Author Topic: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views  (Read 7957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #240 on: September 29, 2018, 03:46:21 PM »
If I remember correctly, and I feel like all my posts about this case should start like that, all the eye witness testimony was slightly problematic. There was the main one who refused to identify Luke in court, right? And then the two together who's statements changed numerous times regarding where they actually saw him. I remember finding neither of them convincing. And, if I recall, the two didn't see any sign of blood on Luke even though this would have been after he had apparently brutally murdered Jodi and even the prosecution's pathology expert stated that it would have been very unlikely that Luke would not have had blood all over him.

I hope that's all accurate. Maybe I should re-read up on it before commenting anymore. Annoying that all the information isn't in one easy to digest place.

Surely when considering the evidence in this case for or against guilt the source for the evidence is of high importance?!

Do Luke Mitchell supporters really believe Craig Dobbie hadn't evaluated Luke Mitchell's psychology?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-mitchell-holiday-plan-led-to-jodi-s-murder-1-1401837

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/year-old-murdered-in-dalkeith-itn-scotland-midlothian-news-footage/682496148

I don't want to go over old territory too much but Luke Mitchell did threaten another girlfriend with a knife and she counts herself lucky to have escaped unscathed.  They say lightning doesn't strike the same spot twice but is this yet another coincidence too far?

Did she give evidence about this in court? I don't remember.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/the-clues-that-snared-a-murderer-1-959390
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 03:50:44 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #241 on: September 30, 2018, 10:42:38 AM »
"Scottish criminologist Professor David Wilson said there is no particular reason why the report should be kept out of the public domain.

He said: “An analysis like this is merely an investigative tool that may help the police to narrow the field of suspects. It’s not hard evidence that can be used in court.”


"One potential motive is the fantasy Luke had about what it would be like to kill someone and get away with it," said Dobbie. "He had said he could imagine himself killing someone and he knew how to. That’s verging on fantasy. He is exhibiting knowledge. And one influence could well have been Marilyn Manson’s depiction of the Black Dahlia murder. No-one can escape from the fact that there are glaring similarities between the dead bodies of Jodi Jones and Elizabeth Short as depicted in Marilyn Manson’s watercolours. He then has to have the opportunity, the catalyst."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #242 on: September 30, 2018, 11:15:08 AM »
Surely when considering the evidence in this case for or against guilt the source for the evidence is of high importance?!

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7


"They Walk Among Us"- SEASON 2 - EPISODE 13

http://theywalkamonguspodcast.com/new-episodes/2017/12/13/season-2-episode-13
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 11:35:32 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #244 on: October 06, 2018, 01:29:42 PM »
I agree John and then there's his relationship with his mother, her parenting style and quite apparent blurred lines on morality

"Are they courageous mothers who decided to do the right thing? Or is this the ultimate maternal betrayal made by desperate parents
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/teen-crime_b_2035255.html?guccounter=1
Why did Luke Mitchell kill? His mother holds a clue 
25th January 2005

"AS EVER, the mother is key. Corinne Mitchell is at the heart of the mystery;

the answer to many questions. She is one person who can help explain why Luke Mitchell was able to become the monster he is - indeed, she perhaps understands better than the boy himself, for in her unhealthy relationship with him lies one explanation for his vile and violent actions.

I don't buy this "Luke was evil" stuff.

I think, too, that the focus on Marilyn Manson is to some degree a smokescreen; a frenzy of populist scaremongering about unpleasant teenage culture. Tens of thousands of youngsters adore Marilyn Manson; they don't become murderers. These things are far too facile. No, much of the blame for this tragedy must lie in what went wrong, a long time ago, in the boy's deepest emotional development.

You are what your childhood makes you. If we give credence to the basic psychological tenet that a child's connection with its mother is the biggest inf luence of all in shaping its adult life - as we should - then Corinne Mitchell must bear much responsibility for allowing a 14-year-old boy to become so disturbed that he could kill and maim the way he did. The "why?" is a question many would like her to answer.

