It's hard to make anything of it when I don't really know any details. If it were really made to the police then I assume they investigated it and dismissed it as false, although given the terrible investigation... who knows!!
Was it made at the time or more recently, after Luke's conviction?
How do we even know someone did confess?
It always seemed to me that the truth about this would only come out if Luke finally admitted guilt or if someone else confessed, either to someone or to the police. So it's intriguing to hear there has been a confession but if it's not something recent then I presume it's not finally the answer I'd been hoping for.
As far as I know, the “confession” was recent. In fact, according to Sandra herself, the confession has only come to light in the past few years. I assume she means from around 2015 onwards, perhaps?
If the confession is indeed from Jodi’s brother of whom was clearly heavily shielded during the investigation, as hardly a word of him was ever mentioned in the press, then it’s going to be particularly difficult, if not impossible, to make it admissible in court. The guy suffered from a psychotic mental illness and was reportedly attending psychiatry appointments. This individual was supposedly heavily medicated for symptoms of schizophrenia, which were obviously exacerbated by his habitual misuse of cannabis.
I can’t say for certain that this is the individual who confessed, of course, but it isn’t really that difficult to see that he should have been a key suspect. His violent and spontaneous aggression towards others where knives and “bladed instruments” were used have been documented by Sandra. The fact that a witness also claimed ‘Stocky Man’ to be a member of Jodi’s family also rules out some other possible suspects, such as your Mark Kanes, Robert Greens and Steven Kelly’s. Jodi’s brother was substantially older than Jodi at the time of the murder. I think he was around 20 when she was killed. This would also support the statistics on murders being more likely committed by adults.
How do we know if someone confessed?
The short answer is - we don’t. Someone in prison many years ago confessed to this crime and nothing was ever followed up. People can confess to anything. It’s highly likely given the nature of Sandra’s approach to all of this; that being pointing blame at anyone other than Mitchell, that it is actually made up. The book she has written “Innocents Betrayed” is very much tilted towards Mitchell being innocent, but is actually more about exposing the Scottish Criminal Justice System as being a circus. Dr Lean is clearly very friendly with Mitchell’s mother, therefore it is impossible to remove the natural bias involved in convicting anyone else other than this woman’s son.
If we take what the book is saying to be true, which I am skeptical as there are many wild claims throughout it which are not supported by evidence, then a confession may indeed exist. However, Dr Lean can’t even provide proof that Mitchell used the Speaking Clock service on a regular basis. She continuously claims he phoned this multiple times before the murder, in an attempt to say that the time he phoned it on June 30th 2003 at 16:54 was simply an innocent coincidence.
Bollocks.
She has ultimately failed to produce EVIDENCE of this. She claims this was the case, but has failed to show any proof, such as phone records. Surely given the amount of detail already released in her book that such a task would be a formality? There are far more incriminating statements, opinions and facts in the book than this. Not only that, Donald Findlay at the appeal court never mentioned Mitchell’s frequent use of this service. Surely this would have been a massive selling point at an appeal hearing to convince the judges of his innocence?
He never used this as evidence because there wasn’t any.
Take what you want from it all. Dr Lean has hinted that anyone other than Mitchell could essentially be responsible for Jodi’s death. In her eyes, it’s never going to be him. When Corrine Mitchell allowed her underage son to get a tattoo of a skull with flames coming from it, she said “That’s really him”. That’s him what? A representation of evil?
Mothers and fathers know their sons and daughters better than anyone.
Neither the mothers behaviour or the codswallop from Dr Sandra Lean can be trusted. Her personal hunch with the Criminal Justice System is also overwhelming in the book, and her previous track record with Adrian Prout and Simon Hall do not make a very convincing read. Maybe she will hit it this time.
Third time lucky?