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.

Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

(1/13) > >>

John:
Just to let you know Mat, the photograph which has been posted on the blue forum as depicting Luke Mitchell on the day of the murder is yet another misrepresentation of the facts.

The photo (reproduced below) is actually a Polaroid taken by Lothian & Borders Police several weeks after the murder of Jodi Jones and used in a line-up with other photos for the benefit of potential witness identification.

This photo does not relate to the day of the murder and the taking of it raises many questions as to police procedures.



Luke Mitchell in August 2003.

ActualMat:
Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

John:
The obvious difference between Andrina failing to identify Luke in court and Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh managing to do so is simply explained by logic. Andrina didn't see Luke that day but Messrs Fleming and Walsh did.

If only one of the women had seen Luke lurking around at a wooden gate on the main road just a few yards from where Jodi was slaughtered then. I would have been concerned but both women saw him and were able to give a near perfect description of him and how he was dressed.  The other bit of evidence which falls nicely into place is that at this very moment in time ie 5.42pm on 30 June 2003, Luke Mitchell was not seen where he said he was.  It was only some 10 minutes later that he was seen further along the road as he attempted to create an alibi.

There is no way two boys who looked similar in appearance and who wore the same clothes could have been in the same area at the exact same time.  There only ever was one lad and his name is Luke Mitchell.


John:

--- Quote from: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 03:03:29 PM ---Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

--- End quote ---

This is just a short synopsis from memory.

I believe if there ever was a murder case where the police were grossly incompetent that it is this case. The SOCO female officer sent to the scene was so fat that she couldn't get over the wall and so retreated leaving sampling to much later.  The Victim's body was not covered in order to protect potential forensic clues from being lost to the elements. The police allowed a local who later became a suspect to traipse all around the murder scene with his dogs on the basis that they could track the perpetrator.  They allowed the bin men to empty all the bins without checking the contents.  The pathologist who attended the scene did so when it was far too late to properly determine the time of death.

As far as DNA is concerned and this is most surprising, none belonging to Jodi was found on Luke and none belonging to Luke was found on Jodi even though they had been together at school earlier that day.  There was a partial profile obtained which could have been from Luke but in any event could have been there completely innocently.  DNA was found at the scene from swabs taken from the t-shirt which Jodi had worn. This DNA was recovered from a sperm stain on the t-shirt. This was explained away as the DNA belonged to Jodi's sisters boyfriend and it was the sisters t-shirt which Jodi had borrowed earlier.  Several other profiles both full and partial were obtained from the victim and her clothing but never matched to anyone.

The so-called alibi is very weak and to be honest, disturbing.  Luke's elder brother Shane stated in evidence that he was the first one home that afternoon and that he went to his bedroom where he surfed porn sites on his computer.  He told the court that he would never do that if there was anyone else at home.  He said that he kept the bedroom door open so that he could hear his mother or brother come home.  He stated that he never saw or heard anyone in the house that day until his mother came in at 5.15pm.  Internet records established that his computer was used between 4.50 and 5.15pm.  When asked again in court about his brothers presence in the house he stated that he could have been there but he didn't see him. It should also be noted that when Shane went to the police station to make a statement initially that he failed to mention his brother being in the house. After speaking with his mother he went back later and changed his statement saying that he had forgotten that his brother had made dinner for the family that afternoon but he still hadn't seen him.  When asked about this omission at trial he said that he had a bad memory caused by drug abuse!

For Luke's part, he did not give evidence, his mother now says that he was badly represented by Donald Findlay QC.  In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner.  He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs.

For the mothers part, Corinne Mitchell gave a statement and also testified at the trial. She told of returning home at 5.15pm to find Luke brandishing some broccoli.  She also says that Shane came down for his dinner before returning back up to his bedroom. She stated that Luke left the family home after 5.30pm although I have seen posts by Corinne which puts this as late as 5.40pm...remember the sighting by Messrs Fleming and Walsh half a mile away at 5.42pm!

It should also be noted that both Shane and Corinne were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice but these charges were later withdrawn. During the trial Corinne was also warned by the prosecutor of the consequences of committing perjury as she testified about Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.

The alibi is certainly a problem for the defence and one which will be difficult to overcome. I have often wondered why, if Luke was in the family home that afternoon, was necessary for Shane to make such a song and dance about it?   If he was there, why not just say so? >@@(*&)


 

ActualMat:
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess somene told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my que to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version