It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the wellmaintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

According to the evidence in the trial, Mrs Mitchell, whose husband had moved out when Luke was 11, apparently had abrogated the role of parent. Friends say Luke "replaced his father and became the man of the family". It was exposed in court that this was a house where anything went.

Her elder son sat at home and looked at pornography on the internet during the day. Luke, her younger son and the favourite, was a little emperor. She did not appear to discipline him, or impose any limits on his behaviour.

She bought him knives. She lied for him. At home, he was allowed to sleep with underage girls; he smoked cannabis; he kept bottles of urine in his bedroom, which was described as a hovel. He stored computers on his bed and appeared to doss on a mattress on the floor.

When the police came to arrest Luke, he was in his mother's bedroom with her. She claimed he was upset and she was comforting him. She betrayed her intense physical closeness to her son whenever they appeared in public: during the interview he gave to Sky News, she constantly stroked his neck and clung to him.

What mother would publicly allow herself to caress her son's neck and face like that? And what 14-year-old son would, just as publicly, allow it to happen? During their controversial visit to Jodi's grave, the pair stood face to face in intimate embrace. Had you not known they were mother and son, you could almost have confused them for girlfriend and boyfriend.

Ian Stephen, a lecturer in forensic psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University and a criminal psychologist, is quoted as saying: "The whole relationship comes across as something quite different from normal. It is almost over-close. You are left with the impression that the son has almost taken on a partner's role. She is almost more like a girlfriend than a mother."

To witness Mrs Mitchell visiting her son in Polmont, the day after he was found guilty, was to be struck by how inappropriately she was dressed: in tight jeans, thigh-high boots, bare midriff. Again, this seemed a strange choice, given her very public role at the trial. It was hardly maternal.

Her conduct from the time of the murder to the conviction appears to suggest that her son, a mere child, had been handed inappropriate control in their relationship. At a time when a 14-year-old boy needs discipline, standards and a strong moral lead, it would appear Corinne Mitchell offered none of these things. Did her relationship with him tip over into a form of abuse?

No-one is saying that. But we can look at the facts which emerged from the trial and judge that this mother-son relationship was beyond the ken of what we recognise as normal.

Corinne Mitchell's own background is not straightforward. She is adopted; her adoptive parents were said to be from a travelling family who had settled south of Edinburgh and started a caravan business. She reportedly has a reputation for being confrontational and anti-authoritarian;

did she carry emotional scars from her own childhood into parenthood?

What went wrong between her and her younger son is something we will never know for sure. Only psychology can decipher the code of their unusual relationship. Many psychologists have written of the tension between parent and child; the established tenets of the science say that children denied appropriate parenting face difficulties trying to live a normal life or understand normal constraints. This would appear to explain why Luke Mitchell seemed to lack any moral roadmap in his life.

In psychological terms, it is often considered that a healthy, loving and supportive mother-son relationship is the most important thing necessary to provide the world with the historical and emotional foundations of culture, law, civility . . . and decency.

Even if we only accept this in the broadest terms, the theory has resonance in Jodi's murder, where these essential qualities were apparently absent in Luke Mitchell.

The modern theories of analysis say that a child's emotional life is inextricably bound up from the earliest age in a triangular relationship between themselves, their mother and their father. When things go wrong between the adults, or between parent and child, the child suffers anxieties and guilt. They feel at risk, excluded, responsible.

Nobody knows what Luke Mitchell went through as a little boy when his family fell apart. But it seems that something went drastically wrong after his father, an electrician, moved away.

In this way, broken families can create chaotic, fragmented lives. In this age of divorce, psychologists describe children "lost" because of estrangement between parents. "They cannot get on in life, because there is no living relationship in the lee of which they can prosper. Sometimes they stay very still, lest the stasis give way to something far worse, " says Robert Young, from the Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies at Sheffield University. The tragedy is that Luke Mitchell, a boy psychologically severed from decency and appropriate behaviour, did not stay very still. And that "something far worse" did indeed happen.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.Why_did_Luke_Mitchell_kill__His_mother_holds_a_clue/
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 01:31:46 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #245 on: October 09, 2018, 01:26:58 PM »
Which is EXACTLY what you appear to be doing.

