UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on September 28, 2021, 11:59:49 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 " !!
-
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.
-
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?
-
And, too many people who appear (to me) to have an" agenda " !!
Like who? What could their agenda be?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Apologies Bullseye - I know you are simply listing reasons in answer to the question posed.
No apology necessary, it’s always good to see other people take on the details and what other info they can add.
It’s my understanding there was no dna of Luke anywhere at or near the scene what so ever but there was some from Jodi on a pair of his trousers, agreed not related to the murder? There was other full profile identified persons dna on Jodi and other partial profiles (which by now they might get more from if they were to be retested possibly?)
I only ever heard he was grubby and appeared unwashed, You said “The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed.” This is info I’ve not heard before, where did you hear this?
The timings it a hard one, the boys at the v at around 5.15 and Luke making his call at 5.35, then being seen at end of his street 10/15 mins later, just doesn’t leave much time but yes it’s possible I’d think, just not likely. To kill, strip, then carry out all injuries after death, seems to me someone took some time and sick pleasure from this, it was not a simple quick murder I don’t think.
On the other hand I’ve always thought if it was Luke it would be more likely to have been between 6 and 7 when there was no sightings of him, maybe met Jodi then headed back up to hang around at hers, like she told her mum. But the time of 5.15 I just don’t think is enough time.
The sightings at top of path imo is not even close to Luke or especially Jodi. I’ve never been sure of the significance of the sighting at the bottom of the path though, genuine questions if someone can clarify even if it was Luke how does that connect him to Jodi or the murder? Was he not waiting for jodi on that road?
As for the dinner, Shane could not confirm Luke was home but he did confirm he had his dinner that night, if his mum was not home til 5.15 then who made dinner. It could of course be that Luke put it in the oven then went out and hims mum made the rest. But his mum did confirm he was home. Comes down to if you believe her or not I suppose, the jury didn’t
No witnesses, the person at the top and bottom of the path might be the same person, might be 2 different people or might be Luke. If it was someone that knew him then for me that would be a different story altogether. Also the person who saw him did not identify him in court. I know he looked completely different but she knew exactly what she was being asked and did not point him out.
It all comes down to people’s take on the information to hand. What we really need is a fully impartial documentary showing the facts as they are written in the statement etc rather than people’s interpretation of the info from both sides (including me lol) Was there dna or not, get it rechecked with today’s technology, were the statements changed or not, what is in the police notes for that night, was there a parka, what does Shane remember, is there a missing knife, how was the crime scene handled and the investigation in full, did the police check all avenues of information or focus on one person etc so many questions but 2 different sided answers, an impartial documentary or review is the only was to sort out this whole mess else it will never end unless Luke admits to it or other evidence found, both unlikely.
-
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.
Not good enough, MrsW. It matters not, whether you/we cannot be sure. You could say that about any eyewitness in the history of eyewitness in any case around the world. What matters, is they took the stand, under intense pressure. The majority of the jury believed them.
As for who has an agenda, I'm not going to name names.
Ah, so you just want to s**t-stir? Nae probs.
I don't believe Sandra Lean is prejudiced against the Jones family. Just my opinion, of course. I don't know any of them.
Imagine someone putting information from your medical records in the public domain. Perfectly acceptable behaviour, right?
It took the police a long time to build that case, considering their aggressive questioning of Luke early on.
I could link you to a million cases, where it has taken police over a year to build a case. What exactly are you trying to say, spit it out.
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.
So you don't really know? You have already admitted you don't know any of them. You just go on 4th hand gossip? Mind boggling...
-
Great podcast on innocence fraud ⬇️
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=734Ue9TeqZ8&feature=youtu.be
Not about the LM case but talks about some of the tactics used by these killers and their supporters
-
No apology necessary, it’s always good to see other people take on the details and what other info they can add.
It’s my understanding there was no dna of Luke anywhere at or near the scene what so ever but there was some from Jodi on a pair of his trousers, agreed not related to the murder? There was other full profile identified persons dna on Jodi and other partial profiles (which by now they might get more from if they were to be retested possibly?)
I only ever heard he was grubby and appeared unwashed, You said “The boys in the abbey and Jodi's sister remarked on how different he looked. Groomed.” This is info I’ve not heard before, where did you hear this?
The timings it a hard one, the boys at the v at around 5.15 and Luke making his call at 5.35, then being seen at end of his street 10/15 mins later, just doesn’t leave much time but yes it’s possible I’d think, just not likely. To kill, strip, then carry out all injuries after death, seems to me someone took some time and sick pleasure from this, it was not a simple quick murder I don’t think.
On the other hand I’ve always thought if it was Luke it would be more likely to have been between 6 and 7 when there was no sightings of him, maybe met Jodi then headed back up to hang around at hers, like she told her mum. But the time of 5.15 I just don’t think is enough time.
The sightings at top of path imo is not even close to Luke or especially Jodi. I’ve never been sure of the significance of the sighting at the bottom of the path though, genuine questions if someone can clarify even if it was Luke how does that connect him to Jodi or the murder? Was he not waiting for jodi on that road?
As for the dinner, Shane could not confirm Luke was home but he did confirm he had his dinner that night, if his mum was not home til 5.15 then who made dinner. It could of course be that Luke put it in the oven then went out and hims mum made the rest. But his mum did confirm he was home. Comes down to if you believe her or not I suppose, the jury didn’t
No witnesses, the person at the top and bottom of the path might be the same person, might be 2 different people or might be Luke. If it was someone that knew him then for me that would be a different story altogether. Also the person who saw him did not identify him in court. I know he looked completely different but she knew exactly what she was being asked and did not point him out.
It all comes down to people’s take on the information to hand. What we really need is a fully impartial documentary showing the facts as they are written in the statement etc rather than people’s interpretation of the info from both sides (including me lol) Was there dna or not, get it rechecked with today’s technology, were the statements changed or not, what is in the police notes for that night, was there a parka, what does Shane remember, is there a missing knife, how was the crime scene handled and the investigation in full, did the police check all avenues of information or focus on one person etc so many questions but 2 different sided answers, an impartial documentary or review is the only was to sort out this whole mess else it will never end unless Luke admits to it or other evidence found, both unlikely.
Unfortunately not - You are asking for a review due to the book onto the documentary. So no it is not the only way forward to appease who exactly? Let us make this as simple as possible, really, really simple.
Sure I have said this rather silly thing before. The trial starts and only the defence show up, it is allowed to go ahead. There can be no doubt that guilt can not be proved. Silly?
But that is exactly what the author has had, only the end result of the case his original defence built up, and handed over to him. Along with anything else one has managed to gleam from the public domain and so forth.
Now work back, to all that one has never been privy to. Those investigation files, that were used for the defence to build that case and take to court. The prosecution. The DNA, that professional feedback at the time of the results, in order and explained. Precognitions of vital, key witnesses.
Now step back to court and include the prosecution - what is still missing. Non attendance of hearing and seeing that evidence first hand. Incomplete trial transcripts. Not every part of every witness statement (GDPR), only that which was used and handed over to his client, copies.
Now some further basic realities here - This self proclaimed expert. Ok, so who could not even say that certain witnesses testified or not, why? As above, for she has neve been privy to or had full court transcripts. That is pretty massive. Of non inclusive witness statements. Now R, Kelly is a prime example of this, his son was not on trial, GDPR and not inclusive of those defence papers handed over to Mitchell. Certain phone records/conversations and so forth. Nothing to do with the boy on trial, irrelevant and not included. This is just a small example, without going into any deceitful behaviour.
The point - There is absolutely no basis for demanding a review, upon someone who has made up a list of questions? That she demands need answered. When, the stark reality is, she has never, ever had enough insight into nearly enough information and so forth, to even come close to having any proof, that there were flaws in an investigation she knows naff all about?! Outwith the standard which is known. i.e The non erection of a tent etc.
And you will not like the next part - for it is mockery, but we are talking about someone's ability, someones strength in having analytical skills, any type of expertise or professionalism.
This leading the police a merry dance, where they appear to have ended up on the Reeds Drive side of Lady Path. Now this is within half an hour of that call to the emergency services, before the police were on the scene, before they knew if it were Jodi, how she died or if any crime had taken place - The author gives an alternate reason as to why they may have headed to Lady Path at Reeds drive first, for she discovered that a known sex offender stayed there, thus reason why the police may have been checking there first. - ludicrous and severely lacking. They were trying to get to the search trio, to see if a crime had been committed.
Now if one feels, that this type of repetition throughout the book, shows anything other than a clear lack of much of anything upstairs - then it is not surprising that some bow to her questions and all else. Demanding a review alongside her, on the basis of her claims.
Yes, we all know that if a crime is committed, it flags up similar crimes and culprits that are then checked out - not before any bloody crime has been discovered though!
And, how do you not know about the evidence of Mitchell not being his usual unkempt self? How do you not know that he firmly denied going anywhere near that path. This is evidence heard at the trial, no review needed for this. But to answer your question around F&W:
The significance of that sighting was of two youths being positively Identified as being LM. One in the East end and one on the West end of that path. The sighting was just over and slightly down from the entrance, at a gate. Not just that they were positively ID as being Mitchell, similar clothing, army/fishing style parka khaki coat with a German badge. Michell denied being anywhere near that gate or the entrance to that path - and really? 90mins he claimed to be on that road, and he went nowhere near to the path he claimed this girlfriend would walk down. And at first Mitchell claimed to be in the house at the time of that sighting. It was only after the phone calls coming to light, did he change to being on the road some 15mins earlier than originally stated.
