UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on March 12, 2021, 12:10:10 AM
-
JODI Jones murderer Luke Mitchell is “absolutely delighted” with the wave of support he has received since a documentary aired about his case.
The 32-year-old was said to be happy to "get the story out there” in Channel 5's Murder in a Small Town which has been described by Jodi’s family as being “biased” and “one sided”.
Jodi, who died aged just 14, was found stripped, bound and near-decapitated with multiple stab wounds near her home in Easthouses, Midlothian in 2003.
Boyfriend Mitchell, who was also 14 years old at the time, was convicted of the murder and sentenced to at least 20 years behind bars.
Sandra Lean has led Mitchell’s three failed appeals, dedicating her career to the case, and appeared in the Channel 5 show.
After being asked by a viewer how he was doing, Lean responded: “Luke’s good, he is absolutely delighted with the response to the film.
“Do you know, after all these years to have this much support, I think we are all just reeling a bit. It’s just completely turned on its head.
Victim Jodi's devastated family blasted the doc as a "biased and one-sided programme".
And angry locals have said the recent documentary has turned the site of her death into a 'tourist attraction'.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6794260/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-documentary-delight/
-
JODI Jones murderer Luke Mitchell is “absolutely delighted” with the wave of support he has received since a documentary aired about his case.
The 32-year-old was said to be happy to "get the story out there” in Channel 5's Murder in a Small Town which has been described by Jodi’s family as being “biased” and “one sided”.
Jodi, who died aged just 14, was found stripped, bound and near-decapitated with multiple stab wounds near her home in Easthouses, Midlothian in 2003.
Boyfriend Mitchell, who was also 14 years old at the time, was convicted of the murder and sentenced to at least 20 years behind bars.
Sandra Lean has led Mitchell’s three failed appeals, dedicating her career to the case, and appeared in the Channel 5 show.
After being asked by a viewer how he was doing, Lean responded: “Luke’s good, he is absolutely delighted with the response to the film.
“Do you know, after all these years to have this much support, I think we are all just reeling a bit. It’s just completely turned on its head.
Victim Jodi's devastated family blasted the doc as a "biased and one-sided programme".
And angry locals have said the recent documentary has turned the site of her death into a 'tourist attraction'.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6794260/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-documentary-delight/
The irony of calling the documentary ‘ one sided’ when for 18 years the media have championed Luke’s guilt, even though for some of that he was a child and charged with nothing, is absolutely lost on some here.
The documentary was by no means perfect but it was sincere in its endeavour and well done to Sandra and Corrine for never giving up on Luke.
BTW John have you read Sandra’s book?
-
The irony of calling the documentary ‘ one sided’ when for 18 years the media have championed Luke’s guilt, even though for some of that he was a child and charged with nothing, is absolutely lost on some here.
The documentary was by no means perfect but it was sincere in its endeavour and well done to Sandra and Corrine for never giving up on Luke.
BTW John have you read Sandra’s book?
Wow, you're criticising the family of the murdered girl for calling the documentary one-sided? What did you expect them to say?
-
Wow, you're criticising the family of the murdered girl for calling the documentary one-sided? What did you expect them to say?
Of course the victim's family was never going to like a documentary that suggested that the person convicted of their relative's murder might be innocent.
The police who investigated the case were always going to say that the case was investigated thoroughly, that the right person was convicted, and that they are not looking for anyone else.
As you say, VS, what else could you expect them to say?
In the same way, it's hardly surprising that Luke was pleased with the documentary!!
-
Of course the victim's family was never going to like a documentary that suggested that the person convicted of their relative's murder might be innocent.
The police who investigated the case were always going to say that the case was investigated thoroughly, that the right person was convicted, and that they are not looking for anyone else.
As you say, VS, what else could you expect them to say?
In the same way, it's hardly surprising that Luke was pleased with the documentary!!
I think Channel 5 are guilty of extremely poor judgement in producing such a shoddy effort. They have spun this story into something it is not and all for the sake of ratings. No wonder the Jones family are rightly appalled.
-
The irony of calling the documentary ‘ one sided’ when for 18 years the media have championed Luke’s guilt, even though for some of that he was a child and charged with nothing, is absolutely lost on some here.
