black Dahlia which he wanted to reenact?
Is there anything in his background to suggest he was capable of this?
No sexual assault?
Were any of J J's possessions she might have had on her person found missing? Eg phone, jewellery, money?
-
The motive given by Craig Dobbie was that Jodi had found out about some other girl he had been seeing occasionally who lived 80 miles away. Yeah Craig, kids of 14 regularly kill their girlfriends because of flirting with other kids. 8)--))
People need to understand that NO EVIDENCE was ever found that Luke Mitchell even knew about the Black Dahlia. Nothing on his devices, no images, photos, newspaper cuttings !! NIL. The same applies to Manson. The only thing connected to Manson he had was a free CD from a magazine bought AFTER the murder. All of that was made up by the Police and fed to the Press.
Mitchell did not have any criminal convictions at the time of the murder, unlike some people involved in this case.
-
The motive given by Craig Dobbie was that Jodi had found out about some other girl he had been seeing occasionally who lived 80 miles away. Yeah Craig, kids of 14 regularly kill their girlfriends because of flirting with other kids. 8)--))
People need to understand that NO EVIDENCE was ever found that Luke Mitchell even knew about the Black Dahlia. Nothing on his devices, no images, photos, newspaper cuttings !! NIL. The same applies to Manson. The only thing connected to Manson he had was a free CD from a magazine bought AFTER the murder. All of that was made up by the Police and fed to the Press.
Mitchell did not have any criminal convictions at the time of the murder, unlike some people involved in this case.
If Jodi had found out about Luke two-timing her there would have been signs of it in her demeanour before she left her house. They’re just not there.
Jodi wasn’t expecting to go out that night but what did she do as soon as she heard her grounding had been lifted...she called Luke and arranged to meet him. Does that sound like she was angry with him? Does that sound as if she had just had her heartbroken ? Why no angst-driven phone calls questioning him about what she had just found out? In fact when could she have found out about Kimberly? At school? No sign of it when she came home. In a phone call? She didn’t have a working phone as is evidenced when she had to contact Luke on her mum’s phone. So when?
-
I can't see any motive for Luke murdering Jodi, unless he was high on cannabis, and unaware of what he was doing (unlikely, IMO).
14 year old boys who want to get rid of their girlfriends, dump them, not murder them. However, there is no evidence that Luke no longer wanted Jodi as his girlfriend.
-
If Jodi had found out about Luke two-timing her there would have been signs of it in her demeanour before she left her house. They’re just not there.
Jodi wasn’t expecting to go out that night but what did she do as soon as she heard her grounding had been lifted...she called Luke and arranged to meet him. Does that sound like she was angry with him? Does that sound as if she had just had her heartbroken ? Why no angst-driven phone calls questioning him about what she had just found out? In fact when could she have found out about Kimberly? At school? No sign of it when she came home. In a phone call? She didn’t have a working phone as is evidenced when she had to contact Luke on her mum’s phone. So when?
Absolutely. It is utterly disgraceful that Dobbie claimed Mitchell had a motive because of some girl he'd met on holiday and probably hardly seen since. These people were aged 14-16 !! I've honestly never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Dobbie had to come up with some "motive" to justify his actions. That was the best he could come up with after an investigation that lasted about 18 months!??
-
I can't see any motive for Luke murdering Jodi, unless he was high on cannabis, and unaware of what he was doing (unlikely, IMO).
14 year old boys who want to get rid of their girlfriends, dump them, not murder them. However, there is no evidence that Luke no longer wanted Jodi as his girlfriend.
Exactly. Motive is significant in a high percentage of murders. Mitchell had none as you say. Unfortunately the Police failed to investigate as to whether anyone else might have had a motive.
-
Absolutely. It is utterly disgraceful that Dobbie claimed Mitchell had a motive because of some girl he'd met on holiday and probably hardly seen since. These people were aged 14-16 !! I've honestly never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. Dobbie had to come up with some "motive" to justify his actions. That was the best he could come up with after an investigation that lasted about 18 months!??
Unfortunately the majority of the jury gobbled it up.
-
Exactly. Motive is significant in a high percentage of murders. Mitchell had none as you say. Unfortunately the Police failed to investigate as to whether anyone else might have had a motive.
I can't see what motive anyone would have for murdering a 14 year old girl------unless she knew something that the killer was afraid she would reveal.
-
The following is from an appeal judgement:
The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
It sounds to me the perp was either mentally ill and/or off his head on some mood altering substance.
I would rule out a woman as I don't see many women having the physical strength to hold the victim down, who attempted to defend herself, and tie up the hands unless this was done after the victim ceased struggling.
The above doesn't sound like it came about over some teenage tiff about boyfriends, drugs or money owed. Even if J J stumbled on something its difficult to reconcile what brought about the extensive mutilation.
-
I can't see any motive for Luke murdering Jodi, unless he was high on cannabis, and unaware of what he was doing (unlikely, IMO).
14 year old boys who want to get rid of their girlfriends, dump them, not murder them. However, there is no evidence that Luke no longer wanted Jodi as his girlfriend.
Is cannabis capable of inducing such violence? Thought it just chills you out?
-
I can't see what motive anyone would have for murdering a 14 year old girl------unless she knew something that the killer was afraid she would reveal.
That's what I thought but if she stumbled across something eg a drug deal or some sexual activity why would the perp carry out such an attack?
-
Is cannabis capable of inducing such violence? Thought it just chills you out?
Really? You weren’t aware of this?
Cannabis can cause hallucinations, changes in mood, amnesia, depersonalisation, paranoia, delusion and disorientation. You might find it harder to concentrate or remember things. You may find that you can’t sleep well and you feel depressed. You may also feel hungry or like time is slowing down.
You might have lower motivation. And cannabis can affect how you sense things. You may see, hear or feel things differently. This is known as hallucinating. Hallucinations can be a sign of psychosis.
Psychosis can be a symptom of mental illness, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. These can be called ‘psychotic illnesses.’
-
The following is from an appeal judgement:
The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
It sounds to me the perp was either mentally ill and/or off his head on some mood altering substance.
I would rule out a woman as I don't see many women having the physical strength to hold the victim down, who attempted to defend herself, and tie up the hands unless this was done after the victim ceased struggling.
The above doesn't sound like it came about over some teenage tiff about boyfriends, drugs or money owed. Even if J J stumbled on something its difficult to reconcile what brought about the extensive mutilation.
It’s also difficult to believe that in the space of 40 minutes Luke carried out the sustained attack described above, went home and explained to his mum what had happened, cleaned himself up, changed his clothes and was sitting nonchalantly on a wall at 5.50ish.
-
Is cannabis capable of inducing such violence? Thought it just chills you out?
I believe it affects different people in different ways. My friend's son committed suicide while under the influence.
-
I believe it affects different people in different ways. My friend's son committed suicide while under the influence.
Your poor friend.
-
It’s also difficult to believe that in the space of 40 minutes Luke carried out the sustained attack described above, went home and explained to his mum what had happened, cleaned himself up, changed his clothes and was sitting nonchalantly on a wall at 5.50ish.
Yes. In the BBC docu the pathologist said J J lost some 5 litres of blood and said in his opinion some blood would have transferred to perp. Difficult to see how LM arrived back home in broad daylight without his state attracting the attention of others especially given the time ie when people are arriving home from work.
-
It’s also difficult to believe that in the space of 40 minutes Luke carried out the sustained attack described above, went home and explained to his mum what had happened, cleaned himself up, changed his clothes and was sitting nonchalantly on a wall at 5.50ish.
Funny how you have no such problems with Gerry McCann nonchalantly laughing and joking with Jez Wilkins and his Tapas friends after discovering his daughter’s body and thereafter disposing of it.
-
Really? You weren’t aware of this?
Cannabis can cause hallucinations, changes in mood, amnesia, depersonalisation, paranoia, delusion and disorientation. You might find it harder to concentrate or remember things. You may find that you can’t sleep well and you feel depressed. You may also feel hungry or like time is slowing down.
You might have lower motivation. And cannabis can affect how you sense things. You may see, hear or feel things differently. This is known as hallucinating. Hallucinations can be a sign of psychosis.
Psychosis can be a symptom of mental illness, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. These can be called ‘psychotic illnesses.’
Is it likely that someone under the influence of cannabis would carry out the type of attack described by the pathologist? If yes I'm surprised the drug is classified as Class B and if found in possession of the police can issue a warning or on the spot fine of £90.
-
Is it likely that someone under the influence of cannabis would carry out the type of attack described by the pathologist? If yes I'm surprised the drug is classified as Class B and if found in possession of the police can issue a warning or on the spot fine of £90.
Likely? No. This was a highly unusual and despicable crime. Possible? Yes. If you can accept that individuals commit suicide under the influence is it really such a stretch to consider that they may react violently towards others while under its influence, or because of longer term effects of regular usage?
https://www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au/resources/cannabis-conundrum/374-smoking-cannabis-does-make-people-more-violent-project-confirms-for-the-first-time-that-using-the-drug-is-the-cause-of-crimes.html
-
Is it likely that someone under the influence of cannabis would carry out the type of attack described by the pathologist? If yes I'm surprised the drug is classified as Class B and if found in possession of the police can issue a warning or on the spot fine of £90.
Luke was a regular cannabis smoker as was Jodi and, it would appear, many of their friends. If it was the cannabis that made Luke commit the crime, why hadn’t he displayed such violent tendencies while under the influence before?
-
Luke was a regular cannabis smoker as was Jodi and, it would appear, many of their friends. If it was the cannabis that made Luke commit the crime, why hadn’t he displayed such violent tendencies while under the influence before?
He had, but you have chosen to disbelieve the accounts.
-
I can't see what motive anyone would have for murdering a 14 year old girl------unless she knew something that the killer was afraid she would reveal.
Joseph and the coat of many colours.
-
The following is from an appeal judgement:
The deceased's body was naked apart from her socks. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. Her clothing had been extensively cut and torn with a sharp, bladed implement such as a knife. Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
It sounds to me the perp was either mentally ill and/or off his head on some mood altering substance.
I would rule out a woman as I don't see many women having the physical strength to hold the victim down, who attempted to defend herself, and tie up the hands unless this was done after the victim ceased struggling.
The above doesn't sound like it came about over some teenage tiff about boyfriends, drugs or money owed. Even if J J stumbled on something its difficult to reconcile what brought about the extensive mutilation.
You're missing the point. The attacker had a knife or some similar weapon and was clearly in a high state of rage. You don't need any physical strength if they struck the person with it immediately.
-
He had, but you have chosen to disbelieve the accounts.
He had not displayed behaviour before similar to the violence of this murder. It's a jump over a multi storey building to go from stories about him threatening someone with a knife (allegedly) to carrying out one of the most brutal murders ever. Luke Mitchell had no criminal record for anything related to violence..... fact.
-
I can't see what motive anyone would have for murdering a 14 year old girl------unless she knew something that the killer was afraid she would reveal.
