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: faithlilly on November 01, 2021, 07:56:49 PM
-
This article confirms two things that some of us have written about for many years.
A) There was a definite bias within Lothian and Borders police towards Luke being the killer.
B) The profile constructed by the FBI was not used in court because the FBI did not believe that Luke was the killer.
From the article :
AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.
Luke Mitchell was jailed for Jodi's murder in 2005
The retired crimebuster, who was a senior member of the FBI's elite Behavioural Analysis Unit, said his experts produced a detailed profile of Jodi's killer after police asked for their opinion.
Mr Safarik said: "If you have mutilation of sexual body parts you are talking about a lust killer and that is not what you are going to find in a boy of 14.
"The fantasy development and all that dynamic would just not exist at that age.
"But because the report didn't subscribe to their theory, they ignored it."
Jodi vanished in June 2003.
Her naked body was found with stab wounds and near-decapitated close to her home in Easthouses, Midlothian.
The chilling crime was featured in documentary Murder in a Small Town.
The show sparked a petition demanding an independent inquiry into his conviction, but was blasted by tragic Jodi's family as 'despicable'.
Two Lothian and Borders detectives flew to the US to meet the FBI, but dismissed their dossier.
Mr Safarik added: "If our fresh eyes on a complex case say you are looking at the wrong place, somebody should ask 'is our investigation going in the right direction?'
"But they had confirmation bias. If you just charge somebody convenient and who you think you can convict, that's disgraceful.
"It's a disservice to the victim, the justice system, and its morally wrong.
"The real offender is still out there."
Mitchell, now 33, was caged in 2005 after a trial and has seen three appeals fail.
Police say they are not looking for anyone else in the case.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7931898/jodi-jones-cop-luke-mitchell-innocent/
-
Mr Safarik said: "If you have mutilation of sexual body parts you are talking about a lust killer and that is not what you are going to find in a boy of 14.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7931898/jodi-jones-cop-luke-mitchell-innocent/
Killer Luke Mitchell was almost 15 years of age when he murdered Jodi Jones and didn’t behave like your average ‘boy of 14’ around the time
It’s very possible Luke Mitchell also carried out a ‘lust’ murder linked to the paraphilia erotophonophilia
There was a reason why the police asked Luke Mitchell questions about his sexual activity and it was ALL to do with the murder he’d committed and attempting to understand his sexually deviant nature
Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????
The police also ‘DID’ think ‘in the early days’ Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated and it could be said they ‘then changed their minds (for no apparent reason)’
-
Killer Luke Mitchell was almost 15 years of age when he murdered Jodi Jones and didn’t behave like your average ‘boy of 14’ around the time
Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????
The police also ‘DID’ think ‘in the early days’ Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated and it could be said they ‘then changed their minds (for no apparent reason)’
I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.
The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.
-
I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.
The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.
On the back of this news article Sandra Lean has stated ⬇️
Sandra Lean
Is the tide finally turning?
What difference would Mark Safirak’s ‘profile’ have made - it was guesswork
Plus he never met killer Luke Mitchell
-
I do wonder how, if the FBI profile had been disclosed to the defence and the jury, how much of a difference it would have made to the outcome of the case.
The non disclosure by the Crown would suggest that they were certainly worried about the effect it would have.
Then there’s this on Mark Safarik from 2017 by the Los Angeles Times,
‘How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars’
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html
-
L&BP enlisted the help of a Prof. Paul Ekman in the original investigation, too, who has worked closely with the FBI & government departments in the USA to help with detecting liars. This article is very short, but the nub of the matter is that, in Ekman’s professional opinion, L&BP were justified in their suspicions of Luke:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3A+The+verdict%3A+LIE-PROBE+GURU+HELPED+NAIL+KILLER.-a0127488188
-
L&BP enlisted the help of a Prof. Paul Ekman in the original investigation, too, who has worked closely with the FBI & government departments in the USA to help with detecting liars. This article is very short, but the nub of the matter is that, in Ekman’s professional opinion, L&BP were justified in their suspicions of Luke:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jodi+Jones%3A+The+verdict%3A+LIE-PROBE+GURU+HELPED+NAIL+KILLER.-a0127488188
It would be interesting to know who L&BP approached first.
A very interesting article about the methods used by Ekman and how they have been discredited by psychologists.
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/blueleaks-law-enforcement-police-lie-detection/
Of course this doesn’t answer why the FBI’s profile, requested by L&B, was not disclosed to the defence.
-
It would be interesting to know who L&BP approached first.
A very interesting article about the methods used by Ekman and how they have been discredited by psychologists.
https://theintercept.com/2020/08/12/blueleaks-law-enforcement-police-lie-detection/
Of course this doesn’t answer why the FBI’s profile, requested by L&B, was not disclosed to the defence.
