Luke Mitchell supporters plan to protest outside Scottish Parliament.

[Nicholas]

Better safe than sorry.  He wouldn’t have known for certain whether or not there was a speck of Jodi’s blood on it somewhere.

Mr Scrimger showed the jury photographs of bloodstains low down on a wall near where Jodi was found by a search party.

[faithlilly]

Maybe he did - maybe he didn’t need to if the jacket covered everything else?

We don’t hear much about his footwear do we

Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?

No we don’t hear much about his footwear which is odd as I believe the pathologist said Jodi had lost 5 litres of blood and if it was Luke who inflicted the wounds he’d have had to have got close to the body. He wouldn’t have been able to avoid getting blood on the soles of his shoes.

[Nicholas]

Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?

Not necessarily if he was behind her

Mr Derek Scrimger giving evidence at Luke Mitchell’s murder trial said:


“Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."

"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."

[faithlilly]

Not necessarily if he was behind her

Many of her injuries couldn’t have been inflicted from behind especially if Jodi fought for her life as we are told.

[Angelo222]

Please stay on topic otherwise posts will be removed.

[Angelo222]

Covered everything? The bottom of his trousers and his shoes? His hair, which hadn’t been washed?

No we don’t hear much about his footwear which is odd as I believe the pathologist said Jodi had lost 5 litres of blood and if it was Luke who inflicted the wounds he’d have had to have got close to the body. He wouldn’t have been able to avoid getting blood on the soles of his shoes.

Mitchell had every opportunity to wash and get rid of clothing and change. That explains why forensics failed to find Jodi's DNA on him. IMO he later went out into the woods on purpose to get mucked up.

[faithlilly]

Mitchell had every opportunity to wash and get rid of clothing and change. That explains why forensics failed to find Jodi's DNA on him. IMO he later went out into the woods on purpose to get mucked up.

But that’s the thing Angelo, you have absolutely no evidence of that.

So he got rid of his parka and the rest of his clothes? Where? In the log burner? Where not one button or zip was found but ashes were.

So Corrine/Luke burn Luke’s bloodstained parka in the log burner then Corrine goes out and buys the exact same parka after they take his clothes and gives the police the receipt. Does that make sense to you? Why not buy the parka as soon after it was burned as possible and pass it off as the burned one?

[Bullseye]

Why wasn’t Luke’s DNA on Jodi?
Luke’s DNA was actually found on her bra and her DNA was found on Luke’s trousers but in an agreement between the Crown and his defence team, led by Donald Findlay QC, it was decided the issue of DNA wasn’t relevant as the pair were in an intimate relationship.

The Crown weren’t going to say DNA made him the killer as it was expected his DNA would be on Jodi. DNA in this case wouldn’t prove innocence or guilt, it was irrelevant to the case.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/jodi-jones-key-questions-evidence-19950020

Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.

The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.

There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”

Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.

[faithlilly]

Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.

The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.

There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”

Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.

Caution is advised with newspaper articles. The often don’t research their subject matter adequately.

[Brietta]

Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder

Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?

Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.



Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.

What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).

There is a big difference.

Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.

Except none of them are.

They just like to think they are.

In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.

What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.

In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.

The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.

All to no avail.

Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.

It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.

What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.

Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.

All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.

https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/

[Angelo222]

Sandra has always said -
“ The one DNA profile of Jodi found on an item of Luke's clothing was on a pair of trousers not connected in any way to the murder (by the police and experts' own reasoning). The sample could not be dated - it couldn't be said how long it had been there, which is why Findlay made the comments about the possibility of it being deposited by entirely innocent means - he wasn't talking about the bra.

The profile on the bra was a partial profile that couldn't identify anyone, Luke included.

There was no full DNA profile of Luke identified on Jodi's body or clothing, or anywhere at the crime scene.”

Thats how I always understood it, there was a partial dna of Luke, but also could be from loads of other guys as it’s only partial. But if it was in fact a full DNA of Luke then that goes against what Sandra has been saying for years.

He was with her at school but she changed clothing I believe before going out again to meet up with him.

[Angelo222]

Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder

Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?

Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.



Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.

What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).

There is a big difference.

Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.

Except none of them are.

They just like to think they are.

In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.

What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.

In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.

The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.

All to no avail.

Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.

It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.

What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.

Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.

All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.

https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/

Well said Brietta.  Mob rule has never achieved anything in this country.

[Myster]

Well said Brietta.  Mob rule has never achieved anything in this country.

Unless you include that carried out by the Suffering-gets to achieve universal suffrage.

[faithlilly]

Luke Mitchell: Supporters plan protest outside Scottish Parliament to demand retrial over Jodi Jones murder

Why do these folk think that out of all the vicious murderers locked up in Scottish jails Mitchell alone is entitled to retrial after retrial until he gets a verdict which suits their fancy?

Mitchell was convicted on the evidence and was kept there despite numerous reviews on that evidence which has never changed since the night that Jodi Jones was slaughtered by Michell.



Snip
The latter case has attracted an unedifying surfeit of gossip and bizarre tittle-tattle over the last couple of weeks and this sort of behaviour, whilst possibly understandable given human nature, is unhelpful.

What will help individuals determine any situation is education by those that know what they are talking about as opposed to those that mistakenly think they know (or wished they knew).

There is a big difference.

Take a salutary glance at most social media platforms and you’ll find an abundant supply of lawyers, doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, et cetera et cetera.

Except none of them are.

They just like to think they are.

In the Mitchell murder trial, we are not and have not been privy to everything that was led in evidence, nor have we seen every shred of it and heard every word of testimony.

What we do know is
(a) the jury would have received judicial direction before their deliberation
(b) the accused’s defence counsel would have been last to address the jury and
(c) the accused had (and invoked) the right of appeal (several times) , as only he and the Crown may do.

In fact he has failed in multiple appeals and, whilst there has been the view that his human rights were breached (despite his case being ‘pre-Cadder’), even the SCCRC in 2014 decided not to refer his case to the High Court for review.

The main theme that ran through the rather ‘tacky’ programme was the supposed temerity of the jury to return a unanimous ‘guilty’ verdict.
But, even if that were so, there have been (multiple) appeals and a review by the SCCRC.

All to no avail.

Those who are wildly criticising the jury’s verdict are therefore also criticising our judiciary, appellate system, review commission and entire judicial process.

It is neither my style nor intention to comment on a jury’s decision as to do so would strike at the heart of our criminal justice system that I have been an intrinsic part of for over 30 years.

What I would say is that any perceived injustice or perversity in a verdict is not the final word as there is a robust appeals process.

Indeed the appeals process is where the case is reviewed only by our country’s most senior and eminent judges with no jury.

All these avenues have been explored and exhausted.

https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/

I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the  Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous  appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.

Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.

BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.

[Venturi Swirl]

I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the  Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous  appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.

Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.

BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.

What exactly is it that makes you 100% certain that Mitchell is "wholly innocent"?  I'd love to know, but you will of course ignore this question as I presume you don't have a logical answer.