You don't need a motive to do what was done to Jodi - you have to be psychotic/insane.
-
He had not displayed behaviour before similar to the violence of this murder. It's a jump over a multi storey building to go from stories about him threatening someone with a knife (allegedly) to carrying out one of the most brutal murders ever. Luke Mitchell had no criminal record for anything related to violence..... fact.
You’ve been here before haven’t you? I recognise the rudeness. You seem to take such comments so personally one could be forgiven for thinking you were Mitchell himself.
-
You don't need a motive to do what was done to Jodi - you have to be psychotic/insane.
Which I don't think Luke was, was he?
Sounds like the work of a serial killer, to be honest.
-
Just a reminder, please keep posts polite and respectful.
Thank you.
-
Which I don't think Luke was, was he?
Sounds like the work of a serial killer, to be honest.
If LM did murder Jodi, which is one of many possibilities, then I'd say he was - no sane person does that, imo.
When you say it's the work of a serial killer, I'd say you're speculating.
-
Which I don't think Luke was, was he?
Sounds like the work of a serial killer, to be honest.
Every serial killer has to begin at some point. If this was a serial killer and it wasn't Luke where are the other similar deaths in the series?
-
You don't need a motive to do what was done to Jodi - you have to be psychotic/insane.
But Luke was check by a forensic clinical psychiatrist, would they not pick up on it if he was insane?
[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
-
But Luke was check by a forensic clinical psychiatrist, would they not pick up on it if he was insane?
[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.
How does one establish a person's sanity with any certainty?
Sure, they will have procedures that they go through, but can you ever really tell what's going on in someone's mind.
Would a sociopath show any signs of being emotionally maladjusted?
There's also the possibility of temporary insanity - I think John may have suggested this in the past?
Here's another possibility - maybe it was an accident - people have said LM was in the habit of carrying knives, and that he'd had knives at girls' throats on previous occasions - maybe things got wildly out of hand?
Now I'm speculating, but I'm allowed to - because I don't know what happened - very few people do.
-
How does one establish a person's sanity with any certainty?
Sure, they will have procedures that they go through, but can you ever really tell what's going on in someone's mind.
Would a sociopath show any signs of being emotionally maladjusted?
There's also the possibility of temporary insanity - I think John may have suggested this in the past?
Here's another possibility - maybe it was an accident - people have said LM was in the habit of carrying knives, and that he'd had knives at girls' throats on previous occasions - maybe things got wildly out of hand?
Now I'm speculating, but I'm allowed to - because I don't know what happened - very few people do.
But people are happy to say he had problems based on teachers reports, this is a trained person, used in courts etc if they had said luke had problems I’m sure everyone would be all over it.
You are right people can hide thing but there are usually signs when they are young, as they don’t know how to deal with these feelings or able to hide it fully etc There is nothing in Luke’s past to say he was insane. You are absolutely correct we don’t know what happened therefore should we not try to be as sure as we can the right person is behind bars, some don’t think so. I really don’t know.
-
If it was Luke I don’t think it was planned, I’d have thought he would be more prepared, tied her up with trousers not rope for example. I agree something may have happened behind the wall, an accident, or something taken too far then made to look like a mad person did it, but I just don’t think it was Luke as the timeframe is so tight and he seemed normal to everyone that seen him, if it was an accident I’m sure he would be in a bit of a state after carrying out all those injuries to his girlfriend to cover up an accident.
If we are speculating could be she interrupted something behind the wall, tried to run, was hit on the head to stop her, a fight broke out went to far and the murderer thought they had no choice but to kill her, then tried to make it look like a sex assault or crazy person did it. Could be Luke but for me timing and demeanour don’t fit.
-
If LM did murder Jodi, which is one of many possibilities, then I'd say he was - no sane person does that, imo.
When you say it's the work of a serial killer, I'd say you're speculating.
Yes, guilty of speculating, I'm afraid!
-
Yes, guilty of speculating, I'm afraid!
Don't be afraid, m8. :)
-
You’ve been here before haven’t you? I recognise the rudeness. You seem to take such comments so personally one could be forgiven for thinking you were Mitchell himself.
Interesting thought.
-
You’ve been here before haven’t you? I recognise the rudeness. You seem to take such comments so personally one could be forgiven for thinking you were Mitchell himself.
Although highly unlikely, I wonder if he can gain access to the internet from the segregation unit in Shotts.
-
Although highly unlikely, I wonder if he can gain access to the internet from the segregation unit in Shotts.
Or, indeed, anywhere in Shotts. ;)
-
Luke was a regular cannabis smoker as was Jodi and, it would appear, many of their friends. If it was the cannabis that made Luke commit the crime, why hadn’t he displayed such violent tendencies while under the influence before?
And she apparently wrote in her diary she thought she was falling in love with LM and referred to him as 'such a sweet guy'!
-
Although highly unlikely, I wonder if he can gain access to the internet from the segregation unit in Shotts.
Internet can't be accessed legally in Shotts by prisoners.. illegally?? Also he's not in segregation unit its protection wing. Thats different from segregation
-
But people are happy to say he had problems based on teachers reports, this is a trained person, used in courts etc if they had said luke had problems I’m sure everyone would be all over it.
You are right people can hide thing but there are usually signs when they are young, as they don’t know how to deal with these feelings or able to hide it fully etc There is nothing in Luke’s past to say he was insane. You are absolutely correct we don’t know what happened therefore should we not try to be as sure as we can the right person is behind bars, some don’t think so. I really don’t know.
If he had problems how come he was at a mainstream school? How come J J's mother allowed her to associate with him.
I'm not buying any of this character assassination stuff.
-
He had, but you have chosen to disbelieve the accounts.
Are you referring to the tale where he held a knife to a girl's throat in jest?
-
Every serial killer has to begin at some point. If this was a serial killer and it wasn't Luke where are the other similar deaths in the series?
Chillenden murders.
The police are not know for connecting dots especially across borders.
-
Aye, mind that time that lad held a knife at that girl's throat? That was funny, eh?
No.
-
Aye, mind that time that lad held a knife at that girl's throat? That was funny, eh?
No.
Aye, mind that time the Crown put the girl on the stand to prove Luke was violent with knives?
No, me neither.
-
You’ve been here before haven’t you? I recognise the rudeness. You seem to take such comments so personally one could be forgiven for thinking you were Mitchell himself.
What rudeness? I said it's a jump over a multi-storey building. Why do you consider that rude? Is stating that he had no violent tendencies before the murder rude? I don't agree that incidents involving Mitchell where knives or threatening behaviour was alleged transformed him into someone that carried out this murder. How many people were caught carrying offensive weapons in the UK last year? The number of possession of UK offensive weapon offences was 7,222 in year ending March 2019 which doesn't include the other 90%+ who were not caught. It is also a fact that Mitchell had no criminal record before the murder.
-
What rudeness? I said it's a jump over a multi-storey building. Why do you consider that rude? Is stating that he had no violent tendencies before the murder rude? I don't agree that incidents involving Mitchell where knives or threatening behaviour was alleged transformed him into someone that carried out this murder. How many people were caught carrying offensive weapons in the UK last year? The number of possession of UK offensive weapon offences was 7,222 in year ending March 2019 which doesn't include the other 90%+ who were not caught. It is also a fact that Mitchell had no criminal record before the murder.
Witnesses confirmed that Mitchell carried a knife. After Jodi's murder the knife was missing but Mitchell's mother replaced it.
-
Witnesses confirmed that Mitchell carried a knife. After Jodi's murder the knife was missing but Mitchell's mother replaced it.
Yes the small knife from the pouch was missing. I know there were question marks about his behaviour at school and him sometimes having a knife, but how many people 14-16 could that apply to? He didn't have any convictions for violence. I'm not saying that there are no concerns about the knives, but unfortunately as you can see from the stats above, knife carrying is still very common and in 2003-2005 it was much more common. Punishments for carrying weapons were reviewed a few years after that in Scotland and increased to try and stamp it out.
-
What rudeness? I said it's a jump over a multi-storey building. Why do you consider that rude? Is stating that he had no violent tendencies before the murder rude? I don't agree that incidents involving Mitchell where knives or threatening behaviour was alleged transformed him into someone that carried out this murder. How many people were caught carrying offensive weapons in the UK last year? The number of possession of UK offensive weapon offences was 7,222 in year ending March 2019 which doesn't include the other 90%+ who were not caught. It is also a fact that Mitchell had no criminal record before the murder.
The rudeness that was removed from the post by the moderator which was something along the lines of I must be off my head on cannabis to write such rubbish. You’ve obviously got a very short memory and a shorter fuse and I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you thanks, no matter what future provocation you intend to throw my way.
-
The rudeness that was removed from the post by the moderator which was something along the lines of I must be off my head on cannabis to write such rubbish. You’ve obviously got a very short memory and a shorter fuse and I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you thanks, no matter what future provocation you intend to throw my way.
You're very easily offended for some reason and I did not say "you must be off your head on cannabis". Someone else referred to the murder asking why Mitchell had not shown similar violent tendencies whilst under the influence of cannabis before. You said.... "he had but people chose to disbelieve it". When exactly did he show similar violent tendencies to those of the murderer? Are you actually pulling my leg? Whatever "incidents" you are referring to, how exactly do YOU know if he was under the influence? Were you there? You don't know, so really you're not helping any discussion by posting misleading information.
-
You're very easily offended for some reason and I did not say "you must be off your head on cannabis". Someone else referred to the murder asking why Mitchell had not shown similar violent tendencies whilst under the influence of cannabis before. You said.... "he had but people chose to disbelieve it". When exactly did he show similar violent tendencies to those of the murderer? Are you actually pulling my leg? Whatever "incidents" you are referring to, how exactly do YOU know if he was under the influence? Were you there? You don't know, so really you're not helping any discussion by posting misleading information.
Well, let's not start arguing with each other, as that doesn't promote useful discussion!
Are you a "local", William?
-
Well, let's not start arguing with each other, as that doesn't promote useful discussion!
Are you a "local", William?
I agree! Some people have no sense of humour. @)(++(* No I'm not local, I live about 40 miles away from that area but I knew someone that lived very near Easthouses for a few years around 2003-2008. He heard a lot of rumours. Unfortunately most of what he heard was so ridiculous that he kind of shut off to it eventually! He also heard 1 or 2 theories that sounded much more likely, but of course proof was missing!
-
Is Luke Mitchell sexually attracted to both men and women?
By Marie Sharp
“CAGED schoolboy murderer Luke Mitchell is being sent love letters by gay men.
At least two of the letters were from men in Edinburgh who want a relationship with the savage killer of Jodi Jones.
One of Mitchell's gay fans, a professional man in his 30s, included a sexy picture of himself and a plea to become a penpal and lover.
Another writer, a student, begged 16-year-old Mitchell for a relationship.