And of AB, and again, with no knowledge of the actual evidence heard at court - which completely wipes out some of the ludicrous, deceitful claims. People are being led to expect far too much. How the hell is anyone supposed to take in every single thing, to a T? She took Mitchell in and ID him, and she would not waiver a Jot. As with the girl, not far off at all, was she? Hair dark, possibly contained, wearing a dark navy/black hoodie with slightly lighter coloured trouser, baggy around the bottom. Possibly jeans/cords. That was her clarification after given that first account. Where not once did she state the girl had on light denim jeans. It was lighter than the the top. Not light denim.
But I agree it would be good to get an accurate documentary on the actual/factual evidence. Balanced. Mitchell may very well release his witness statements in full along with his mother? Perhaps the Jones family may do the same. - Perhaps the law will change and full disclosure may take away the options, we never know. But bias is certainly no cause for a review.
-
Not good enough, MrsW. It matters not, whether you/we cannot be sure. You could say that about any eyewitness in the history of eyewitness in any case around the world. What matters, is they took the stand, under intense pressure. The majority of the jury believed them.
Ah, so you just want to s**t-stir? Nae probs.
Imagine someone putting information from your medical records in the public domain. Perfectly acceptable behaviour, right?
I could link you to a million cases, where it has taken police over a year to build a case. What exactly are you trying to say, spit it out.
So you don't really know? You have already admitted you don't know any of them. You just go on 4th hand gossip? Mind boggling...
No, I don't know anyone involved in the case. In fact, I'd never even heard of the case until I joined this forum. It is not well known "down South" !
Nor do I know whether Luke is innocent or guilty. Haven't a clue. I can only read around it, and form my own views. Not good enough, as you say, but nothing mind boggling about it. I dare say it's what most people do.
The fact that a majority of jurors believed the eyewitnesses does not necessarily mean that they were reliable.
So, what makes you sure Luke is guilty?
-
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?
For me, the fake alibi.
-
No, I don't know anyone involved in the case. In fact, I'd never even heard of the case until I joined this forum. It is not well known "down South" !
Nor do I know whether Luke is innocent or guilty. Haven't a clue. I can only read around it, and form my own views. Not good enough, as you say, but nothing mind boggling about it. I dare say it's what most people do.
The fact that a majority of jurors believed the eyewitnesses does not necessarily mean that they were reliable.
So, what makes you sure Luke is guilty?
In the Tiger Bay killing of Lynette White several witnesses put the convicted men either in the murder room or loitering around the building. Of course we now know that they were entirely innocent of the crime and another perpetrator, who as far as we know never committed another murder, was guilty.
-
In the Tiger Bay killing of Lynette White several witnesses put the convicted men either in the murder room or loitering around the building. Of course we now know that they were entirely innocent of the crime and another perpetrator, who as far as we know never committed another murder, was guilty.
Gafoor already knew Lynette White. Most murdered women are murdered by someone they already know. Maybe that's the reason he didn't go on to kill again. I believe he killed her for personal reasons.
-
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.
You could add to that the fact that his brother has never supported him publicly to my knowledge and moved out of the family home not long after the trial leaving the mother to fend for herself. And we all know how that ended.
-
For me, the fake alibi.
I agree, it's pretty damining.
-
You could add to that the fact that his brother has never supported him publicly to my knowledge and moved out of the family home not long after the trial leaving the mother to fend for herself. And we all know how that ended.
As far as I'm aware, there have never been any photos of Shane in the media (or of their father, for that matter), which suggests to me that both want to keep right out of the public eye, whatever their views on Luke.
It is quite likely that Shane is now married with a family of his own, and the father may also have remarried and perhaps has a new family. If so, I don't blame either of them for keeping out of it all.
-
It is quite likely that Shane is now married with a family of his own, and the father may also have remarried and perhaps has a new family.
Well done 8@??)(
But without Shane onside, the cult have nothing.
Let me put this forward for you to ponder with your highly intelligent mind.
Do you think there is a court order in place, to prevent the press from publishing anything regarding Shane or Phillip. Photos, stories, hounding them, anything? If not, then why do you think the gutter press have never hounded them, especially after the frontline doc & the recent channel 5 sci-fi doc?
-
Well done 8@??)(
But without Shane onside, the cult have nothing.
Let me put this forward for you to ponder with your highly intelligent mind.
Do you think there is a court order in place, to prevent the press from publishing anything regarding Shane or Phillip. Photos, stories, hounding them, anything? If not, then why do you think the gutter press have never hounded them, especially after the frontline doc & the recent channel 5 sci-fi doc?
Highly likely, I would think.
-
Highly likely, I would think.
8@??)(