A poster on the blue forum stated:
"....what I do with a MOJ case is approach the case with the knowledge that this person has been convicted in a court of law, so there is something there.
Then go back to the start - the evidence used at trial, where it came from. How it was interpreted by the prosecution. Look at the prosecutions case, who was in charge?
Then look at the defence - their statements after the trial, the appeals, what their arguments are as to why LM is innocent and the polcie, the prosecution, the jury got it wrong - where they mis-led by the prosecution of were the defence right and it is the prosecutions who's interpretation of the evidence is wrong.
When you've done that - then what do you believe ... who does your head tell you is right, defence or prosecution.


What methodology do you use?

"When we focus on the human elements of the research process and look at the nine core types of bias – driven from the respondent, the researcher or both – we are able to minimize the potential impact that bias has on qualitative market research.

What "core type" would you say you were? https://www.imoderate.com/blog/9-types-of-research-bias-and-how-to-avoid-them/

"One of the tricks our mind plays is to highlight evidence which confirms what we already believe. If we hear gossip about a rival we tend to think "I knew he was a nasty piece of work"; if we hear the same about our best friend we're more likely to say "that's just a rumour". If you don't trust the government then a change of policy is evidence of their weakness; if you do trust them the same change of policy can be evidence of their inherent reasonableness.
Once you learn about this mental habit – called confirmation bias – you start seeing it everywhere.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason

https://ewds.strath.ac.uk/Portals/50/IASMiscarriages_Justice_Report.pdf
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #246 on: October 09, 2018, 09:35:25 PM »
I don't want to go over old territory too much but Luke Mitchell did threaten another girlfriend with a knife and she counts herself lucky to have escaped unscathed.  They say lightning doesn't strike the same spot twice but is this yet another coincidence too far?

Did she give evidence about this in court? I don't remember.

Im sure she didnt...

Thiere are similarities in the Will Cornick case and this case https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/04/ann-maguire-will-cornick-reporting-restrictions-judge
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 09:11:23 AM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #247 on: October 09, 2018, 09:42:47 PM »
"One potential motive is the fantasy Luke had about what it would be like to kill someone and get away with it," said Dobbie. "He had said he could imagine himself killing someone and he knew how to. That’s verging on fantasy. He is exhibiting knowledge. And one influence could well have been Marilyn Manson’s depiction of the Black Dahlia murder. No-one can escape from the fact that there are glaring similarities between the dead bodies of Jodi Jones and Elizabeth Short as depicted in Marilyn Manson’s watercolours. He then has to have the opportunity, the catalyst."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

"The jury in the Jodi Jones murder trial has heard evidence from a girl described as a look-alike for the dead Midlothian teenager.
Kimberley Thomson told the jury she had been the girlfriend of Luke Mitchell, the youth accused of murdering Jodi.

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that Miss Thomson, 15, met Mr Mitchell a year before he is alleged to have killed Jodi Jones.

He denies killing the 14-year-old schoolgirl in Dalkeith in June 2003.

Earlier during Thursday's proceedings, supermarket worker Robert Gilhooly, 17, who was described as a friend of Mr Mitchell's, said he had seen a photo of Miss Thomson and thought it was Jodi.

He told the jury that Mr Mitchell, 16, had also remarked on the likeness

Mr Gilhooly said: "He mentioned that they looked alike. He said they were almost identical."

Miss Thomson said that when she read about Jodi's death and the fact that Jodi had been Mr Mitchell's girlfriend, she was annoyed.

She said: "I was upset. I knew he had obviously been cheating on me."

Miss Thomson, from Kenmore, in Perthshire, said she got to know Mr Mitchell during the summer of 2002 when he came to her local area on holiday with his mother.

"He was a friend of my brother," she said.

