If it wisnae him, who was it? Initial Reaction After Reading Case Summaries

[guest29835]

This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum.  I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.

Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him.  I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.

Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted?  If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?

[Steve_uk]

This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum.  I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.

Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him.  I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.

Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted?  If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?

I think one has to be in the courtroom to get a feel of the case. It's easy to be wise after the event. I suppose his lack of an alibi, the burning of the pies story and his dog discovering the body does tend to go against him, along with his rather uncouth lifestyle.

Anyway it gives me a chance to post Sandra's podcast again in the hope she will contribute to the Forum  soon. https://youtu.be/YpvNhBNpvl4

[guest29835]

I think one has to be in the courtroom to get a feel of the case. It's easy to be wise after the event. I suppose his lack of an alibi, the burning of the pies story and his dog discovering the body does tend to go against him, along with his rather uncouth lifestyle.

Anyway it gives me a chance to post Sandra's podcast again in the hope she will contribute to the Forum  soon. https://youtu.be/YpvNhBNpvl4

Thanks.

Yes, I agree there is no substitute for actually being in the courtroom and it's easy to be wise after the event and make 'armchair criticisms'.  But here we are and we have no other way of going about it.

I may well come down on the same side as you in this case.  Or I may not.  We will see.  I need to do some more reading. 

I've also been brushing up on Scots law, an interesting hybrid of Roman civil law from the Continent and the common law tradition.

The criminal burden of proof in Scotland is 'beyond reasonable doubt', whereas in English law it is 'you must be sure'.  I don't think there can be much practical difference between the two, and most English lawyers and academic lawyers seem to just use the words 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a matter of course (though I would assume that they can't say that in front of a jury). 

I also understand that in Scots procedure, a jury can convict on a majority verdict as a matter of course, without any special direction needed from the bench; and, this majority verdict can be a simple majority!  Scots juries are 15 (minimum of 12 to be maintained), which means a conviction can stand even if, say, seven jurors voted for acquittal. I find that incredible - it seems to me that it's a huge flaw in the Scottish system.  I'm not yet sure whether the verdict in the Mitchell case was by majority.

Significantly, there are also two acquittal verdicts available in Scotland: Not Guilty and Not Proven.  The history of these is quite complicated.  As I understand it, the Not Proven verdict started out as the verdict for moral and factual exoneration, whereas Not Guilty meant that the jury thought the accused had committed the act, but acquitted him anyway on the basis that he had not acted with a 'guilty mind' - hence the phrase, 'Not Guilty'.  The meaning of Not Guilty then gradually changed so that today it signifies exoneration, while Not Proven merely suggests that the jury are not satisfied that the prosecution case met the burden of proof.

[Steve_uk]

I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.

[guest29835]

I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.

Yes, I imagine in many cases that's exactly what it means!

[David1819]

This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum.  I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.

Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him.  I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.

Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted?  If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?

Yes, I believe he is guilty. I wont be going over this case again but feel free to read all my posts on it.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939

[killingeve]

I always thought "Not Proven" meant "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again.". As far as Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence is concerned I haven't yet made up my mind on the facts available. I was only speculating in my earlier post.

I spent some time looking at the case on another forum but like you I'm undecided. 

I think the fact Jodie dressed as a Goth went unnoticed by the authorities - reference the murder of Sophie Lancaster. 

Also I am not sure what if anything can be read into the following

Date                        Victim                 Relationship       Verdict                            Location       
                                                         to Jodie

9th Jul 1998            Jimmy Jones         Father               Suicide by hanging           Dalkeith           

30th Jun 2003         Jodie Jones                                   Murder by knife attack      Dalkeith     

2nd Jul 2004            Eddie Jones         Uncle                Suicide by hanging            Dalkeith

Coincidence?  Or connected in some way?         

[guest29835]

Yes, I believe he is guilty. I wont be going over this case again but feel free to read all my posts on it.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg452939.html#msg452939

Thanks for the link.

Unless you say to the contrary, I will assume by this reply that you think both that he did it and he was rightly convicted on the evidence.  My interest specifically is not in whether he did it, as I have no means to establish that one way or the other.  No doubt Mr Mitchell will swear blind he didn't do it, while his detractors will say otherwise.  I confine my interest to the legal safely of the conviction against the known facts and evidence.  On that basis, the case against him seems rather weak, though I have not come to a firm conclusion yet and I am interested to hear from people who think he was rightly convicted what it is that brings them to this conclusion.  What are the headline points or the one incriminating fact or piece of evidence that tells you he is?

Another peculiarity of Scots law that existed at the time and is relevant to the case is that there was no statutory or common law right to legal representation during police questioning.  The position has now changed following intervention from, respectively, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court, but at the time I am given to understand that not only was Luke Mitchell questioned without a lawyer, he had no right to one!  That sounds like the goings on of a banana republic.

Another thing is that Luke Mitchell was very young at the time all this occurred.  When they said he was a child, I just assumed they were being a bit disingenuous and he was actually something like 17 and thus only legally a 'child'.  But no, he was 14, as was the poor victim.  14 is very young.  It is the rough age when puberty becomes manifest and it is the cusp of the first stage of adult maturity.  To lock someone up for a minimum of 20 years in those circumstances is a big deal, but then, if he is guilty, the crime was horrific and suggests deep disturbances and depraved criminality.

[Steve_uk]

"I'm not diagnosing anyone..only speculating what could be happening in a situation like this.."  https://youtu.be/8EXa6VW_Nds

[David1819]

Thanks for the link.

