UK Justice Forum

Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones. Case currently being reviewed by the SCCRC. Confidential Hotline No 07092 984231. => Topic started by: TheArmchairDetective on June 18, 2019, 12:18:48 PM

Title: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 18, 2019, 12:18:48 PM
Here is a short analysis of why I consider the Crown to be correct in the conviction of Luke Mitchell for the murder of Jodi Jones.  I welcome other opinions and comments, and would also highly welcome feedback from Dr Sandra Lean (if you are on the forum, that is)

The Speaking Clock

Mitchell phoned the speaking clock at 16:54pm.  He was at home, so are we suggesting there were no clocks, televisions, watches or other devices at home? If he wanted to know what the time was, couldn’t he have asked his brother who claimed to have been at home?  Donald Findlay never mentioned in the 2008 appeal that he was a frequent user of this service, which is surprising given he would have access to his phone records.  If Mitchell used this frequently, is it reasonable to suggest that this may have been something Findlay would have brought to the attention of the appeal court?  He didn’t mention he used it frequently, and also never produced any evidence to show this.   Thus, one can only assume he only ever phoned this once, with Findlay’s explanation of Mitchell phoning it out of “pure idleness” remaining unsubstantiated and subjective.

Andrina Bryson

Andrina Bryson, a key witness for the Crown, seen a male and a female at the Easthouses end of Roan’s Dyke Path somewhere between 16:50pm and 16:55pm.  No two other people were traced, and no two other people have since come forward to say it was them.   Given the scale of the Police investigation, this is very surprising.   This time-frame (16:50-16:55) also provides an opportunity for Mitchell to call the speaking clock.   Bryson can’t be sure of the exact time, therefore Mitchell may have already called this service, or was just about to call it, when he was seen.   This explains why Andrina Bryson never mentioned if the person was on a telephone at the time.  He had either already phoned it, or was just about to phone it.

Trial by Media and Satanism

People say it was a ‘trial by media’ due to the way Mitchell was treated, portrayed, and considered a suspect.   The early reports and headlines of Mitchell being involved in satanism and having an infatuation for this may have appeared prejudicial.   However, one only has to read the court appeal in 2011 to discover that he did indeed express an unusual interest in this. Not only was he involved in fights with other pupils and scribbled satanic slogans and emblems on his school work, but he was referred to an educational psychologist at age 11 due to increasingly concerning behaviour.   Carrying knives and smoking cannabis was also common, as were writing concerning essays in his English class.

Ridiculous Coincidences and Strange Behaviour

1. Jodi Jones was murdered in an area known to both of them, evidenced by a carving on tree-bark with both their initials present.  She was murdered on her way to meet Mitchell.  She wasn’t going to meet her gran, mother or sister.  She wasn’t going to Tesco to buy groceries.  She was going to meet Mitchell on the day she died.

2. In 2010, a knife with the name Luke was discovered relatively near to the crime scene.  How many people with the name Luke lived in that area between 2003 and 2010? How many of them were passing by and decided to throw a knife away? How many of them carved their name onto this?  Please do not forget that Mitchell has a habit of carving and writing initials on things...

3. During the investigation, a knife pouch with the carving ‘JJ 1989-2003 The Finest Day I Ever Had Was When Tomorrow Never Came, 666’ was found in Mitchells possession.  Coincidentally, another knife had disappeared around the time of the murder.  Mitchells mother also ensured her son was safe and healthy during the investigation by comforting him with knives, even though his girlfriend had just been slaughtered with one.  Not only this, she also ensured he was secure by buying him a tattoo of a skull with flames emanating from it. 

4. When Jodi Jones left her mother's house just before 17:00pm, Mitchell called Alan Ovens – once at 17:32pm, and another at 17:40pm.  Only the second call connected, where Ovens informed him that Jodi had left to meet him.  This indicates that Ovens was aware that she had left to meet him, otherwise he would have asked Mitchell why he was phoning.   Jodi had informed Ovens and/or her mother that she was away to meet Mitchell, yet Mitchell failed to raise the alarm when she never appeared.   Instead, he proceeds back to Newbattle and discusses with his friend David High that Jodi would not be coming out.   Given that he was made aware by Ovens that she had already left, Mitchell can’t have assumed she was staying at home.   

5. It was said that after Mitchells last text at 16:40pm to Jodi, he states he listened to music whilst cooking dinner. However, Ovens said at 17:40pm to Mitchell during a phone call that Jodi had left to meet him, as evidenced in Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.  Mitchell had replied “ok, cool”.  At no point did Mitchell argue with Ovens on the telephone that her leaving to meet him was odd.  This would be odd, of course, if going by Mitchell’s account that he was at home and no arrangement had been agreed to meet.  Why would Jodi lie about who and where she was going? She had no reason to, hence why she told the truth by saying she was away to meet Mitchell.   Mitchell’s “ok, cool” response indicates he knew they were meeting. 

