What convinces you most that Luke Mitchell is innocent or guilty?

[John]

We have looked at this case for many years and picked over the evidence in great detail. I have always said that I was initially unpersuaded as to Luke's guilt but over the years that changed. For me the circumstantial evidence is all powerful. The actions of other members of the Mitchell family have never persuaded me that this was a miscarriage of justice.

So can I ask, what one factor convinces you that Luke Mitchell is innocent or guilty?

[faithlilly]

We have looked at this case for many years and picked over the evidence in great detail. I have always said that I was initially unpersuaded as to Luke's guilt but over the years that changed. For me the circumstantial evidence is all powerful. The actions of other members of the Mitchell family have never persuaded me that this was a miscarriage of justice.

So can I ask, what one factor convinces you that Luke Mitchell is innocent or guilty?

Again it’s the wrong question. The question should be was Luke proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as it was not a unanimous verdict the answer has to be no.

[rulesapply]

Again it’s the wrong question. The question should be was Luke proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as it was not a unanimous verdict the answer has to be no.

Is that your take on every majority conviction?

[Venturi Swirl]

Again it’s the wrong question. The question should be was Luke proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as it was not a unanimous verdict the answer has to be no.

It’s not the wrong question, it’s a perfectly valid one.  If the only thing that convinces you he’s innocent is the opinion of a minority number of jurors that doesn’t say much about your own ability to assess he evidence for yourself and come to an independent opinion.

[Parky41]

The time frame with that rapid series of events: Which is backed up with every other lie from the start of the evening.

10.40pm until 11.34. That rapid series of events, fuelled by lies from Mitchell and his main support, and led by Mitchell. There can be no doubt he was prepped and ready to offer and to be off and onto that path. Lied, never been in the woodland, never knew of the existence of those breaks. Found them instantly, up and looking over the first, and up and over at the next. Stated his dog reacted some 40ft past that break. Stated they were all well past bar AW. None went past until Mitchell was in the woodland, as with the Gino break, he went directly to it. Lied about his dog being trained to track, gives an example of a toy up a tree!! Lied about rushing up the path. Lies about where they met, they met about 2/3 of the way up that path, not at the junction of Lady Path and RDP. Lied he had found something when he shouted out, he could not have seen anything, he could only have walked around 10ft (3 meters at most) Lied for the reason going left, due to dog alerting parallel to were Jodi lay. And as above, they did not go past that break. Lied when he stated he looked around first after entering those woods, he shone his torch directly left and went left. And of course, lies when stating it is the search trio lying! And that actual search, less than 8 mins and that miraculous find. In a woodland, cut off from the path by a high, thick, dry stone dyke. some 40ft down from a break in the wall, hidden out of sight behind a large Oak tree and lots of foliage in the way.

10.40pm knowing to be missing.
10.49pm offers to search and search that path.
10.59pm he is on that path.
11.20pm he is still on that path, around 2/3 of the way up it.
Offered to go through friends phone numbers, only one friend could he have and she was on a school trip.
2mins into that search of that path and he introduces the woodland.
6mins later he is shouting out he has found something.

And each and every area of backup, of claimed proof on Mitchells behalf, is fuelled with handfuls of words.

"we were all in hysterics" - Asked to explain what she meant by hysterics. Gran screaming, me screaming and shouting at Luke. Steven retching and shouting.

"Luke went over the wall and was searching about" - Asked to explain, searching about. He went over and went left and Steven and I walked down,  'whilst' Luke was searching about in the woods.

"I knew by his voice he had found something bad" - Asked to explain. We were looking for Jodi and he shouted (voice) out he had found something, I knew it was bad, knew it was Jodi.

"You said you had to shout at Luke, why was that?"- He wouldn't tell the person on the phone what had been found, he was "I think we have found something, I don't know what it is --------" We were shouting to tell him, to tell them what it was, and " I think it's a body, aye well it could be a body, aye it I think it could be, it could be a body we have found" And Kelly takes over and he is F'n and blinding in hysterics "It is a body, it's a f'n body"

And that is what the court heard. That flat effect voice, like discussing an everyday thing. Monotone. "I think we have found something ------------------" calm and collective.