Good question. Unused material should be assessed and disclosed too.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure (https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure)
-
Good question. Unused material should be assessed and disclosed too.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure (https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/disclosure)
Assuming, as usual of course that it was not - supporters of Mitchell have a very odd habit of repeating that which is not true. In short, the main giver of such information is somewhat renowned for claiming evidence to be undisclosed, not known to the defence, purely on the basis that it was not inclusive of the hand me downs received from DF's original defence of Mitchell. Quite the list there over time, does one really believe there is mountains of undisclosed evidence that no defence team has picked up on to use??
One does however make an interesting comment, that which is consistent to every question around the why's? Of what the defence chose not to use or introduce. A sexual element to this crime is one such area:
p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:
"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"
"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"
The problem with this analysis and the authors inability to grasp realism, is. It is not, that they would not have believed there was no sexual element to the crime, it was of proving it to be so. In line one could say with premeditated murder, believing there was an element of this here, but difficult to prove. What had to be proved was that of LM being the killer, first and foremost.
This was a circumstantial case, the burden of proof was of showing that Mitchell had carried out this murder and so forth. If there had been concrete forensic evidence to show him to be the killer, then the sexual element or premeditation would have been an option to add in to it. In short, one follows the other. But of course, most with sense know this already.
Why therefore bother at all with attempting to gain insight? - It is called investigating. The police may or not have travelled there by direction of the Crown, we do not know. Inclusive of the investigation files and disclosed, then there is simply no proof in the slightest that it was not disclosed. Not being part of DF's hand me downs does not equate to non disclosure, as we have seen with statements, R Kelly being one such statement.
Why did the police seek to gain insight here and we can look at those multiple areas of DNA. Those that have previously been discussed, that law of averages and the one clear male. From semen/sperm, underwear and LM. A route that resulted in the case progressing along a circumstantial road, the agreement made around the intimate relationship had with the deceased. That knock back in August 2003 for an arrest warrant, the DNA, was not, going to be able to be used? There was nothing that could directly place LM at the scene of crime without causing multiple problems. Without being answerable to.
-
p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:
"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"
"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"
The problem with this analysis and the authors inability to grasp realism, is. It is not, that they would not have believed there was no sexual element to the crime, it was of proving it to be so. In line one could say with premeditated murder, believing there was an element of this here, but difficult to prove. What had to be proved was that of LM being the killer, first and foremost.
This was a circumstantial case, the burden of proof was of showing that Mitchell had carried out this murder and so forth. If there had been concrete forensic evidence to show him to be the killer, then the sexual element or premeditation would have been an option to add in to it. In short, one follows the other. But of course, most with sense know this already.
Why therefore bother at all with attempting to gain insight? - It is called investigating.
8((()*/
-
p-228 of Innocents Betrayed by S. Lean. When talking of one such report:
"The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post mortem injuries may have reflected "piquerism"-----"
"This was no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by the investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)"
‘Piquerism’ was also mentioned in the investigation into Joan Albert’s 2001 murder
If the motivation for the murder of [Name removed] was Erotophonophilia, then any possible paraphilia is relevant. Piquerism is a paraphilia as well as a form of sadism. The same could be said of Luke Mitchell's urne collection ie; another paraphilia
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=487.msg489324#msg489324
-
https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/kill-crazy-about-you-a-brief-overview-of-erotophonophilia-aka-lust-murder/
-
What happens when an expert witness proves not to be an expert at all and opines about key issues in a murder case that are beyond his areas of expertise?
For starters, the hapless wretch against whom the expert is testifying is convicted and sentenced to prison. Ultimately, however, the conviction is — or at least, in the case of People vs. King, was — overturned, and the case sent back for a retrial.
At least that's how a three-judge panel from the state's 2nd District Appellate Court saw it. In a recent decision, it unanimously concluded that former FBI agent and criminal profiler Mark Safarik should have kept many of his thoughts to himself when he testified against a husband, Shadwick King, charged with the 2014 murder of his wife, Kathleen.
More importantly, the appeals court found, Kane County prosecutors shouldn't have solicited Safarik's testimony on certain issues, and trial Judge James Hallock shouldn't have permitted him to answer.
The case is instructive because it outlines how expert testimony can — and cannot — be used in criminal cases that involve issues beyond most jurors' understanding.
-
Then there’s this on Mark Safarik from 2017 by the Los Angeles Times,
‘How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars’
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html
A somewhat damning report of the man and his abilities and the profession of criminal profiling generally. I can’t imagine this TV personality’s views would have made much difference in the outcome of Mitchell’s case.
-
Sandra Lean
‘In the early days, the police DID think it was a sexually motivated attack, then changed their mind (for no apparent reason). This was a 14 year old girl, stripped naked and bound - that, alone, suggests some sort of sexual motivation, for goodness sake.