6. With regards to Mitchell being at home during this window, it is also evidenced in the appeal papers (Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008, section 89, that “Shane Mitchell's ultimate position in cross-examination appeared to be that he could not be sure whether the appellant was in the house between 1653 and 1716 on the evening of the murder. At its highest, that evidence undermined the appellant's alibi, and allowed an inference that he was more likely out of the house at that time”.

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 19, 2019, 12:11:57 AM
.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 19, 2019, 02:26:47 PM
Here is a short analysis of why I consider the Crown to be correct in the conviction of Luke Mitchell for the murder of Jodi Jones.  I welcome other opinions and comments, and would also highly welcome feedback from Dr Sandra Lean (if you are on the forum, that is)

I think you'll need to post it on the Blue forum if you want Sandra to comment on it.

Quote

The Speaking Clock

Mitchell phoned the speaking clock at 16:54pm.  He was at home, so are we suggesting there were no clocks, televisions, watches or other devices at home? If he wanted to know what the time was, couldn’t he have asked his brother who claimed to have been at home?  Donald Findlay never mentioned in the 2008 appeal that he was a frequent user of this service, which is surprising given he would have access to his phone records.  If Mitchell used this frequently, is it reasonable to suggest that this may have been something Findlay would have brought to the attention of the appeal court?  He didn’t mention he used it frequently, and also never produced any evidence to show this.   Thus, one can only assume he only ever phoned this once, with Findlay’s explanation of Mitchell phoning it out of “pure idleness” remaining unsubstantiated and subjective.

Have been through this numerous times. You seem to think that Luke was using this to make sure he was on time for some plan he had concocted to kill Jodi. But didn't he only just find out that she was no longer grounded that evening? So when was this master plan formulated? If you want it to prove he wasn't in the house... well it just doesn't, I'm afraid. That's just an interpretation of it.

Quote

Andrina Bryson

Andrina Bryson, a key witness for the Crown, seen a male and a female at the Easthouses end of Roan’s Dyke Path somewhere between 16:50pm and 16:55pm.  No two other people were traced, and no two other people have since come forward to say it was them.   Given the scale of the Police investigation, this is very surprising.   This time-frame (16:50-16:55) also provides an opportunity for Mitchell to call the speaking clock.   Bryson can’t be sure of the exact time, therefore Mitchell may have already called this service, or was just about to call it, when he was seen.   This explains why Andrina Bryson never mentioned if the person was on a telephone at the time.  He had either already phoned it, or was just about to phone it.

Did she identify Luke as the person she saw when giving evidence in court? No! And the times she gave as to when she saw him just kept changing when it was proved she couldn't have been there when she said she was (by a till receipt from her shopping, if memory serves!) Not a very good witness.

Quote
Trial by Media and Satanism

People say it was a ‘trial by media’ due to the way Mitchell was treated, portrayed, and considered a suspect.   The early reports and headlines of Mitchell being involved in satanism and having an infatuation for this may have appeared prejudicial.   However, one only has to read the court appeal in 2011 to discover that he did indeed express an unusual interest in this. Not only was he involved in fights with other pupils and scribbled satanic slogans and emblems on his school work, but he was referred to an educational psychologist at age 11 due to increasingly concerning behaviour.   Carrying knives and smoking cannabis was also common, as were writing concerning essays in his English class.

The persecution of Luke in the press went on for a long time before the trial and considering this was one of the highest profile murders ever... well, it's hard to imagine a jury member didn't see anything in the press about him. Regardless about whether it was about satanism or fighting in school (neither of which makes you a murderer by the way) you can surely understand why some find it troubling that potential jurors were exposed to this stuff before the trial.

Quote
Ridiculous Coincidences and Strange Behaviour

1. Jodi Jones was murdered in an area known to both of them, evidenced by a carving on tree-bark with both their initials present.  She was murdered on her way to meet Mitchell.  She wasn’t going to meet her gran, mother or sister.  She wasn’t going to Tesco to buy groceries.  She was going to meet Mitchell on the day she died.

2. In 2010, a knife with the name Luke was discovered relatively near to the crime scene.  How many people with the name Luke lived in that area between 2003 and 2010? How many of them were passing by and decided to throw a knife away? How many of them carved their name onto this?  Please do not forget that Mitchell has a habit of carving and writing initials on things...