Prosecuting advocate Alan Turnbull QC asked: "By the time the holiday had finished had you and he become friends?"

She replied that they were and added: "When he left, that was when we started dating."

The jury heard how Miss Thomson read about Jodi's death
When asked how she would describe her relationship with Mr Mitchell, she said: "Boyfriend and girlfriend."

Miss Thomson said they phoned each other and may have sent text messages as well.

Mr Mitchell visited Kenmore in the autumn of 2002 and Miss Thomson stayed at the Mitchell home in Dalkeith from Boxing Day until just after New Year.

The accused also visited her on St Valentine's Day 2003.

Miss Thomson said Mr Mitchell was supposed to visit her last summer but this was "cancelled".

The teenager believed the visit was due to have been the weekend before Jodi was murdered but, when questioned about whether it could have been later, she said she could not remember.

Miss Thomson said she considered herself to be Mr Mitchell's girlfriend last summer.

Recalling how a friend showed her a newspaper article after Jodi's murder, she said: "Luke's name was in it and Dalkeith as well.

"His girlfriend had been murdered, or something like that."

Mr Turnbull asked if she had sent a text message to Mr Mitchell demanding an explanation.

"I cannot remember," Miss Thomson replied.

The court earlier heard of a six-hour police interview with Luke Mitchell where he was asked why he had not contacted Jodi when she failed to turn up to meet him as arranged.

Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.

But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."

Sgt Thomson replied: "That is correct."

It has been alleged that Mr Mitchell attacked Jodi in woods near Roan's Dyke on 30 June, 2003.

He has denied that and claims that at the time he was in, or near, his home, and that Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.

He has also denied charges of possessing knives in public places and being concerned in the supply of cannabis resin to other school pupils, including Jodi. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 09:45:39 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #248 on: October 12, 2018, 12:58:15 PM »
Would be interested to hear your views re the possibility the motivation for murder was erotophonophilia.

Have Mitchell supporters and those campaigning on his behalf considered this?

Could Luke Mitchell be trusted to tell the truth given he was a drug addict?

2009
"The case also centred on Mitchell's character, his supposedly unemotional reaction to Jodi's death and that he carried knives, sold cannabis and was interested in satanism. After the longest trial of a single accused in Scottish legal history, a majority verdict convicted Mitchell and he was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before parole

In the years following the verdict there has been some unease at the circumstantial nature of the case, but an appeal was rejected last year.

Now Mitchell's new defence team is preparing to apply for a fresh appeal based partly on the original forensics investigation, the details of which have never before been made public. The new defence team say the original police forensic service laboratory report and biology report contradict the prosecution case that the murder did not have a sexual motive, as semen was found on Jodi's body.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/02/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-appeal

So a fresh appeal will be based partly on the original forcesics? What about Luke Mitchell's character? How will a fresh appeal support claims of innocence given he was allegedly already showing signs of violence at 11 years old?

Will his psychiatric reports also be placed into the public domain? As far as I'm aware these have never been made public either?

Following Simon Halls confession and subsequent disclosures they too contradicted the prosecutions case? How will this help Mitchell?

Could evidence of a sexually motivated crime increase the length of time Mitchell is incarcerated?

How can a new theory with regards motive overturn this conviction?

Ok, just so we are clear, although some of my other posts probably explain this. In my opinion the conviction is questionable based on the fact other people's DNA was found at the scene. Will that do?

"DNA evidence is not the evidence it's cracked up to be" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSgRnOo2cxI#

"I understand that there was no physical evidence linking Mitchell to the scene and given the nature of the event and relationship with Jodi, I think that that requires an explanation as well. So, I mean, what can I say about evidence that’s not there?

I'd like to hear Mr Jamieson's thoughts (expert opinion) on the "psychology of science" in this case, presuming of course he's considered them? And what he has to say with regards the evidence (that convicted Mitchell) that is there?
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-26/edition-12/psychology-scientific-thought-and-behaviour

"The organisation approached Jamieson after accessing the forensic files, which stated that amongst 122 items gathered "from the crime scene, not one could be linked to him. http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/

Was he not aware of it before? Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest?