But I'm delighted with this article today. These are the sorts of people we need to see speaking out - first we have experienced police officers, a QC and highly qualified forensic scientists, now a retired FBI profiler =who will be next????
As per usual Sandra Lean shows what a fraud and hypocrite she is
It wasn’t long ago she referred to the murder of Rachel Nickell and stated, ‘This is why police investigations HAVE to get it right’
Which they did in Mitchell’s case
Remember Paul Brittons ‘criminal profiling’
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jigsaw-Man-Paul-Britton/dp/0552144932
And one of Sandra Leans pseudonyms 🙄
-
What happens when an expert witness proves not to be an expert at all and opines about key issues in a murder case that are beyond his areas of expertise?
For starters, the hapless wretch against whom the expert is testifying is convicted and sentenced to prison. Ultimately, however, the conviction is — or at least, in the case of People vs. King, was — overturned, and the case sent back for a retrial.
At least that's how a three-judge panel from the state's 2nd District Appellate Court saw it. In a recent decision, it unanimously concluded that former FBI agent and criminal profiler Mark Safarik should have kept many of his thoughts to himself when he testified against a husband, Shadwick King, charged with the 2014 murder of his wife, Kathleen.
More importantly, the appeals court found, Kane County prosecutors shouldn't have solicited Safarik's testimony on certain issues, and trial Judge James Hallock shouldn't have permitted him to answer.
The case is instructive because it outlines how expert testimony can — and cannot — be used in criminal cases that involve issues beyond most jurors' understanding.
Yep ⬇️
‘The Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously Jan. 21, 2020 that King should be granted a new trial because Kane County prosecutors committed several errors, among them allowing a former FBI profiler to testify as a crime scene expert witness when he was not.
“We respect the court’s decision and we are prepared to re-try the case,” then-Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon had said in a statement at the time.
King had appealed his conviction to the Illinois Second District Appellate Court in Elgin. The Appellate court also issued a unanimous ruling Aug. 21, 2018, overturning King’s conviction and ordering a new trial.
McMahon had appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the Appellate ruling.
The 27-page appellate decision cited the testimony of Mark Safarik, a “crime scene and behavioral analyst” as beyond the scope of his expertise.
Likewise, the 22-page state supreme court decision also found that Safarik should not have testified.
“There is absolutely no question that Safarik never should have been allowed to testify as an expert in this case,” the ruling stated. “To begin with, significant portions of Safarik’s testimony went far beyond the field of ‘crime scene analysis,’ which is Safarik’s undeniable field of expertise.”
The Supreme Court decision also stated, “We will not condone the calling of experts solely for the purpose of shoring up one party’s theory of the case, which is precisely the role that Safarik played here.”
https://www.shawlocal.com/kane-county-chronicle/news/crime-and-courts/2021/02/02/new-trial-date-set-for-geneva-man-accused-of-killing-his-wife/
Which is exactly what Sandra Lean is attempting to do with killer Luke Mitchell’s case
-
In short, the main giver of such information is somewhat renowned for claiming evidence to be undisclosed, not known to the defence, purely on the basis that it was not inclusive of the hand me downs received from DF's original defence of Mitchell.
‘The analysis of 14-year-old Jodi’s killer was sent to the former force headquarters at Fettes in Edinburgh in January 2004, 11 weeks before Mitchell was charged.
However, despite all the cost and effort that went into acquiring the document, the report was never produced in court or even disclosed to his legal team.’
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict
-
Mentions the legal team and one assumes the original defence re applying to the FBI and the Crown, not however the police themselves? Hard to determine any real accuracy via a media report.
The thing here is, it certainly appears that the visit, reason for, was known and not hidden as such. As David Wilson rightly points out, it is a tool to use and not evidence. Which in turn means it is not non-disclosure where importance of evidence is at stake. Neither the police onto the Crown sought to use anything from it. And it does not say if the police were approached by the defence and refused, that it appears to be the FBI and disclosure to their client only. Not a direct fault with the police.
Revolving doors of passing the buck - Any legal team has their own options for seeking out any guidance around profiling, and as per my previous post and from the book - Not used so nothing to counter act? It's made the news, more attention but certainly not where it matters, which is of course evidence to show that LM did not murder Jodi Jones. There is none.
-
The thing here is, it certainly appears that the visit, reason for, was known and not hidden as such.
I’m not sure what report you are reading but the one posted by myself explicitly says the opposite of what you are suggesting.
‘ In fact, Scottish police have never confirmed its existence – and it was only released by the FBI following a Freedom of Information request in the USA.’
The reason for the visit….a profile was sought. The profile was subsequently hidden by the very people who requested that the profile be constructed. It is obvious that none of this was known at the time or subsequently until the FOI request. It is beyond supposition that the profile was not disclosed to Luke’s defence team because the FBI’s opinion, an opinion let us not forget that L&B police had set such stall by only months earlier that they had spent many thousands of pounds acquiring it, explicitly ruled out the very person Dobbie had decided was the vicious murderer of Jodi Jones.