Sources say at least six marriage proposals from women have also been sent to Mitchell at Polmont Young Offenders' Institution in Stirlingshire.
A prison insider said: 'Mitchell thinks he's a celebrity. He boasts about all the women who want to marry him.
'He's kept the gay fan mail quiet though. That's not the image he wants to portray of himself at all.'
It is understood most of the fan mail is not passed on to Mitchell. Staff have the right to withhold letters they decide are unsuitable.
But the killer has to be informed about each letter. A guard opens them and tells Mitchell about their contents.
Several of Mitchell's female admirers are old enough to be his mother. They come from as far afield as America and Germany.
Self-styled devil-worshipper Mitchell is serving at least 20 years for strangling 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi, cutting her throat and mutilating her body.
He has gone out of his way to annoy inmates and staff at Polmont. Reports last week said he had repeatedly refused to have his long hair cut in a childish protest against prison authorities.
The killer has also filed a string of petty complaints against officers, accusing them of spitting in his food and kicking his door at night to wake him up.
Mitchell has insulted staff by taunting them about how much they earn, and angered his fellow convicts by branding them neds. He was slapped by an inmate after one row and had to be protected by guards.
Despite his horrific crime, Mitchell is still a pin-up for some young girls who share his 'Goth' taste in music.
At the time of his conviction, he was seeing a teenage schoolgirl whose parents drove her to Polmont for visits.
That relationship ended but he has since been seen kissing another girl who has joined his mum Corinne on trips to the jail.
Staff have told how hundreds of girls have written adoring letters to Mitchell.
In one twisted reply, the killer claimed to be a vampire and said the taste of blood drove him crazy.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+killer+Luke%27s+Gay+fan+mail%3B+Sex+letters+from+men+make+schoolboy...-a0131219871
-
Is Luke Mitchell sexually attracted to both men and women?
By Marie Sharp
“CAGED schoolboy murderer Luke Mitchell is being sent love letters by gay men.
At least two of the letters were from men in Edinburgh who want a relationship with the savage killer of Jodi Jones.
One of Mitchell's gay fans, a professional man in his 30s, included a sexy picture of himself and a plea to become a penpal and lover.
Another writer, a student, begged 16-year-old Mitchell for a relationship.
Sources say at least six marriage proposals from women have also been sent to Mitchell at Polmont Young Offenders' Institution in Stirlingshire.
A prison insider said: 'Mitchell thinks he's a celebrity. He boasts about all the women who want to marry him.
'He's kept the gay fan mail quiet though. That's not the image he wants to portray of himself at all.'
It is understood most of the fan mail is not passed on to Mitchell. Staff have the right to withhold letters they decide are unsuitable.
But the killer has to be informed about each letter. A guard opens them and tells Mitchell about their contents.
Several of Mitchell's female admirers are old enough to be his mother. They come from as far afield as America and Germany.
Self-styled devil-worshipper Mitchell is serving at least 20 years for strangling 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi, cutting her throat and mutilating her body.
He has gone out of his way to annoy inmates and staff at Polmont. Reports last week said he had repeatedly refused to have his long hair cut in a childish protest against prison authorities.
The killer has also filed a string of petty complaints against officers, accusing them of spitting in his food and kicking his door at night to wake him up.
Mitchell has insulted staff by taunting them about how much they earn, and angered his fellow convicts by branding them neds. He was slapped by an inmate after one row and had to be protected by guards.
Despite his horrific crime, Mitchell is still a pin-up for some young girls who share his 'Goth' taste in music.
At the time of his conviction, he was seeing a teenage schoolgirl whose parents drove her to Polmont for visits.
That relationship ended but he has since been seen kissing another girl who has joined his mum Corinne on trips to the jail.
Staff have told how hundreds of girls have written adoring letters to Mitchell.
In one twisted reply, the killer claimed to be a vampire and said the taste of blood drove him crazy.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+killer+Luke%27s+Gay+fan+mail%3B+Sex+letters+from+men+make+schoolboy...-a0131219871
There was no evidence that Luke was attracted to men before he went to prison. As far as I recall, he was two timing (or three timing) Jodi.
I remember talk of Myra Hindley having lesbian affairs in prison, whereas she had previously only been attracted to men----at least, that's what we heard---- so, perhaps, it's something to do with being in prison, that some people have affairs with others of their own sex. After all, while in prison, they are only meeting people of their own sex. I've heard this can happen in single sex boarding schools too.
-
That's what I thought but if she stumbled across something eg a drug deal or some sexual activity why would the perp carry out such an attack?
They wouldn't.
-
never really felt need to understand the motive in this case (what rational motive could anyone have for inflict massive violence and killing a 14 yaer old girl?)
but when considering potential of jodi confronting luke about two timing was the opposite scenario, luke being jealous about jodi two-timing, ever considered seriously by anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4025819.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4025819.stm)
Mr Leitch also said he had met Jodi, Parkhead Place, Easthouses, at a house in Dalkeith some months before and she smoked cannabis with him and others there.
There was also some "kissing and that" between Mr Leitch and Jodi, which was mentioned in Jodi's diary, the court heard.
never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often
-
never really felt need to understand the motive in this case (what rational motive could anyone have for inflict massive violence and killing a 14 yaer old girl?)
but when considering potential of jodi confronting luke about two timing was the opposite scenario, luke being jealous about jodi two-timing, ever considered seriously by anyone?
never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often
Yes something else the Mitchell’s and Sandra Lean omit in the their skewed and biased narrative
But something else the Jones family will no doubt be well aware of
-
never really felt need to understand the motive in this case (what rational motive could anyone have for inflict massive violence and killing a 14 yaer old girl?)
but when considering potential of jodi confronting luke about two timing was the opposite scenario, luke being jealous about jodi two-timing, ever considered seriously by anyone?
never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often
What does Sandra Lean say about Alistair Leitch in her 2nd book?
And what does Mr Leitch’s witness statement say?
What other details did he provide to the police about Luke Mitchell?
-
There was no evidence that Luke was attracted to men before he went to prison
Who says?
It’s possible he could have been using the girlfriends as a cover
-
There was no evidence that Luke was attracted to men before he went to prison. As far as I recall, he was two timing (or three timing) Jodi.
I remember talk of Myra Hindley having lesbian affairs in prison, whereas she had previously only been attracted to men----at least, that's what we heard---- so, perhaps, it's something to do with being in prison, that some people have affairs with others of their own sex. After all, while in prison, they are only meeting people of their own sex. I've heard this can happen in single sex boarding schools too.
During ‘The mind of Aaron Hernandez’ someone referred to the females used by males - like Hernandez did - as a cover for their homosexuality as ‘beards’
Apparently ‘a “beard” is an antiquated slang term for someone whose social presence serves to mask aspects of someone else’s true self from the public.
https://thewisdomdaily.com/are-you-a-beard/
-
There was no evidence that Luke was attracted to men before he went to prison. As far as I recall, he was two timing (or three timing) Jodi.
I remember talk of Myra Hindley having lesbian affairs in prison, whereas she had previously only been attracted to men----at least, that's what we heard---- so, perhaps, it's something to do with being in prison, that some people have affairs with others of their own sex. After all, while in prison, they are only meeting people of their own sex. I've heard this can happen in single sex boarding schools too.
Sharon Sunshine referred to the police as ‘dirty perverts’
The police have recently been referred to as ‘dirty perverts’ for apparently questioning Luke Mitchell on his ‘sex life’
Does Sandra Lean explore in her book how and why police might do this ?
I suspect there was a reason why the police attempted to explore Luke Mitchell’s sexual habits
-
According to a 2019 article in the Bristol cable ‘being gay is still taboo in many Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities’
Does anyone know what Corrine Mitchell’s thoughts are on this?
-
never really felt need to understand the motive in this case (what rational motive could anyone have for inflict massive violence and killing a 14 yaer old girl?)
but when considering potential of jodi confronting luke about two timing was the opposite scenario, luke being jealous about jodi two-timing, ever considered seriously by anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4025819.stm
Mr Leitch also said he had met Jodi, Parkhead Place, Easthouses, at a house in Dalkeith some months before and she smoked cannabis with him and others there.
There was also some "kissing and that" between Mr Leitch and Jodi, which was mentioned in Jodi's diary, the court heard
never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often
What about a possible deep seated misogynistic element as opposed ‘flying off the handle in a jealous rage’ ?
What was it that could have triggered Luke Mitchell’s sadistic nature?
And why did he consider suicide at such a young age - or threaten to kill himself?
“I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide”(2018)
-
According to a 2019 article in the Bristol cable ‘being gay is still taboo in many Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities’
Does anyone know what Corrine Mitchell’s thoughts are on this?
‘A prison insider said: 'Mitchell thinks he's a celebrity. He boasts about all the women who want to marry him.
'He's kept the gay fan mail quiet though. That's not the image he wants to portray of himself at all.'
-
There was no evidence that Luke was attracted to men before he went to prison. As far as I recall, he was two timing (or three timing) Jodi.
I remember talk of Myra Hindley having lesbian affairs in prison, whereas she had previously only been attracted to men----at least, that's what we heard---- so, perhaps, it's something to do with being in prison, that some people have affairs with others of their own sex. After all, while in prison, they are only meeting people of their own sex. I've heard this can happen in single sex boarding schools too.
Are these ‘affairs’ you refer to a prison phenomenon or was Mira Hindley always bisexual or pansexual ?
-
According to a 2019 article in the Bristol cable ‘being gay is still taboo in many Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities’
Does anyone know what Corrine Mitchell’s thoughts are on this?
What about Corrine’s other family members views on homosexuality?
-
According to a 2019 article in the Bristol cable ‘being gay is still taboo in many Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities’
Does anyone know what Corrine Mitchell’s thoughts are on this?
James Lawrence stated,
“It is a very unspoken subject… Most families find it shameful being LGBT, they try to keep it very secret. I have known boys forcing themselves to marry women, or take a darker route.”
Did he mean murder when he referred to a ‘darker route’?
(Source: https://thebristolcable.org/2019/11/most-families-find-it-shameful-finding-pride-in-a-community-where-being-gay-is-taboo/)
-
Are these ‘affairs’ you refer to a prison phenomenon or was Mira Hindley always bisexual or pansexual ?
I didn’t know what ‘pansexual’ actually meant until I looked it up after hearing Sandra Lean’s eldest daughter referring to
it
Pansexual
‘not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity’
-
Was J J targetted and attacked as a result of being into the Goth culture evidenced by her hair and dress style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster
-
Was J J targetted and attacked as a result of being into the Goth culture evidenced by her hair and dress style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster
The following committed suicide as a result of being bullied due to being a member of the Goth culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael
-
The following committed suicide as a result of being bullied due to being a member of the Goth culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Nicola_Ann_Raphael
Are you now trying to suggest Jodi committed suicide?
-
Are you now trying to suggest Jodi committed suicide?
Hardly given comment from the pathologist.
