Author Topic: Why is Mitchell Guilty?  (Read 2131 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« 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((()*/
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 02:29:17 PM by TheArmchairDetective »

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2019, 12:11:57 AM »
.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 11:39:14 AM by Parky41 »

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #2 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?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #3 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?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #4 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?

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #5 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?

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2019, 01:51:46 PM »
DELETED. IRRELEVANT.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 02:15:01 PM by Parky41 »

Offline Parky41

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #7 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.

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #8 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.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #9 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.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #10 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?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 04:02:20 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #11 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?).

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #12 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.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Baz

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #13 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?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why is Mitchell Guilty?
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2019, 04:47:51 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes