Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews

[Nicholas]

[quote LUKE:   That was a hard blow.  I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad.  It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?

ENDS


A media circus WITHOUT him? What on earth did he mean I wonder?

Clearly another blatant lie

[faithlilly]

I probably wouldn’t be any more convinced of his innocence had he bawled his eyes out, no. When the circumstantial evidence against him is so considerable, it’s nigh on impossible to arrive on any other conclusion than guilty, imo.

Let me put you on the spot, faithlilly: if someone held a gun to your head and asked you if you thought Luke Mitchell was guilty or not guilty, what would you say? In this hypothetical situation, not proven is not an option. If you choose not guilty, I’d be very keen to read your reasons for this. Surely the considerable circumstantial evidence against him is just too strong to arrive at any other conclusion than guilty? Anyway, the floor is yours . . .

Again I think you’re asking the wrong question which should be, was the case against Luke proved beyond a reasonable doubt and I would have to say for me, and several of the jury who heard all the evidence, the answer has to be a resounding no.

My reasons? Although on the face of it the circumstantial case against Luke may seem quite weighty when you dissect those individual pieces of evidence there is problems with every one. This is a case of truly moving parts. The TOD is questionable. How was it established? From LK hearing a strangling sound ? He didn’t though, did he? He told the court that he had changed his statement under duress. Then there’s Andrina Bryson, the main eye witness, whose timings in both her first and second statements meant that it was impossible for her to see a still alive Jodi if the police TOD was true and further the description of the clothes the couple were wearing does not tally with what the teenagers were known to have been wearing. RW’s evidence was all over the place as Donald Findlay so expertly revealed during his cross examination. The way the identification of Luke was obtained from the former two witnesses also raises questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. Then of  course we have the constantly changing recollections of the search party who, it would appear, managed to remember that their primary statements had been wrong all at the same time.

Consider all of the above and add to the mix the absolutely horrendous way this CHILD was vilified in the press and no reasonable person could ever believe that the conviction was safe. Is Luke guilty? That’s between Luke and his god. Was he proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law after a competent investigation, absolutely not.

[Nicholas]

this CHILD was vilified in the press

Why did Corinne allow her child to be interviewed and filmed by the press?

[rulesapply]

Clearly another blatant lie

Some ego though, eh?

[mrswah]

[quote LUKE:   That was a hard blow.  I was dreading going to the funeral but I did want to go and being told not to go due to the fact that it would turn the funeral into a circus, a media circus, was bad.  It would have been a media circus without me but that was, if it was the family’s wishes, that’s what I was going to do?

ENDS


A media circus WITHOUT him? What on earth did he mean I wonder?

He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.

[rulesapply]

He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.

Granted but it wasn't a circus without him.

[Parky41]

He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.

So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?

Now you may have your doubts upon this conviction but as it stands that is exactly what he is, and exactly what he was at the time. You put a ? around this lad arriving home and letting his mother know what he had done? I too do that, I find it highly unlikely he told her exactly what he had done, we as parents find this hard to fathom, of giving help. Are you saying as a parent, you would have allowed your child to go ahead with being interviewed on the day of her funeral and furthered this with a visit to the grave, awash again with media. Standing smoking with your 15 - year old son at her grave whilst those cameras were upon you, even without them being there?  Or would you, as the majority of parents would have done, showed your respect privately? Honoured this girls life and death in a respectful private way, one that did not need the attention of the country, all eyes upon them?


No, surely not - which give insight does it not to exactly how their minds worked? And it does not show this meek, innocent lad doting on anyone, does it?  It shows a lad who really did not give a toss, did he? - and why should he have?

[faithlilly]

So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?

Now you may have your doubts upon this conviction but as it stands that is exactly what he is, and exactly what he was at the time. You put a ? around this lad arriving home and letting his mother know what he had done? I too do that, I find it highly unlikely he told her exactly what he had done, we as parents find this hard to fathom, of giving help. Are you saying as a parent, you would have allowed your child to go ahead with being interviewed on the day of her funeral and furthered this with a visit to the grave, awash again with media. Standing smoking with your 15 - year old son at her grave whilst those cameras were upon you, even without them being there?  Or would you, as the majority of parents would have done, showed your respect privately? Honoured this girls life and death in a respectful private way, one that did not need the attention of the country, all eyes upon them?


No, surely not - which give insight does it not to exactly how their minds worked? And it does not show this meek, innocent lad doting on anyone, does it?  It shows a lad who really did not give a toss, did he? - and why should he have?

A show of defiance…perhaps. An f-you to the press who had stopped him attending his girlfriend’s funeral…probably. By September I’m sure the Mitchell’s had had a gut full of being harassed by reporters, of having their every move photographed.  As far as Luke and his mother were concerned he had respected the Jones family request by not attending the actual funeral. If the reporters where willing to shatter the sanctity of a graveyard with their long lenses just to get a photograph of Luke who was to blame for that? Lest we forget at this point Luke, still a child in law, had been charged with nothing.

[faithlilly]

Granted but it wasn't a circus without him.

So the next day’s papers weren’t filled with photos of Jodi’s funeral?

[Nicholas]

Some ego though, eh?

That killer ego ….

[Nicholas]

He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.

What was the date the Jones family begun to suspect him as [Name removed]’s killer?

And on what date did JuJ attempt to comfort him and found him to be like a ‘stick of rock’ - without emotion?

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-1105317

‘Judy Jones branded Luke Mitchell "a sociopath".

She said: "Luke Mitchell is a person without feeling or emotion. I witnessed this on the day I went to his house (after the discovery of Jodi's body).

"He stood there like a stick of rock, did not show any emotion at all whilst I tried to cuddle him and give him comfort."

[rulesapply]

So the next day’s papers weren’t filled with photos of Jodi’s funeral?

Yes of course they were. That was to be expected. A circus implies it was a show, not genuine, for the cameras primarily, for an audience. I didn't see Jodi's funeral as a circus. The funeral itself and the mourners who attended the funeral I'm sure were all there for the right reasons. To mourn Jodi. However,  it would seem LM and CM attending Jodi's grave and giving Sky a televised interview on that day generated far more media coverage and for all the wrong reasons. Hence, the circus.

[Nicholas]

He may have meant that the media would be all over Jodi's funeral whether he was there or not, since the murder had been "big news" locally, ever since it had happened.

Do give over

[rulesapply]

That killer ego ….

He may not have attended the funeral itself but him and his mam certainly created a situation that firmly put the spotlight on them.

[Nicholas]

So just to get this clear? The person convicted of this girls death, the murderer who was suspect at the time - put himself at the fore of media attention not once but twice on the day of her funeral?

Why did Corinne Mitchell not recognise this behaviour as wrong - sadistic etc ?