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 October 09, 2025, 01:53:21 PM
-
Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's mum has sent a bleating letter to supporters begging for cash to fund a new legal case.
Corrine Mitchell penned the beseeching appeal as part of a fresh campaign to have her son's case overturned. The mother, who believes her murderer son is innocent, begged for funds as she announced her group has secured a "brand-new, top-tier" legal team to reinvestigate his conviction.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/killer-luke-mitchells-mum-begs-35893163
-
Over 20,000 pounds has been raised so far.
-
Over 20,000 pounds has been raised so far.
Yes, someone donated £5000 pounds last week and put it over the twenty, Chris.
That will get the new legal team started!
-
Yes, someone donated £5000 pounds last week and put it over the twenty, Chris.
That will get the new legal team started!
I just had a look at his Crowd Funding page and he’s had 666 donors so far. How incredibly appropriate!
-
I just had a look at his Crowd Funding page and he’s had 666 donors so far. How incredibly appropriate!
Ha ha! Very good, Vertigo, very good!
BUT!!! Hopefully his new legal team will prove he's nearer to a saint than a sinner!
-
Ha ha! Very good, Vertigo, very good!
BUT!!! Hopefully his new legal team will prove he's nearer to a saint than a sinner!
He’ll still be a satanist though presumably.
-
He’ll still be a satanist though presumably.
I dont know, Vertigo.
But after all, what is Satanism? Basically the worship of an imaginary figure!
No different to santa clause, just harmless mumbo jumbo!
Or do you actually believe in the Devil, Vertigo?
-
I dont know, Vertigo.
But after all, what is Satanism? Basically the worship of an imaginary figure!
No different to santa clause, just harmless mumbo jumbo!
Or do you actually believe in the Devil, Vertigo?
I don’t but presumably satanists do. If you’re equating worshipping the Devil with a child’s belief in Santa then I think that’s a bit disingenuous tbh. What kind of mentality do you need to actively worship the Devil? And even if Mitchell is a non theistic Satanist you’d have to agree that he is not doing himself any favours at all by publicly declaring his interest in the subject. This is a man convicted of a most gruesome (some might say ritualistic and devilish) murder. Why would anyone innocent of such a crime and seeking release from prison claim it was his religion?
-
I could not give a fig about Satanism. I am interested in what a new defense/investigatory team will do. Perhaps they can get samples tested, assuming that some were not destroyed.
-
I could not give a fig about Satanism. I am interested in what a new defense/investigatory team will do. Perhaps they can get samples tested, assuming that some were not destroyed.
Yes, well said, Chris, discussing Satanism isn't going to prove anything regarding guilt/innocence!
-
I hope you both put your money where your mouths are and gave very generously to get this Satanist out of jail!
-
I hope you both put your money where your mouths are and gave very generously to get this Satanist out of jail!
He will get out of jail eventually anyway, Vertigo, but the aim is for the new legal team to get a retrial and prove his innocence and have LM completely and utterly exonerated of the crime against him.
-
He will get out of jail eventually anyway, Vertigo, but the aim is for the new legal team to get a retrial and prove his innocence and have LM completely and utterly exonerated of the crime against him.
A retrial might find him not guilty or his guilt not proven but proving his innocence is a bit much to hope for imo. What is the killer piece of evidence that will exonerate him?
-
A retrial might find him not guilty or his guilt not proven but proving his innocence is a bit much to hope for imo. What is the killer piece of evidence that will exonerate him?
Seems to be the DNA from the knot on Jodi's trousers used by the killer to tie her hands, Vertigo!
-
Seems to be the DNA from the knot on Jodi's trousers used by the killer to tie her hands, Vertigo!
Who does the DNA belong to?
-
Who does the DNA belong to?
Good question, Vertigo!
I may be wrong, but I believe it allegedly belongs to an unknown person, whether it is a complete profile I am not sure, but it doesn't belong to LM, he has been ruled out.
BUT!! I may have got this wrong, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, they know far more about the case than I do.
I can always enquire over on twitter.
-
Good question, Vertigo!
I may be wrong, but I believe it allegedly belongs to an unknown person, whether it is a complete profile I am not sure, but it doesn't belong to LM, he has been ruled out.
BUT!! I may have got this wrong, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, they know far more about the case than I do.
I can always enquire over on twitter.
Yes, it says 'unidentified male DNA [semen] found on the trousers and several places on Jodi's body.
If this is correct, doesn't that rule out any of the known suspects? And if true, why was LM ever charged in the first place?
-
Another question is why did the police not believe that the crime was sexually motivated.
-
Another question is why did the police not believe that the crime was sexually motivated.
Yes, Scott Forbes has pointed that out many times, Chris.
-
A retrial might find him not guilty or his guilt not proven but proving his innocence is a bit much to hope for imo. What is the killer piece of evidence that will exonerate him?
What was the killer piece of evidence that convicted him?
-
Yes, it says 'unidentified male DNA [semen] found on the trousers and several places on Jodi's body.
If this is correct, doesn't that rule out any of the known suspects? And if true, why was LM ever charged in the first place?
Where does the information about the male DNA come from and why wasn’t it flagged in court by the defence or at subsequent appeals?
-
What was the killer piece of evidence that convicted him?
As I understand it, it was an accumulation of mostly circumstantial evidence, none of which was definitive proof. My question however was about the evidence that will (according to Joe) definitively prove his innocence.
-
Where does the information about the male DNA come from and why wasn’t it flagged in court by the defence or at subsequent appeals?
Not sure if the defence knew about it in court, Vertigo, but the sccrc requested samples around 2013 for testing but the Crown refused to hand them over, then of course many of the productions were destroyed after 'murder in a small town' was shown on TV.
Obviously the Crown wouldn't destroy any evidence earlier than it should have been if it pointed to LM as the killer, surely they would have wanted to re-test any forensic evidence with up to date technology to silence the LM supporters for once and for all? Not so, they tried to destroy the lot, and the only reason some may remain is because a police whistleblower with a conscience informed Scott Forbes what was happening.
-
Not sure if the defence knew about it in court, Vertigo, but the sccrc requested samples around 2013 for testing but the Crown refused to hand them over, then of course many of the productions were destroyed after 'murder in a small town' was shown on TV.
Obviously the Crown wouldn't destroy any evidence earlier than it should have been if it pointed to LM as the killer, surely they would have wanted to re-test any forensic evidence with up to date technology to silence the LM supporters for once and for all? Not so, they tried to destroy the lot, and the only reason some may remain is because a police whistleblower with a conscience informed Scott Forbes what was happening.
I don’t really understand. If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?
-
I don’t really understand. If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?
Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's clothing, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.
-
Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's clothing, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.
I see. And was this not used as part of the defence strategy at Mitchell's trial?
-
I don’t really understand. If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?
Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's t-shirt, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.
-
I see. And was this not used as part of the defence strategy at Mitchell's trial?
What? The unknown DNA? Couldn't have been surely, as this would have surely ruled out LM at the time?
No, I dont understand it either, Vertigo, maybe the police just took it for granted that the DNA found on Jodi's trousers and naked body would belong to LM, and when, to their surprise it didn't, they must have just ignored it?
BUT!! That would mean we have to accept that the police did indeed conspire to frame LM for the murder. But why?
Is it possible that the police did find out back in 2003 who the unknown DNA belonged to but didn't question them for some reason?
I really dont know. BUT!! Hopefully the new legal team will get to work soon and find out what is indeed fact and what is fiction.
-
What? The unknown DNA? Couldn't have been surely, as this would have surely ruled out LM at the time?
No, I dont understand it either, Vertigo, maybe the police just took it for granted that the DNA found on Jodi's trousers and naked body would belong to LM, and when, to their surprise it didn't, they must have just ignored it?
BUT!! That would mean we have to accept that the police did indeed conspire to frame LM for the murder. But why?
Is it possible that the police did find out back in 2003 who the unknown DNA belonged to but didn't question them for some reason?
I really dont know. BUT!! Hopefully the new legal team will get to work soon and find out what is indeed fact and what is fiction.
It says on the fundraising page “ Unexamined Forensic Evidence: Body fluid samples, including semen and sperm, remain in police custody but have never undergone modern DNA testing. ” If it’s never been examined then a) how do they know it’s semen and b) how do they know it doesn’t belong to Mitchell? Also, odd to differentiate between semen and sperm in the wording, semen includes sperm, surely?
-
It says on the fundraising page “ Unexamined Forensic Evidence: Body fluid samples, including semen and sperm, remain in police custody but have never undergone modern DNA testing. ” If it’s never been examined then a) how do they know it’s semen and b) how do they know it doesn’t belong to Mitchell? Also, odd to differentiate between semen and sperm in the wording, semen includes sperm, surely?
