The Senior Social Worker from Dalkeith Social Services.

[faithlilly]

We know from witness testimony that when Luke was being interviewed a senior social worker from Dalkeith Social Services was present in the interview room with him. Who was this social worker and did they give testimony in court as I have never seen it mentioned or even heard his name.

This was an independent witness to Luke’s treatment by the police. What do we know of them?

[Mr Apples]

Don’t know the name of this senior social worker, but I’ve read several articles indicating that, whoever they were, at no point did they feel it necessary to intervene when Luke was being aggressively interrogated by police at Dalkeith police station — the implication being that Luke, even at 14 years of age, was more than capable of looking after himself. Of course, like other aspects of Luke Mitchell’s conduct throughout the investigation, this was seen as incriminatory — the implication being that he was cocky, calculating, cunning, mendacious and underhand. It was like Luke could do nothing right, and was in the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ predicament/dilemma. Another example of this was Luke’s perceived lack of emotion throughout the investigation and trial; this was construed as a sign of guilt, even though he was advised by both DF and the trial judge to remain emotionless throughout the trial, and was heavily medicated.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

[Nicholas]

Don’t know the name of this senior social worker, but I’ve read several articles indicating that, whoever they were, at no point did they feel it necessary to intervene when Luke was being aggressively interrogated by police at Dalkeith police station — the implication being that Luke, even at 14 years of age, was more than capable of looking after himself. Of course, like other aspects of Luke Mitchell’s conduct throughout the investigation, this was seen as incriminatory — the implication being that he was cocky, calculating, cunning, mendacious and underhand. It was like Luke could do nothing right, and was in the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ predicament/dilemma. Another example of this was Luke’s perceived lack of emotion throughout the investigation and trial; this was construed as a sign of guilt, even though he was advised by both DF and the trial judge to remain emotionless throughout the trial, and was heavily medicated.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

For someone so young to remain in control like he did - I’d question whether he ever had a full range of emotions to begin with

And heavy medication doesn’t stop someone from outwardly displaying emotion/s

[Brietta]

Don’t know the name of this senior social worker, but I’ve read several articles indicating that, whoever they were, at no point did they feel it necessary to intervene when Luke was being aggressively interrogated by police at Dalkeith police station — the implication being that Luke, even at 14 years of age, was more than capable of looking after himself. Of course, like other aspects of Luke Mitchell’s conduct throughout the investigation, this was seen as incriminatory — the implication being that he was cocky, calculating, cunning, mendacious and underhand. It was like Luke could do nothing right, and was in the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ predicament/dilemma. Another example of this was Luke’s perceived lack of emotion throughout the investigation and trial; this was construed as a sign of guilt, even though he was advised by both DF and the trial judge to remain emotionless throughout the trial, and was heavily medicated.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

Luke Mitchell Mocked Cops During Interview
LUKE Mitchell gave as good as he got during a police interview about the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones, a court was told yesterday.

ByGordon Mcilwraith
00:00, 16 FEB 2008UPDATED11:31, 9 SEP 2013

The teenager "ridiculed and insulted" the officers questioning him and never dropped his guard, it was claimed.

Mitchell's defence team had complained police adopted the good cop, bad cop routine and tried to trick him.

They also claimed that during his trial the prosecution used parts of the police interview to "cherry-pick the fruit of the well-poisoned tree."

But at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, advocate depute John Beckett QC said: "It is highly relevant he coped perfectly well, gave as good as he got and was not pressured or deceived into making an admission.

"There doesn't appear to be trickery, bullying or any unfair form of questioning."

Mitchell was 15 when he was first questioned by police in August 2003 - just over a month after 14-year-old Jodi's mutilated body was found near a path linking their homes in Dalkeith, Midlothian. Mr Beckett accepted that some of the police questioning had been unsatisfactory.

But he said it had not amounted to deliberate trickery.

The prosecutor reminded the three judges that in his summing up to the jury, Alan Turnbull QC stated: "He has lied constantly and arrogantly to the police."

Mr Beckett said: "I submit his will was not broken at the interview and he made no admission of guilt."

Mitchell, who is serving a minimum of 20 years for the brutal murder, claims he has suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal will resume next week.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-mocked-cops-during-968998

                            ________________________________________________________________

Why are we reworking evidence which was addressed during Mitchell's trial and reaffirmed at Mitchell's failed appeal.