I thought it had been shown to not been the murder weapon. It was an area known to lots of people.

Quote

3. During the investigation, a knife pouch with the carving ‘JJ 1989-2003 The Finest Day I Ever Had Was When Tomorrow Never Came, 666’ was found in Mitchells possession.  Coincidentally, another knife had disappeared around the time of the murder.  Mitchells mother also ensured her son was safe and healthy during the investigation by comforting him with knives, even though his girlfriend had just been slaughtered with one.  Not only this, she also ensured he was secure by buying him a tattoo of a skull with flames emanating from it.

It's a kurt cobain quote. Sounds like it's about suicide rather than murder but in this context I would interpret it as "I hope she's a peace"

Quote
 

4. When Jodi Jones left her mother's house just before 17:00pm, Mitchell called Alan Ovens – once at 17:32pm, and another at 17:40pm.  Only the second call connected, where Ovens informed him that Jodi had left to meet him.  This indicates that Ovens was aware that she had left to meet him, otherwise he would have asked Mitchell why he was phoning.   Jodi had informed Ovens and/or her mother that she was away to meet Mitchell, yet Mitchell failed to raise the alarm when she never appeared.   Instead, he proceeds back to Newbattle and discusses with his friend David High that Jodi would not be coming out.   Given that he was made aware by Ovens that she had already left, Mitchell can’t have assumed she was staying at home.   

Ovens also failed to raise the alarm. Why expect more from a child than an adult? And Luke could have assumed she met someone else along the way.

Quote
5. It was said that after Mitchells last text at 16:40pm to Jodi, he states he listened to music whilst cooking dinner. However, Ovens said at 17:40pm to Mitchell during a phone call that Jodi had left to meet him, as evidenced in Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.  Mitchell had replied “ok, cool”.  At no point did Mitchell argue with Ovens on the telephone that her leaving to meet him was odd.  This would be odd, of course, if going by Mitchell’s account that he was at home and no arrangement had been agreed to meet.  Why would Jodi lie about who and where she was going? She had no reason to, hence why she told the truth by saying she was away to meet Mitchell.   Mitchell’s “ok, cool” response indicates he knew they were meeting. 

I thought Luke said they had arranged to meet. When did he say they hadn't arranged to meet?

Quote

6. With regards to Mitchell being at home during this window, it is also evidenced in the appeal papers (Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008, section 89, that “Shane Mitchell's ultimate position in cross-examination appeared to be that he could not be sure whether the appellant was in the house between 1653 and 1716 on the evening of the murder. At its highest, that evidence undermined the appellant's alibi, and allowed an inference that he was more likely out of the house at that time”.


On the stand he was shown horrible photos of the scene and humiliated about the porn. He was visibly upset and shaken by the whole experience. And yet still contended that he didn't know if Luke was home or not. NOT that Luke wasn't home. I get why this is a point of concern for a lot of people (and it is for me too) but it's by no means proof of Luke's guilt.

How does a 14 year old commit such a horrific and bloody murder without leaving any forensic evidence either at the scene or his home?
Why was it only Luke taken in on the night and not the whole search party? And why did they ALL change their statements so dramatically, against Luke?
How were other potential suspects cleared before the forensic results had even come back?
Why did the times of events and people's statements change so much and always in a way to make it fit with Luke's guilt?
Why was so much weight put on Marilyn Manson and the Black Dahlia connection when both were proved to be irrelevant?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 12:18:51 AM
How were other potential suspects cleared before the forensic results had even come back?

When was Luke Mitchell charged with the murder?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 12:23:51 AM
Why was it only Luke taken in on the night and not the whole search party?

Why do you think only Luke was taken in on the night and not the whole search party?

Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 20, 2019, 09:26:31 AM
When was Luke Mitchell charged with the murder?

About 9/10 months after the murder, if I remember correctly.

Why do you think only Luke was taken in on the night and not the whole search party?


No idea. As a witness according to the police but then surely the rest of the family were also witnesses too.

Do you only ask questions and never answer them?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
DELETED. IRRELEVANT.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 02:19:17 PM
About 9/10 months after the murder, if I remember correctly.

No idea. As a witness according to the police but then surely the rest of the family were also witnesses too.

Do you only ask questions and never answer them?

Deleted last post. lunch over. IS this fact Baz? Very strange if only the laddie was questioned on that night!

Back later.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 20, 2019, 03:19:10 PM
Deleted last post. lunch over. IS this fact Baz? Very strange if only the laddie was questioned on that night!

Back later.

As I understand it, not sure how to prove it as fact, Luke was the only person from the search party taken in that night. He was strip searched and questioned without an adult or legal representative in attendance. The other three members of the search party were not taken to the police station and theirs clothes were not collected.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 03:33:13 PM
For me Corrine Mitchell comes across in this interview as someone in denial https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

It’s time Luke Mitchell did the right thing and fess up not only to allow the Jones family et al to move forward, also for the sake of his Mum.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 03:46:56 PM
I found the “baby hedgehog” story interesting.

No idea how old Luke was when he and his Mum stayed up feeding the baby hedgehog every couple of hours but it’s what Corrine said about not “sugar coating the hedgehogs death - there was not going to be a happy ending etc.

Wonder what he learned from this experience?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 03:57:26 PM
The theory about the lad cutting off his hair was also interesting for me as the “turn it around” comment sounded like something Sandra Lean would say (Maybe it’s vice versa?).

Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 03:59:40 PM
About 9/10 months after the murder, if I remember correctly.

Ergo for 9/10 months the police were carrying out investigations. If Luke Mitchell were the only suspect I’ve have expected an arrest much earlier.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 20, 2019, 04:38:26 PM
Ergo for 9/10 months the police were carrying out investigations. If Luke Mitchell were the only suspect I’ve have expected an arrest much earlier.

I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 04:45:22 PM
I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

From my experience it’s unlikely detailed material pertaining specifically to other suspects would be released to the defence, hence the varying theories.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 04:54:12 PM
Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?

No idea? This bloke possibly?

Quote
Some readers might not know this but another prisoner in HMP Edinburgh confessed to his cell mate that he did it.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg501240#msg501240

Who do you think it is?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 05:00:56 PM
I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?

Baz, what would be your thoughts on this confession? Red Herring? Why now go on a tangent of looking at different times of death IF there has been a confession which has to be kept secret as to who?, to prohibit any further problems once it comes to light, comes to light where? court? Why therefore look at other scenarios, mainly on the usual suspects IF there is a confession? Has one or more of these suspects confessed? Why still highlight the others?


Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 20, 2019, 05:12:10 PM

Who do you think it is?

No idea. Never heard of a confession until that interview

Baz, what would be your thoughts on this confession? Red Herring? Why now go on a tangent of looking at different times of death IF there has been a confession which has to be kept secret as to who?, to prohibit any further problems once it comes to light, comes to light where? court? Why therefore look at other scenarios, mainly on the usual suspects IF there is a confession? Has one or more of these suspects confessed? Why still highlight the others?


I guess until the confession has been proven to be true (by the law) it makes sense to keep all avenues of interest open and being discussed.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 05:25:29 PM
No idea. Never heard of a confession until that interview

I guess until the confession has been proven to be true (by the law) it makes sense to keep all avenues of interest open and being discussed.


Thank you Baz, I may be mistaken in thinking this confession was in 2015. Ample time to merit it's worth if this were the case. I don't know so only my opirnion, not based on facts. 

Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 05:29:04 PM
Re Corrine Mitchell interview with James English

she’s asked who she thinks carried out the murder and suggests it’s “the person who confessed and the person who was positively ID’d but she gives mixed messages because she also says that her and Sandra Lean think the motive for the murder was a punishment killing?

“He’s had helpers 
“we think it’s been a punishment killing 
“he’s found out something that she’s done and he’s punished her for it


Is the person who allegedly confessed and was allegedly positively id’d the same person alluded to re an alleged punishment killing?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 20, 2019, 05:40:30 PM

Thank you Baz, I may be mistaken in thinking this confession was in 2015. Ample time to merit it's worth if this were the case. I don't know so only my opirnion, not based on facts.

I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 06:07:23 PM
I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.

Not entirely convinced on that theory. I would have thought IF this confession was real and held merit behind it, regardless of police influence, Mrs Mitchell would be doing all in her powers to prove validity in it. Thus why I am left with the opinion that it is indeed a Red Herring.  It is easy to constantly put out claims of new evidence, witnesses, confessions with not one Iota of proof. To claim to have all of this YET still only repeat the same arguments within the same blame game. Nothing new being shown. Now it appears going down other tangents as the validity of other accusations has come to nothing. IMO
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 20, 2019, 06:24:12 PM
I’m assuming that once the police believe the right man is behind bars it is difficult to get them to follow new leads and it’s quite hard to prove or disprove a confession without the polices powers.

Agreed. Once the CO&PFS secure a conviction, the police will move on to other active investigations and will only return to the Mitchell case if substantive new and credible information comes their way.  Claiming other people were involved will not assist Mitchell's case.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 20, 2019, 08:02:27 PM
I’ll tell you who I think the confession is from - Steven Kelly.