As David Wilson rightly points out, it is a tool to use and not evidence. Which in turn means it is not non-disclosure where importance of evidence is at stake. Neither the police onto the Crown sought to use anything from it. And it does not say if the police were approached by the defence and refused, that it appears to be the FBI and disclosure to their client only. Not a direct fault with the police.
Of course the police and Crown took nothing from the report, it didn’t suit their purposes. In fact it said the very opposite of what they had hoped….that Luke could not have been the killer. This report should, of course been disclosed to the defence but that’s really secondary to the fact that one of the most highly respected and experienced Behavioural Analysis units in the world had concluded that the very child that Dobbie had staked his reputation on convicting could not have been the killer. I would love to have been a fly on the wall the morning that that report plopped onto the mat at L&Bs police headquarters.
Revolving doors of passing the buck - Any legal team has their own options for seeking out any guidance around profiling, and as per my previous post and from the book - Not used so nothing to counter act? It's made the news, more attention but certainly not where it matters, which is of course evidence to show that LM did not murder Jodi Jones. There is none.
Keep wriggling.
-
Ah, this vain attempt at some brownie points, that type of wriggling? - It mentions in a media article that it was not disclosed to the defence?
Ok baby steps once more for you. You put up an article from the present day, yourself and SL and co, are on it. With all those wows and all else. As if it is some major piece of new information. Talk of being undisclosed and all else. With me so far?
You then pull up an article that is 7 years old with similar type of information in it. In an attempt to win some brownie points around disclosure - still with me?
In said second article - It does not mention which legal team (still with me?) It does not state which year or by whom (name) they applied to the Crown and subsequently the FBI but not the police directly. It says it was undisclosed to the defence and so forth. It does not say who stated this, still with me? Then it goes on to give feedback from the main support of innocence, namely SL and CM. Who mention that they have, without mincing words, submitted this area of information also to the SCCRC. It also has feed back from police Scotland, who did not deny it's existence, stating that they do use such avenues and do not comment on individual cases as such.
I found the article interesting, I mentioned the vagueness around it and of course it being a media article in itself, which in turn appears to have been fed from certain people, namely campaigners for innocence. I made mention that what they class as being undisclosed, whichever slant they may wish to apply to this - does not equate to the police, Crown and so forth withholding evidence as such. Pointing out the words of David Wilson around it being a tool to use and not evidence.
So whilst you are looking for some brownie points to score, go back and do some more homework. Come back with dates, names and years please. Something a little stronger than a media article, to show that DF and co knew not of this visit to the states? Who applied for the freedom of disclosure around this in the States? How did they know of it?
Now for something else I found interesting in this article, comments from the ever so truthful duo? Namely this to start with.
Mrs Mitchell said: “I believe the findings would have pointed to a violent adult, not a schoolboy.
"They would have already come out if they had reflected badly on Luke – in the same way that other things about him that could be spun negatively somehow found their way into the public domain.”
We have the opposite applying here, finding anything at all to spin another light away from LM? But that is not really what interests me. I am going to refer to the podcasts of 2018 and that joint theory between CM and SL. I'm sure you know the one already. Where they have 'a bike, bloodied clothing, knife, the evidence chucked into the back of a van at a scrap merchants, crushed and gone forever'
So, between whichever year? they knew of the profiling to the podcast in 2018. CM puts out, that if the report points to a "violent adult, not a schoolboy" then it points away from her child. To then dismissing the profilers account completely as she heavily leans on two 16/17 yr olds, taken said bike to this scrap merchants and so forth.
So you see, even his mother and SL do not really believe the profilers account of someone so young NOT carrying this out, do they? When they heavily lean towards two youths barely a year or two older than LM's 15yrs (mere days off his birthday). Or do we add another year or two on to the other two males, also in their teens?
Or we use sense, do we not. This 15yr old who was mature far beyond his years. Allowed to smoke, drink, underage sex at home. Bought and supplied with knives. Driving up and down the estate. Who bowed to no authority figure, constantly disregarded school rules and so forth. Took control of heated interviews with adult males and on it goes.
And we can move onto the original defence. IF they had been aware of the contents of this report and how that would have faired in court? Whilst attempting to apply this, as not being fitting of his client, he would instantly have wiped out his main two areas of casting doubt. That being three other teenage boys. The duo on the bike and Kelly with his DNA?
-
I find the conclusions of the ex FBI Profiler cum TV Personality somewhat baffling - who says 14 year olds can't commit murders with a sexual element?
These two 13 year olds did for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ana_Kri%C3%A9gel
-
Ah, this vain attempt at some brownie points, that type of wriggling? - It mentions in a media article that it was not disclosed to the defence?