Mitchell was a drug dealer/supplier - an arrogant and consummate liar who thought he could run rings around the police and to top it all up he is a perverted murderer.
Not exactly the type of shrinking violet his supporters would like people to think.

His very visible laid back persona is being presented as being drugged to the eyeballs - I'll go with that one - but was that as a result of prescription drugs or was it due to indulging his normal heavy duty usage to which he had apparently easy access to copious amounts - or was it a mixture of both.

[Parky41]

For someone so young to remain in control like he did - I’d question whether he ever had a full range of emotions to begin with

And heavy medication doesn’t stop someone from outwardly displaying emotion/s

Assessed and declared fit for interview by the doctor who examined him at the station? - How was he? did he show signs of upset/shock or trauma. At any point did himself or his mother ask for a break, ask for the interview to be stopped? Did he break down, unable to continue, anything? - and nothing from the doctor here to give, to calm him down - nothing. - For there was nothing was there? - LM was perfectly fine. That rehearsed story of the nights events up until the search party - perfect, until they were asked about Shane. That first point of realising that the story was not quite done with yet? -"was Shane home mum?"

Yet he tells us that upon arriving home, his mother got the doctor to attend. That from the 1st of July he was given a strong cocktail of Temazepam and Fluoxetine together. Later to be given Lormetazepam alongside Temazepam. Also Trazodone? That rendered him emotionless. Reason given as to why he slept with his mother downstairs. Far too zoned out to be tackling stairs. - Yet there is no mention of this in connection with any of his interviews, namely the one on July the 4th with a social worker present - Did LM make them aware of these cocktail of drugs? - He certainly did not come across as someone zoned out? or emotionless? -Completely alert and with it.

Furthermore - it does not fit at all with this partying up down, drinking and using cannabis. Nor viewing the Manson DVD or his mother purchasing more knives. Of needing to be back at school, to carry on as normal. Of any parental control under these claimed prescription drugs? - It just does not fit together, does it? As with most of everything we hear - gaping holes.

Was he being monitored by a doctor/psychiatrist whilst being over medicated with powerful drugs at 15yrs old? Where are these reports? Did DF say my client is not showing any signs of anything as he is completely out his box? That my client was under the influence of X,Y and Z throughout any interviews with the police or himself?

[faithlilly]

Don’t know the name of this senior social worker, but I’ve read several articles indicating that, whoever they were, at no point did they feel it necessary to intervene when Luke was being aggressively interrogated by police at Dalkeith police station — the implication being that Luke, even at 14 years of age, was more than capable of looking after himself. Of course, like other aspects of Luke Mitchell’s conduct throughout the investigation, this was seen as incriminatory — the implication being that he was cocky, calculating, cunning, mendacious and underhand. It was like Luke could do nothing right, and was in the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ predicament/dilemma. Another example of this was Luke’s perceived lack of emotion throughout the investigation and trial; this was construed as a sign of guilt, even though he was advised by both DF and the trial judge to remain emotionless throughout the trial, and was heavily medicated.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

Thank you for at least trying to answer my question Mr Apples.

[Mr Apples]

I remember reading in IB that the social worker’s name was Alistair. No surnames were mentioned. From memory, it was inferred that he didn’t need to intervene as, like already stated, LM was seemingly in control and didn’t need an appropriate adult to help (or perhaps Alistair had subconsciously taken the side of the state as by that time, on 14.08.03, during this Section 14 Interview, it was widely known in the press Luke was the prime suspect).

In fact, talking about that Section 14 Interview, there are parts I need to reread, especially the part where the officers wouldn’t allow Luke to point out that he could see a body in the reconstruction of what happened at the locus; they railroaded him and manipulated the interview. This is the infamous interview which led judges to say at Luke’s first appeal (2008) that the police’s actions during said interview were ‘outrageous and to be deplored’.

[Paranoid Android]

They didn't bargain on LM.

LM was no ordinary fourteen year-old.

etc.

[Admin]

Don’t know the name of this senior social worker, but I’ve read several articles indicating that, whoever they were, at no point did they feel it necessary to intervene when Luke was being aggressively interrogated by police at Dalkeith police station — the implication being that Luke, even at 14 years of age, was more than capable of looking after himself. Of course, like other aspects of Luke Mitchell’s conduct throughout the investigation, this was seen as incriminatory — the implication being that he was cocky, calculating, cunning, mendacious and underhand. It was like Luke could do nothing right, and was in the classic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ predicament/dilemma. Another example of this was Luke’s perceived lack of emotion throughout the investigation and trial; this was construed as a sign of guilt, even though he was advised by both DF and the trial judge to remain emotionless throughout the trial, and was heavily medicated.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

Not exactly the behaviour of an innocent 14-year-old by any stretch of the imagination.