If you read Sandra’s book and cross reference this with other sources, such as her comments, podcasts and news reports, you can sort of join the dots.  It doesn’t explicitly say that the confession was Steven Kelly, but you can do a bit of detective work after reading the chapter on Steven Kelly in the book, and also the chapter dedicated to the Stocky Man sighting.

There are certain indications in the way things are worded and suggested that they are, in my opinion, hinting to this.  There are a couple of things that make sense and add up.  It’s really complicated but you can form an opinion when you join the dots.

Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 11:25:57 PM
For me Corrine Mitchell comes across in this interview as someone in denial https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

It’s time Luke Mitchell did the right thing and fess up not only to allow the Jones family et al to move forward, also for the sake of his Mum.

Corrine Mitchell stated

Quote
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=70.msg568#msg568

[27] The appellant did not give evidence. His position was outlined in a number of statements which he gave to police officers, both as a witness and subsequently under caution as a suspect in the case. His position throughout these statements was that he had been at home during the period in which the Crown case suggested the deceased was murdered. He saw the deceased at lunchtime on the day of the murder. She had taken the school bus home after school and he had walked. He had not seen her alive after that point. He had returned home at around 1600 or 1605 and the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner. Arrangements were made for the deceased to come down to the Newbattle area but no time was arranged for the meeting.
[28] The last text was sent at about 1640. The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715. The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody. He had spoken to the witness Ovens around 25 minutes after he had been waiting outside, and was told that the deceased had left. David High had appeared around 25 minutes after the appellant had phoned him. After spending some time at the Abbey, the appellant went home, arriving between 2105 to 2110. He watched a video until he received the text from the deceased's mother at 2241.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

Which would now take the time Luke left home to 5.15pm


25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 21, 2019, 01:24:19 PM
I take your point but when possible suspects were ruled out with little to no scrutiny it makes we wonder if it just took them that long to build their circumstantial case against the only suspect they had ever really concentrated on.

The fact is other suspects weren’t behaving the same way as Luke Mitchell who gave an interview to Sky news on the day of JJ’s funeral.

Luke Mitchell stated (3rd Sept 2003): “I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide.  It is trial by media.  They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not.  The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg459#msg459

JAMES MATTHEWS:   So what would you say to those who would look at you and think he killed his girlfriend?

LUKE:   “I just say they are being naïve and not to believe everything you read in the papers.  As a lot of folk know from what they’ve said and what’s turned out in the papers, they do change what people have said, not the whole truth is published in papers.  It is basically what the people want to hear is what printed.


According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.

On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.

In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone.

......It was the prosecution who wanted to broadcast the interview in court - they wanted to highlight Mitchell's demeanour on the day of Jodi's funeral - his lack of emotion.

"Not a tear, not a quiver" in the words of Advocate-Depute Alan Turnbull, from the teenager he described as a cold, calculating killer..
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Baz on June 21, 2019, 03:14:52 PM
Not entirely convinced on that theory. I would have thought IF this confession was real and held merit behind it, regardless of police influence, Mrs Mitchell would be doing all in her powers to prove validity in it. Thus why I am left with the opinion that it is indeed a Red Herring.  It is easy to constantly put out claims of new evidence, witnesses, confessions with not one Iota of proof. To claim to have all of this YET still only repeat the same arguments within the same blame game. Nothing new being shown. Now it appears going down other tangents as the validity of other accusations has come to nothing. IMO

I don't totally agree but it's hard to talk about a confession when we (I) know nothing about it.

If the confession was made to the police and nothing came of it then I agree that it's probably a "red herring."

More likely though is that Corrine has heard about some one confessing, right? What power does she have to prove the validity of the confession, or even that it happened? I'm sure she has done what she can but she has no legal powers

As for repeating the same arguments, especially with regards to other potential suspects, well, I can't blame her for that. When it seems that there is circumstantial evidence about various other people who were cleared so quickly, I can only imagine that I would still be bringing these same arguments up if I were in her position.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on June 21, 2019, 05:40:30 PM
I don't totally agree but it's hard to talk about a confession when we (I) know nothing about it.

If the confession was made to the police and nothing came of it then I agree that it's probably a "red herring."

More likely though is that Corrine has heard about some one confessing, right? What power does she have to prove the validity of the confession, or even that it happened? I'm sure she has done what she can but she has no legal powers

As for repeating the same arguments, especially with regards to other potential suspects, well, I can't blame her for that. When it seems that there is circumstantial evidence about various other people who were cleared so quickly, I can only imagine that I would still be bringing these same arguments up if I were in her position.