The links are to demonstrate J J might have bben targetted simply for being a Goth.
-
Hardly given comment from the pathologist.
The links are to demonstrate J J might have bben targetted simply for being a Goth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44644067
-
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-goths-under-acid-attack-22887494
-
https://www.loudersound.com/news/police-treat-attack-on-goth-teenager-as-hate-crime
-
There was also some "kissing and that" between Mr Leitch and Jodi, which was mentioned in Jodi's diary, the court heard
never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often
What about a possible deep seated misogynistic element as opposed ‘flying off the handle in a jealous rage’ ?
What was it that could have triggered Luke Mitchell’s sadistic nature?
And why did he consider suicide at such a young age - or threaten to kill himself?
“I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide”(2018)
I think you are going to be on here questioning why Mitchell might have done it with questions like the above for another 20 years. Can't you see the wood because of the trees???? It WASN'T MITCHELL...there was NO MOTIVE.
1. No motive for LM to kill [Name removed]. The Police theory that it was because of KT....people age 14/15 carrying out murders over a flirty connection with another person? Show me evidence of one case where that's happened at age 14/15.
2. No DNA at murder scene, no DNA on LM's clothes or in his house. Professor Alan Jamieson has already more or less said that would be impossible.
3. Anyone who knows anything about human psychology and recall knows that the first statements given should always be taken as the most likely to be true and accurate. In this case the truth is that the dog alerted LM at the wall. If LM actually did do it, is he going to lead people straight to the body lol? Why would he do that?
4. The timeline is just plain stupid. If the murder happened at 5.15pm (ignoring the fact everything points to it being later). How did LM manage to get back to Newbattle where he met other young people 40 minutes later? He wouldn't have got back to the house until 5.30pm, so he had 20 minutes to get rid of all clothes, clean himself up and get rid of all forensic evidence in the house. He defeated the laws of forensic science. Not bad for a 15 year old?
Look at the amount of lies told, look at why the search party went up a pitch black path at 11pm at night without checking whether Jodi was in other houses first including walking right past a house she'd been found in 2 months earlier when she didn't come back when she was supposed to. Look at why some statements disappeared and why others were never asked to give evidence. Then ask yourself this.......is any of this what would be expected in the circumstances?
-
Have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER.
Also check the new post by UndertheSun. Maybe I wasn't so "crazy" after all?
-
I have now received a WARNING !! Why have I received a warning ??? At no time have I named who I think did it, but I'm being given yellow cards with an imminent red card no doubt being prepared. For what? For putting forward an alternative theory which would point the finger away from Mitchell?
I thought there was free speech in here as long as you don't say Mr or Mrs X did it. Seemingly any theories which could prove Mitchell is innocent merit a warning. That tells you something, or it should do.
Before they ban me have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER. Are they going to ban me for mentioning these?
Whoever issued me with the unjust warning because I didn't name anyone or accuse anyone, I can tell you gagging people won't work I'm afraid. The snowball has already started rolling down the mountain. The truth has been suppressed for 17 years. The walls are closing in on the real killer.
That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.
-
That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.
bible quotes. This isn't National Treasure 3. It's a real murder that happened.
-
That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.
Obviously it's new. There was no reason to post anything like that about this case before the C5 documentary was there? Who do you think the 3 followers are? I'm sure it's not Neil Lennon, Stephen Gerrard and Lewis Hamilton. Or do you think it is? There has been several sinister posts by the way and linked to another account with the name Jones in it.
I'll spell it out......normal Twitter users don't have ONLY 3 followers. The account is clearly being used for one purpose and followed by a selectively chosen number of people. What's that old saying? "3 is a crowd?"
-
I can't see any motive for Luke murdering Jodi, unless he was high on cannabis, and unaware of what he was doing (unlikely, IMO).
14 year old boys who want to get rid of their girlfriends, dump them, not murder them. However, there is no evidence that Luke no longer wanted Jodi as his girlfriend.
Yes, that's why Dobbie taking 18 months to come up with such a ridiculous excuse for a motive was pathetic. Utterly pathetic, utterly ludicrous, but this was the best he could do??
-
Yes, that's why Dobbie taking 18 months to come up with such a ridiculous excuse for a motive was pathetic. Utterly pathetic, utterly ludicrous, but this was the best he could do??
Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom? Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.
-
Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom? Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.
Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles?
Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so.
I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.
-
Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom? Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.
Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?
Just a guess-------
-
Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles?
Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so.
I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.
Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.
Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so. Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.
I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J. Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.
-
Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?
Just a guess-------
Does firm evidence exist that he kept urine in bottles? If so what reason did the defence/LM give for doing so?
-
Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.
Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so. Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.
I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J. Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.
It’s not so unusual....disgusting but not unusual.
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/teenagers/2331562-Today-I-tidied-my-teens-bedroom-and-found
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8884637/Man-leaves-dozens-water-bottles-filled-URINE-floor-girlfriends-bedroom.html
I’ll bet my bottom dollar that none of the individuals in the links above went on to murder anyone.
-
Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?
Just a guess-------
Apparently there is a market for it if it is obtained from a drugs free individual. That does not apply to what we are told of Mitchell's habitual drug use.
Apparently it is also a practice used by some methamphetamine users. Who think they can get a 'high' from drinking their own or others' urine in the belief it contains active components of their meths use.
https://askthepsych.com/atp/2008/10/08/storing-bottles-of-urine/#:~:text=Storing%20bottles%20of%20urine%20is%20not%20uncommon%20in,may%20be%20selling%20her%20urine%20for%20this%20purpose.
-
Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.
Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so. Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.
I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J. Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.
Are you able to provide a reliable cite for the claims about urine as I can't locate in Crown's case:
Outline of the Crown case at trial
[14] In his address to the jury the Advocate depute relied on a number of circumstantial adminicles and highlighted three "key" chapters of evidence.
[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.
[17] Thereafter the Crown relied on a variety of other circumstantial adminicles to implicate the appellant.
[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".
[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it.
[20] The appellant had an interest in knives, having been seen, in particular, with a 4 inch lock-knife, contained in a pouch (a "skunting" knife), in the months prior to the murder (a sample knife was lodged as a production). That knife and pouch were not found during the police search of the appellant's house on 4 July 2003. The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder. The suggestion was made that he could have disposed of the knife at that time. Another knife and pouch were purchased for him in December 2003 by his mother, Corinne Mitchell. During a search of the appellant's home on 14 April 2004, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers "666"; an inscription which read "[Name removed] 1989 - 2003", these being the years of the deceased's birth and death; and the words "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
[21] Two days after the murder the appellant purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, "The Golden Age of the Grotesque", which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as "The Black Dahlia", who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that, while the circumstances of death were not identical, there was some similarity between the location and type of injury inflicted upon the deceased, and those inflicted upon the actress Elizabeth Short. There was no evidence that the appellant had accessed this website.
[22] Evidence was also led about generally unusual behaviour by the appellant. There was some evidence that he had an interest in Satanism, which was expressed in essays which he wrote and in graffiti which appeared on his school books.
[23] Another circumstance relied on by the Crown was a comment made by the appellant to the witness David High on the evening of 30 June to the effect that the deceased would not be coming out on that evening. This comment was made after the appellant had spoken to Alan Ovens and been informed that the deceased had left to meet him. The Crown invited the inference that the appellant knew the deceased was already dead.
[24] The Crown led evidence to undermine the credibility of Corinne Mitchell. In particular, evidence was led that she was present when the appellant obtained a tattoo in October 2003, and that she had confirmed his age as being over 18. This tattoo depicted a skull with flames coming from it. Mrs Mitchell had stated to members of staff - "that's really him". The Crown's position was that this evidence demonstrated an unhealthy relationship between the appellant and his mother, to the point where she was indulging inappropriate behaviour on his part, and undermined her evidence in support of his alibi. The witness denied several of these allegations. Evidence from members from staff at the tattoo parlour, as well as expert fingerprint evidence of a consent form signed in the name of an acquaintance of Mrs Mitchell with the appellant's fingerprints upon it, was led. This evidence was subject to a defence objection. It was admitted but the jury was directed that it was only relevant to Mrs Mitchell's credibility.
[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
Does firm evidence exist that he kept urine in bottles? If so what reason did the defence/LM give for doing so?
Yes there is firm evidence that he Mitchell kept urine in bottles.
No idea if any reason was given for the practice by the defence. But the introduction of the information about Mitchell's 'collection' during his trial was challenged at his first appeal against his conviction and was dismissed along with the other grounds.
-
Are you able to provide a reliable cite for the claims about urine as I can't locate in Crown's case:
Outline of the Crown case at trial
[14] In his address to the jury the Advocate depute relied on a number of circumstantial adminicles and highlighted three "key" chapters of evidence.
[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.
[17] Thereafter the Crown relied on a variety of other circumstantial adminicles to implicate the appellant.
[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".
[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it.
[20] The appellant had an interest in knives, having been seen, in particular, with a 4 inch lock-knife, contained in a pouch (a "skunting" knife), in the months prior to the murder (a sample knife was lodged as a production). That knife and pouch were not found during the police search of the appellant's house on 4 July 2003. The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder. The suggestion was made that he could have disposed of the knife at that time. Another knife and pouch were purchased for him in December 2003 by his mother, Corinne Mitchell. During a search of the appellant's home on 14 April 2004, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers "666"; an inscription which read "[Name removed] 1989 - 2003", these being the years of the deceased's birth and death; and the words "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.
[21] Two days after the murder the appellant purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, "The Golden Age of the Grotesque", which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as "The Black Dahlia", who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that, while the circumstances of death were not identical, there was some similarity between the location and type of injury inflicted upon the deceased, and those inflicted upon the actress Elizabeth Short. There was no evidence that the appellant had accessed this website.
[22] Evidence was also led about generally unusual behaviour by the appellant. There was some evidence that he had an interest in Satanism, which was expressed in essays which he wrote and in graffiti which appeared on his school books.
[23] Another circumstance relied on by the Crown was a comment made by the appellant to the witness David High on the evening of 30 June to the effect that the deceased would not be coming out on that evening. This comment was made after the appellant had spoken to Alan Ovens and been informed that the deceased had left to meet him. The Crown invited the inference that the appellant knew the deceased was already dead.
[24] The Crown led evidence to undermine the credibility of Corinne Mitchell. In particular, evidence was led that she was present when the appellant obtained a tattoo in October 2003, and that she had confirmed his age as being over 18. This tattoo depicted a skull with flames coming from it. Mrs Mitchell had stated to members of staff - "that's really him". The Crown's position was that this evidence demonstrated an unhealthy relationship between the appellant and his mother, to the point where she was indulging inappropriate behaviour on his part, and undermined her evidence in support of his alibi. The witness denied several of these allegations. Evidence from members from staff at the tattoo parlour, as well as expert fingerprint evidence of a consent form signed in the name of an acquaintance of Mrs Mitchell with the appellant's fingerprints upon it, was led. This evidence was subject to a defence objection. It was admitted but the jury was directed that it was only relevant to Mrs Mitchell's credibility.
