What Was The Motive?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's certainly the case that LM attacked my friend's son at school - I mentioned it on here, but it was dismissed as gossip and hearsay, of course.

What was his reason for doing so and what form did the attack take?

[Brietta]

No, I don't !  She wasn't really a Goth anyway, and neither was Luke. They just adopted some aspects, as many young people do-----IMO.

I suspect that, if Luke killed her, he did it while he was high on drugs.

If someone else killed her, it was, IMO, either because she knew something that the killer didn't want revealed, or it was a murder by a random  person with a serious psychopathic disorder.

Just my opinion, though.

I agree with that assessment.  I don't think either of them were seriously into Goth culture.  And what you say about random assailants is perfectly possible and in fact may well have precedent.

Where I part company with you is in reference to Mitchell.

We are led to believe he was a regular and perhaps heavy drug user.  But from what I know of the cannabis in use at that time I don't think however high he might have been, I don't think cannabis would have been a factor in what he did to Jodi.
Perhaps he was using a different drug or a combination, but I've never seen any gossip about that although Shane appears to have had real issues with drugs.

I think the circumstances of the case made by good old fashioned police work weaved all the threads together to make a viable case against Luke Mitchell.  As I see it each piece of the puzzle slotted into the next and contrary to what I have seen some people saying the police did check out others and eliminated them leaving only Mitchell in the frame.
I must also say that I feel that neither he nor his mother did him any favours in the months between his 'finding' Jodi's body and the police laying charges against him.

[Paranoid Android]

What was his reason for doing so and what form did the attack take?

I was talking to the guy a few days after the recent documentary, and he told me LM attacked his son in the school playground, and that people had to pull him off.

My friend says he couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in the trial, which shows a balanced perspective, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt him.

[Brietta]

I'm sure some jurors take the proceedings far more seriously than do others!

I took jury service very seriously indeed and short acquaintance with my fellow jurors (in the jury room pre trial where they were at pains to get as much information about their duties from court officers) led me to form the opinion that they did too.

I have no reason to think that a murder trial jury wouldn't take their duties even more seriously.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was talking to the guy a few days after the recent documentary, and he told me LM attacked his son in the school playground, and that people had to pull him off.

My friend says he couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in the trial, which shows a balanced perspective, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt him.

Did he not say why Mitchell had attacked his son in thefirst place?

[faithlilly]

It's certainly the case that LM attacked my friend's son at school - I mentioned it on here, but it was dismissed as gossip and hearsay, of course.

Not gossip or hearsay...just a father who wasn’t too happy that the other boy had got the better of his son in a childish fight. It’s understandable that your friend may not have been particularly objective about the incident.

[Paranoid Android]

Did he not say why Mitchell had attacked his son in the first place?

He didn't say - he wasn't there, and it was a long time ago.

Worth noting that he didn't say it was a fight where LM got the better of his son - he said it was an attack.

As I said, the fact that my friend can't be sure of LM's guilt is a decent indicator of his objectivity.

[faithlilly]

He didn't say - he wasn't there, and it was a long time ago.

Worth noting that he didn't say it was a fight where LM got the better of his son - he said it was an attack.

As I said, the fact that my friend can't be sure of LM's guilt is a decent indicator of his objectivity.

Of course he said it was an attack. Do you think his son would have confessed, if it was him who started it?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Of course he said it was an attack. Do you think his son would have confessed, if it was him who started it?

It seems you’ve decidednMitchell was the victim here, typical.

[Holly Goodhead]

No, I don't !  She wasn't really a Goth anyway, and neither was Luke. They just adopted some aspects, as many young people do-----IMO.

I suspect that, if Luke killed her, he did it while he was high on drugs.

If someone else killed her, it was, IMO, either because she knew something that the killer didn't want revealed, or it was a murder by a random  person with a serious psychopathic disorder.

Just my opinion, though.