Ok baby steps once more for you. You put up an article from the present day, yourself and SL and co, are on it. With all those wows and all else. As if it is some major piece of new information. Talk of being undisclosed and all else. With me so far?
You then pull up an article that is 7 years old with similar type of information in it. In an attempt to win some brownie points around disclosure - still with me?
In said second article - It does not mention which legal team (still with me?) It does not state which year or by whom (name) they applied to the Crown and subsequently the FBI but not the police directly. It says it was undisclosed to the defence and so forth. It does not say who stated this, still with me? Then it goes on to give feedback from the main support of innocence, namely SL and CM. Who mention that they have, without mincing words, submitted this area of information also to the SCCRC. It also has feed back from police Scotland, who did not deny it's existence, stating that they do use such avenues and do not comment on individual cases as such.
I found the article interesting, I mentioned the vagueness around it and of course it being a media article in itself, which in turn appears to have been fed from certain people, namely campaigners for innocence. I made mention that what they class as being undisclosed, whichever slant they may wish to apply to this - does not equate to the police, Crown and so forth withholding evidence as such. Pointing out the words of David Wilson around it being a tool to use and not evidence.
So whilst you are looking for some brownie points to score, go back and do some more homework. Come back with dates, names and years please. Something a little stronger than a media article, to show that DF and co knew not of this visit to the states? Who applied for the freedom of disclosure around this in the States? How did they know of it?
Now for something else I found interesting in this article, comments from the ever so truthful duo? Namely this to start with.
We have the opposite applying here, finding anything at all to spin another light away from LM? But that is not really what interests me. I am going to refer to the podcasts of 2018 and that joint theory between CM and SL. I'm sure you know the one already. Where they have 'a bike, bloodied clothing, knife, the evidence chucked into the back of a van at a scrap merchants, crushed and gone forever'
So, between whichever year? they knew of the profiling to the podcast in 2018. CM puts out, that if the report points to a "violent adult, not a schoolboy" then it points away from her child. To then dismissing the profilers account completely as she heavily leans on two 16/17 yr olds, taken said bike to this scrap merchants and so forth.
So you see, even his mother and SL do not really believe the profilers account of someone so young NOT carrying this out, do they? When they heavily lean towards two youths barely a year or two older than LM's 15yrs (mere days off his birthday). Or do we add another year or two on to the other two males, also in their teens?
Or we use sense, do we not. This 15yr old who was mature far beyond his years. Allowed to smoke, drink, underage sex at home. Bought and supplied with knives. Driving up and down the estate. Who bowed to no authority figure, constantly disregarded school rules and so forth. Took control of heated interviews with adult males and on it goes.
And we can move onto the original defence. IF they had been aware of the contents of this report and how that would have faired in court? Whilst attempting to apply this, as not being fitting of his client, he would instantly have wiped out his main two areas of casting doubt. That being three other teenage boys. The duo on the bike and Kelly with his DNA?
“AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.”
Enough said.
-
I have some leftover straws from a kid's party. I think some on here could do with them & give them a right good old clutch.
-
Faithlilly don't give up your day job!
-
“AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.
Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.”
Enough said.
Who made him the world's leading authority on the matter I wonder?
-
I have some leftover straws from a kid's party. I think some on here could do with them & give them a right good old clutch.
Of course I could resort to supposition and downright dishonesty as many here do but I prefer to listen to those who actually know something about this sort of thing.
The fact that L&B’s police approached the FBI Behavioural Analysis team and spent thousands sending police officers from their investigation team to the US speaks volumes with regard to how much they actually valued the opinion of Safarik and his team. That the opinion was inconvenient does not negate the obvious esteem that Dobbie held the FBI team in.
-
Faithlilly:
I would love to have been a fly on the wall the morning that that report plopped onto the mat at L&Bs police headquarters.
Of course I could resort to supposition and downright dishonesty as many here do but I prefer to listen to those who actually know something about this sort of thing.
The fact that L&B’s police approached the FBI Behavioural Analysis team and spent thousands sending police officers from their investigation team to the US speaks volumes with regard to how much they actually valued the opinion of Safarik and his team. That the opinion was inconvenient does not negate the obvious esteem that Dobbie held the FBI team in.
Better to have been a fly that morning in April 2004 when that chap came to the Mitchells door. Where goodness knows how much colluding had taken place between the three craws in those months believing Mitchell was in the clear. Still of course trying to fathom out this claimed seeking for help from a complete stranger? Only a couple of weeks short of those celebrations of that "end of a difficult time" What exactly could that help have been? They were at a point where they really believed there would be no arrest.