The documentary was by no means perfect but it was sincere in its endeavour and well done to Sandra and Corrine for never giving up on Luke.
BTW John have you read Sandra’s book?
Have you read the book Faith?
Could you answer what major piece of evidence or known fact convinces you of Mitchell's innocence?
-
Of course the victim's family was never going to like a documentary that suggested that the person convicted of their relative's murder might be innocent.
The police who investigated the case were always going to say that the case was investigated thoroughly, that the right person was convicted, and that they are not looking for anyone else.
As you say, VS, what else could you expect them to say?
In the same way, it's hardly surprising that Luke was pleased with the documentary!!
In my opinion if Luke Mitchell ever wants to walk the streets as a free man ever again the Channel 5 documentary and Lean's involvement in it is an unmitigated disaster.
As I understand it, he doesn't walk out of prison after twenty years.
He will be considered for parole after that period.
I think the evidence which saw him fail in every Lean led attempt at appeal will carry weight when consideration is given to his right to be eligible to apply for parole and more importantly, for him to be successful if it is allowed.
I really don't think the documentary or public opinion is going to be of much benefit to him as he approaches the end of the twenty years imposed on him which I think must be an unprecedented sentence for one so young.
The reasons for which are patently obvious and haven't changed since Luke Mitchell was found guilty of Jodi's murder.
-
In my opinion if Luke Mitchell ever wants to walk the streets as a free man ever again the Channel 5 documentary and Lean's involvement in it is an unmitigated disaster.
As I understand it, he doesn't walk out of prison after twenty years.
He will be considered for parole after that period.
I think the evidence which saw him fail in every Lean led attempt at appeal will carry weight when consideration is given to his right to be eligible to apply for parole and more importantly, for him to be successful if it is allowed.
I really don't think the documentary or public opinion is going to be of much benefit to him as he approaches the end of the twenty years imposed on him which I think must be an unprecedented sentence for one so young.
The reasons for which are patently obvious and haven't changed since Luke Mitchell was found guilty of Jodi's murder.
Is it notoriety he wants or justice?
Same question to Sandra Lean?
-
In my opinion if Luke Mitchell ever wants to walk the streets as a free man ever again the Channel 5 documentary and Lean's involvement in it is an unmitigated disaster.
As I understand it, he doesn't walk out of prison after twenty years.
He will be considered for parole after that period.
I think the evidence which saw him fail in every Lean led attempt at appeal will carry weight when consideration is given to his right to be eligible to apply for parole and more importantly, for him to be successful if it is allowed.
I really don't think the documentary or public opinion is going to be of much benefit to him as he approaches the end of the twenty years imposed on him which I think must be an unprecedented sentence for one so young.
The reasons for which are patently obvious and haven't changed since Luke Mitchell was found guilty of Jodi's murder.
You obviously don’t understand how parole is granted. If you will not accept guilt for the crime you have been convicted of and express remorse you will not be granted parole and Luke says that he would rather stay in prison than admit guilt.
-
Have you read the book Faith?
Could you answer what major piece of evidence or known fact convinces you of Mitchell's innocence?
Bumped for faithlilly
-
You obviously don’t understand how parole is granted. If you will not accept guilt for the crime you have been convicted of and express remorse you will not be granted parole and Luke says that he would rather stay in prison than admit guilt.
Not true!
-
You obviously don’t understand how parole is granted. If you will not accept guilt for the crime you have been convicted of and express remorse you will not be granted parole and Luke says that he would rather stay in prison than admit guilt.
That is untrue. The Scottish Parole Board will release a prisoner early even though they consistently plead innocence so you are propagating falsehoods.
-
Bumped for faithlilly
Take the reasons why you think he’s guilty, flip it and add a dash of logic.
-
That is untrue. The Scottish Parole Board will release a prisoner early even though they consistently plead innocence so you are propagating falsehoods.