Yes, the semen samples have certainly been tested, but as you point out modern techniques may extract full profiles, Vertigo.
I think it would be small amounts of semen, sometimes just sperm heads as they talk about, hence the different terminology.
BUT! I am no medical expert whatsoever.
Again, hopefully we will soon know what samples remain when the new team start investigating.
And hopefully the police/crown will hand them over for testing when funding allows.
-
Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA. Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result. If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA. Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).
Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid. Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins. The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen. The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.
-
Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA. Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result. If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA. Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).
Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid. Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins. The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen. The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.
And there was semen and sperm of Jodi from two entirely separate males, neither of whom were Mitchell? Has this actually been confirmed?
-
And there was semen and sperm of Jodi from two entirely separate males, neither of whom were Mitchell? Has this actually been confirmed?
Well isn't that referring to Steven Kelly and the 'unknown male' who left semen on the trousers and naked body, Vertigo? Dont think i've heard of anyone else, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, or how about Kenmair, he is very knowledgeable on the LM case too!
Anyway, a podcaster made a good point recently regarding stocky man, asking why wasn't his DNA found at the crime scene if Jodi was killed in a wild frenzied attack? I mean its a good point, why wasn't his DNA on Jodie's clothes or body?
Scott Forbes maintains that Jodi was killed elsewhere and moved to the 'V', but even though, the killers DNA should still be on Jodi and her clothing, unless of course they were very carefull of course, but then this would point to a planned murder more akin to a serial killer rather than a sudden frenzied attack!
BUT!! Apparently we do have the killers DNA, Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the Campaign team have pointed out for years now that the semen found on Jodi's clothes and naked body 'must' have come from the killer, and this makes sense, how else could semen get all over Jodi's naked body? But more so onto the 'knot' binding Jodi's hands? Simply had to have come from the killer, surely? Meaning the killer produced that semen before moving Jodi's body and then tying her hands together!
So that takes us back to square one, and the obvious question, what action did the police take regarding the semen samples on Jodi and her clothing back in 2003 when they got the results back from the lab???
Surely they must have realized the semen belonged to the killer? Did they get any full profiles from them? They certainly got enough of a profile to rule out Luke anyway! Did they rule out anyone else? eg, stocky man? And if not, why not?
But lets just presume they tested all the suspects at the time against the semen samples, doesn't this point to an unknown visiting killer to the scene?
People often ask how the police ruled out the likes of Mark Kane and James Falconer years after the crime, but it stands to reason that this could easily be done if the police had the killers DNA to compare against theirs!
BUT! It just doesn't make sense for the police to charge Luke if they had DNA from the real killer, even if it was just a partial profile. And why did the police try to destroy all the DNA evidence rather than re-test the samples with more up to date technology to hopefully find the real killer? Their actions make no sense, do they??
No, it has to be said, if there really is/was DNA samples from the killer on Jodi and her clothing, then something very strange is going on with the LM case and has been ongoing since ever the police got the results of the semen samples back in 2003!
Lets just hope the new legal team can uncover the truth about the semen found on Jodi soon!
-
Well isn't that referring to Steven Kelly and the 'unknown male' who left semen on the trousers and naked body, Vertigo? Dont think i've heard of anyone else, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, or how about Kenmair, he is very knowledgeable on the LM case too!
Anyway, a podcaster made a good point recently regarding stocky man, asking why wasn't his DNA found at the crime scene if Jodi was killed in a wild frenzied attack? I mean its a good point, why wasn't his DNA on Jodie's clothes or body?
Scott Forbes maintains that Jodi was killed elsewhere and moved to the 'V', but even though, the killers DNA should still be on Jodi and her clothing, unless of course they were very carefull of course, but then this would point to a planned murder more akin to a serial killer rather than a sudden frenzied attack!
BUT!! Apparently we do have the killers DNA, Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the Campaign team have pointed out for years now that the semen found on Jodi's clothes and naked body 'must' have come from the killer, and this makes sense, how else could semen get all over Jodi's naked body? But more so onto the 'knot' binding Jodi's hands? Simply had to have come from the killer, surely? Meaning the killer produced that semen before moving Jodi's body and then tying her hands together!
So that takes us back to square one, and the obvious question, what action did the police take regarding the semen samples on Jodi and her clothing back in 2003 when they got the results back from the lab???
Surely they must have realized the semen belonged to the killer? Did they get any full profiles from them? They certainly got enough of a profile to rule out Luke anyway! Did they rule out anyone else? eg, stocky man? And if not, why not?