[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Thank you Holly.
It appears that the case wasn’t only circumstantial but highly speculative. It is no wonder that the PF rejected it the first time it was presented to them.
-
Yes there is firm evidence that he Mitchell kept urine in bottles.
No idea if any reason was given for the practice by the defence. But the introduction of the information about Mitchell's 'collection' during his trial was challenged at his first appeal against his conviction and was dismissed along with the other grounds.
Do you have scientific evidence that people who retain urine in bottles commit savage murders? Source? @)(++(*
-
The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.
-
The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.
This might help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm
It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant. The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it. What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588
-
Comment from the CoA doc re the urine:
A ground of appeal was also advanced challenging the decision of the trial judge to allow evidence to be led about certain bottles of urine. But it was acknowledged that this ground could not on its own justify the conclusion that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the trial judge gave clear directions to the jury that they should not judge the appellant on the basis of his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle, except to the extent that these might be relevant to the issues of fact which they had to decide. We have come to the view that, in the particular circumstances before him, the trial judge did not err in allowing the evidence in question to be led and that there is no merit in this ground of appeal.
-
This might help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm
It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant. The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it. What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588
We can see what a prejudicial affect it may have had on the jury by looking at how it is viewed by some here.
-
This might help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm
It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant. The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it. What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588
Had any of the jurors read about Luke Mitchell prior to them being selected for jury service
-
This might help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm
It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant. The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it. What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588
And how many jurors had an internet connection back then?
-
Comment from the CoA doc re the urine:
A ground of appeal was also advanced challenging the decision of the trial judge to allow evidence to be led about certain bottles of urine. But it was acknowledged that this ground could not on its own justify the conclusion that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the trial judge gave clear directions to the jury that they should not judge the appellant on the basis of his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle, except to the extent that these might be relevant to the issues of fact which they had to decide. We have come to the view that, in the particular circumstances before him, the trial judge did not err in allowing the evidence in question to be led and that there is no merit in this ground of appeal.
We can see what a prejudicial affect it may have had on the jury by looking at how it is viewed by some here.
Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?
This is the reason he gave for doing so
-
And how many jurors had an internet connection back then?
I did so I’m sure many jurors did too. It’s a mute point anyway as the urine bottle ‘evidence’ was introduced in court.
-
Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?
This is the reason he gave for doing so
The point is that it didn’t matter why he did it. It was prejudicial and irrelevant.
-
Do you have scientific evidence that people who retain urine in bottles commit savage murders? Source? @)(++(*
Most of use have quirks and idiosyncrasies to some extent which, if the subject of public debate, others might find odd or peculiar. When someone is the subject of intense media scrutiny the tabloid press seek to find some material and use to sensationalise. Those with an open-mind tend to see through it but others with perhaps a narrow world view and a prejudicial mind might struggle.
In this day and age of forensic science I would like to see all criminal cases tried solely on this.
-
The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.
This is what Sandra Lean claims
-
Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?
This is the reason he gave for doing so
Apparently Mitchell and his mother were sleeping downstairs at the time the bottles filled with urine were in storage in his upstairs bedroom.
-
This is what Sandra Lean claims
Does it matter?
-
Most of use have quirks and idiosyncrasies to some extent which, if the subject of public debate, others might find odd or peculiar. When someone is the subject of intense media scrutiny the tabloid press seek to find some material and use to sensationalise. Those with an open-mind tend to see through it but others with perhaps a narrow world view and a prejudicial mind might struggle.
In this day and age of forensic science I would like to see all criminal cases tried solely on this.
Mitchell had several bottles of urine in his room; why do you think that fact should have been redacted from the inventory?
-
The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation.
This is what Sandra Lean claims
Does it matter?
Is Sandra Lean qualified to diagnose post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?
And doesn’t she say Luke Mitchell has never been diagnosed with a mental health issue?
-
Is Sandra Lean qualified to diagnose post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?
And doesn’t she say Luke Mitchell has never been diagnosed with a mental health issue?
I’m only guessing but the PTSD would occurred after the murder so it would not have been relevant with regards to the crime.
Perhaps if you have questions for Miss Lean you direct them to her.
-
I’m only guessing but the PTSD would occurred after the murder so it would not have been relevant with regards to the crime.
Luke Mitchell was assessed after the murder by a psychiatrist
From a CoA doc:
The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984..
And Sandra has never published anything suggesting the psychiatrists assessment of Luke Mitchell was wrong!
-
I’m only guessing but the PTSD would occurred after the murder so it would not have been relevant with regards to the crime.
Perhaps if you have questions for Miss Lean you direct them to her.
Do you think I’ll get any sense out of her?
-
Do you think I’ll get any sense out of her?
Going by past events...NO
Flogging and dead horse come to mind.
-
And how many jurors had an internet connection back then?
Well, it was alleged that Shane Mitchell watched porn on his computer, so presumably quite a lot of people had internet connection!
-
Had any of the jurors read about Luke Mitchell prior to them being selected for jury service
I doubt they could have failed to do so.
-
Had any of the jurors read about Luke Mitchell prior to them being selected for jury service
I was a bit surprised at your question, but maybe you did not have an interest in the case 17 years ago and don't live anywhere near the area.
As someone who does live fairly near and read newspapers daily (and still do despite the internet) in 2003-2005, I can assure you 100% that all of the jury will have read dozens of negative articles about Mitchell every other day in the year before the Trial. At that time in Scotland virtually the whole population knew about Mitchell, because newspapers printed a different horror story about him almost daily and that isn't an exaggeration. It was brainwashing on a level with communism and state TV. Obviously I don't remember all of it but here are some examples, many of which were on the front page:
Mitchell is a devil worshipping Satanist
Mitchell is the "Devil's Spawn"
Mitchell killed his previous dog and hung it by a rope from his front door frame.
Mitchell is obsessed with Marilyn Manson
Mitchell has a keen interest in images created by Manson and was fascinated by the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell is a Satanist because he stored bottles of urine in his bedroom
Mitchell killed [Name removed] because he was trying to copy the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell tortured animals as a child
Mitchell is the Son of Satan
Mitchell scribbled Satanic messages on his school books proving he is a Devil worshipper (the scribblings were mostly from the Max Payne computer game, but newspapers never mentioned that).
That's just some. Trust me, there was plenty more. The result? Everyone in Scotland read all of this and 99% of them believed it, including me, so in short....yes the Jury will have read all of this too and discussed it with people in the lead up to the Trial because it was being discussed everywhere. None of the above points were ever found to be true. There was no evidence produced that any of them were true. He did store urine bottles, but the link to him being a Satanist because of that was obviously never proved because it's just plain stupid.
It would be stating the obvious that a fair trial in such circumstances would be impossible but that's another debate.
There was someone else who was a huge fan of Manson, but the Police didn't investigate that. They didn't investigate much really apart from Mitchell. Inspector Clouseau could have done a better job.
-
I was a bit surprised at your question, but maybe you did not have an interest in the case 17 years ago and don't live anywhere near the area.
As someone who does live fairly near and read newspapers daily (and still do despite the internet) in 2003-2005, I can assure you 100% that all of the jury will have read dozens of negative articles about Mitchell every other day in the year before the Trial. At that time in Scotland virtually the whole population knew about Mitchell, because newspapers printed a different horror story about him almost daily and that isn't an exaggeration. It was brainwashing on a level with communism and state TV. Obviously I don't remember all of it but here are some examples, many of which were on the front page:
Mitchell is a devil worshipping Satanist
Mitchell is the "Devil's Spawn"
Mitchell killed his previous dog and hung it by a rope from his front door frame.
Mitchell is obsessed with Marilyn Manson
Mitchell has a keen interest in images created by Manson and was fascinated by the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell is a Satanist because he stored bottles of urine in his bedroom
Mitchell killed [Name removed] because he was trying to copy the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell tortured animals as a child
Mitchell is the Son of Satan
Mitchell scribbled Satanic messages on his school books proving he is a Devil worshipper (the scribblings were mostly from the Max Payne computer game), but newspapers never mentioned that.
That's just some. Trust me, there was plenty more. The result? Everyone in Scotland read all of this and 99% of them believed it, including me, so in short....yes the Jury will have read all of this too and discussed it with people in the lead up to the Trial because it was being discussed everywhere.
It would be stating the obvious that a fair trial in such circumstances would be impossible but that's another debate.
If you can produce a timeline of what newspaper said what and and what date - I might consider some of what you’ve claimed
I am familiar with the fact Luke and Corrine Mitchell chose to be interviewed by Sky news on the day of Jodi’s funeral and the pair of them had spoken to the press before this
-
If you can produce a timeline of what newspaper said what and and what date - I might consider some of what you’ve claimed
I am familiar with the fact Luke and Corrine Mitchell chose to be interviewed by Sky news on the day of Jodi’s funeral and the pair of them had spoken to the press before this
I just spent 20 minutes typing that to give you an understanding of the reality. Do you think I'm going to spend a month trawling through newspaper articles because you don't live in Scotland and didn't read any of it?
If you want to access newspaper archives contact the Daily Record, The Sun, The Scottish Express and The Daily Star kindly do the spadework yourself, unless you want to pay me to do it.
-
I just spent 20 minutes typing that to give you an understanding of the reality
Of your ‘reality’ you mean
-
I was a bit surprised at your question, but maybe you did not have an interest in the case 17 years ago and don't live anywhere near the area.
As someone who does live fairly near and read newspapers daily (and still do despite the internet) in 2003-2005, I can assure you 100% that all of the jury will have read dozens of negative articles about Mitchell every other day in the year before the Trial. At that time in Scotland virtually the whole population knew about Mitchell, because newspapers printed a different horror story about him almost daily and that isn't an exaggeration. It was brainwashing on a level with communism and state TV. Obviously I don't remember all of it but here are some examples, many of which were on the front page:
We know what you mean. Let's put that in context. There was mass media attention. The papers however were not full of the headlines you put, leading up to the trial. The stories printed throughout the trial relating to evidence heard, the urine and so forth is irrelevant to the jury, they were hearing this evidence first hand. What the DF article is relating to is internet access of other information that may have influenced a Jury, a Jury whom were allowed to go home.
This type of access and discussion was not anywhere near the scale it was in 2010 to the present day. However:
Of the animals, dogs, Satan, Manson and of trial by media in general - I agree with you wholeheartedly. That 99% of people like you, believed everything they had read in the rags, and in turn they are the very same people, like you again, of which, 99% of you now believe him to be innocent by the very same means. By reading guff? - That this 99% of people the same as you, tried LM on guff and are now trying everyone else again by means of guff? You? are thankfully very much a tiny minority. Therefore the chances of the Jury being made up of 'you' is virtually non-existent? These claims of complete trial by media do nothing more that deflect away from the actual evidence. As that minority who based their guilt solely on this Goth, music taste and so forth were not interested in the actual evidence itself. Completely swayed by sensationalist stories. And are again. Boys cutting off their hair to impersonate themselves on bikes?
