Not my narrative though - very little of what I actually do say, is not my narrative, nor assumption. It is based on the evidence. The recording was played at trial was it not?
Now you're Just being silly. Do you actually stop to think properly before you respond? As you say "if he was innocent" he most likely would have called Jodi's parents, once may have sufficed of course, to say, do you know if Jodi went elsewhere she has not shown up, or is Jodi back home yet? Anything really. But lets go firmly of that stance of guilt.
Who is this 'Luke is guilty brigade' You are doing it again. It was the Crown, of evidence presented before a Jury that found Luke Mitchell guilty. Nothing new has come about in this case, that is zero. These constant cries of 'new evidence' there is not as there is no new evidence to find - Top award for trying though. These constant feeds in the hope that the 'killer' may suddenly be brought to light from someone watching/listening.
These forums I've read, of people scouring every inch of these 'others' private lives. The invasion and condemnation is deplorable is it not? On what basis Faithlilly? That they do not know if Luke Mitchell is innocent, that at the very best there may be a ? of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' What there is not, in any shape or forum, is proof that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones and that he could not have.
You are half correct of course - let us think about Luke Mitchell, those police interviews, those sociopathic tendencies. Those violent outburst, of being hot headed, that lack of empathy from 'claimed' discovery to the present day. - If you want to work on the opposite basis of complete innocence to complete guilt. The Crowns case and that of Luke Mitchell being found guilty.
'This may very well have been a girl in love, happy at getting out without chores, to see her boyfriend whom she adored. Luke Mitchell chased up those boys in the abbey, he did not like to be kept waiting.? Jodi kept him waiting, or rather her mother? Did she not have to sit and listen to a song first? Luke phoning the speaking clock, angry at been kept waiting. Those actions witnessed by AB that caught her attention. And he did have a violent outburst and lost complete control, murdering his girlfriend, that young girl who adored him. And that anger and outburst subsided and he was calm and instantly calculated. That mind that had played something like this over in thought before. This gossip, information passed over of his past demeaners, not all made up at all, was it? He had killed animals before, he had described to someone the best way to kill someone, and much more. He had no PTSD, he wanted more knives, he wanted to go out partying, more girls in tow. The only thing he was medicated with was cannabis. No one was allowed to say no, there was no acceptance of that word from any of his actions. He needed to be centre of attention in all of this and still does. One of the major symptoms of being a sociopath. There is no diagnosis of it, no treatment. It is merited by the actions of a person and Luke Mitchell fits every one of them. That need to be adored. That OTT relationship with his mother'.
This is the Luke Mitchell that was found guilty. This is the Luke Mitchell who could not control one thing 'That of the police being the police' He may have thought he had outsmarted them. Such a shock, when relaxed, feeling that he had gotten away with it - Off up town to 'Whiplash Trash' those words to the employee "we are celebrating" For that knock to come at his door in April 2004.
He did not know those messages had been deleted and of this girls parents knowing she was going to meet with him. He had no choice to phone the Jones house. He did however have that choice to phone back. Why do you suppose he didn't Faithlilly?, remember here, he is guilty. He did not simply need time for that quick change, 5.40 until 6pm and to be seen in that very small time frame. He needed an alibi, and he needed a story set in place, and he needed time for disposal. He did not bank on being seen at the gate, he could not avoid having to cross Newbattle R'd. But what he did need first and foremost was that change of outer clothing. It may not have been drenched in blood but it certainly needed to be gotten rid of. That is what Luke Mitchell was doing from 6.15pm until 7.20pm at the latest. And he did leave the boys much earlier than he usually did when out. Claimed to be home from just after 9pm when it would usually be 10pm. Witnessed however going home at 10pm
But you are correct, there may have been a slim chance in that first phone call if it had caused any alert, it would however have changed nothing. The killer, being Luke Mitchell remember, knew that Jodi would not be found easily, and if she was, there was that time frame of Identity, everything. LM had plenty time on his hands. You can assume lots, let's make that clear assumption though, If this girls father had asked Luke or phoned back what do you assume Luke would have done then?
He was prepped and ready for that inevitable call coming through. He was ready from Just after 7pm. Most likely on a 'high' That buzz of waiting until that moment of discovery. That even higher buzz when he became part of it.
There is consistent mention of some call going missing from the case files of a 'missing person' Really? Is this like the 'mechanic' Did Luke Mitchell phone prior to Jodi's mother contacting him? Was he yet again becoming impatient? That other clear symptom of being a 'sociopath?'
So, all of the above, written on the clear basis of evidence from the crowns case - I do not know if Luke Mitchell is 100% guilty. But I have clearly stated over. That there was sound reason as to why suspicion fell upon him and remained upon him.
Andrina Bryson did not identify him in Court even though his face had been in the papers daily for over a year. The 2 witnesses who saw someone at the gate said in Court it was definitely not Mitchell. There's no confirmed sightings of him at the path at all. Rather than going into a huge lengthy reply, please explain these points:
1. Why was there no DNA belonging to Mitchell at the scene?
2. Why was there no DNA connecting him to the murder in his house?
3. Why do you think the moped 'persons' intially lied and claimed to have been up the path at 415pm and not 515pm?
5. Why did the moped disappear very soon after the murder so fast that the Police never traced it?
6. Why were 3 statements about who found the body and how, changed and all changed to say the same thing?
7. What was the motive for Luke Mitchell to kill her?
8. Why did [Name removed] hide a damp pair of rubber gloves in a drawer in another house and claim it was to stop his niece touching them?
9. Why was Alan Ovens never asked to give evidence - he was in the house when Jodi allegedly left.
Mitchell was not the person who killed Jodi Jones. The person who did this got away undetected. Mitchell didn't walk down the path and along the main road and up his own street full of people after committing a murder. Nor is the "he washed himself in the stream behind his house" theory anything but laughable. If he did......did he walk back to the house in the nude?
