What Was The Motive?

[Holly Goodhead]

https://www.loudersound.com/news/police-treat-attack-on-goth-teenager-as-hate-crime

[William Wallace]

There was also some "kissing and that" between Mr Leitch and Jodi, which was mentioned in Jodi's diary, the court heard

never read anything to suggest this was serious proposed as a motive but a young man flying off the handle in a jealous rage is hardly far fetched, and does in fact happen frighteningly often


What about a possible deep seated misogynistic element as opposed ‘flying off the handle in a jealous rage’ ?

What was it that could have triggered Luke Mitchell’s sadistic nature?

And why did he consider suicide at such a young age - or threaten to kill himself?

“I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide”(2018)

I think you are going to be on here questioning why Mitchell might have done it with questions like the above for another 20 years. Can't you see the wood because of the trees???? It WASN'T MITCHELL...there was NO MOTIVE.


1. No motive for LM to kill [Name removed]. The Police theory that it was because of KT....people age 14/15 carrying out murders over a flirty connection with another person? Show me evidence of one case where that's happened at age 14/15.

2. No DNA at murder scene, no DNA on LM's clothes or in his house. Professor Alan Jamieson has already more or less said that would be impossible.

3. Anyone who knows anything about human psychology and recall knows that the first statements given should always be taken as the most likely to be true and accurate. In this case the truth is that the dog alerted LM at the wall. If LM actually did do it, is he going to lead people straight to the body lol? Why would he do that?


4. The timeline is just plain stupid. If the murder happened at 5.15pm (ignoring the fact everything points to it being later). How did LM manage to get back to Newbattle where he met other young people 40 minutes later? He wouldn't have got back to the house until 5.30pm, so he had 20 minutes to get rid of all clothes, clean himself up and get rid of all forensic evidence in the house. He defeated the laws of forensic science. Not bad for a 15 year old?


Look at the amount of lies told, look at why the search party went up a pitch black path at 11pm at night without checking whether Jodi was in other houses first including walking right past a house she'd been found in 2 months earlier when she didn't come back when she was supposed to. Look at why some statements disappeared and why others were never asked to give evidence. Then ask yourself this.......is any of this what would be expected in the circumstances?

[William Wallace]

Have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER.

Also check the new post by UndertheSun. Maybe I wasn't so "crazy" after all?

[Rusty]

I have now received a WARNING !! Why have I received a warning ??? At no time have I named who I think did it, but I'm being given yellow cards with an imminent red card no doubt being prepared. For what? For putting forward an alternative theory which would point the finger away from Mitchell?

I thought there was free speech in here as long as you don't say Mr or Mrs X did it. Seemingly any theories which could prove Mitchell is innocent merit a warning. That tells you something, or it should do.

Before they ban me have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER. Are they going to ban me for mentioning these?

Whoever issued me with the unjust warning because I didn't name anyone or accuse anyone, I can tell you gagging people won't work I'm afraid. The snowball has already started rolling down the mountain. The truth has been suppressed for 17 years. The walls are closing in on the real killer.

That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.

[WakeyWakey]

That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.

bible quotes. This isn't National Treasure 3. It's a real murder that happened.

[William Wallace]

That is a brand-new twitter account with 3 followers. Get outta here.

Obviously it's new. There was no reason to post anything like that about this case before the C5 documentary was there? Who do you think the 3 followers are? I'm sure it's not Neil Lennon, Stephen Gerrard and Lewis Hamilton. Or do you think it is? There has been several sinister posts by the way and linked to another account with the name Jones in it.

I'll spell it out......normal Twitter users don't have ONLY 3 followers. The account is clearly being used for one purpose and followed by a selectively chosen number of people. What's that old saying? "3 is a crowd?"

[William Wallace]

I can't see any motive for Luke murdering Jodi, unless he was high on cannabis, and unaware of what he was doing (unlikely, IMO).

14 year old boys who want to get rid of their girlfriends, dump them, not murder them. However, there is no evidence that Luke no longer wanted Jodi as his girlfriend.

Yes, that's why Dobbie taking 18 months to come up with such a ridiculous excuse for a motive was pathetic. Utterly pathetic, utterly ludicrous, but this was the best he could do??

[Brietta]

Yes, that's why Dobbie taking 18 months to come up with such a ridiculous excuse for a motive was pathetic. Utterly pathetic, utterly ludicrous, but this was the best he could do??

Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom?  Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom?  Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.

Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? 

Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so. 

I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J. 

[mrswah]

Why did Mitchell keep a collection of bottles of his urine in his bedroom?  Maybe when we have his motive for doing that we'll be able to work out why he killed and mutilated Jodi.

Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?

Just a guess-------

[Brietta]

Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? 

Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so. 

I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.

Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.

Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so.  Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.

I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.  Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.

[Holly Goodhead]

Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?

Just a guess-------

Does firm evidence exist that he kept urine in bottles? If so what reason did the defence/LM give for doing so?

[faithlilly]

Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.

Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so.  Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.

I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.  Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.