You are however correct - as was the decision to hold this trial in Edinburgh. It would not have mattered where it was held in Scotland due to mass media coverage. But please, do not judge others to all be the same as you?
Mitchell is a devil worshipping Satanist
Mitchell is the "Devil's Spawn"
Mitchell killed his previous dog and hung it by a rope from his front door frame.
Mitchell is obsessed with Marilyn Manson
Mitchell has a keen interest in images created by Manson and was fascinated by the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell is a Satanist because he stored bottles of urine in his bedroom
Mitchell killed [Name removed] because he was trying to copy the "Black Dahlia" murder
Mitchell tortured animals as a child
Mitchell is the Son of Satan
Mitchell scribbled Satanic messages on his school books proving he is a Devil worshipper (the scribblings were mostly from the Max Payne computer game, but newspapers never mentioned that).
That's just some. Trust me, there was plenty more. The result? Everyone in Scotland read all of this and 99% of them believed it, including me, so in short....yes the Jury will have read all of this too and discussed it with people in the lead up to the Trial because it was being discussed everywhere. None of the above points were ever found to be true. There was no evidence produced that any of them were true. He did store urine bottles, but the link to him being a Satanist because of that was obviously never proved because it's just plain stupid.
It would be stating the obvious that a fair trial in such circumstances would be impossible but that's another debate.
There was someone else who was a huge fan of Manson, but the Police didn't investigate that. They didn't investigate much really apart from Mitchell. Inspector Clouseau could have done a better job.
We know what you mean. Let's put that in context. There was mass media attention. The papers however were not full of the headlines you put, leading up to the trial. The stories printed throughout the trial relating to evidence heard, the urine and so forth is irrelevant to the jury, they were hearing this evidence first hand. What the DF article is relating to is internet access of other information that may have influenced a Jury, a Jury whom were allowed to go home.
This type of access and discussion was not anywhere near the scale it was in 2010 to the present day. However:
Of the animals, dogs, Satan, Manson and of trial by media in general - I agree with you wholeheartedly. That 99% of people like you, believed everything they had read in the rags, and in turn they are the very same people, like you again, of which, 99% of you now believe him to be innocent by the very same means. By reading guff? - That this 99% of people the same as you, tried LM on guff and are now trying everyone else again by means of guff? You? are thankfully very much a tiny minority. Therefore the chances of the Jury being made up of 'you' is virtually non-existent? These claims of complete trial by media do nothing more that deflect away from the actual evidence. As that minority who based their guilt solely on this Goth, music taste and so forth were not interested in the actual evidence itself. Completely swayed by sensationalist stories. And are again. Boys cutting off their hair to impersonate themselves on bikes?
You are however correct - as was the decision to hold this trial in Edinburgh. It would not have mattered where it was held in Scotland due to mass media coverage. But please, do not judge others to all be the same as you?
-
Trust me,
Apparently we have to trust some random on the internet, that types a lot, but provides no sources to claims made @)(++(*
3 weeks and I'm still waiting for a source (that this poster claimed) to whom seen the moped unmanned at the wall.
-
Going by past events...NO
Flogging and dead horse come to mind.
What a gent.
-
Mitchell had several bottles of urine in his room; why do you think that fact should have been redacted from the inventory?
I didn't say the bottles should have been redacted from the inventory. The judge told the jury, in not so many words, they were irrelevant.
If an inventory was made available how come we only hear about the bottles of urine?
In the case of Vincent Tabak the trial judge decided evidence about VT viewing pornography involving men choking women during sex, women in car boots and women bound and gagged, along with his use of prostitutes, should be withheld from the jury. And yet in this case all manner of irrelevant trivia has been weaved into a witch-hunt: iiking MM music, a fire burner going, urine in bottles.
-
Of your ‘reality’ you mean
What I told you is fact. Contact those newspapers yourself and you will find it in the archives.
-
I didn't say the bottles should have been redacted from the inventory. The judge told the jury, in not so many words, they were irrelevant.
If an inventory was made available how come we only hear about the bottles of urine?
In the case of Vincent Tabak the trial judge decided evidence about VT viewing pornography involving men choking women during sex, women in car boots and women bound and gagged, along with his use of prostitutes, should be withheld from the jury. And yet in this case all manner of irrelevant trivia has been weaved into a witch-hunt: iiking MM music, a fire burner going, urine in bottles.
No we don't only hear about Mitchell's hoard of urine kept in bottles in his bedroom.
We hear about the now you see it now you don't knife sheath.
We hear about the outdoor log burner ~ we hear about Shane's computer. In fact we only hear what was relevant enough to be led in evidence at Mitchell's murder trial.
The defence objected to the mention of Mitchell's urine habit ~ the trial judge allowed it to be introduced into evidence.
-
No we don't only hear about Mitchell's hoard of urine kept in bottles in his bedroom.
We hear about the now you see it now you don't knife sheath.
We hear about the outdoor log burner ~ we hear about Shane's computer. In fact we only hear what was relevant enough to be led in evidence at Mitchell's murder trial.
The defence objected to the mention of Mitchell's urine habit ~ the trial judge allowed it to be introduced into evidence.
And why was it relevant? Is everything teenage boy who wees in a bottle instead of going to the toilet likely to be a murderer?
-
And why was it relevant? Is everything teenage boy who wees in a bottle instead of going to the toilet likely to be a murderer?
Is hoarding urine in multiple bottles normal teenage boy behaviour then? Not in my house it isn’t!
-
Is hoarding urine in multiple bottled normal teenage boy behaviour then? Not in my house it isn’t!
I have NEVER heard the like ... not even amongst those associated with drug abuse as mrswah and I have discussed.
-
Luke was IMO not a typical 14 year old.
He was a regular drug user (statistically only around 10% of 14 year olds have taken drugs in the last month, Mitchell was a regular user apparently).
He carried knives
He stored his urine
He had (and still has) a fascination with the macabre and Satan
He was sexually active.
He had demonstrated threatening behaviour to other females
He had little respect for authority figures
In short he was a bit of a nightmare teen even before the murder conviction. None of the above makes him a murderer but they do IMO paint a very worrying picture of a troubled youth.
-
I have NEVER heard the like ... not even amongst those associated with drug abuse as mrswah and I have discussed.
Of course you have, I’ve posted several links in relation to this subject.
The reasons seem to include laziness and a reaction to trauma.
-
Of course you have, I’ve posted several links in relation to this subject.
The reasons seem to include laziness and a reaction to trauma.
teo very different reasons. Which one applied to Luke then?
-
Luke was IMO not a typical 14 year old.
He was a regular drug user (statistically only around 10% of 14 year olds have taken drugs in the last month, Mitchell was a regular user apparently).
He carried knives
He stored his urine
He had (and still has) a fascination with the macabre and Satan
He was sexually active.
He had demonstrated threatening behaviour to other females
He had little respect for authority figures
In short he was a bit of a nightmare teen even before the murder conviction. None of the above makes him a murderer but they do IMO paint a very worrying picture of a troubled youth.
Where was his mother in all this? Did she care about his behaviour and unsavoury habits? Or could her little darling do no wrong in her eyes?
-
teo very different reasons. Which one applied to Luke then?
None however apply though, do they? He was not sleeping in his room, so pretty much went out of his way to do this? Hardly lazy? Was it not also shown after DF's lovely pictures of a well kempt room, horse pictures on the wall? In contrast of the Crown, of a pigsty and of a sword on his wall?. - Oh, and all those jackets on his door, you know jackets that one could not get him to wear. That the police took them all - thus the parka - seems they left a few behind after removing them all?
Not traumatised at all though was he, again the evidence to disprove these futile claims above are in abundance.
Of viewing Mansons DVD of the dead girl in the woods. Of going out partying up town. Of buying more knives, of girls and so forth. Of this arrogant, very intelligent young lad - who had absolutely no respect for his elders, of authority and whom most definitely got to do what he pleased. Cannabis at home, sex at home, driving up and down the street with a reporter at 15. LM was no ordinary 14yr old boy. He lacked anything attributable to grief and trauma for someone so young, he was after all "not that kind of guy"
After 18yrs we still have this constant - "half a mars bar" situ. Every single piece of evidence is body swerved away from. It does not matter if none of the search party thought they would meet on this path, when they first headed out. They did meet and LM did hop over the wall at the V break. And this did happen within 10mins of being on this path. And he did lie from the off. Of having never been in this woodland, of not knowing of the V break in the wall. Of knives, of cannabis, of being home at dinner time, of his time on Newabattle R'd, and much much more - And his mother has been caught out lying time and time again? - And this is put down to the same "half mars bar" situ - she is not lying she is simply confused?
I'll await that body swerve onto others - that "what about?" It does not matter, it still does change the evidence against LM.
-
Storing piss in jars doesn't make you a murderer. but it's deviant behaviour.
-
None however apply though, do they? He was not sleeping in his room, so pretty much went out of his way to do this? Hardly lazy? Was it not also shown after DF's lovely pictures of a well kempt room, horse pictures on the wall? In contrast of the Crown, of a pigsty and of a sword on his wall?. - Oh, and all those jackets on his door, you know jackets that one could not get him to wear. That the police took them all - thus the parka - seems they left a few behind after removing them all?
Not traumatised at all though was he, again the evidence to disprove these futile claims above are in abundance.
Of viewing Mansons DVD of the dead girl in the woods. Of going out partying up town. Of buying more knives, of girls and so forth. Of this arrogant, very intelligent young lad - who had absolutely no respect for his elders, of authority and whom most definitely got to do what he pleased. Cannabis at home, sex at home, driving up and down the street with a reporter at 15. LM was no ordinary 14yr old boy. He lacked anything attributable to grief and trauma for someone so young, he was after all "not that kind of guy"
After 18yrs we still have this constant - "half a mars bar" situ. Every single piece of evidence is body swerved away from. It does not matter if none of the search party thought they would meet on this path, when they first headed out. They did meet and LM did hop over the wall at the V break. And this did happen within 10mins of being on this path. And he did lie from the off. Of having never been in this woodland, of not knowing of the V break in the wall. Of knives, of cannabis, of being home at dinner time, of his time on Newabattle R'd, and much much more - And his mother has been caught out lying time and time again? - And this is put down to the same "half mars bar" situ - she is not lying she is simply confused?
I'll await that body swerve onto others - that "what about?" It does not matter, it still does change the evidence against LM.
There you go...the power of the media....writ large.
Every hysterical media story, ever misinformed forum post, moulded like so much sausage meat into misshapen links. It doesn’t matter that it’s mostly gristle and will leave most people feeling nauseous....some will swallow it and that’s the consumers who are being targeted.
-
There you go...the power of the media....writ large.