Yes, agreed to an extent. Muddy waters come to mind. We (I) can't fully understand the reasoning behind the down cry on circumstantial evidence against one's own whilst putting merit on less circumstantial evidence against others. If I am correct in assuming the circumstantial evidence is less. So have to assume just that, I am not walking in this persons shoes and don't fully understand or know, to an extent how I would react.

POA must be held with someone regarding this laddies interests, can only assume again that this person would hold access to any evidence in relation to this.


I honestly don't pay too much attention to interviews that are lopsided, much in the same way I don't favour press articles of the same nature. They all have agendas for their own purpose.




Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 21, 2019, 07:54:40 PM
Corrine Mitchell stated

Quote
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=70.msg568#msg568


This post is apparently from March 2005. The poster claims to be John’s cousin.


"Luke got it from John,,,Jodi got it from Luke..that's the way it worked. Luke had smoked it b4 he met Jodi I know that..John had smoked it for a while..remember he was only 16 also so not that long. John only smoked cannabis i know that much. John had short..wavy hair..Luke had long shaggy hair..John didn't cut his hair off that night..it was a couple of days later.

Johns my cousin. I know everything..that's how I know I'm right about all the facts.

Janine Steven and Alice have never lied about what happened that night, they may not have mentioned it to start with by accusing and pointing the finger..they obviously need time to deal with everything then think. but I remember from day one that they said Luke went straight to the gap in the wall..no doubt about it.

Luke walked up the path with his dog..its funny that the dog didn't react or smell anything then eh.but just so happens it did on the way down. Luke's just saying that about the dog cause it sounds better for him!

Oh come one eh..according to Luke his dog jumped in the air and sniffed and and practically dragged Luke to the wall then started scratching it...if the dog done that on the way down then he would have done it on the way up..and what???..Luke just ignored it..i don't think so!

Why would he leave that house at that precise time to go see her..would he just let her away with saying I don't know when ill be leaving. she left right away and he knew she was leaving right away".


Luke was taken to the police station that night and I presume gave his first witness statement?

When the police went to the Jones house that night/morning is this when the search parties first statements were made?

Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 21, 2019, 08:15:25 PM
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-mitchell-i-would-rather-stay-in-jail-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodi-jones-1-4800732

“I would rather stay in jail than admit MY guilt....” 

“When the jury visited the crime scene, I was told ‘stay flat and don’t react’- which probably didn’t help in their eyes.”
When he was convicted, Mitchell claims an order was given by the judge, to not show emotion upon the verdict: “I was in shock. The only reason I didn’t fall over was because I was gripping onto the railing in the dock so tightly.


Yet didn’t Sandra Lean state in her recent interview with James English that it was his lawyer?


Either way, if emotion existed for Luke Mitchell it would have come to the fore in some way; eg a tear or two.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 22, 2019, 08:35:14 AM
Nicholas, why do you keep posting links and answering them by yourself?

Why don’t you stop spamming the thread and let some other people speak
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 22, 2019, 06:26:35 PM
Re Corrine Mitchell interview with James English

Is the person who allegedly confessed and was allegedly positively id’d the same person alluded to re an alleged punishment killing?


With regards the “punishment killing” theory this springs to mind



Apr 26 2010 By David Taylor
JODI JONES' killer Luke Mitchell has had DIY prison tattoos inked on his body - to count down the time he has spent behind bars.

Mitchell, who slaughtered Jodi, his 14-year-old girlfriend, in 2003 had tally marks etched on his stomach - and a skull emblem based on Marvel Comics vigilante The Punisher on his arm.

Now, 21, he had already been tattooed illegally before he was convicted of murder in 2005.

And the latest crude markings were put on his body by a fellow inmate using a home-made tattoo gun.

Last night, a source at Shotts Prison in Lanarkshire said: "Most people in here hope Mitchell has time to cover the rest of his body in tatts before he is allowed to walk free.

"Mitchell got the tally marks recently because that is almost six years he has been behind bars in total.

"So he could complete his first set, which has four vertical lines with a fifth drawn diagonally through it."

Mitchell was ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years for murdering Jodi.

The source added: "It's a bit strange that Mitchell is always protesting his innocence to anyone who will listen but then he gets a tattoo of a murdering torturer put on his arm."

Mitchell, from Dalkeith, Midlothian, had been acting as lookout for his crony as he tattooed other inmates, but decided to have a couple done himself.

Prison tattoo guns are made from a motor out of a tape or DVD player, a spoon handle, part of a biro pen and a guitar string.

The ink from a ballpoint pen and a needle from the prison's needle exchange are used to etch the designs on to skin.

In November, the Record revealed the craze for home-made tattoos in Shotts.