‘ Such prisoners have been labelled as ‘deniers’ with no account taken of the various reasons for maintaining innocence, nor the undeniable truth that some may actually be innocent. These prisoners once were unable to achieve parole unless they undertook offence-behaviour courses that required the admission of guilt as a prerequisite. Innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, or remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. This situation is not quite as stark as it once was. In England, and to a lesser degree Scotland, those maintaining innocence have access to limited training for freedom which I have been advised by clients in custody are labelled “deniers’ courses” within their prison’
https://mojoscotland.org/the-innocent-prisoners-dilemma/
-
‘ Such prisoners have been labelled as ‘deniers’ with no account taken of the various reasons for maintaining innocence, nor the undeniable truth that some may actually be innocent. These prisoners once were unable to achieve parole unless they undertook offence-behaviour courses that required the admission of guilt as a prerequisite. Innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, or remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. This situation is not quite as stark as it once was. In England, and to a lesser degree Scotland, those maintaining innocence have access to limited training for freedom which I have been advised by clients in custody are labelled “deniers’ courses” within their prison’
https://mojoscotland.org/the-innocent-prisoners-dilemma/
-
Take the reasons why you think he’s guilty, flip it and add a dash of logic.
LOL
-
‘ Such prisoners have been labelled as ‘deniers’ with no account taken of the various reasons for maintaining innocence, nor the undeniable truth that some may actually be innocent. These prisoners once were unable to achieve parole unless they undertook offence-behaviour courses that required the admission of guilt as a prerequisite. Innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, or remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. This situation is not quite as stark as it once was. In England, and to a lesser degree Scotland, those maintaining innocence have access to limited training for freedom which I have been advised by clients in custody are labelled “deniers’ courses” within their prison’
https://mojoscotland.org/the-innocent-prisoners-dilemma/
Mitchell is perceived as a continuing risk imo and that is why he might not be considered for parole and released early and not because he claims to be innocent. Yet more smoke and bluster from Mitchell supporters.
-
Take the reasons why you think he’s guilty, flip it and add a dash of logic.
Typical no new argument response, the difference being my reasons stand up to scrutiny while yours don't even get off the starting grid for logic.
-
‘ Such prisoners have been labelled as ‘deniers’ with no account taken of the various reasons for maintaining innocence, nor the undeniable truth that some may actually be innocent. These prisoners once were unable to achieve parole unless they undertook offence-behaviour courses that required the admission of guilt as a prerequisite. Innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, or remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. This situation is not quite as stark as it once was. In England, and to a lesser degree Scotland, those maintaining innocence have access to limited training for freedom which I have been advised by clients in custody are labelled “deniers’ courses” within their prison’
https://mojoscotland.org/the-innocent-prisoners-dilemma/
you do realise you’ce just proved yourself wrong with this quote don’t you?
-
Mitchell is perceived as a continuing risk imo and that is why he might not be considered for parole and released early and not because he claims to be innocent. Yet more smoke and bluster from Mitchell supporters.
IF Luke is guilty, why do you think he killed Jodi, Angelo? I can't see any reason why he would have, unless he was high on cannabis, and not in control of what he was doing.
IF he no longer wanted to go out with her, because he preferred another girl, he could just have dumped her. Teenagers dump each other all the time!
-
IF Luke is guilty, why do you think he killed Jodi, Angelo? I can't see any reason why he would have, unless he was high on cannabis, and not in control of what he was doing.
IF he no longer wanted to go out with her, because he preferred another girl, he could just have dumped her. Teenagers dump each other all the time!
Jodi was brutally murdered, her body sustaining absolutely horrific injuries. What motive could ANYONE have had for such a frenzied and appalling attack on a young girl?
-
IF Luke is guilty, why do you think he killed Jodi, Angelo? I can't see any reason why he would have, unless he was high on cannabis, and not in control of what he was doing.
IF he no longer wanted to go out with her, because he preferred another girl, he could just have dumped her. Teenagers dump each other all the time!
your approaching this from your own perspective as rational person. the attack jodi endured was not rational.
-
Typical no new argument response, the difference being my reasons stand up to scrutiny while yours don't even get off the starting grid for logic.
I’ve not read your reasons so I’m afraid I can’t judge. Care to share?
-
IF Luke is guilty, why do you think he killed Jodi, Angelo? I can't see any reason why he would have, unless he was high on cannabis, and not in control of what he was doing.