Every hysterical media story, ever misinformed forum post, moulded like so much sausage meat into misshapen links. It doesn’t matter that it’s mostly gristle and will leave most people feeling nauseous....some will swallow it and that’s the consumers who are being targeted.
OK lets flip this on its head. Is this a more accurate description of Luke Mitchell?
Luke was IMO a typical 14 year old.
He was not a regular drug user
He did not carry knives
He did not store his urine
He has never had a fascination with the macabre and Satan
He was not sexually active.
He never demonstrated threatening behaviour to other females
He had utmost respect for authority figures
There, is that a more truthful depiction of this sweet little boy?
-
No we don't only hear about Mitchell's hoard of urine kept in bottles in his bedroom.
We hear about the now you see it now you don't knife sheath.
We hear about the outdoor log burner ~ we hear about Shane's computer. In fact we only hear what was relevant enough to be led in evidence at Mitchell's murder trial.
The defence objected to the mention of Mitchell's urine habit ~ the trial judge allowed it to be introduced into evidence.
What we don't hear is your credible explanation for the 12 points I listed in the other thread.
-
What we don't hear is your credible explanation for the 12 points I listed in the other thread.
Brietta has admitted herself that she knows little about the case so perhaps she simply doesn’t know the answers.
For others it’s a case of ‘there’s none so blind....!
-
No we don't only hear about Mitchell's hoard of urine kept in bottles in his bedroom.
We hear about the now you see it now you don't knife sheath.
We hear about the outdoor log burner ~ we hear about Shane's computer. In fact we only hear what was relevant enough to be led in evidence at Mitchell's murder trial.
The defence objected to the mention of Mitchell's urine habit ~ the trial judge allowed it to be introduced into evidence.
I thought the inventory you referred to related to L M's bedroom?
The trial judge also made it clear that the jury should not judge LM based on his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle.
-
I thought the inventory you referred to related to L M's bedroom?
The trial judge also made it clear that the jury should not judge LM based on his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle.
Items considered irrelevant were were not raised during the trial. The trial judge allowed Mitchell's bottles of urine much to the dismay of the defence and your good self or you wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it.
The defence didn't much like the introduction of Corrine Mitchell's calculated lie in the tattoo parlour about Mitchell's age but the judge allowed that too.
Here are examples of a youth who did what he wanted and a mother who was prepared to indulge him by lying for him.
I don't think Mitchell had a particular motive for murdering Jodie. He just wanted to because it suited him and he did. Neither do I think it was a spur of the moment thing. I think he had been considering it for some time and I think he fully expected to get away with it.
-
Items considered irrelevant were were not raised during the trial. The trial judge allowed Mitchell's bottles of urine much to the dismay of the defence and your good self or you wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it.
The defence didn't much like the introduction of Corrine Mitchell's calculated lie in the tattoo parlour about Mitchell's age but the judge allowed that too.
Here are examples of a youth who did what he wanted and a mother who was prepared to indulge him by lying for him.
I don't think Mitchell had a particular motive for murdering Jodie. He just wanted to because it suited him and he did. Neither do I think it was a spur of the moment thing. I think he had been considering it for some time and I think he fully expected to get away with it.
What makes you think LM had been planning the murder for some time?
In my experience, 14 year olds don't normally plan to murder their girlfriends, and neither do mothers normally lie for murdering sons. I agree it does sound as if he got away with too much at home: in my experience, that isn't unusual, and it is often because parents don't have the time /don't make the time to give teenagers the discipline they need.
-
What makes you think LM had been planning the murder for some time?
In my experience, 14 year olds don't normally plan to murder their girlfriends, and neither do mothers normally lie for murdering sons. I agree it does sound as if he got away with too much at home: in my experience, that isn't unusual, and it is often because parents don't have the time /don't make the time to give teenagers the discipline they need.
Of course Jodi herself told a different story and considered Corrine to be much stricter than her own mum.
It’s such a pity that her voice seems to have been all but drowned out in this sorry tale.
-
What makes you think LM had been planning the murder for some time?
In my experience, 14 year olds don't normally plan to murder their girlfriends, and neither do mothers normally lie for murdering sons. I agree it does sound as if he got away with too much at home: in my experience, that isn't unusual, and it is often because parents don't have the time /don't make the time to give teenagers the discipline they need.
I don't intend to enter the nature of nurture debate because I think what pertains in one situation is quite often contradicted by another. But whether or not Corrine Mitchell was a single working mother or whether or not she had all day and everyday to devote entirely to her sons I doubt it would have had little or no effect on the way Mitchell turned out.
According to general background information, many of the signs of deviancy were evident as a child and as he approached puberty. I think in some ways he was highly intelligent as well as charismatic if his circle of girl friends is anything to go by.
I too have had contact with youths male and female of his age group for going on thirty eight years and I can honestly say that in that time I encountered only two who gave me the creeps one of whom went on to commit a rape.
I agree that fourteen going on fifteen year olds don't normally set out to murder their girlfriends. Just as I agree that ten year olds don't normally abduct a toddler with murder in mind. But just as James Bulger's murderers weren't your normal ten year olds I think the same is applicable to Mitchell when compared to his peer group.
-
I don't intend to enter the nature of nurture debate because I think what pertains in one situation is quite often contradicted by another. But whether or not Corrine Mitchell was a single working mother or whether or not she had all day and everyday to devote entirely to her sons I doubt it would have had little or no effect on the way Mitchell turned out.
According to general background information, many of the signs of deviancy were evident as a child and as he approached puberty. I think in some ways he was highly intelligent as well as charismatic if his circle of girl friends is anything to go by.
I too have had contact with youths male and female of his age group for going on thirty eight years and I can honestly say that in that time I encountered only two who gave me the creeps one of whom went on to commit a rape.
I agree that fourteen going on fifteen year olds don't normally set out to murder their girlfriends. Just as I agree that ten year olds don't normally abduct a toddler with murder in mind. But just as James Bulger's murderers weren't your normal ten year olds I think the same is applicable to Mitchell when compared to his peer group.
The case of James Bulger came to mind while I was writing, too. Very unusual , and hard to say if his killers planned to actually commit a murder, or had been influenced by a film/ video game wherein the injured person got up again-----who knows whether they truly understood what they were doing. But "deviant", certainly. And, there were two of them, to egg each other on.
Luke Mitchell, IF he is guilty, would, of course, have understood the consequences of his actions, and IF he is guilty, IMO, would probably have been under the influence of something that helped cause him lose control. I can't imagine he would have planned to murder his girlfriend in advance. He had shown some disturbing behaviour at school, but some might call this "rebelliousness" rather than "deviancy". As far as I'm aware, he hadn't been excluded from school before the murder. Nor is there any evidence that he was not fond of Jodi---just the opposite, in fact. Why would he have wanted to kill her?
-
He had shown some disturbing behaviour at school,
Tell us more about this, please.
-
The case of James Bulger came to mind while I was writing, too. Very unusual , and hard to say if his killers planned to actually commit a murder, or had been influenced by a film/ video game wherein the injured person got up again-----who knows whether they truly understood what they were doing. But "deviant", certainly. And, there were two of them, to egg each other on.
Luke Mitchell, IF he is guilty, would, of course, have understood the consequences of his actions, and IF he is guilty, IMO, would probably have been under the influence of something that helped cause him lose control. I can't imagine he would have planned to murder his girlfriend in advance. He had shown some disturbing behaviour at school, but some might call this "rebelliousness" rather than "deviancy". As far as I'm aware, he hadn't been excluded from school before the murder. Nor is there any evidence that he was not fond of Jodi---just the opposite, in fact. Why would he have wanted to kill her?
Why would anyone have wanted to kill her? Holly reckons it was because she was a Goth, do you think this is the reason?
-
The case of James Bulger came to mind while I was writing, too. Very unusual , and hard to say if his killers planned to actually commit a murder, or had been influenced by a film/ video game wherein the injured person got up again-----who knows whether they truly understood what they were doing. But "deviant", certainly. And, there were two of them, to egg each other on.
Luke Mitchell, IF he is guilty, would, of course, have understood the consequences of his actions, and IF he is guilty, IMO, would probably have been under the influence of something that helped cause him lose control. I can't imagine he would have planned to murder his girlfriend in advance. He had shown some disturbing behaviour at school, but some might call this "rebelliousness" rather than "deviancy". As far as I'm aware, he hadn't been excluded from school before the murder. Nor is there any evidence that he was not fond of Jodi---just the opposite, in fact. Why would he have wanted to kill her?
I am content that the Crown got it right as far as Mitchell was concerned. I think those who are aware of all that passed before the court recognise that he is a very dangerous individual despite his tender years.
For example; I think the sentence imposed on him was pretty draconian if not unprecedented; the judge had to have a valid reason for that and I believe that despite an appeal lodged against the undoubted severity of it there had likewise to be a sound reason behind its failure too.
I think there is a lot which goes on in a courtroom which might be a bit of a mystery to those who haven't sat through days of evidence.
I was cited for jury service (called twice) and I was very alert to the proceedings.
I took in the demeanour of the two defendants particularly their reaction to the evidence being given. I knew nothing about the two guys nor did I know anything about any of the witnesses, but just observation and listening to the evidence as it was presented gave me the firm impression the two defendants were as guilty as sin.
As it turned out they changed their plea to guilty thus depriving me of my twelve angry men moment. But the point I am making is that in a jury trial the jury members are forming opinion based on everything going on around them.
Just as I formed a negative reaction to my two miscreants (who certainly were not being accused of murder), I wonder what sort of impression Mitchell might have made on the jury at his trial as he sat in the dock.
I think he would have been scrutinised intensely given the nature of the accusation against him.
For example when certain images were projected during the trial his reaction or lack of might have informed the opinion of the jury members despite the fact he did not take the stand.
The nature of the crime and the judge's harsh sentencing certainly in my opinion illustrate how dangerous an individual Mitchell was considered to be.
-
Why would anyone have wanted to kill her? Holly reckons it was because she was a Goth, do you think this is the reason?
No, I don't ! She wasn't really a Goth anyway, and neither was Luke. They just adopted some aspects, as many young people do-----IMO.
I suspect that, if Luke killed her, he did it while he was high on drugs.
If someone else killed her, it was, IMO, either because she knew something that the killer didn't want revealed, or it was a murder by a random person with a serious psychopathic disorder.
Just my opinion, though.
-
Tell us more about this, please.
Apparently, he had been caught fighting(while in primary school) and had also written some disturbing "Satanist" stuff on his schoolbooks. He had, apparently, been referred to an educational psychologist, but refused to cooperate.
Can't recall where I read this, I'm afraid, but it's very much "out there".
-
I am content that the Crown got it right as far as Mitchell was concerned. I think those who are aware of all that passed before the court recognise that he is a very dangerous individual despite his tender years.