The Scottish Prison Service do not comment on individual prisoners

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/killer-luke-mitchell-jail-tattoos-1057307
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 22, 2019, 06:43:56 PM
I found the “baby hedgehog” story interesting.

No idea how old Luke was when he and his Mum stayed up feeding the baby hedgehog every couple of hours but it’s what Corrine said about not “sugar coating the hedgehogs death - there was not going to be a happy ending etc.

Wonder what he learned from this experience?


The “poke it with a stick” comment made by Corrine Mitchell was interesting too



“Killer Luke Mitchell has penned a sinister threat to enemies - and stuck it on his cell wall.

In his poem, the murderer of 14-year-old Jodi Jones claims he's immortal, talks about drinking blood and vows to seek revenge on those who put him behind bars.

Part of the self-styled "prayer" is taken from the Bible's Psalm 23:4. But it is the rest of the rant which is most disturbing.

In the verse, he claims he will embrace evil and stab it with a "big f*****' stick".

Mitchell, now 21, was caged for killing then-girlfriend Jodi when they were just 14.

The tragic teen was found with her throat slashed in woods separating their family homes in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in 2003.

Mitchell has already blamed Jodi's family for his conviction. It remains unclear if his bizarre poem, entitled My Promise, is addressed to them or others he holds a grudge against.

Written on a sheet of A4 paper, the full passage states: "As I walk through the shadow of the valley of death, I will fear no evil, I will embrace and stab it with a big f*****' stick.

"I will watch it bleed, blood and life it took from me and others, and as I drink this life blood, I will regain my life and theirs.

"I will watch, as those who took so much from us spill their blood on the soil, for they will have no redemption, no mercy, for they gave none.

"I will watch as they wither and die, and I shall seek vengeance for those no longer capable.

"For I am immortal, I cannot die, not untill (sic) I have spilt the life blood of those who would spill mine."

A copy of the script, written in Mitchell's own hand, was passed to the Daily Record by a horrified source at maximum security Shotts prison, in Lanarkshire, where Mitchell is serving his sentence.

Our source at Shotts, which holds some of Scotland's most dangerous criminals, said: "Talking about seeking revenge, drinking blood and watching people wither and die is clearly not the kind of thoughts most decent people have.

"He has had the passage up on his cell wall. for some time and revels in quoting parts of it to his cronies. There is no doubt this is a threat to those he blames for sending him to prison for at least 20 years."

Last night, a leading psychologist slammed the poem as both disturbing and threatening, while showing no emotion for the victim.

Professor Paddy O'Donnell, deputy head of Glasgow University's department of psychology, said: "The emotional quality of the language is extremely high and it consists of a stream of very negative threatening words.

"Anyone reading that is going to feel disturbed and one of the purposes behind the poem is to disturb the reader.

"In that sense, the poem is intended as an aggressive communication rather than a cry for help or even an expression of anguish - it is essentially a long threat.

"It is not exactly a work of art because it uses quotations and quite repetitive imagery, so you are looking at a rather stilted and threatening communication without much in the way of creative novelty."

Professor O'Donnell said he felt the poem revealed Mitchel l to have a massive ego yet, even seven years after the atrocity, he cannot bring himself to accept any blame for the murder.

He added: "He uses quite a lot of biblical imagery which, evoked in the context of the threat, is meant to do two things.

"The first is that it makes the threat more, i n hi s eyes, awesome and inevitable, as he is calling on God as his right hand in this act of threat and vengeance, so it is to enforce the power of the threat.

"It's also an act of grandiosity in that he is taking on these almost supernatural powers, which indicate a massively inflated ego in the writer.

"Because God is on his side, it is a way of avoiding any acceptance of blame or responsibility on his part for anything that has happened. In other words, none of what has happened is his fault and none of what will happen if he acts out the act of vengeance will be his fault.

"It is a communication lacking in any sense of remorse or empathy for the victim of his offence or empathy for the people he is going to threaten or attack.

"Even if you were innocent you could still express empathy for the victim - although you weren't responsible, you would feel something, so there is absolutely no sense of empathy there.

"You are looking at a very narcissistic, grandiose ego with no sense of empathy and a great deal of aggression and resentment towards people he thinks as have wronged him."
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 22, 2019, 07:25:06 PM
I’ll tell you who I think the confession is from - Steven Kelly.

If you read Sandra’s book and cross reference this with other sources, such as her comments, podcasts and news reports, you can sort of join the dots.  It doesn’t explicitly say that the confession was Steven Kelly, but you can do a bit of detective work after reading the chapter on Steven Kelly in the book, and also the chapter dedicated to the Stocky Man sighting.