As he was with the police, of giving them directions. Leading them a merry dance and taking them onto Lady Path. "Do you know where such and such is, well we are not there, we are on a path at the back of the school near Newtongrange ------------------If you go to there I will shine my torch so you can see us"

[Paranoid Android]

It's an entirely fair question.

Whoever killed Jodi and committed the post-mortem mutilation is a warp.

LM is a sociopath - plain and simple.

[Bullseye]

I don’t know if he is guilty or not, I’m not convinced either way, my reasons for both

Innocent

None of Luke’s dna at scene and no dna from Jodi on Luke or in his home. That is what first got my interest years after the case.
Luke was noted to be dirty, grubby and greasy in same clothes from school, no dna on him
The timings don’t seem to fit for me
The sightings imo are laughable
All agreed dog found body then statements all changed
His mum said he was home and someone had to have made the dinner
Sightings of him where he said he was
Other people in the area at the alleged time of murder
No known motive
No murder weapon or bloody clothes
No witnesses
No hard evidence

Guilty

Initially it was the tabloids at the time and a police officers comments to me on the case in the summer of the murder.
She was going to meet Luke that evening
Brother did not support the alibi
Possibility of missing parka
The red hair scrunchie he said he saw
History with knives
He was found guilty in court
*Attitude with police and others
*strange behaviour ie pee bottles
*request of satanic bible

*although not evidence or proof in anyway if I’m being honest these are reasons also, I know it does not mean he is a murderer but it also does not help his case.

Going by the info I have seen, I would have to say not proven beyond a reasonable doubt for me at this time.

[Rusty]

Simple fact that his very own brother could not corroborate his alibi. Luke was either in the house or he wasn't. It was not a mansion, the insides made of wood & plasterboard, if someone is downstairs rattling about burning supper, I find it hard to believe the noise & smell would go unnoticed.

I have also yet to hear a reasonable explanation of missing minutes of his timeline.

The speed & the circumstances in how he discovered the body. Only the murderer would have managed this.

[rulesapply]

Again it’s the wrong question. The question should be was Luke proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as it was not a unanimous verdict the answer has to be no.

No question is the wrong question.

[mrswah]

I'm thinking similarly to   Bullseye. I am not convinced either way, and for a lot of the same reasons.

However, I don't put too much emphasis on Shane . He was 7 years older than Luke, and , quite possibly, had very little to do with him, and little interest in his comings and goings. I can quite believe that he couldn't remember whether or not Luke had been in the house at  the time he was asked about. I have heard that Shane had problems of his own, and that this affected his memory---don't know how true this is.

Also, I wonder why the police took so long to charge Luke, if they were so sure he was the murderer.

And, of course, there seems to be so much prejudice against Sandra Lean, that, IMO, this is affecting people's views about Luke's guilt/innocence.

And the eyewitnesses appear, to me, to be unreliable, apart from the boys who actually knew Luke.

And, too many people who appear (to me) to have an" agenda " !!

[Parky41]

Apologies Bullseye - I know you are simply listing reasons in answer to the question posed.

I don’t know if he is guilty or not, I’m not convinced either way, my reasons for both

Innocent

None of Luke’s dna at scene and no dna from Jodi on Luke or in his home. That is what first got my interest years after the case.

Only half correct though - there was DNA of Mitchells present. And actually no reason for there to be any upon him, Most of anything upon clothing, as with his house. The agreement not to include his DNA was made for a reason, not simply upon air. Nothing that could be attributed directly to the murder. As in, the girls fingernails, but then there was no DNA of anyone there. And we do of course have hours for there to be 'nothing upon him'

Luke was noted to be dirty, grubby and greasy in same clothes from school, no dna on him

Incorrect - he was noted to be more well kempt than his normal self. His claimed dirty ankles did not need to be clean. Totally covered. His hair "appeared" to the doctor some 12 hours later unwashed.The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed. A clipping was taken from his hair, his body looked over. He was not forensically examined all over.

The timings don’t seem to fit for me

It is a difficult one granted - but how do we put our minds into how long it takes to carry out, what was carried out. The murderer, even if another was not hanging about in those woods for hours.