IF he no longer wanted to go out with her, because he preferred another girl, he could just have dumped her. Teenagers dump each other all the time!
There was no cannabis in Luke’s system.
-
There are many prisoners who have confessed their guilt and fail their parole hearings, time after time. For murder that was deemed a much lesser disturbed one than that of Jodi Jones.
LM will know, that even with a confession of guilt, the likelihood of him gaining freedom may still be very slim. Therefore misleading people into thinking he must be innocent or he would be eligible for rehabilitation and release is wrong - it is in no way proof that he is anything other than guilty - as it stands.
Does and will the system allow the release of someone that committed such a heinous crime - back into society? Without concrete proof of innocence.
There is no proof of innocence - nothing has changed, same old pointing the finger at 'actual' and 'factual' innocent people, you know the one's who have not stood trial and been convicted.
People in our society who have had to endure the fairy tales that are spouted by those who demand 'Truth and Justice' sought by lies themselves?!
When confronted with these lies excuses are made of , the lie is not the point the point is these people should have done this? really, that makes their lies acceptable? as these people did not do what Ms Lean thought they should have done - in the fairy tale?
An example of this from the podcasts - the one in which Ms Lean and Ms Mitchel were singing from very different hymn sheets. Ms Lean is correct and Ms Mitchel simply confused?!
Nearly 17yrs to refine these episodes of acting some very strange parts.
I noticed now Ms Lean, perhaps due to more local people taking an interest has changed her wording from "The search trio had to walk directly passed YW's house" to now claiming they should have popped into here as it was mere yards away when going to this path. Still trying to push some same futile point however. With just a little exaggeration - Just yards away - is that 10 yards. 500 yards, a mile perhaps? Like the condom - was it just yards, 20yards or 50yards, used to infer it was very close to where this girl lay - really? hell of a lot of trees in-between these yards?
Jodi Jones was not found by any dog walkers, or the likes all of that evening. Hidden perhaps to enable the person who is sitting in prison time to cover up and dispose?
Why would the person who left a whole condom worth of DNA have seen anything - that will be the other diversion tactic of walking rights passed, really - no he did not Ms Lean, did he now? Let's keep him a suspect though - what else is there to do when there is no evidence to show LM is innocent but point the finger elsewhere at innocent people.
Happens inside the court, why not outside - simple reason really, it's called a prosecution and defence. Not a one man band - oops two man band, at times?
Those who do not wish to see will gladly have the wool pulled over their eyes - that's life.
-
There was no cannabis in Luke’s system.
He wasn’t arrested until months after the murder so when was he tested for the drug?
-
I’ve not read your reasons so I’m afraid I can’t judge. Care to share?
I asked you first why you think he is innocent?
-
IF Luke is guilty, why do you think he killed Jodi, Angelo? I can't see any reason why he would have, unless he was high on cannabis, and not in control of what he was doing.
IF he no longer wanted to go out with her, because he preferred another girl, he could just have dumped her. Teenagers dump each other all the time!
Why did he attack any of the girls? A psycho perhaps?
-
There are many prisoners who have confessed their guilt and fail their parole hearings, time after time. For murder that was deemed a much lesser disturbed one than that of Jodi Jones.
LM will know, that even with a confession of guilt, the likelihood of him gaining freedom may still be very slim. Therefore misleading people into thinking he must be innocent or he would be eligible for rehabilitation and release is wrong - it is in no way proof that he is anything other than guilty - as it stands.
Does and will the system allow the release of someone that committed such a heinous crime - back into society? Without concrete proof of innocence.
There is no proof of innocence - nothing has changed, same old pointing the finger at 'actual' and 'factual' innocent people, you know the one's who have not stood trial and been convicted.
People in our society who have had to endure the fairy tales that are spouted by those who demand 'Truth and Justice' sought by lies themselves?!
When confronted with these lies excuses are made of , the lie is not the point the point is these people should have done this? really, that makes their lies acceptable? as these people did not do what Ms Lean thought they should have done - in the fairy tale?
An example of this from the podcasts - the one in which Ms Lean and Ms Mitchel were singing from very different hymn sheets. Ms Lean is correct and Ms Mitchel simply confused?!
Nearly 17yrs to refine these episodes of acting some very strange parts.