Unless you say to the contrary, I will assume by this reply that you think both that he did it and he was rightly convicted on the evidence.  My interest specifically is not in whether he did it, as I have no means to establish that one way or the other.  No doubt Mr Mitchell will swear blind he didn't do it, while his detractors will say otherwise.  I confine my interest to the legal safely of the conviction against the known facts and evidence.  On that basis, the case against him seems rather weak, though I have not come to a firm conclusion yet and I am interested to hear from people who think he was rightly convicted what it is that brings them to this conclusion.  What are the headline points or the one incriminating fact or piece of evidence that tells you he is?

Another peculiarity of Scots law that existed at the time and is relevant to the case is that there was no statutory or common law right to legal representation during police questioning.  The position has now changed following intervention from, respectively, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court, but at the time I am given to understand that not only was Luke Mitchell questioned without a lawyer, he had no right to one!  That sounds like the goings on of a banana republic.

Another thing is that Luke Mitchell was very young at the time all this occurred.  When they said he was a child, I just assumed they were being a bit disingenuous and he was actually something like 17 and thus only legally a 'child'.  But no, he was 14, as was the poor victim.  14 is very young.  It is the rough age when puberty becomes manifest and it is the cusp of the first stage of adult maturity.  To lock someone up for a minimum of 20 years in those circumstances is a big deal, but then, if he is guilty, the crime was horrific and suggests deep disturbances and depraved criminality.

The circumstantial evidence (from what I can see of it) I find rather compelling.

[killingeve]

The circumstantial evidence (from what I can see of it) I find rather compelling.

Well there's no Julie Mugford and Silencer but yes there's lots of circumstantial, if you can call it that, so you're not really making much sense imo.  Bamber you have declared innocent and Mitchell guilty 

Think David has me on ignore 

[Steve_uk]

Well there's no Julie Mugford and Silencer but yes there's lots of circumstantial, if you can call it that, so you're not really making much sense imo.  Bamber you have declared innocent and Mitchell guilty 

Think David has me on ignore

He has several people on ignore. He's the soliloquist of the site.

[David1819]

I have copied and pasted some of my old posts if this helps anyone.

"the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650"

4:35pm - Jodi texts Luke

4:36pm - Luke texts Jodi back

4:50pm - Jodi leaves her house. Telling her mum she is going to see Luke.

4.53pm - 5.16pm  - Lukes brother accesses porn on the internet.

5:05pm - 5:20pm - Cyclist hears a "a strangling sort of sound" in the place where her body is later found.

5:40pm - Luke calls Jodi's house asking where she is.

The timing that Lukes brother accesses internet porn is around the time just after Luke would have left the house to meet up with Jodi. And we know for a fact that he did plan to meet her due to the phone records and what Jodi told her mother.


The importance of Shane watching porn between 4.53pm - 5.16pm  is that he would only do that if the house was empty and it contradicts Luke's claim of being at home cooking dinner. It shows Luke was out at the time.

Luke claims he did not leave the house until around 5:30pm. Yet he was seen by a witness near the crime scene at around 4:55pm.

Shane Mitchell admitted that his mum got him to say Luke was in the house around the time of the murder and that if it was not for his mother he would not have said Luke was in (because he clearly was not) If Luke really was in, Shane would not need to go along with a story his mum made up.

To say Bryson just so happened to witness someone that looked just like Luke with someone who just so happened to look like Jodi, complete with the missing jacket and it just so happened to be close to the time and place they planned to meet up and it just was not them, is not reasonable.

You need to ask yourself - Why are the Mitchells lying?

Why is Luke, his brother and his mother dishonestly trying to make out he was home when the murder took place?

Why did his neighbours notice a fire in his backgarden on the night of the murder and around the same time he arrived home?

Not only does Luke admit this fire took place after previously denying it. This fire took place around the exact time he returned home that night. Furthermore he lied in the Sky interview that the fire had nothing to do with him.

Lying about the fire. And lying about being home when the murder took place makes sense if he committed the murder before returning home to burn his clothing. That is not something you want people to know.

Why was the Jacket he was seen wearing that day and known to wear often vanish by the time the police searched his house 4 days later?

Why does he have a knife pouch with the initials and date of death of his stabbed to death girlfriend with the knife missing from the pouch and no murder weapon is recovered?

To me the answer is obvious - He killed Jodi.

"the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived."

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

To this day Luke and Corrine have never given an explanation for the fire.

According to the Judge there was a similarity between the wounds on Jodi’s face and the Manson paintings.

"I do not feel able to ignore the fact that there was a degree of resemblance between the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those shown in the Marilyn Manson paintings of Elizabeth Short that we saw. I think that you carried an image of the paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi."

According to this, Luke had lied about the circumstances of his dog leading him to the body.

"[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased. This was conduct from which incriminating inferences could be drawn."

[guest29835]

David,

I thank you for this. My original question is definitely now answered in full. The points you put across seem strong. I'm sure you won't be offended if I say I need to do my own digging, but you have been a big help.

If Luke did this, what do you think was his motive, assuming there was a rationally understandable motive at all?

[David1819]

David,

I thank you for this. My original question is definitely now answered in full. The points you put across seem strong. I'm sure you won't be offended if I say I need to do my own digging, but you have been a big help.

If Luke did this, what do you think was his motive, assuming there was a rationally understandable motive at all?

I believe Luke in his teen years was just a POS.