What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[Brietta]

I wouldn't be surprised if, in this case, the jury was also  swayed by local feelings, and by what they had read in the papers.

Mitchell was tried in the High Court of Justiciary in the capital Edinburgh.  The jury would have been chosen carefully and instructed equally as carefully on their duties by the trial judge.

I think it was the sum of the evidence which did for him.

[William Wallace]

Could it have been 13-2?

I take it that was a joke. Unfortunately we're never going to find out.

[William Wallace]

Who's that, like?

Naming them would probably get me an instant red card, so I'll put it another way.....a female member of Jodi's family that wasn't her mother.

[Brietta]

Naming them would probably get me an instant red card, so I'll put it another way.....a female member of Jodi's family that wasn't her mother.

Have you amended your post to remove your erroneous comments? as per  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12064.msg649044#msg649044

[William Wallace]

Please do not accuse me of posting fake news and misleading information and do not put words into my mouth.

Where did I say that "No evidence was ever found that Mitchell had ANY interest in Manson or had ever even heard of the Black Dahlia Murder before the murder."

I require and expect two cites from this post of yours regarding

• the accusation directed at me regarding fake news
• the accusation directed at me regarding Mitchell and Manson

I think you misunderstood me........I was saying to you.. no evidence was ever found Mitchell had any interest in Manson/Black D. That wasn't your quote.

You said..........."So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play.  Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind."

Mitchell's taste in music was not Manson. That was made up by the Police and drip fed to the media. It was a fairy tale that was never proven. Same with the Black Dahlia. No offence but what you posted is "fake news" I'm afraid. It's false.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there was someone else that was very much into Manson and had his whole album collection, but it wasn't Luke Mitchell. Did the Police ever search that house for Manson material or seize their devices to check if they had ever viewed the "Black Dahlia" images? We're talking here about Police that didn't have the common sense to cordon off a murder scene for 7 hours. What level of stupidity does that rate out of 10? I would say 10 but it's above that.

I mean honestly who were these Police? We know they were local with no experience of investigating an extreme murder like this. Even so, they seemed to have just lacked the common sense of an average person in the street. What fool would fail to cordon off a murder scene, allow people to tramp all over it for 7 hours and even move the victim before forensics arrived? I think you would struggle to find anyone that stupid anywhere.

Based on the above, why would anybody believe that they were capable of solving this case? That's a major reason why there is so much doubt..........the investigation was a circus. Fairy tales about washing machine transference of DNA??? Washing machines???  Some of the DNA profiles came back as FEMALE. That really had them scratching their heads like Laurel and Hardy. So they had their theory that Mitchell was a Satanist. They then viewed the images of the Black Dahlia Murder which was not similar to the murder of [Name removed] and accused Mitchell of being a Manson fan and of knowing about the Black Dahlia. They never produced one piece of evidence that he even liked Manson or knew about the Black Dahlia. Hopeless.

[William Wallace]

Have you amended your post to remove your erroneous comments? as per  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12064.msg649044#msg649044

See above. They were not erroneous.

[Parky41]

William Wallace - You appear to know this case inside out and upside down. We know it is not based solely on the book, that would be rather foolish. In Scots courts, it states categorically of Jodi's fathers evidence, led by the Crown. Can you tell us at which part of this trial his evidence was led? At what point did AT refer to it? Was there any reason given as to why he was unable to be present himself? - It is a bit of a puzzler granted, as he was very much crucial, where evidence was concerned as to when his daughter had left home that day. And of course the phone call from Luke. Or perhaps Faithlilly can assist here? She has after all read every statement in full. I presume you have also, you appear very well versed in these matters. Was it the SCCRC who found this statement locked away in some drawer? - Which of course is also rather puzzling? If his statement was locked away, how was the evidence led around it? Ms Lean refers to this statement often, she has done since the days of Jigsawman. However:

Failing this, what is your opinion of the dinner tale? We know Luke was not at home - can you enlighten us as to his whereabouts? We don't need to go into the multiple reasons of changing statements, to fit around a relaxed dinner that turned out to have been less than 15mins in total. Also, what do you remember of the weather that day? It is very hard to determine the intro of Ms Leans book, of this warm summers evening? Herself and Ms Mitchell appear to be the only two people to have caught the sunshine, somewhat miraculously? One was eating their dinner outside, enjoying the sunshine, whilst the other was on the patio enjoying the sunshine, when she was overcome by a dirty black cloud, soaking her almost instantly? In fact, both of these ladies were enjoying the sunshine, on the patio? Not that I'm inferring Ms Lean is prone to the odd fib or two? Or of exaggerating - it puzzles me slightly of all these people in warm outer clothing. Parka's, thick padded blouson Jackets, hoodies - these in themselves it would seem, a rarity for LM to wear, as Ms Mitchell in her podcast stated that you could not get him to wear a jacket/coat? Yet here he is, on this warm sunny evening doing exactly that?

[mrswah]

Mitchell was tried in the High Court of Justiciary in the capital Edinburgh.  The jury would have been chosen carefully and instructed equally as carefully on their duties by the trial judge.

I think it was the sum of the evidence which did for him.

The trial had to be stopped at one point, and re-started with a new jury. (Someone was found to be acquainted with one of the families, I believe).

[Brietta]

I think you misunderstood me........I was saying to you.. no evidence was ever found Mitchell had any interest in Manson/Black D. That wasn't your quote.

You said..........."So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play.  Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind."

Mitchell's taste in music was not Manson. That was made up by the Police and drip fed to the media. It was a fairy tale that was never proven. Same with the Black Dahlia. No offence but what you posted is "fake news" I'm afraid. It's false.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there was someone else that was very much into Manson and had his whole album collection, but it wasn't Luke Mitchell. Did the Police ever search that house for Manson material or seize their devices to check if they had ever viewed the "Black Dahlia" images? We're talking here about Police that didn't have the common sense to cordon off a murder scene for 7 hours. What level of stupidity does that rate out of 10? I would say 0 but it's below that.

I mean honestly who were these Police? We know they were local with no experience of investigating an extreme murder like this. Even so, they seemed to have just lacked the common sense of an average person in the street. What fool would fail to cordon off a murder scene, allow people to tramp all over it for 7 hours and even move the victim before forensics arrived? I think you would struggle to find anyone that stupid anywhere.

Based on the above, why would anybody believe that they  were capable of solving this case? That's a major reason why there is so much doubt..........the investigation was a circus. Fairy tales about washing machine transference of DNA??? Washing machines???  Some of the DNA profiles came back as FEMALE. That really had them scratching their heads like Laurel and Hardy. So they had their theory that Mitchell was a Satanist. They then viewed the images of the Black Dahlia Murder which was not similar to the murder of [Name removed] and accused Mitchell of being a Manson fan and of knowing about the Black Dahlia. They never produced one piece of evidence that he even liked Manson or knew about the Black Dahlia.

I think I understood you very well.
Perhaps what you fail to understand is Luke Mitchell.
 
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail 18/04/14 JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right. Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.

The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial….

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”….

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.
Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home. It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks…. http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

Snip
Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence. One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a serious interest in the subject….

Elizabeth Rudman, a criminologist with over 20 years’ experience, said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point. “My problem is that the rituals involved in these materials are really anti-social and they elicit deeds that are against the law, such as human sacrifice.

“This person was convicted for murder. My first question would be: what is he going to plan now?
“It is possible Mitchell has given up completely. On the other hand, it can also be an indication of guilt.
“He has been in prison for so long, his hope of getting an appeal has been completely quashed, so now he may be showing his true convictions.”…. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

[Brietta]

The trial had to be stopped at one point, and re-started with a new jury. (Someone was found to be acquainted with one of the families, I believe).

I have wondered why a new jury was appointed.  Where does your information about acquaintanceship come from?

[faithlilly]

William Wallace - You appear to know this case inside out and upside down. We know it is not based solely on the book, that would be rather foolish. In Scots courts, it states categorically of Jodi's fathers evidence, led by the Crown. Can you tell us at which part of this trial his evidence was led? At what point did AT refer to it? Was there any reason given as to why he was unable to be present himself? - It is a bit of a puzzler granted, as he was very much crucial, where evidence was concerned as to when his daughter had left home that day. And of course the phone call from Luke. Or perhaps Faithlilly can assist here? She has after all read every statement in full. I presume you have also, you appear very well versed in these matters. Was it the SCCRC who found this statement locked away in some drawer? - Which of course is also rather puzzling? If his statement was locked away, how was the evidence led around it? Ms Lean refers to this statement often, she has done since the days of Jigsawman. However:

Failing this, what is your opinion of the dinner tale? We know Luke was not at home - can you enlighten us as to his whereabouts? We don't need to go into the multiple reasons of changing statements, to fit around a relaxed dinner that turned out to have been less than 15mins in total. Also, what do you remember of the weather that day? It is very hard to determine the intro of Ms Leans book, of this warm summers evening? Herself and Ms Mitchell appear to be the only two people to have caught the sunshine, somewhat miraculously? One was eating their dinner outside, enjoying the sunshine, whilst the other was on the patio enjoying the sunshine, when she was overcome by a dirty black cloud, soaking her almost instantly? In fact, both of these ladies were enjoying the sunshine, on the patio? Not that I'm inferring Ms Lean is prone to the odd fib or two? Or of exaggerating - it puzzles me slightly of all these people in warm outer clothing. Parka's, thick padded blouson Jackets, hoodies - these in themselves it would seem, a rarity for LM to wear, as Ms Mitchell in her podcast stated that you could not get him to wear a jacket/coat? Yet here he is, on this warm sunny evening doing exactly that?

Talking about finding things, have you found yet what AB was doing during those missing 45 minutes that popped up during the police’s revised timelines....no?

[mrswah]

I have wondered why a new jury was appointed.  Where does your information about acquaintanceship come from?

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8a928aa6-78980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Go to "search judgments" and then search "luke muir mitchell"

Paragraph 8 of the judgment is the relevant bit.

[Rorschach]

Corrine, in her interview with James English said something which, in general, I think explains rather concisely the difference between the pro and against Luke camps. She said if she went to an area where mostly broadsheets were read she was treated with respect yet if she went to an area where mostly tabloids were read she was a dead woman walking.

To me that speaks volumes.

You don't actually believe that nonsense do you. 

Was this the same interview she claimed stocky man confessed?

[Rorschach]

Aren’t they the same thing...in the end?

BTW you can agree with Dr Lean and still be a Sun-reading mouth breather....it’s just less likely.

I'd say it's the opposite. Take look at all the chavs and single mums of Facebook on benefits currently campaigning for Luke because of a documentary. 

Here's another intellectual follower of Sandra (note the bottle of buckfast 44 secs in)  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGO8UL4grxU

Not to mention the James English mob.

They all think he's innocent because they learned about polygraphs from Jeremy Kyle lol.

[Parky41]

?? How does Ms Lean feel of being put in this exact same category? Smack bang it would seem in the midst of these sun readers, pretty much one herself - those claims of the stories in the media that caught her interest in this case? Those tabloids that she was reading and still reads - Her very audience is aimed at herself? These two females, claimed strangers, worlds apart in class? Ms Lean in her council scheme, reading her sun newspaper, lower/working class - Ms Mitchell in her, primarily working class area. There is however no class amongst friends. No honour amongst?

What were Ms Mitchells real feelings towards Jodi Jones - this girl? was she beneath being worthy of her sons attention? Did she class Jodi Jones and her family in this category? Those "feral little bleeps?" She certainly had the same stance against authority as her son. The head teacher? "Hitler in a skirt" Her distaste for Findlay, "in it for the" bucks only. But ever so proud now of her followers, those who head this campaign "knock knock ya beasty b******s" One of the admins it would seem, a long standing criminal, best to have kindred spirits on board?

Does Ms Mitchell and friend? - blame the Jones family with some warped sense of reasoning? That perhaps it is Jodi's fault that her son is in prison? Does she blame Jodi for this altercation that took place? These questions need to be asked and answered. There are far too many unanswered questions around Luke Mitchell, far too many lame excuses. This "half a mars bar" situ - This boy who could do no wrong, everything in life that happened to him, was fault of others, not himself nor his mother. Ms Lean is correct, there certainly is "No Smoke" - it is however directed the other way. What about Luke Mitchell?

Luke and his mother could give permission for the release of their statements in full, could they not? The evidence led around these? - Surely, a total, non airbrushed insight is what should be heading this campaign, first and foremost. Show people how this family really were  - rather than brushing them over by means of distraction? By means of shoring with somewhat ludicrous reasoning?