But you are correct, whilst they were celebrating in that October the police were busy investigating, flying out to America the same month. Getting a clear picture of the mindset of this serial killer in the making. What I also found interesting in the first article from your tabloid trash as you love to call it, is the profilers use of "convenient" suspect which tells us exactly how little he knew of the evidence itself, solely upon the type of injuries inflicted. Of course it is exactly why these claimed supporters of innocence get away with so much, our very own Scottish Law around disclosure. Now one day when that hopefully changes, people can call out the Charlatans for what they are. When proper, full disclosure is in place.
Where the book of course is overflowing with what you state "supposition" and that clear dishonesty also flowing with all that has been omitted? Where you repeat much of this supposition and of course dishonesty.
So just a little ironic to say the least, don't you think? One has been able to write on the basis one does? by that very saviour of Scottish Law around disclosure itself. Blind faith I believe it is called. Where the main bleat around this is as the profiler states, that of an easy "convenient" target. Which sits on high amongst the biggest lies of all. This they went for the bairn nonsense, picked on him because they just could. Where as his mother clearly states "The police did not bank on Luke being Luke though - dam right they didn't. Getting that profile through and realising exactly what they were dealing with. Not quite pushed to the side at all. Not to forget of course, they were not the prosecutors, not their role to show the Jury that burden of proof, where no doubt there was much that the Crown sought not to use from the investigation itself.
So this profiler who can't possibly know everything, gives his insight and opinion. And we know he is wrong, as VS and others have pointed out, here and on social media. Of other cases of young people and "lust killings" Where he mentions sexual areas of disfigurement, yet many areas disfigured that were not sexual in nature, and of course the main sexual area untouched completely. So as stated before, very much up to the Crown what they chose to do with this information. The clear step being, to show the Jury that LM did murder and subsequently mutilate this girl. He is serving his sentence for this, and no doubt there are many out there studying him, the murder and mutilation he did carry out?
-
Faithlilly:
Better to have been a fly that morning in April 2004 when that chap came to the Mitchells door. Where goodness knows how much colluding had taken place between the three craws in those months believing Mitchell was in the clear. Still of course trying to fathom out this claimed seeking for help from a complete stranger? Only a couple of weeks short of those celebrations of that "end of a difficult time" What exactly could that help have been? They were at a point where they really believed there would be no arrest.
But you are correct, whilst they were celebrating in that October the police were busy investigating, flying out to America the same month. Getting a clear picture of the mindset of this serial killer in the making. What I also found interesting in the first article from your tabloid trash as you love to call it, is the profilers use of "convenient" suspect which tells us exactly how little he knew of the evidence itself, solely upon the type of injuries inflicted. Of course it is exactly why these claimed supporters of innocence get away with so much, our very own Scottish Law around disclosure. Now one day when that hopefully changes, people can call out the Charlatans for what they are. When proper, full disclosure is in place.
Where the book of course is overflowing with what you state "supposition" and that clear dishonesty also flowing with all that has been omitted? Where you repeat much of this supposition and of course dishonesty.
So just a little ironic to say the least, don't you think? One has been able to write on the basis one does? by that very saviour of Scottish Law around disclosure itself. Blind faith I believe it is called. Where the main bleat around this is as the profiler states, that of an easy "convenient" target. Which sits on high amongst the biggest lies of all. This they went for the bairn nonsense, picked on him because they just could. Where as his mother clearly states "The police did not bank on Luke being Luke though - dam right they didn't. Getting that profile through and realising exactly what they were dealing with. Not quite pushed to the side at all. Not to forget of course, they were not the prosecutors, not their role to show the Jury that burden of proof, where no doubt there was much that the Crown sought not to use from the investigation itself.
So this profiler who can't possibly know everything, gives his insight and opinion. And we know he is wrong, as VS and others have pointed out, here and on social media. Of other cases of young people and "lust killings" Where he mentions sexual areas of disfigurement, yet many areas disfigured that were not sexual in nature, and of course the main sexual area untouched completely. So as stated before, very much up to the Crown what they chose to do with this information. The clear step being, to show the Jury that LM did murder and subsequently mutilate this girl. He is serving his sentence for this, and no doubt there are many out there studying him, the murder and mutilation he did carry out?
Of course there are those who will, uncritically, hang on your every word even though a rudimentary trawl through your posts would reveal someone with a smidgen of real knowledge wrapped in a huge opaque cloud of, at best, supposition and at its worst, disinformation. You confirm their bias, that’s your function. It’s an easy gig, one you obviously enjoy.
“We know the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis team are wrong because someone on a forum says so”. Really?
What we do know is that L&B respected the opinion of the BA team to such an extent that the flew some of their best officers thousands of miles, spent tens of thousands of pounds in the middle of a fast moving investigation to deliver the evidence that they had gathered directly to Safarik and his team. To suppose that Safarik and his team weren’t in receipt of all the relevant evidence needed to give an informed opinion is simply for the birds. To believe that is tantamount to questioning Dobbie’s professionalism. Is that what you’re doing?