The sightings imo are laughable

Three positive Identifications. What is ridiculous IMO. Is these constant attempts to have two youths, the same, on that stretch of commute road. One male in khaki green clothing at any time, and Mitchell by his own claims (eventually) was on that road from 5.30pm. Not a place teaming with pedestrians. So it is not something someone would simply miss. 'Oh look at him, seems up to no good, oh look there is another one in the same colours, who looks like the other one?' So the laughable sightings are - F&W at the gate, then no other male. Then the motorists who stated it was not Michell some 15mins later, at the Esk Trial entrance, just down from that gate. Wearing an identical jacket to him, but again, no other male wearing that same jacket. And he denied being there. But he was nowhere else bar that road, he claims. Then the boys twice and the other pair in a car around 6.15pm. People again, perhaps confused. It is not a village, a town, nothing. A commute road where one rarely see's anyone walking on it. So not spot someone from many people. One male in green khaki clothing and a jogger. And that is why it is indeed laughable, to attempt to have two of him, at any given time.

All agreed dog found body then statements all changed

Lies. The evidence was always that he went directly to that break in the wall with his dog. If however you wish to state that he was lying, that they were not some 40ft past. That his dog did indeed alert him to the V break in the wall. Then why was he lying? Why did he claim to go left because of his dog alerting parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? So you see, not the search party but LM that gave a completely false account. DF not once, attempted to have them all past that break in the wall. The evidence they gave from that first statement spoke volumes. All centered on that break in the wall. You can not make them the same at all. They did not change their minds about where Mitchell went directly to, which was that break in the wall. And they not once used any such words, of the dog finding Jodi, leading them to Jodi, alerting them to Jodi - even the descriptions of the dog, some 40ft apart were not the same. But that is of course the trouble with being fed a handful of words, blended together in an attempt to mean the same thing - without actually being shown, as you state yourself below hard proof, concrete evidence. And it was the second time he went directly to a break in the wall, not the first - it really does need proper context. And of course that utter ridiculous notion that the dog found the body! The dog was on a short lead/harness,  not in the woodland, not taken into the woodland. That woodland, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. Which in itself is about 4-5ft in from the actual path they were on. The dog had appeared 'pulling' at other points too. It was being a dog, sniffing other dogs, having a pee and scenting.

His mum said he was home and someone had to have made the dinner

The latter, but sorry is a ridiculous reason - what dinner? Why on earth did someone have to make the dinner? There was absolutely no proof of the existence of that dinner.  Outwith CM for herself, those prawns, which she did claim to make herself. Unlike the Jones household, where Jodi's dinner was still waiting for her, that was proof of someone actually telling the truth, and having the physical existence of it.

Sightings of him where he said he was

90 mins he claimed to be on that road. And in that space of 20mins no more. Saw twice by the boys on the bikes.And by two sets of motorists. Seen of course by F&W prior to this. So no, nothing from around 6.15 until 7.30 was he seen anywhere.
 

Other people in the area at the alleged time of murder

Definitely not MK. Another yarn. The duo on the bike and that is it. Oh and that cyclist. And as above, a commute road, with little in the way of actual pedestrians. Only one male/youth in that khaki green clothing. So Mitchell very much in the area and zero evidence to place him home.

No known motive
No murder weapon or bloody clothes
No witnesses

To him being in Easthouses yes there was, and on the other side of that path. Flukes, two people on either end, Identified to be the same person. Wearing khaki green clothing.

No hard evidence

This case, and the first refusal in the August as the Crown knew they could not use the DNA evidence, that it would be extremely difficult to show that it came from the time of the murder. So they took the case on, on a purely circumstantial nature. That is why it took longer. They had the whack of the circumstances. They had to make sure it was watertight. Cross every T, dot every I.  Make sure that these 'others' were investigated to the max, close every door down. And exactly why the agreement was made. And people don't stop to think, Just for a moment, of how ridiculous it is to have absolutely none of Mitchells DNA present. This young couple in a relationship whom had spent time together that very day.

So it should always read - nothing to directly link him to the murder, and there was nothing to directly link A another to the murder, no stranger DNA found attributable to an attacker.

[Rusty]

I'm thinking similarly to   Bullseye. I am not convinced either way, and for a lot of the same reasons.

However, I don't put too much emphasis on Shane . He was 7 years older than Luke, and , quite possibly, had very little to do with him, and little interest in his comings and goings. I can quite believe that he couldn't remember whether or not Luke had been in the house at  the time he was asked about. I have heard that Shane had problems of his own, and that this affected his memory---don't know how true this is.

Strange take. When you consider, the defence's argument was based around this alibi. What you have heard & what is the truth are two separate things. So unless we can see proof of Shane's problems, then it is probably best we stick to facts & not gossip. Of course, you can have your opinion, but we hear too much of this, iv'e heard, someone said, 3rd/4th hand gossip. It's not good enough, MrsW. So my question to you, since you don't put much emphasis on Shane, what exactly would you have based your defence around?  Would you have just rolled with the criminalization stuff?

Also, I wonder why the police took so long to charge Luke, if they were so sure he was the murderer.

It's called building a case. So no need to wonder why.

And, of course, there seems to be so much prejudice against Sandra Lean, that, IMO, this is affecting people's views about Luke's guilt/innocence.

What about the prejudice, she has showed towards the Jones & others over the years? Thats all fine though right?

And the eyewitnesses appear, to me, to be unreliable, apart from the boys who actually knew Luke.

All the eyewitnesses? Exactly how many eyewitnesses were there? How many statements did the police take while BUILDING their case? Are you talking about The Jones & Co? The Mitchell's? The police? The emergency service? Flemming? Walsh? Bryson? The neighbours? The tattoo parlour? Teachers? School friends? Ex-girlfriends? The cyclist? I could go on. All unreliable aye? On what basis are they unreliable?

And, too many people who appear (to me) to have an" agenda " !!

Who exactly has an agenda, what is it & what do they hope to gain from it?

[Paranoid Android]

And, too many people who appear (to me) to have an" agenda " !!

Like who? What could their agenda be?

[mrswah]

Strange take. When you consider, the defence's argument was based around this alibi. What you have heard & what is the truth are two separate things. So unless we can see proof of Shane's problems, then it is probably best we stick to facts & not gossip. Of course, you can have your opinion, but we hear too much of this, iv'e heard, someone said, 3rd/4th hand gossip. It's not good enough, MrsW. So my question to you, since you don't put much emphasis on Shane, what exactly would you have based your defence around?  Would you have just rolled with the criminalization stuff?


It's called building a case. So no need to wonder why.


What about the prejudice, she has showed towards the Jones & others over the years? Thats all fine though right?


All the eyewitnesses? Exactly how many eyewitnesses were there? How many statements did the police take while BUILDING their case? Are you talking about The Jones & Co? The Mitchell's? The police? The emergency service? Flemming? Walsh? Bryson? The neighbours? The tattoo parlour? Teachers? School friends? Ex-girlfriends? The cyclist? I could go on. All unreliable aye? On what basis are they unreliable?


Who exactly has an agenda, what is it & what do they hope to gain from it?

When talking about eyewitnesses, I am talking about those people who claimed to have seen Luke on the night of the murder. Apart from the boys who actually knew him, and those friends with whom he spent part of the evening, we cannot be sure that those claiming to have seen him actually did. I am speaking of Andrina Bryson, Rosemary Walsh, her friend, etc, not the Joneses or the neighbours, who would have known for sure whether it was Luke they saw.

As for who has an agenda, I'm not going to name names.

I don't believe Sandra Lean is prejudiced against the Jones family. Just my opinion, of course. I don't know any of them.

It took the police a long time to build that case, considering their aggressive questioning of Luke early on.

  Whether Shane had issues of his own or not,  I still doubt he was all that interested in the comings and goings of his much younger brother. He was an adult, Luke was a teenager.

[faithlilly]

Apologies Bullseye - I know you are simply listing reasons in answer to the question posed.

Only half correct though - there was DNA of Mitchells present. And actually no reason for there to be any upon him, Most of anything upon clothing, as with his house. The agreement not to include his DNA was made for a reason, not simply upon air. Nothing that could be attributed directly to the murder. As in, the girls fingernails, but then there was no DNA of anyone there. And we do of course have hours for there to be 'nothing upon him'

Incorrect - he was noted to be more well kempt than his normal self. His claimed dirty ankles did not need to be clean. Totally covered. His hair "appeared" to the doctor some 12 hours later unwashed.The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed. A clipping was taken from his hair, his body looked over. He was not forensically examined all over.

