Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[DanniCash]

New members are reminded of the forum rules. All posts claiming that other named individuals murdered Jodi will be removed. Initials can be used in posts.

Apologies. Both have been named on this forum previously.

[Angelo222]

Apologies. Both have been named on this forum previously.

It wasn't you, another new member made all out allegations against people and named them. That is not allowed.

[Brietta]

New members are reminded of the forum rules. All posts claiming that other named individuals murdered Jodi will be removed. Initials can be used in posts.

I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.

Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.

Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".

The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.

Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415


My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest.  It really had to be seen to be believed.

[DanniCash]

My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest.  It really had to be seen to be believed.

What behaviour is that?

[faithlilly]

It's a circumstantial case Vertigo. He had history with knives and teenage girls. He was a cannabis user/dealer. He was seen near the murder site by two witnesses. His brother refuted his alibi. He was two-timing Jodi. He had the opportunity, means and motive.

He had a knife, as I’m sure do a lot of young lads.

He had a history with teenage girls? Explain please?

He was a cannnabis user. Wasn’t Jodi too?

He was seen near the murder site by two witnesses. When did they give their witness statements? Was it before Luke was all over the papers?

His brother did not refute his alibi but gave a reason why he thought that no one was in the house.

He was two-timing Jodi. He was 14.

Motive? What motive?

Means...well yes he had a knife but did it match the knife used to mutilate Jodi?

Opportunity? Not according to Luke or Corrine.

[faithlilly]

I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.

Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.

Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".

The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.

Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415


My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest.  It really had to be seen to be believed.

Thank you I’ve never seen that news report before.

If DNA could be extracted from the tshirt and identified, even though the crime scene had been badly preserved, surely they would have found at least some DNA to link Luke to the scene, if indeed it was there to begin with?

[Angelo222]

I followed this case at the time and my recollection of the evidence presented in court at Mitchell's trial bears absolutely no resemblance to the case presented in the Channel 5 broadcast, despite criticism of the more than flawed police and forensic investigation raised at the time.

Snip
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.

Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".

The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.

Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415


My outstanding memories involve the totally bizarre behaviour of Luke Mitchell and his mother in the weeks prior to his arrest.  It really had to be seen to be believed.

I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed.  Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.

The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.

[faithlilly]

I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed.  Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.

The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.

The programme didn’t put forward anything new but it’s certainly stirred up interest in the case, as the surge in visitors to this site will attest to.

[Angelo222]

The programme didn’t put forward anything new but it’s certainly stirred up interest in the case, as the surge in visitors to this site will attest to.

People are naturally curious.

[Brietta]

What behaviour is that?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg460#msg460

[faithlilly]

People are naturally curious.

They are and will be rightly appalled by how this case was handled.

[Angelo222]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg460#msg460

     What was it Corinne called James Matthews?

[Angelo222]

They are and will be rightly appalled by how this case was handled.

That was Lothian & Borders Police for you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I just finished watching part 2 and I'm quite sure that anyone who knows anything about this case will be very disappointed.  Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.

The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.

There’s no need to be rude about them.  To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice. 

[John]

There’s no need to be rude about them.  To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice.

I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.