-
I wonder why Safarik decided Mitchell was too young to murder with a sexual element to the crime but seemed quite happy to recommend that the killer of Alesha McPhail ( only a year or so older than Mitchell when he raped and inflicted over 100 injuries on her body including her genitalia which sustained “catastrophic injuries”) spendthe rest of his life behind bars?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4035685/alesha-macphail-murderer-aaron-campbell-never-free-experts-warn-fbi-bones-consultant/
-
I'll do it for you, it was of course the original defence team who applied to both the FBI and the Crown, oddly not the police. But we actually do not know this, do we? One would be fair in their assumption, that if the legal team had applied to the police and were refused, this would be inclusive of these claims of non-disclosure. One thing is sure though, they certainly knew of it pre trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3378781.stm
What would be interesting to know when talking of "lust killing" is of course 'The Black Dahlia' - was this part of the request/report of the profiling. For everything around this type of killing was not simply left aside, was it? The book mentions that it would 'appear' the idea came from a police officer in the days after the murder?!
These "superficial" similarities of sexual areas being disfigured in both crimes, of LM's description, on par with the person who found Elizabeth Short, that of a shop mannequin/dummy. We know that Manson's art work was out prior to the murder, we know also there was a book released the same year around the BD murder. We know of the magazine with DVD bought and viewed within days of the murder by Mitchell. . We do not know that he knew not of the BD, of Manson and so forth. Having no hard evidence of him viewing/seeing this does not prove he did not. We know the murder and mutilation was described as rudimentary, in short a first attempt. He stated he was introduced to Manson by Jodi, they started going out in the spring time that year, her sister a fan. One is not introduced to something without seeing/hearing them!
So there is a definite connection between profiling around "lust killing" of the BD and Manson. The spanner being that of age where the profiler is concerned. But we know LM was mature beyond his years, we know he was not your average, normal teenager, we only have to look at his interviews, the very reason his defence did not want them played at trial. That complete control, flat effect voice against the barrage of sexual questioning by the police. Where the author attempts to show reactive response with some cherry picked areas, reading in black and white does not show the truth, hearing Mitchell showed exactly how in control, calm and unfazed he was. Taking control the whole time.
-
’Unmasked: Boy, 15, who lured 12-year-old friend to woodland before stabbing him 70 times and trying to decapitate him 'because he was a snitch' is jailed for 16 years for murder’ by Dan Sales for DailyMail
Excerpt:
‘Killer child Marcel Grzeszcz can now be named after a ruling from a High Court judge at Lincoln Crown Court, where he was sentenced to 16 years today.
Grzeszcz stabbed Roberts more than 70 times on ground in Fishtoft, near Boston, Lincolnshire, on December 12 last year, just two days before his 13th birthday.
Young murderer Grzeszcz still only just 14 when he was arrested by police at his family home.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10177581/Boy-15-murdered-12-year-old-friend-tried-decapitate-jailed-minimum-16-years.html
-
I'll do it for you, it was of course the original defence team who applied to both the FBI and the Crown, oddly not the police. But we actually do not know this, do we? One would be fair in their assumption, that if the legal team had applied to the police and were refused, this would be inclusive of these claims of non-disclosure. One thing is sure though, they certainly knew of it pre trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3378781.stm
Applied to the FBI? Where is the evidence that the original defence team knew let alone applied to see the report? The existence of the report was only revealed through a FOI application. That’s not a mechanism the defence would have used, if they had known of the existence of the report, which it is obvious that at the time of the trial they didn’t.
From your link.
“Criminal profiling is used to narrow down an investigation to those suspects who possess certain behavioural and personality features, which are revealed by the way a crime was committed. “
According to the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis unit that was not Luke Mitchell.
What would be interesting to know when talking of "lust killing" is of course 'The Black Dahlia' - was this part of the request/report of the profiling. For everything around this type of killing was not simply left aside, was it? The book mentions that it would 'appear' the idea came from a police officer in the days after the murder?!
More muddying of the waters?
These "superficial" similarities of sexual areas being disfigured in both crimes, of LM's description, on par with the person who found Elizabeth Short, that of a shop mannequin/dummy. We know that Manson's art work was out prior to the murder, we know also there was a book released the same year around the BD murder. We know of the magazine with DVD bought and viewed within days of the murder by Mitchell. . We do not know that he knew not of the BD, of Manson and so forth. Having no hard evidence of him viewing/seeing this does not prove he did not. We know the murder and mutilation was described as rudimentary, in short a first attempt. He stated he was introduced to Manson by Jodi, they started going out in the spring time that year, her sister a fan. One is not introduced to something without seeing/hearing them!
