What Was The Motive?

[Brietta]

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

Yes there is firm evidence that he Mitchell kept urine in bottles.
No idea if any reason was given for the practice by the defence.  But the introduction of the information about Mitchell's 'collection' during his trial was challenged at his first appeal against his conviction and was dismissed along with the other grounds.

[faithlilly]

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

Thank you Holly.

It appears that the case wasn’t only circumstantial but highly speculative. It is no wonder that the PF rejected it the first time it was presented to them.

[William Wallace]

Yes there is firm evidence that he Mitchell kept urine in bottles.
No idea if any reason was given for the practice by the defence.  But the introduction of the information about Mitchell's 'collection' during his trial was challenged at his first appeal against his conviction and was dismissed along with the other grounds.

Do you have scientific evidence that people who retain urine in bottles commit savage murders? Source?

[Mr Apples]

The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.

[Holly Goodhead]

The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.

This might help:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm

It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant.  The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it.  What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588

[Holly Goodhead]

Comment from the CoA doc re the urine:

A ground of appeal was also advanced challenging the decision of the trial judge to allow evidence to be led about certain bottles of urine. But it was acknowledged that this ground could not on its own justify the conclusion that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the trial judge gave clear directions to the jury that they should not judge the appellant on the basis of his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle, except to the extent that these might be relevant to the issues of fact which they had to decide. We have come to the view that, in the particular circumstances before him, the trial judge did not err in allowing the evidence in question to be led and that there is no merit in this ground of appeal.

[faithlilly]

This might help:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm

It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant.  The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it.  What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588

We can see what a prejudicial affect it may have had on the jury by looking at how it is viewed by some here.

[Nicholas]

This might help:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm

It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant.  The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it.  What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588

Had any of the jurors read about Luke Mitchell prior to them being selected for jury service

[Nicholas]

This might help:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm

It appears it featured at appeal but was rejected on the basis that the trial judge told the jury it was basically irrelevant.  The problem I have with this is that the tabloids demonised him over it.  What effect did this have on the minds of jurors?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/urine-under-bed-paints-picture-oddball-killer-2470588

And how many jurors had an internet connection back then?

[Nicholas]

Comment from the CoA doc re the urine:

A ground of appeal was also advanced challenging the decision of the trial judge to allow evidence to be led about certain bottles of urine. But it was acknowledged that this ground could not on its own justify the conclusion that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the trial judge gave clear directions to the jury that they should not judge the appellant on the basis of his personal conduct or habits or lifestyle, except to the extent that these might be relevant to the issues of fact which they had to decide. We have come to the view that, in the particular circumstances before him, the trial judge did not err in allowing the evidence in question to be led and that there is no merit in this ground of appeal.

We can see what a prejudicial affect it may have had on the jury by looking at how it is viewed by some here.

Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?

This is the reason he gave for doing so

[faithlilly]

And how many jurors had an internet connection back then?

I did so I’m sure many jurors did too. It’s a mute point anyway as the urine bottle ‘evidence’ was introduced in court.

[faithlilly]

Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?

This is the reason he gave for doing so

The point is that it didn’t matter why he did it. It was prejudicial and irrelevant.

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you have scientific evidence that people who retain urine in bottles commit savage murders? Source?

Most of use have quirks and idiosyncrasies to some extent which, if the subject of public debate, others might find odd or peculiar.  When someone is the subject of intense media scrutiny the tabloid press seek to find some material and use to sensationalise.  Those with an open-mind tend to see through it but others with perhaps a narrow world view and a prejudicial mind might struggle.

In this day and age of forensic science I would like to see all criminal cases tried solely on this. 

 

[Nicholas]

The retaining of the bottles of his own urine under his bed was attributed to PTSD, induced by his finding of Jodi’s body and the stress of being a suspect in the ensuing investigation. I think the family liaison officer tried to suggest that there was evidence that this habit existed before 30.06.03. Sorry, I don’t have any links or cites ... haven’t had the time to read more into this case or read more of Sandra’s book.

This is what Sandra Lean claims

[Brietta]

Did Luke Mitchell urinate in empty drinks bottles so as not to wake his family in the night by using the bathroom?

This is the reason he gave for doing so

Apparently Mitchell and his mother were sleeping downstairs at the time the bottles filled with urine were in storage in his upstairs bedroom.