I noticed now Ms Lean, perhaps due to more local people taking an interest has changed her wording from "The search trio had to walk directly passed YW's house" to now claiming they should have popped into here as it was mere yards away when going to this path. Still trying to push some same futile point however. With just a little exaggeration - Just yards away - is that 10 yards. 500 yards, a mile perhaps? Like the condom - was it just yards, 20yards or 50yards, used to infer it was very close to where this girl lay - really? hell of a lot of trees in-between these yards?
Jodi Jones was not found by any dog walkers, or the likes all of that evening. Hidden perhaps to enable the person who is sitting in prison time to cover up and dispose?
Why would the person who left a whole condom worth of DNA have seen anything - that will be the other diversion tactic of walking rights passed, really - no he did not Ms Lean, did he now? Let's keep him a suspect though - what else is there to do when there is no evidence to show LM is innocent but point the finger elsewhere at innocent people.
Happens inside the court, why not outside - simple reason really, it's called a prosecution and defence. Not a one man band - oops two man band, at times?
Those who do not wish to see will gladly have the wool pulled over their eyes - that's life.
Post of the day Parky 8((()*/
-
Take the reasons why you think he’s guilty, flip it and add a dash of logic.
What does this actually mean?
-
I asked you first why you think he is innocent?
There was a multitude of errors around the most important eye witness for the prosecution AB. There were two receipts from her shopping at the supermarket prior to her sighting and the police simply picked the one that fitted their timeline.The clothes of the people she described did not fit what it is known Luke and Jodi had worn on that night. She made it clear in court that the jacket she picked from the police photographs was most like the jacket she saw but that that jacket wasn’t a parka. She said she could not describe Luke’s face yet picked him out from a lineup, of course the only person standing in front of a white background was Luke. An expert in eye witness accounts has subsequently said that having a lighter background didn’t mean that the police put an arrow towards the photograph of Luke but they might as well have done.
No DNA or marks on Luke although we are told that Jodi fought furiously. When they took him to the police station after the body was found Luke still had dirt underneath his fingernails, dirt around his ankles and dirty hair meaning that he hadn’t had a shower. Further if we are to believe AB then Luke wasn’t wearing a parka, so no parka could have been burned in the small log burner..one of the main planks of the crown’s case.
There is so much more, the SK DNA debacle, the treatment of Shane Mitchell to make him change his story etc etc etc but that’s for another day.
Now for your thoughts?
-
I'm sure Luke is happy (from protection wing) at all support he has from outside that people spreading untruths has gained him. Tell us what his fellow inmates think of him and his story!
-
I'm sure Luke is happy (from protection wing) at all support he has from outside that people spreading untruths has gained him. Tell us what his fellow inmates think of him and his story!
I believe Joseph Steele spent some of his time in prison with Luke and says he believes that he is innocent.
-
I believe Joseph Steele spent some of his time in prison with Luke and says he believes that he is innocent.
Joseph steele is one man from how many years ago? No doubt Luke is convincing liar. Tell us about now and how many of his fellow inmates believe he's innocent. Very few! I'm sure he'll tell you different (from protection) . Actually feel sorry for Joe steele he's been dupped
-
Joseph steele is one man from how many years ago? No doubt Luke is convincing liar. Tell us about now and how many of his fellow inmates believe he's innocent. Very few! I'm sure he'll tell you different (from protection) . Actually feel sorry for Joe steele he's been dupped
Or you have.
-
Or you have.
most certainly not! Maybe Im more astute than you are. You seem to be one who has been duped! Ask luke(who is in protection) How much support he has from his felliw prisoners! Will emphasise the FROM PROTECTION! WHICH YOU DENY
-
most certainly not! Maybe Im more astute than you are. You seem to be one who has been duped
The truth is the truth...some people simply have trouble recognising it unfortunately.
-
There was a multitude of errors around the most important eye witness for the prosecution AB. There were two receipts from her shopping at the supermarket prior to her sighting and the police simply picked the one that fitted their timeline.The clothes of the people she described did not fit what it is known Luke and Jodi had worn on that night. She made it clear in court that the jacket she picked from the police photographs was most like the jacket she saw but that that jacket wasn’t a parka. She said she could not describe Luke’s face yet picked him out from a lineup, of course the only person standing in front of a white background was Luke. An expert in eye witness accounts has subsequently said that having a lighter background didn’t mean that the police put an arrow towards the photograph of Luke but they might as well have done.