That’s the thing with the law, an accusation of a supposed action is not enough to damn a suspect. Rightly it needs to be shown, through evidence, that the suspect carried out the action and as hard as they tried, and we know they tried, the Crown brought not one scintilla of evidence to court that Luke Mitchell had either any interest in the Dahlia case or, indeed, had seen any of Manson’s paintings.
Yet again you are attempting to wrap unrelated actions in a fog of criminality, hoping no one will notice, or more importantly, care. Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts.
So there is a definite connection between profiling around "lust killing" of the BD and Manson. The spanner being that of age where the profiler is concerned. But we know LM was mature beyond his years, we know he was not your average, normal teenager, we only have to look at his interviews, the very reason his defence did not want them played at trial. That complete control, flat effect voice against the barrage of sexual questioning by the police. Where the author attempts to show reactive response with some cherry picked areas, reading in black and white does not show the truth, hearing Mitchell showed exactly how in control, calm and unfazed he was. Taking control the whole time.
How do we know that he was mature beyond his years? He smoked…so did many of his peer group. He smoked cannabis…so did most of his peer group. He was sexually active….can you see where this one is going? There is nothing to suggest that Luke was emotionally mature beyond his years. He was confident and intelligent. It does not automatically follow that he was unusually mature.
There is absolutely no doubt that the FBI behavioural analysts would have been supplied by Dobbie and his team with tapes of Luke being interviewed yet, even after listening to them, in their opinion, Luke lacked the maturity and psychological capacity to commit the kind of crime perpetrated against Jodi Jones.
-
Luke lacked the maturity and psychological capacity to commit the kind of crime perpetrated against Jodi Jones.
Marcel Grzeszcz was also 14 years old when he committed murder ⬇️ and displayed similar behaviours to killer Luke Mitchell
‘The court also heard about Grzeszcz's troubled past.
He had been kicked out of school for having a knife and sent to a pupil referral unit, and later excluded from another school for selling drugs.
https://news.sky.com/story/roberts-buncis-boy-jailed-for-murder-after-luring-12-year-old-friend-to-woodland-and-stabbing-him-more-than-70-times-12463981
-
Marcel Grzeszcz was also 14 years old when he committed murder ⬇️ and displayed similar behaviours to killer Luke Mitchell
‘The court also heard about Grzeszcz's troubled past.
He had been kicked out of school for having a knife and sent to a pupil referral unit, and later excluded from another school for selling drugs.
https://news.sky.com/story/roberts-buncis-boy-jailed-for-murder-after-luring-12-year-old-friend-to-woodland-and-stabbing-him-more-than-70-times-12463981
Children kill…that’s not disputed.
Your point?
-
Children kill…that’s not disputed.
Your point?
14 going on 15 year old killer Luke Mitchell did have the ‘maturity and psychological capacity to commit the kind of crime perpetrated against Jodi Jones’ - plus his mother Corinne has made numerous references to his ‘maturity and ‘psychological capacity’ over the years
-
14 going on 15 year old killer Luke Mitchell did have the ‘maturity and psychological capacity to commit the kind of crime perpetrated against Jodi Jones’ - plus his mother Corinne has made numerous references to his ‘maturity and ‘psychological capacity’ over the years
Not according to the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis team, professionals who actually know what they are talking about.
-
Not according to the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis team, professionals who actually know what they are talking about.
your faith and trust in FBI criminal profilers is touching but somewhat surprising
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4766445&page=1
-
Not according to the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis team, professionals who actually know what they are talking about.
Who is this ‘team’ you are referring to?
-
your faith and trust in FBI criminal profilers is touching but somewhat surprising
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4766445&page=1
⬇️
https://aklwei.wordpress.com/tag/jim-clemente/
-
Innocence fraud can be a lucrative business for ex FBI criminal profilers
-
Marcel Grzeszcz was also 14 years old when he committed murder ⬇️ and displayed similar behaviours to killer Luke Mitchell
‘The court also heard about Grzeszcz's troubled past.
He had been kicked out of school for having a knife and sent to a pupil referral unit, and later excluded from another school for selling drugs.
https://news.sky.com/story/roberts-buncis-boy-jailed-for-murder-after-luring-12-year-old-friend-to-woodland-and-stabbing-him-more-than-70-times-12463981
It probably won’t be long before a bunch of nutters are trying to get him out of jail too.
-
⬇️
https://aklwei.wordpress.com/tag/jim-clemente/
A blogger and an FBI agent who was neither a profiler nor a member of the Behavioural Analysis Unit.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
-
A blogger and an FBI agent who was neither a profiler nor a member of the Behavioural Analysis Unit.
What exactly are you trying to prove?
FBI Special Agent and profiler Brad Garrett.
-
And more experts who believe that there is doubt regarding Luke’s conviction.
https://youtu.be/Za9URBNFmSA
-
I was glad to see Allan Jamieson interviewed. His comments about the forensics carry some weight, given that he was the coauthor of a 2013 review article on DNA transfer.