But if someone else killed J J because she knew something that the killer didn't want revelaed why the mutilation?  Some of her injuries were inflicted post death albeit the perp may not have realised. 

Its the grotesque nature of the injuires that I find unfathomable?  To my mind the perp(s?) was someone either off their head(s) on drink and/or drugs and/or suffered some sort of mental illness.

[Holly Goodhead]

I took jury service very seriously indeed and short acquaintance with my fellow jurors (in the jury room pre trial where they were at pains to get as much information about their duties from court officers) led me to form the opinion that they did too.

I have no reason to think that a murder trial jury wouldn't take their duties even more seriously.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/juror-fell-asleep-sex-case-17130300

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/09/jurors-suspended-jail-terms-serious-contempt-court

[Holly Goodhead]

Luke was IMO not a typical 14 year old. 
He was a regular drug user (statistically only around 10% of 14 year olds have taken drugs in the last month, Mitchell was a regular user apparently).
He carried knives
He stored his urine
He had (and still has) a fascination with the macabre and Satan
He was sexually active.
He had demonstrated threatening behaviour to other females
He had little respect for authority figures

In short he was a bit of a nightmare teen even before the murder conviction.  None of the above makes him a murderer but they do IMO paint a very worrying picture of a troubled youth.

Many of the points on your list are perfectly legitimate lifestyle choices. 

He broke the law, aided by his mother, by having a tattoo, smoking cannabis and engaging in underage sex.  Hardly out of the norm for a nearly 15 year old. 

I believe J J also smoked cannabis and her sexual relationship with LM was consensual? 

It appears he owned a knife but did he carry one?  If so was it illegal to do so?

Did any witnesses appear at trial for the proseuction over threatening behaviour?

Some claim that the Harry Potter series contain occult or Satanic subtexts.  Stephen King is also criticised:

In addition to the above, the overall perception of King’s writing has kept him from the
canon. King’s works are often considered light reading or literary “mind candy” because they
are part of the gothic or horror genres, genres that are not generally considered academic.

Counsel described LM as follows:

Counsel had found the appellant to be intelligent, courteous, respectful and conscious of the seriousness of his position.

[Holly Goodhead]

With regard to L M's tattoo I believe J J had a lip piercing which is illegal in Scotland below the age of 16?

[William Wallace]

Wrong.

[William Wallace]

We know what you mean. Let's put that in context. There was mass media attention. The papers however were not full of the headlines you put, leading up to the trial. The stories printed throughout the trial relating to evidence heard, the urine and so forth is irrelevant to the jury, they were hearing this evidence first hand. What the DF article is relating to is internet access of other information that may have influenced a Jury, a Jury whom were allowed to go home.
This type of access and discussion was not anywhere near the scale it was in 2010 to the present day. However:

Of the animals, dogs, Satan, Manson and of trial by media in general - I agree with you wholeheartedly. That 99% of people like you, believed everything they had read in the rags, and in turn they are the very same people, like you again, of which, 99% of you now believe him to be innocent by the very same means. By reading guff? - That this 99% of people the same as you, tried LM on guff and are now trying everyone else again by means of guff? You? are thankfully very much a tiny minority. Therefore the chances of the Jury being made up of 'you' is virtually non-existent? These claims of complete trial by media do nothing more that deflect away from the actual evidence. As that minority who based their guilt solely on this Goth, music taste and so forth were not interested in the actual evidence itself. Completely swayed by sensationalist stories. And are again. Boys cutting off their hair to impersonate themselves on bikes?

You are however correct - as was the decision to hold this trial in Edinburgh. It would not have mattered where it was held in Scotland due to mass media coverage. But please, do not judge others to all be the same as you?

WRONG again. The newspapers were full of those stories daily. As a matter of fact I've still got many of them because I keep old newspapers when there are significant events in Scotland, be it murders or football. If you want to pay me by the hour in advance I'll start scanning them for you and uploading them on here. I've got hundreds of copies from 2000-2010.
[/quote]