Luke Mitchell Theories

[William Wallace]

As Mitchell is a self avowed Satan worshipper it wouldn’t be that surprisingif he had a shrine to Satan, surely?

A Satan worshipper lol? Where is the evidence for this? There isn't any. I wish people would stick to the facts and not make unsubstantiated claims. There was nothing found in his house to back this up. It's a fact that the Police drip fed this sort of stuff to the media, but there was no proof of interest in Satan or Manson or the Black Dahlia was there? The scribblings on school books were actually quotes from the Max Payne computer game mostly. What interests me more is how did LM allegedly carry out this murder at 5.15pm and be seen 40m later sitting on a wall. get rid of any bloodied clothing and the weapon, clean himself up but have no dirt under his nails later and have unwashed hair when examined by Police, as well as no DNA trace on him? He certainly didn't clean up in the house, so that leaves the burn running behind the woods at the V or the River Esk. Problem is to have done that, he would have needed a change of clothes. Where's the clothes he had on when allegedly carrying out a murder? Nothing was ever found in the burn or Esk, neither of which flow fast in the middle of summer. Clothes thrown in either of those would have been found. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence as we know, but it doesn't seem possible on the alleged timescales that he did it.

[Venturi Swirl]

A Satan worshipper lol? Where is the evidence for this? There isn't any. I wish people would stick to the facts and not make unsubstantiated claims. There was nothing found in his house to back this up. It's a fact that the Police drip fed this sort of stuff to the media, but there was no proof of interest in Satan or Manson or the Black Dahlia was there? The scribblings on school books were actually quotes from the Max Payne computer game mostly. What interests me more is how did LM allegedly carry out this murder at 5.15pm and be seen 40m later sitting on a wall. get rid of any bloodied clothing and the weapon, clean himself up but have no dirt under his nails later and have unwashed hair when examined by Police, as well as no DNA trace on him? He certainly didn't clean up in the house, so that leaves the burn running behind the woods at the V or the River Esk. Problem is to have done that, he would have needed a change of clothes. Where's the clothes he had on when allegedly carrying out a murder? Nothing was ever found in the burn or Esk, neither of which flow fast in the middle of summer. Clothes thrown in either of those would have been found. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence as we know, but it doesn't seem possible on the alleged timescales that he did it.

so this report is a complete fabrication is it lol?. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242. Yes put your fingers inyour ears and shut your eyes to anything that paints your boy in a bad light.
Where did judge Lord Nimmo Smith get the idea that Mitchell was into satanism?  Did he read it in the tabs?
"I do not think that your interest in satanism can be ignored as mere adolescent rebellion," the judge told Mitchell. "I think that is a sign that you found evil attractive and that you thought that there might be a kind of perverted glamour in doing something wicked.“.

“He scrawled slogans such as "Satan, master lead us into hell" on his jotters, and handed in school essays boasting of how he was in league with the devil.”

But yeah, no evidence at all that Mitchell was and probably still is a satan worshipper, no none at all lol.

[faithlilly]

Let it not detract from the salient point raised in respect of his time at said secure unit in Bishopbriggs between April 2004 & February 2005 -- i e., You'll get what she got!" And on and on and on it goes. It's a bit like those Ariston adverts from the late 80s/early 90s (i.e., Ariston ... and on and on and on and on and on .......).

There is no salient point within the article. It’s an absolute load of hogwash specifically targeted at ingenues like yourself.

[Myster]

so this report is a complete fabrication is it lol?. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242. Yes put your fingers inyour ears and shut your eyes to anything that paints your boy in a bad light.
Where did judge Lord Nimmo Smith get the idea that Mitchell was into satanism?  Did he read it in the tabs?
"I do not think that your interest in satanism can be ignored as mere adolescent rebellion," the judge told Mitchell. "I think that is a sign that you found evil attractive and that you thought that there might be a kind of perverted glamour in doing something wicked.“.

“He scrawled slogans such as "Satan, master lead us into hell" on his jotters, and handed in school essays boasting of how he was in league with the devil.”

But yeah, no evidence at all that Mitchell was and probably still is a satan worshipper, no none at all lol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4042321.stm

[Venturi Swirl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4042321.stm

yeah but yeah but yeah but 

[faithlilly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4042321.stm

A teenager kicking against convention. Time to clutch those pearls Mrs.

[Myster]

A teenager kicking against convention. Time to clutch those pearls Mrs.

A distorted habitual belief which he appears never to have grown out of.  Is there a special room set aside as a Satanic Temple in Shotts, or does he have to share a multi-faith one with BAMEs, I wonder?

[Venturi Swirl]

A teenager kicking against convention. Time to clutch those pearls Mrs.

murdering your girlfriend is a big kick against convention, that’s for sure.

[faithlilly]

A distorted habitual belief which he appears never to have grown out of.  Is there a special room set aside as a Satanic Temple in Shotts, or does he have to share a multi-faith one with BAMEs, I wonder?

Dear oh dear. Not only have you not the least idea what Luke believes but you also have no idea what a satanist is. Come back once you’ve done a bit of research and then we can both debate from a position of knowledge.

[Venturi Swirl]

Dear oh dear. Not only have you not the least idea what Luke believes but you also have no idea what a satanist is. Come back once you’ve done a bit of research and then we can both debate from a position of knowledge.