[faithlilly]

They didn't bargain on LM.

LM was no ordinary fourteen year-old.

etc.

Ordinary or not he was 14 years old…a child in law.

How anyone can condone behaviour on behalf of the police that even the Appeal Court judges described as ‘deplorable’ is beyond me.

[William Wallace]

Luke Mitchell Mocked Cops During Interview
LUKE Mitchell gave as good as he got during a police interview about the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones, a court was told yesterday.

ByGordon Mcilwraith
00:00, 16 FEB 2008UPDATED11:31, 9 SEP 2013

The teenager "ridiculed and insulted" the officers questioning him and never dropped his guard, it was claimed.

Mitchell's defence team had complained police adopted the good cop, bad cop routine and tried to trick him.

They also claimed that during his trial the prosecution used parts of the police interview to "cherry-pick the fruit of the well-poisoned tree."

But at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, advocate depute John Beckett QC said: "It is highly relevant he coped perfectly well, gave as good as he got and was not pressured or deceived into making an admission.

"There doesn't appear to be trickery, bullying or any unfair form of questioning."

Mitchell was 15 when he was first questioned by police in August 2003 - just over a month after 14-year-old Jodi's mutilated body was found near a path linking their homes in Dalkeith, Midlothian. Mr Beckett accepted that some of the police questioning had been unsatisfactory.

But he said it had not amounted to deliberate trickery.

The prosecutor reminded the three judges that in his summing up to the jury, Alan Turnbull QC stated: "He has lied constantly and arrogantly to the police."

Mr Beckett said: "I submit his will was not broken at the interview and he made no admission of guilt."

Mitchell, who is serving a minimum of 20 years for the brutal murder, claims he has suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal will resume next week.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-mocked-cops-during-968998

                            ________________________________________________________________

Why are we reworking evidence which was addressed during Mitchell's trial and reaffirmed at Mitchell's failed appeal.

Mitchell was a drug dealer/supplier - an arrogant and consummate liar who thought he could run rings around the police and to top it all up he is a perverted murderer.
Not exactly the type of shrinking violet his supporters would like people to think.

His very visible laid back persona is being presented as being drugged to the eyeballs - I'll go with that one - but was that as a result of prescription drugs or was it due to indulging his normal heavy duty usage to which he had apparently easy access to copious amounts - or was it a mixture of both.

Do you trust the Police? Maybe you should read this.......https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/tags/corruption-and-abuse-power

You can even choose a month and year if you've got nothing else to do for the next 2 years. It will take anyone at least that amount of time to read them all.

[Paranoid Android]

Another freedom fighter who hates the polis - a pattern is emerging.

[faithlilly]

Another freedom fighter who hates the polis - a pattern is emerging.

It’s a government site. Do they hate ‘the polis’ too?

I knew two brothers, similar to each other in looks but not enough not to be able to tell them apart. One got arrested for being drunk and disorderly one night but when taken to the police station gave his brother’s name. The innocent brother was in time sent a summons to appear in court. At his court appearance when the arresting officer was asked if he could see in court the boy he had arrested he pointed to the brother.

So the officer either proved the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, even though he had spent a substantial amount of time with the arrestee or he knew that the boy wasn’t guilty but chose to say he was. Take your pick.

[rulesapply]

It’s a government site. Do they hate ‘the polis’ too?

I knew two brothers, similar to each other in looks but not enough not to be able to tell them apart. One got arrested for being drunk and disorderly one night but when taken to the police station gave his brother’s name. The innocent brother was in time sent a summons to appear in court. At his court appearance when the arresting officer was asked if he could see in court the boy he had arrested he pointed to the brother.

So the officer either proved the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, even though he had spent a substantial amount of time with the arrestee or he knew that the boy wasn’t guilty but chose to say he was. Take your pick.

Was there DNA evidence? Did the innocent brother have an alibi? Was there witness testimony?

[rulesapply]

Was there DNA evidence? Did the innocent brother have an alibi? Was there witness testimony?

So, was anyone found guilty?