"There is no timeline involved with a case of this magnitude. “What I’m interested in is fair trials, and that significantly reduces the chance of a miscarriage of justice”, says Jamieson.

I agree, whilst being mindful that one of those "circumstances" could very well be that he is not the killer.

Who else could it be? Haven't numerous names already been put forward over the years by those representing Luke Mitchell?

If I remember correctly, and I feel like all my posts about this case should start like that, all the eye witness testimony was slightly problematic. There was the main one who refused to identify Luke in court, right? And then the two together who's statements changed numerous times regarding where they actually saw him. I remember finding neither of them convincing. And, if I recall, the two didn't see any sign of blood on Luke even though this would have been after he had apparently brutally murdered Jodi and even the prosecution's pathology expert stated that it would have been very unlikely that Luke would not have had blood all over him.

I hope that's all accurate. Maybe I should re-read up on it before commenting anymore. Annoying that all the information isn't in one easy to digest place.

And convenient for Mitchell and his campaigners

Considering the amount of posts that were deleted yesterday for going off the subject of Is Luke Mitchell guilty, dont see how this is relevant to what Baz posted.

Just another given opportunity to snipe at Sandra, very sad!

"Since the verdict, concern has emerged about the chain of events at Mitchell’s school, St David’s High, Dalkeith, preceding the murder and whether staff and the education authority could have done more to curb his disturbing behaviour.

Scotland on Sunday can reveal that Mitchell was first drawn to the attention of child psychiatrists at the age of 11 after a fight at primary school. His drug-taking and knife-carrying were no secret among fellow pupils and his fondness for violence and Satanism was known to teachers.

Since the trial it has emerged that he had threatened at least one other girl with a knife before he killed Jodi.

But at a time when official policy was to avoid excluding troublesome pupils, Mitchell was allowed to remain at the school, mixing with other youngsters one of whom would eventually pay for her relationship with him with her life
https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-mitchell-holiday-plan-led-to-jodi-s-murder-1-1401837

What is the "official policy" with regards "troublesome pupils" at the school now?

https://www.stdavidshighschool.co.uk/our_school/school_documents/information.html

Does anyone know Sandra Lean's views on the schools official policy on excluding troublesome pupils?

Could staff and the education authority have done more to curb his disturbing behaviour?

Was 11 year old Luke Mitchell's behaviour brushed under the carpet?

Did the jury get to hear psychiatric evidence of 11 year old Mitchell? Was it relevant?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 03:05:14 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #249 on: October 12, 2018, 03:13:54 PM »
No, it is claimed she bypassed police and court to go straight to the press with this claim. Strange that he supposed to have threatened her 2 years before allegedly killing Jodi but yet did nothing to any other girl in between that time.

When did this alleged event occur?

What does Luke Mitchell say about this?

And what does he have to say about his violent/aggressive behaviour from age 11 to trial?

What does he give as causation?
 
Did he have therapy/help? Or did he self medicate to calm himself?

Being a 14 year old child is no defence when faced with a murder charge. Why didn't Mitchell or his defence team use evidence to show his aggression hasn't escalated between the age of 11 & 14 for example?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 03:27:02 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #250 on: October 12, 2018, 08:40:07 PM »
Thank you Baz. It also worries me that the DNA of another person was found at the scene but none from Luke himself.

That still does not negate the fact that someone else's DNA was found at the scene yet none belonging to Luke. Could you clean every bit of your DNA from around the places you have been without being able to see where it is?

Good point Baz! Now let us imagine that the sperm was on the t-shirt before it was loaned to Jodi. It would have certainly been dry by the time she was given it, otherwise she would have noticed it was soiled. So how would it seep through to her bra?

My understanding of the DNA evidence in this case is as much as anyone else's on this forum. Are you suggesting lies have been told regarding DNA evidence? Are you saying Luke's DNA was in fact found at the scene?