How do you know that Luke Mitchell does not believe in Satan out of interest?  Did he tell you on one of your prison visits, or do you correspond with the odious creep?
Funny how his supporters get soooooo defensive about the Satanism thing.  I wonder why…

[Venturi Swirl]

Of course it doesn’t really matter whether Mitchell is still heavily interested in thr occult and satanism now, what matters is that he was very obviously fascinated by it then, at the time he murdered his girlfriend and until at least 2014 when he asked for books on the subject stating it was his right to gain access to such material to support his religion.  There is evidence in abundance which his supoorters prefer to ignore.  But why?  Surely being a Satan worshipper doesn’t automatically make you a murderer….does it?

[William Wallace]

so this report is a complete fabrication is it lol?. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242. Yes put your fingers inyour ears and shut your eyes to anything that paints your boy in a bad light.
Where did judge Lord Nimmo Smith get the idea that Mitchell was into satanism?  Did he read it in the tabs?
"I do not think that your interest in satanism can be ignored as mere adolescent rebellion," the judge told Mitchell. "I think that is a sign that you found evil attractive and that you thought that there might be a kind of perverted glamour in doing something wicked.“.

“He scrawled slogans such as "Satan, master lead us into hell" on his jotters, and handed in school essays boasting of how he was in league with the devil.”

But yeah, no evidence at all that Mitchell was and probably still is a satan worshipper, no none at all lol.

You didn't answer any of my points about how it was possible he did it. Scrawlings on jotters don't prove anything. Explain how he did it in 40 minutes and got rid of anything incriminating.

[Venturi Swirl]

You didn't answer any of my points about how it was possible he did it. Scrawlings on jotters don't prove anything. Explain how he did it in 40 minutes and got rid of anything incriminating.

I’m under no obligation to answer your questions, particularly those that seek to deflect from the point I was making. In any case I have never professed to be sufficiently expert in the case to discuss its minutiae but I will comment when I see people posting pro-Mitchell propaganda which is patently misleading or attempting to minimise and deflect from his serious character flaws and unpleasant personality traits, for example his apparent  sinister obsession  with the occult and satanism. You may be surprised to learn that I joined this discussion convinced of the pooor lamb’s innocence after watching Lean’s one-sided hagiography.  Now thanks to the debates I have read on here I am more or less satisfied that he did do the crime but if a re-trial is ever deemed necessary by the authorities  then I’m cool with that too.

[William Wallace]

I’m under no obligation to answer your questions, particularly those that seek to deflect from the point I was making. In any case I have never professed to be sufficiently expert in the case to discuss its minutiae but I will comment when I see people posting pro-Mitchell propaganda which is patently misleading or attempting to minimise and deflect from his serious character flaws and unpleasant personality traits, for example his apparent  sinister obsession  with the occult and satanism. You may be surprised to learn that I joined this discussion convinced of the pooor lamb’s innocence after watching Lean’s one-sided hagiography.  Now thanks to the debates I have read on here I am more or less satisfied that he did do the crime but if a re-trial is ever deemed necessary by the authorities  then I’m cool with that too.

You have made various claims about Satanism and backed it up with nothing except scrawlings on jotters. No you are not under obligation, but seeing as you are so sure he did it and are making unsubstantiated claims about Satanism, I asked you to explain how he managed to carry out this murder and get rid of all trace in 40 minutes. The fact that you can't even provide any possible views about how he did it just means that there is no credible explanation and you are not prepared to be laughed at when you try to explain it. I'm not interested in whether you think he did it or not. I'm interested in how you think he managed to do it without leaving any trace at the scene, on his clothes or in his house and effectively defeat the laws of forensic science.

[Venturi Swirl]

You have made various claims about Satanism and backed it up with nothing except scrawlings on jotters. No you are not under obligation, but seeing as you are so sure he did it and are making unsubstantiated claims about Satanism, I asked you to explain how he managed to carry out this murder and get rid of all trace in 40 minutes. The fact that you can't even provide any possible views about how he did it just means that there is no credible explanation and you are not prepared to be laughed at when you try to explain it. I'm not interested in whether you think he did it or not. I'm interested in how you think he managed to do it without leaving any trace at the scene, on his clothes or in his house and effectively defeat the laws of forensic science.

My claims about Mitchell’s interest in satanism have been thoroughly backed up with cites including  remarks by the judge at his trial and by the creep’s own request foe books on satanism whilst in prison on the grounds that he is entitled to them on religious grounds.  Also I did not say I am “so sure” he did it. I said I was more or less satisfied that he did it but would have no objection  if a re-trial was ever deemed necessary.   It’s clear you are not a fair and honest debater when you won’t even acknowledge these basic truths so there is no way I am going to get dragged into any further pointless debate wrt to the logistics of this murder.  The explicit detail of the case (which I have already acknowledged I am not sufficiently au fait with) satisfied the judge and at least 8 members of the jury - of course that might just be because Mitchell’s defence were so incredibly poor that they failed to demonstrate in court your claim about the complete impossibility that Mitchell was the murderer, in which case your beef must surely be with them.  So kindly take your snarky comments and direct them at those who apparently perpetrated this gross injustice against the poor wee Satanist, not me.  In the meantime I will continue to read the debate here and comment when I see blatant attempts at bending the truth or downplaying Mitchell’s well documented sinister leanings.