It’s not so unusual....disgusting but not unusual.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/teenagers/2331562-Today-I-tidied-my-teens-bedroom-and-found

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8884637/Man-leaves-dozens-water-bottles-filled-URINE-floor-girlfriends-bedroom.html

I’ll bet my bottom dollar that none of the individuals in the links above went on to murder anyone.

[Brietta]

Samples in case he was asked to do a drug test?

Just a guess-------

Apparently there is a market for it if it is obtained from a drugs free individual.  That does not apply to what we are told of Mitchell's habitual drug use.

Apparently it is also a practice used by some methamphetamine users.  Who think they can get a 'high' from drinking their own or others' urine in the belief it contains active components of their meths use.

https://askthepsych.com/atp/2008/10/08/storing-bottles-of-urine/#:~:text=Storing%20bottles%20of%20urine%20is%20not%20uncommon%20in,may%20be%20selling%20her%20urine%20for%20this%20purpose.

[Holly Goodhead]

Does evidence exist showing he did keep his urine in bottles? Unless someone was telling huge great whoppers about his urine collection to the trial judge and jury there sure is evidence.

Assuming he did there could be loads of benign reasons for doing so.  Such as?m
And there is no assumption about it ~ there is absolutely no question that he did pee into bottles which were found in his bedroom.

I don't see a connection between the above and the murder of J J.  Why does that hold not the slightest surprise for me.

Are you able to provide a reliable cite for the claims about urine as I can't locate in Crown's case:

Outline of the Crown case at trial

[14] In his address to the jury the Advocate depute relied on a number of circumstantial adminicles and highlighted three "key" chapters of evidence.

[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.

[16] The second key was the evidence of the witness Andrina Bryson. She had seen a male and a female standing near the Easthouses end of the path at around 1650 or 1655. The female was standing close to the beginning of the path on the pavement looking towards the male, who was on the path. The witness identified the appellant from a book of photographs as being the male whom she had seen. She noted him as wearing a khaki green, hip-length, fishing-style jacket. Its collar was up, and it had a pocket which was bulging. She was unable to identify the female, but gave a description of someone with black, shoulder length hair, which seemed to be contained like a ponytail, wearing a navy blue jumper with a hood and a pair of lighter trousers, which she took to be a pair of jeans. The Crown submitted that, if she had left the house and proceeded directly to the path, the deceased would have been near the Easthouses end of the path at the time of this sighting, and asked the jury to accept that this was a sighting of the appellant and the deceased together.

[17] Thereafter the Crown relied on a variety of other circumstantial adminicles to implicate the appellant.

[18] Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh identified the appellant as someone whom they had seen at around 1740 to 1745 on the evening of the murder at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".

[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it.

[20] The appellant had an interest in knives, having been seen, in particular, with a 4 inch lock-knife, contained in a pouch (a "skunting" knife), in the months prior to the murder (a sample knife was lodged as a production). That knife and pouch were not found during the police search of the appellant's house on 4 July 2003. The appellant was seen returning home from the area of Newbattle Road at around 2200 on the night of the murder. The suggestion was made that he could have disposed of the knife at that time. Another knife and pouch were purchased for him in December 2003 by his mother, Corinne Mitchell. During a search of the appellant's home on 14 April 2004, the pouch from the knife, but not the knife itself, was recovered. A number of inscriptions had been made on the pouch: the numbers "666"; an inscription which read "[Name removed] 1989 - 2003", these being the years of the deceased's birth and death; and the words "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", a quote from the lead singer of Nirvana.

[21] Two days after the murder the appellant purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, "The Golden Age of the Grotesque", which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as "The Black Dahlia", who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that, while the circumstances of death were not identical, there was some similarity between the location and type of injury inflicted upon the deceased, and those inflicted upon the actress Elizabeth Short. There was no evidence that the appellant had accessed this website.

[22] Evidence was also led about generally unusual behaviour by the appellant. There was some evidence that he had an interest in Satanism, which was expressed in essays which he wrote and in graffiti which appeared on his school books.

[23] Another circumstance relied on by the Crown was a comment made by the appellant to the witness David High on the evening of 30 June to the effect that the deceased would not be coming out on that evening. This comment was made after the appellant had spoken to Alan Ovens and been informed that the deceased had left to meet him. The Crown invited the inference that the appellant knew the deceased was already dead.

[24] The Crown led evidence to undermine the credibility of Corinne Mitchell. In particular, evidence was led that she was present when the appellant obtained a tattoo in October 2003, and that she had confirmed his age as being over 18. This tattoo depicted a skull with flames coming from it. Mrs Mitchell had stated to members of staff - "that's really him". The Crown's position was that this evidence demonstrated an unhealthy relationship between the appellant and his mother, to the point where she was indulging inappropriate behaviour on his part, and undermined her evidence in support of his alibi. The witness denied several of these allegations. Evidence from members from staff at the tattoo parlour, as well as expert fingerprint evidence of a consent form signed in the name of an acquaintance of Mrs Mitchell with the appellant's fingerprints upon it, was led. This evidence was subject to a defence objection. It was admitted but the jury was directed that it was only relevant to Mrs Mitchell's credibility.

[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.

[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.

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