Well it is my understanding, as much as everyone else who has commented, that someone else's DNA was found at the scene but Luke's was not. I also understand that most DNA is invisible based on the information I have read written by those who understand it far better than I do - i.e. scientists and other professionals alike.

Perhaps, but that still does not explain how Lukes DNA was not at the scene. He was just 14 years of age at the time, I doubt he was "forensically aware" as you put it and I very much doubt he will have been able to clean up invisible traces of DNA. So what would be your take on this?

I think it is obvious that my motivation is based on the fact that I think Luke Mitchell is innocent.
<EDIT> Apologies, I thought that was aimed at me, but at least you now know my motivation.

So you are suggesting that Luke's DNA WAS found at the scene? Wouldn't that be direct evidence?

And, in all fairness, we still have not seen a source that suggests there was a partial DNA match, so it is safe to assume there is not one, especially considering the CPS failed to use any such thing during the trial.

"Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".

"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profilehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 01:51:00 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #251 on: October 13, 2018, 02:32:26 PM »
"Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".

"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profilehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm

"Donald Findlay QC, defending Luke Mitchell, suggested to Ms Ure that DNA could be found in a completely "sinister place but have a wholly innocent explanation" to which she agreed.

Mr Findlay said the court had heard in some detail of Jodi and Luke's relationship and added: "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other.


As was pointed out a few years ago by another poster elsewhere regarding Luke Mitchell's DNA;

"The prosecution and defence were both in agreement that it existed"
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 02:35:18 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #252 on: October 13, 2018, 04:51:37 PM »
I agree, whilst being mindful that one of those "circumstances" could very well be that he is not the killer.

June 2010
"THE MOTHER of Luke Mitchell is involved in an internet campaign blaming another man for Jodi Jones’ murder.

Corrine Mitchell has always protested her son’s innocence, and has now joined forces with investigative campaigner Sandra Lean to point the finger at another man.

They claim on an internet forum that DNA evidence links the man with the brutal 2003 stabbing.

And the man in question said he was aware of the claims against him.

He said: “I know what these people are saying about me.

“I will deal with this in my own time

Luke Mitchell, 22, was convicted of the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend in 2005.

But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.

She wrote: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.

“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?

“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.

“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.

“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).

“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”


Sandra lean November 2015:
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.

" My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg336117.html#msg336117


And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.

“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.

Another poster said: “Jodi wore a T-shirt which had DNA on it from X yet no other was found.

You can really only take one conclusion from that.”

Sandra Lean – who publically supports Mrs Mitchell is her quest to clear her son’s name – denied she was accusing the man of murder.

She said: “No-one is accusing anyone.

“There’s a danger in pointing the finger but in many ways he’s pointing the finger at himself

“Any line of enquiry that might establish who killed Jodi is worth pursuing.”

Jodi Jones was found murdered on a footpath near her home in Dalkeith in June 2003.

Her boyfriend Luke Mitchell was charged with her murder ten months later and found guilty and sentenced to 20 years behind bars

Mitchell is currently appealing against the length of his sentence
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/
« Last Edit: October 13, 2018, 07:36:16 PM by Stephanie »
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline justsaying

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #253 on: October 13, 2018, 07:35:53 PM »
No DNA link in Jodi Jones murder

Jodi Jones was killed in June last year
The Jodi Jones trial has heard there was no DNA evidence to link her boyfriend to her murder.
The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.
Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".
Luke Mitchell, 16, has denied murdering girlfriend Jodi and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.
Genetic search
The court heard forensic teams had spent 18 months examining hundreds of items, including clothing from Luke Mitchell, in a bid to find DNA clues as to the murderer's identity.
Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure spoke about the work carried out comparing bloodstains found at the murder scene and other reference samples, taken from members of her family and Luke Mitchell.
Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile.
She said: "We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males."
 