No DNA or marks on Luke although we are told that Jodi fought furiously. When they took him to the police station after the body was found Luke still had dirt underneath his fingernails, dirt around his ankles and dirty hair meaning that he hadn’t had a shower. Further if we are to believe AB then Luke wasn’t wearing a parka, so no parka could have been burned in the small log burner..one of the main planks of the crown’s case.
There is so much more, the SK DNA debacle, the treatment of Shane Mitchell to make him change his story etc etc etc but that’s for another day.
Now for your thoughts?
Is that it? Is this your best shot at evidence of Mitchell's innocence?
Firstly, the Bryson sighting has no relevance whatsoever. It has no significance whether it was Luke and Jodi or someone else, it simply is not a factor in the equation.
As for no DNA on Luke, that is very easily explained. In my opinion he cleaned himself up and quite possibly changed his clothing before going out into the woods to get muddied up.
As for a parka, that is incorrect. Luke wore a green bomber jacket with orange lining. This jacket disappeared never to be seen again.
There was no 'treatment' of Shane Mitchell. He chose to give statements and testified at the trial. He was warned of the consequences of committing perjury and he took note. He told the court that his mother had influenced his first statement, he later retracted it and testified in court that he was alone in the family home at the time Luke Mitchell claimed to have been there.
Next?
-
The truth is the truth...some people simply have trouble recognising it unfortunately.
Truth is he's in protection and majority of his fellow prisoners don't believe he's innocent. Prove me wrong on both parts!
-
The truth is the truth...some people simply have trouble recognising it unfortunately.
You sure do!
-
I believe Joseph Steele spent some of his time in prison with Luke and says he believes that he is innocent.
That's funny and sad at the same time. Surely you don't believe such crap? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Joseph steele is one man from how many years ago? No doubt Luke is convincing liar. Tell us about now and how many of his fellow inmates believe he's innocent. Very few! I'm sure he'll tell you different (from protection) . Actually feel sorry for Joe steele he's been dupped
Don't you know every prisoner in a protection wing claims to be innocent.
-
The truth is the truth...some people simply have trouble recognising it unfortunately.
You being one on this occasion. Your poor logic in the case beggars belief.
-
Don't you know every prisoner in a protection wing claims to be innocent.
Yes you're right every prisoner on protection wing believes they are all innocent. They would! I'm talking about general population. Very few of them believe his innocence
-
Yes you're right every prisoner on protection wing believes they are all innocent. They would! I'm talking about general population. Very few of them believe his innocence
Reading around various forums/discussion pages, quite a number of people believe Luke is (or might be) innocent. Of course, I have no idea how well informed they are!
-
Is that it? Is this your best shot at evidence of Mitchell's innocence?
Firstly, the Bryson sighting has no relevance whatsoever. It has no significance whether it was Luke and Jodi or someone else, it simply is not a factor in the equation.
As for no DNA on Luke, that is very easily explained. In my opinion he cleaned himself up and quite possibly changed his clothing before going out into the woods to get muddied up.
As for a parka, that is incorrect. Luke wore a green bomber jacket with orange lining. This jacket disappeared never to be seen again.
There was no 'treatment' of Shane Mitchell. He chose to give statements and testified at the trial. He was warned of the consequences of committing perjury and he took note. He told the court that his mother had influenced his first statement, he later retracted it and testified in court that he was alone in the family home at the time Luke Mitchell claimed to have been there.
Next?
AB was a star witness, of course her identification is important if the jury heard it.
So Luke changed his clothing? He says he was wearing the same clothes at school. What do his school friends say? Were they questioned?
The parka is incorrect? After the police setting such store by it? The bomber jacket went missing? Was it burned in the small wood burner along with the parka?
He retracted nothing and I think before you comment further it might be worth reading the parts of Shane’s interview statements that are available as well as his court testimony in context.
I notice you failed to tell me why you’re so convinced that Luke is guilty.