But lets just presume they tested all the suspects at the time against the semen samples, doesn't this point to an unknown visiting killer to the scene?
People often ask how the police ruled out the likes of Mark Kane and James Falconer years after the crime, but it stands to reason that this could easily be done if the police had the killers DNA to compare against theirs!
BUT! It just doesn't make sense for the police to charge Luke if they had DNA from the real killer, even if it was just a partial profile. And why did the police try to destroy all the DNA evidence rather than re-test the samples with more up to date technology to hopefully find the real killer? Their actions make no sense, do they??
No, it has to be said, if there really is/was DNA samples from the killer on Jodi and her clothing, then something very strange is going on with the LM case and has been ongoing since ever the police got the results of the semen samples back in 2003!
Lets just hope the new legal team can uncover the truth about the semen found on Jodi soon!
So how do those that you have been arguing with for years on this subject explain away the unknown DNA?
-
So how do those that you have been arguing with for years on this subject explain away the unknown DNA?
Well, over on twitter they more or less deny the existence of any untested samples, but as I said, the likes of Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents clearly referencing the semen samples and who they do or dont belong to!
BUT! Surely the new legal team can clarify exactly what samples there were, who they belonged to and what still remains! This will hopefully put an end to any speculation, Vertigo!
-
Well, over on twitter they more or less deny the existence of any untested samples, but as I said, the likes of Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents clearly referencing the semen samples and who they do or dont belong to!
BUT! Surely the new legal team can clarify exactly what samples there were, who they belonged to and what still remains! This will hopefully put an end to any speculation, Vertigo!
Hmm, I see. So what are these documents then? Where did they originate from?
-
Hmm, I see. So what are these documents then? Where did they originate from?
Well, the likes of Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the campaign team have all had access to the original case files and statements.
-
Well, the likes of Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the campaign team have all had access to the original case files and statements.
Has anyone else actually laid eyes on them, or must we just take their word for it?
-
Has anyone else actually laid eyes on them, or must we just take their word for it?
I take it you're not a member of twitter then, Vertigo?
Both Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents there, Scott even posted photos of the crime scene.
BUT! As I keep saying, hopefully the new legal team will soon have access to everything too, and we will see exactly what the truth is regarding the semen samples.
-
I take it you're not a member of twitter then, Vertigo?
Both Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents there, Scott even posted photos of the crime scene.
BUT! As I keep saying, hopefully the new legal team will soon have access to everything too, and we will see exactly what the truth is regarding the semen samples.
I steer clear of twitter, it’s too depressing, and I’m certainly not that invested in this case to follow the likes of Scott Forbes on there.
-
I steer clear of twitter, it’s too depressing, and I’m certainly not that invested in this case to follow the likes of Scott Forbes on there.
Well, you will find me under Joe Blogs there too, if you do venture in, Vertigo!
I have said myself that twitter is not for the faint hearted, there is no moderation there whatsoever!
-
Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA. Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result. If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA. Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).
Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid. Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins. The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen. The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.
Thanks Chris. So there's a good chance of getting a full profile from any remaining samples then?
-
It is difficult to say with certainty, but I would say that it is reasonable to try. Although it is difficult to say (given the limited amount of information available publicly) DNA testing, probably the Y chromosome, was highly probative in the Andrew Malkinson case, which was almost exactly contemporaneous with the present one.
-
It is difficult to say with certainty, but I would say that it is reasonable to try. Although it is difficult to say (given the limited amount of information available publicly) DNA testing, probably of the Y chromosome, was highly probative in the Andrew Malkinson case, which was almost exactly contemporaneous with the present one.
OK, thanks Chris.
-
A sum of over 30,000 pounds has been pledged in the campaign.
-
DNA won't prove anything in this case one way or another. Circumstantial evidence and Mitchell's own behaviour prior to the murder together with his brother's evidence sealed it for him.
Shame Mitchell stated in evidence that he was alone in the family home at the time of the murder so Luke Mitchell's alibi was non existent. Now ask yourself, why would anyone lie about this unless they were involved?
-
A sum of over 30,000 pounds has been pledged in the campaign.
Yes, there was two big donations of around 5,000 pounds, Chris.
One of the donations put it up to 20,000 then another put it up to 30.000, someone must have a firm belief of LM innocence! And plenty of spare cash too! 8@??)(
-
John,
What do you mean Luke's behavior prior to the murder?