DNA from Steven Kelly, the fiancé of Jodi's sister, Janine, showed up on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing. But the trial has heard that the t-shirt actually belonged to Janine.
It was also explained about the ways in which DNA could be transferred, for example, between strangers sitting close on a train.
Donald Findlay QC, defending Luke Mitchell, suggested to Ms Ure that DNA could be found in a completely "sinister place but have a wholly innocent explanation" to which she agreed.
Mr Findlay said the court had heard in some detail of Jodi and Luke's relationship and added: "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other.
"The girl brutally done to death and a young man sitting in court here charged with her murder.
"Looking at that picture, in all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a perfectly innocent transfer."
Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."
Charges denied
The murder charge alleges Luke Mitchell attacked Jodi, of Easthouses, Dalkeith, in woods near Roan's Dyke.
The youngster denies that and claims that at the time he was in, or near, his home, and that Jodi, 14, was murdered by person or persons unknown.
He also denies charges of possessing knives in public places and being concerned in the supply of cannabis resin to other school pupils, including Jodi.
The trial continues.


Quite a conflicting article to say the least. (lets just ignore that parts where it is said no DNA was found though) It seems the defence was in agreement that Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers, however these were trousers which had not been worn by him on the night of Jodi's murder. I do not see the defence agreeing that his DNA was found at the scene though. It seems, from this article alone, that there was a number of peoples DNA found on Jodi. I will not pretend to know about DNA, I am not an expert, but I wonder how many other males would share those markers considering it could not have been a full DNA profile...

Offline Stephanie

Re: Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views
« Reply #254 on: October 13, 2018, 07:44:57 PM »
No DNA link in Jodi Jones murder

Jodi Jones was killed in June last year
The Jodi Jones trial has heard there was no DNA evidence to link her boyfriend to her murder.
The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.
Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".
Luke Mitchell, 16, has denied murdering girlfriend Jodi and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.
Genetic search
The court heard forensic teams had spent 18 months examining hundreds of items, including clothing from Luke Mitchell, in a bid to find DNA clues as to the murderer's identity.
Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure spoke about the work carried out comparing bloodstains found at the murder scene and other reference samples, taken from members of her family and Luke Mitchell.
Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile.
She said: "We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males."
 
DNA from Steven Kelly, the fiancé of Jodi's sister, Janine, showed up on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing. But the trial has heard that the t-shirt actually belonged to Janine.
It was also explained about the ways in which DNA could be transferred, for example, between strangers sitting close on a train.
Donald Findlay QC, defending Luke Mitchell, suggested to Ms Ure that DNA could be found in a completely "sinister place but have a wholly innocent explanation" to which she agreed.
Mr Findlay said the court had heard in some detail of Jodi and Luke's relationship and added: "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other.
"The girl brutally done to death and a young man sitting in court here charged with her murder.
"Looking at that picture, in all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a perfectly innocent transfer."
Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."
Charges denied
The murder charge alleges Luke Mitchell attacked Jodi, of Easthouses, Dalkeith, in woods near Roan's Dyke.
The youngster denies that and claims that at the time he was in, or near, his home, and that Jodi, 14, was murdered by person or persons unknown.
He also denies charges of possessing knives in public places and being concerned in the supply of cannabis resin to other school pupils, including Jodi.
The trial continues.


Quite a conflicting article to say the least. (lets just ignore that parts where it is said no DNA was found though) It seems the defence was in agreement that Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers, however these were trousers which had not been worn by him on the night of Jodi's murder. I do not see the defence agreeing that his DNA was found at the scene though. It seems, from this article alone, that there was a number of peoples DNA found on Jodi. I will not pretend to know about DNA, I am not an expert, but I wonder how many other males would share those markers considering it could not have been a full DNA profile...

Try highlighting the actual factual words that were used during the trial as opposed to the interpretation of a journalist!
And remember this was the evidence presented at trial ergo this is the evidence heard by the jury who found Luke Mitchell guilty.

You can keep the circular argument going for as long as you wish but it won't change the facts nor help Luke Mitchell in anyway shape or form.
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"