It is a difficult one granted - but how do we put our minds into how long it takes to carry out, what was carried out. The murderer, even if another was not hanging about in those woods for hours.

Three positive Identifications. What is ridiculous IMO. Is these constant attempts to have two youths, the same, on that stretch of commute road. One male in khaki green clothing at any time, and Mitchell by his own claims (eventually) was on that road from 5.30pm. Not a place teaming with pedestrians. So it is not something someone would simply miss. 'Oh look at him, seems up to no good, oh look there is another one in the same colours, who looks like the other one?' So the laughable sightings are - F&W at the gate, then no other male. Then the motorists who stated it was not Michell some 15mins later, at the Esk Trial entrance, just down from that gate. Wearing an identical jacket to him, but again, no other male wearing that same jacket. And he denied being there. But he was nowhere else bar that road, he claims. Then the boys twice and the other pair in a car around 6.15pm. People again, perhaps confused. It is not a village, a town, nothing. A commute road where one rarely see's anyone walking on it. So not spot someone from many people. One male in green khaki clothing and a jogger. And that is why it is indeed laughable, to attempt to have two of him, at any given time.

Lies. The evidence was always that he went directly to that break in the wall with his dog. If however you wish to state that he was lying, that they were not some 40ft past. That his dog did indeed alert him to the V break in the wall. Then why was he lying? Why did he claim to go left because of his dog alerting parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods? So you see, not the search party but LM that gave a completely false account. DF not once, attempted to have them all past that break in the wall. The evidence they gave from that first statement spoke volumes. All centered on that break in the wall. You can not make them the same at all. They did not change their minds about where Mitchell went directly to, which was that break in the wall. And they not once used any such words, of the dog finding Jodi, leading them to Jodi, alerting them to Jodi - even the descriptions of the dog, some 40ft apart were not the same. But that is of course the trouble with being fed a handful of words, blended together in an attempt to mean the same thing - without actually being shown, as you state yourself below hard proof, concrete evidence. And it was the second time he went directly to a break in the wall, not the first - it really does need proper context. And of course that utter ridiculous notion that the dog found the body! The dog was on a short lead/harness,  not in the woodland, not taken into the woodland. That woodland, cut off by that high, thick, dry stone dyke. Which in itself is about 4-5ft in from the actual path they were on. The dog had appeared 'pulling' at other points too. It was being a dog, sniffing other dogs, having a pee and scenting.


The latter, but sorry is a ridiculous reason - what dinner? Why on earth did someone have to make the dinner? There was absolutely no proof of the existence of that dinner.  Outwith CM for herself, those prawns, which she did claim to make herself. Unlike the Jones household, where Jodi's dinner was still waiting for her, that was proof of someone actually telling the truth, and having the physical existence of it.

90 mins he claimed to be on that road. And in that space of 20mins no more. Saw twice by the boys on the bikes.And by two sets of motorists. Seen of course by F&W prior to this. So no, nothing from around 6.15 until 7.30 was he seen anywhere.
 

“ He is sighted from 5.55 until 6.15 - then there is nothing until his meet with DH around 7pm”

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.1290.html

This was part of one of your post from the Bamber forum above. Why did you change the time between Luke being seen by the boys who knew him and DH from 45 minutes to 75 minutes?


Definitely not MK. Another yarn. The duo on the bike and that is it. Oh and that cyclist. And as above, a commute road, with little in the way of actual pedestrians. Only one male/youth in that khaki green clothing. So Mitchell very much in the area and zero evidence to place him home.


To him being in Easthouses yes there was, and on the other side of that path. Flukes, two people on either end, Identified to be the same person. Wearing khaki green clothing.


This case, and the first refusal in the August as the Crown knew they could not use the DNA evidence, that it would be extremely difficult to show that it came from the time of the murder. So they took the case on, on a purely circumstantial nature. That is why it took longer. They had the whack of the circumstances. They had to make sure it was watertight. Cross every T, dot every I.  Make sure that these 'others' were investigated to the max, close every door down. And exactly why the agreement was made. And people don't stop to think, Just for a moment, of how ridiculous it is to have absolutely none of Mitchells DNA present. This young couple in a relationship whom had spent time together that very day.

So it should always read - nothing to directly link him to the murder, and there was nothing to directly link A another to the murder, no stranger DNA found attributable to an attacker.