For example; I think the sentence imposed on him was pretty draconian if not unprecedented; the judge had to have a valid reason for that and I believe that despite an appeal lodged against the undoubted severity of it there had likewise to be a sound reason behind its failure too.
I think there is a lot which goes on in a courtroom which might be a bit of a mystery to those who haven't sat through days of evidence.
I was cited for jury service (called twice) and I was very alert to the proceedings.
I took in the demeanour of the two defendants particularly their reaction to the evidence being given. I knew nothing about the two guys nor did I know anything about any of the witnesses, but just observation and listening to the evidence as it was presented gave me the firm impression the two defendants were as guilty as sin.
As it turned out they changed their plea to guilty thus depriving me of my twelve angry men moment. But the point I am making is that in a jury trial the jury members are forming opinion based on everything going on around them.
Just as I formed a negative reaction to my two miscreants (who certainly were not being accused of murder), I wonder what sort of impression Mitchell might have made on the jury at his trial as he sat in the dock.
I think he would have been scrutinised intensely given the nature of the accusation against him.
For example when certain images were projected during the trial his reaction or lack of might have informed the opinion of the jury members despite the fact he did not take the stand.
The nature of the crime and the judge's harsh sentencing certainly in my opinion illustrate how dangerous an individual Mitchell was considered to be.
I'm sure some jurors take the proceedings far more seriously than do others!
-
Apparently, he had been caught fighting(while in primary school) and had also written some disturbing "Satanist" stuff on his schoolbooks. He had, apparently, been referred to an educational psychologist, but refused to cooperate.
Can't recall where I read this, I'm afraid, but it's very much "out there".
It's certainly the case that LM attacked my friend's son at school - I mentioned it on here, but it was dismissed as gossip and hearsay, of course.
-
It's certainly the case that LM attacked my friend's son at school - I mentioned it on here, but it was dismissed as gossip and hearsay, of course.
What was his reason for doing so and what form did the attack take?
-
No, I don't ! She wasn't really a Goth anyway, and neither was Luke. They just adopted some aspects, as many young people do-----IMO.
I suspect that, if Luke killed her, he did it while he was high on drugs.
If someone else killed her, it was, IMO, either because she knew something that the killer didn't want revealed, or it was a murder by a random person with a serious psychopathic disorder.
Just my opinion, though.
I agree with that assessment. I don't think either of them were seriously into Goth culture. And what you say about random assailants is perfectly possible and in fact may well have precedent.
Where I part company with you is in reference to Mitchell.
We are led to believe he was a regular and perhaps heavy drug user. But from what I know of the cannabis in use at that time I don't think however high he might have been, I don't think cannabis would have been a factor in what he did to Jodi.
Perhaps he was using a different drug or a combination, but I've never seen any gossip about that although Shane appears to have had real issues with drugs.
I think the circumstances of the case made by good old fashioned police work weaved all the threads together to make a viable case against Luke Mitchell. As I see it each piece of the puzzle slotted into the next and contrary to what I have seen some people saying the police did check out others and eliminated them leaving only Mitchell in the frame.
I must also say that I feel that neither he nor his mother did him any favours in the months between his 'finding' Jodi's body and the police laying charges against him.
-
What was his reason for doing so and what form did the attack take?
I was talking to the guy a few days after the recent documentary, and he told me LM attacked his son in the school playground, and that people had to pull him off.
My friend says he couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in the trial, which shows a balanced perspective, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt him.
-
I'm sure some jurors take the proceedings far more seriously than do others!
I took jury service very seriously indeed and short acquaintance with my fellow jurors (in the jury room pre trial where they were at pains to get as much information about their duties from court officers) led me to form the opinion that they did too.
I have no reason to think that a murder trial jury wouldn't take their duties even more seriously.
-
I was talking to the guy a few days after the recent documentary, and he told me LM attacked his son in the school playground, and that people had to pull him off.
My friend says he couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in the trial, which shows a balanced perspective, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt him.
Did he not say why Mitchell had attacked his son in thefirst place?
-
It's certainly the case that LM attacked my friend's son at school - I mentioned it on here, but it was dismissed as gossip and hearsay, of course.
Not gossip or hearsay...just a father who wasn’t too happy that the other boy had got the better of his son in a childish fight. It’s understandable that your friend may not have been particularly objective about the incident.
-
Did he not say why Mitchell had attacked his son in the first place?
He didn't say - he wasn't there, and it was a long time ago.
Worth noting that he didn't say it was a fight where LM got the better of his son - he said it was an attack.
As I said, the fact that my friend can't be sure of LM's guilt is a decent indicator of his objectivity.
-
He didn't say - he wasn't there, and it was a long time ago.
Worth noting that he didn't say it was a fight where LM got the better of his son - he said it was an attack.
As I said, the fact that my friend can't be sure of LM's guilt is a decent indicator of his objectivity.
Of course he said it was an attack. Do you think his son would have confessed, if it was him who started it?
-
Of course he said it was an attack. Do you think his son would have confessed, if it was him who started it?
It seems you’ve decidednMitchell was the victim here, typical.
-
No, I don't ! She wasn't really a Goth anyway, and neither was Luke. They just adopted some aspects, as many young people do-----IMO.
I suspect that, if Luke killed her, he did it while he was high on drugs.
If someone else killed her, it was, IMO, either because she knew something that the killer didn't want revealed, or it was a murder by a random person with a serious psychopathic disorder.
Just my opinion, though.
But if someone else killed J J because she knew something that the killer didn't want revelaed why the mutilation? Some of her injuries were inflicted post death albeit the perp may not have realised.
Its the grotesque nature of the injuires that I find unfathomable? To my mind the perp(s?) was someone either off their head(s) on drink and/or drugs and/or suffered some sort of mental illness.
-
I took jury service very seriously indeed and short acquaintance with my fellow jurors (in the jury room pre trial where they were at pains to get as much information about their duties from court officers) led me to form the opinion that they did too.
I have no reason to think that a murder trial jury wouldn't take their duties even more seriously.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/juror-fell-asleep-sex-case-17130300
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/09/jurors-suspended-jail-terms-serious-contempt-court
-
Luke was IMO not a typical 14 year old.
He was a regular drug user (statistically only around 10% of 14 year olds have taken drugs in the last month, Mitchell was a regular user apparently).
He carried knives
He stored his urine
He had (and still has) a fascination with the macabre and Satan
He was sexually active.
He had demonstrated threatening behaviour to other females
He had little respect for authority figures
In short he was a bit of a nightmare teen even before the murder conviction. None of the above makes him a murderer but they do IMO paint a very worrying picture of a troubled youth.
Many of the points on your list are perfectly legitimate lifestyle choices.
He broke the law, aided by his mother, by having a tattoo, smoking cannabis and engaging in underage sex. Hardly out of the norm for a nearly 15 year old.
I believe J J also smoked cannabis and her sexual relationship with LM was consensual?
It appears he owned a knife but did he carry one? If so was it illegal to do so?
Did any witnesses appear at trial for the proseuction over threatening behaviour?
Some claim that the Harry Potter series contain occult or Satanic subtexts. Stephen King is also criticised:
In addition to the above, the overall perception of King’s writing has kept him from the
canon. King’s works are often considered light reading or literary “mind candy” because they
are part of the gothic or horror genres, genres that are not generally considered academic.
Counsel described LM as follows:
Counsel had found the appellant to be intelligent, courteous, respectful and conscious of the seriousness of his position.
-
With regard to L M's tattoo I believe J J had a lip piercing which is illegal in Scotland below the age of 16?
-
Wrong.
-
We know what you mean. Let's put that in context. There was mass media attention. The papers however were not full of the headlines you put, leading up to the trial. The stories printed throughout the trial relating to evidence heard, the urine and so forth is irrelevant to the jury, they were hearing this evidence first hand. What the DF article is relating to is internet access of other information that may have influenced a Jury, a Jury whom were allowed to go home.
This type of access and discussion was not anywhere near the scale it was in 2010 to the present day. However:
Of the animals, dogs, Satan, Manson and of trial by media in general - I agree with you wholeheartedly. That 99% of people like you, believed everything they had read in the rags, and in turn they are the very same people, like you again, of which, 99% of you now believe him to be innocent by the very same means. By reading guff? - That this 99% of people the same as you, tried LM on guff and are now trying everyone else again by means of guff? You? are thankfully very much a tiny minority. Therefore the chances of the Jury being made up of 'you' is virtually non-existent? These claims of complete trial by media do nothing more that deflect away from the actual evidence. As that minority who based their guilt solely on this Goth, music taste and so forth were not interested in the actual evidence itself. Completely swayed by sensationalist stories. And are again. Boys cutting off their hair to impersonate themselves on bikes?
You are however correct - as was the decision to hold this trial in Edinburgh. It would not have mattered where it was held in Scotland due to mass media coverage. But please, do not judge others to all be the same as you?
WRONG again. The newspapers were full of those stories daily. As a matter of fact I've still got many of them because I keep old newspapers when there are significant events in Scotland, be it murders or football. If you want to pay me by the hour in advance I'll start scanning them for you and uploading them on here. I've got hundreds of copies from 2000-2010.
[/quote]
-
Wrong.
What is wrong?
-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/juror-fell-asleep-sex-case-17130300
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/09/jurors-suspended-jail-terms-serious-contempt-court
Why do you persist in posting such non sequiturs?
Unless you are suggesting that the jury slept through Mitchell's trial.
-
With regard to L M's tattoo I believe J J had a lip piercing which is illegal in Scotland below the age of 16?
No it isn't.
Snip
There is no minimum age of consent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for piercing. Under-16s in Scotland need parental consent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15335707
-
But if someone else killed J J because she knew something that the killer didn't want revelaed why the mutilation? Some of her injuries were inflicted post death albeit the perp may not have realised.
Its the grotesque nature of the injuires that I find unfathomable? To my mind the perp(s?) was someone either off their head(s) on drink and/or drugs and/or suffered some sort of mental illness.
this guy was neither. 14 years old and fascinated by serial killers was all
“Hernandez was serving a life sentence for the February 2004 murder of Jaime Gough when they were both 14-year-old students at Southwood Middle School in Palmetto Bay, just outside Miami.
Hernandez had lured Jaime into a handicapped stall before school with a promise to show him something. He then pulled out a knife, stabbed him more than 40 times and slit his throat. He then hid the knife in a secret compartment in his backpack and went to class.
After Jaime's body was found, a teacher noticed blood on Hernandez and notified police. It was discovered that Hernandez had become fascinated with serial killers, studying them online. He had made a list of people he wanted to slay, including Jaime. He was found guilty in 2008 of first-degree murder after a jury rejected his insanity plea”.
-
No it isn't.
Snip
There is no minimum age of consent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for piercing. Under-16s in Scotland need parental consent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15335707
What was the legislation back in 2003?
-
What was the legislation back in 2003?
Is your Google broken?
-
What is wrong?
Sorry it was to Parky41. I forgot to add the quote.