There are certain indications in the way things are worded and suggested that they are, in my opinion, hinting to this.  There are a couple of things that make sense and add up.  It’s really complicated but you can form an opinion when you join the dots.

2010
THE MOTHER of Luke Mitchell is involved in an internet campaign blaming another man for Jodi Jones’ murder.
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2019, 12:05:25 AM
Who is the person Corinne is referring to that apparently confessed and was following Jodi?

According to Corrine Mitchell the policeman who took the confession told Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 02:38:00 AM
I found the “baby hedgehog” story interesting.

No idea how old Luke was when he and his Mum stayed up feeding the baby hedgehog every couple of hours but it’s what Corrine said about not “sugar coating the hedgehogs death - there was not going to be a happy ending etc.

Wonder what he learned from this experience?

Seems I’m not alone

Scott Mabon
@MrMabon11
·
3 Jun
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
 and
@ClarkoVanBastin
Talk us through that poor little hedgehog that was fed cows milk instead of goats milk??
https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesenglish0/status/1134560803376513024

Has anyone calculated how many minutes of Corrine Mitchell’s interview focused on unrelated and irrelevant story telling?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on July 20, 2019, 04:12:26 PM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/


Donald Findlay QC features in a new BBC Scotland show exploring those criminal cases which continue to fascinate us.
Crimes Files sees criminologist, Professor David Wilson, conduct in-depth investigations into both historic and contemporary crime cases as he interviews professionals who combat crime – high profile lawyers, pathologists, frontline police as well as some of the nation’s most notorious criminals.

https://scottishlegal.com/article/donald-findlay-qc-features-in-new-crime-show
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:59:27 AM
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-mitchell-i-would-rather-stay-in-jail-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodi-jones-1-4800732

“I would rather stay in jail than admit MY guilt....” 

“When the jury visited the crime scene, I was told ‘stay flat and don’t react’- which probably didn’t help in their eyes.”
When he was convicted, Mitchell claims an order was given by the judge, to not show emotion upon the verdict: “I was in shock. The only reason I didn’t fall over was because I was gripping onto the railing in the dock so tightly.


Yet didn’t Sandra Lean state in her recent interview with James English that it was his lawyer?


Either way, if emotion existed for Luke Mitchell it would have come to the fore in some way; eg a tear or two.

Cannabis use linked to brutal teen violence
“Campaigners have called for a crackdown on cannabis after linking the drug to some of Scotland’s most notorious teenage killers in the wake of the conviction of a 16-year-old boy for the murder of Alesha MacPhail.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cannabis-use-linked-to-brutal-teen-violence-tkhnrmwpj
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on August 13, 2019, 03:27:11 PM
Quote
“I would rather stay in jail than admit MY guilt....”
[/color]

This statement from Luke evoked another reason from myself, rather than that of innocence.
 
Does he actually have that choice of confessing? He does of course, we all have choices-yet.

It is not only Luke whom this would effect but that of his mother - she has backed him to the hilt from day one.
I don't feel any-one else comes into the equation, by admitting his guilt, it would in turn be the downfall of his mother?
 
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 05:19:08 PM
(


This statement from Luke evoked another reason from myself, rather than that of innocence.
 
Does he actually have that choice of confessing? He does of course, we all have choices-yet.

It is not only Luke whom this would effect but that of his mother - she has backed him to the hilt from day one.

I don't feel any-one else comes into the equation, by admitting his guilt, it would in turn be the downfall of his mother?

Do you not think he’s already succeeded in “the downfall” of his mother?
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Parky41 on August 14, 2019, 04:00:56 PM
(
Do you not think he’s already succeeded in “the downfall” of his mother?

Quite, yes - would it be fair to assume that her life has picked up a little from the early years? No longer the same level of 'backlash' that she had to endure? She has of course undoubtedly, been downtrodden and permanently scarred from that very evening. One dares to imagine, how ones life could possibly become worse in this situation. Yet, a confession would undoubtedly, ignite these hot coals yet again.
Title: Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
Post by: Nicholas on November 16, 2019, 12:43:57 PM
I found the “baby hedgehog” story interesting.

No idea how old Luke was when he and his Mum stayed up feeding the baby hedgehog every couple of hours but it’s what Corrine said about not “sugar coating the hedgehogs death - there was not going to be a happy ending etc.

Wonder what he learned from this experience?

At approx 6.19 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZelkYBRUTk Stephen Downing’s mother also referred to hedgehogs when being interviewed about her son, who was also convicted of murder. (And her “fairy soap” story @ approx 3.15 also sounds like “ostrich syndrome.”)