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

[killingeve]

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

And yet the person he is accused of murdering described him as "sweet":

Extracts from Jodi's diary are read out in court in which she explains her feelings for Luke.

It reads: 'I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly.

'Not in the stupid way I love Butch, I mean real love.

'God I think I'd die if he finished with me.' She added: 'He's just so sweet.

'No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous.

'I'll have to be careful - I've had my trust broken too many times.'

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+I+think+I%27m+actually+in+love+with+Luke..+well...-a0125381355

[killingeve]

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."

The above can be countered by experts, lawyers and police officers in the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0

Why do you think experts, lawyers, police officers and prog makers are unable or unwilling to produce such a docu re Bamber's case?

[guest29835]

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

So no motive?  The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged.  Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems.  Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.

One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.

[killingeve]

So no motive?  The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged.  Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems.  Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.

One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.

[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[guest29835]

[12] The defence submitted a report by a consultant forensic clinical psychiatrist who concluded that the appellant was not suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. There was no evidence of severe emotional maladjustment or childhood abuse or of significant abnormality of mind at the time of the murder.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

From just one psychiatrist?  I think if I was acting for the defence, I would want him examined by at least two different psychiatrists and I would also invite the prosecution to appoint a psychiatrist to examine him.  Whoever did this was frankly either off their rocker or a cold psychopath.  If the evidence of, say, three different psychiatrists, one for the prosecution, confirms that it seems there is nothing wrong with him, I think that alone would throw the prosecution case into doubt.

Were his medical records adduced to the court?  If not, why not?

I assume he was on drugs?  Need I ask?  Cannabis? 

[killingeve]

From just one psychiatrist?  I think if I was acting for the defence, I would want him examined by at least two different psychiatrists and I would also invite the prosecution to appoint a psychiatrist to examine him.  Whoever did this was frankly either off their rocker or a cold psychopath.  If the evidence of, say, three different psychiatrists, one for the prosecution, confirms that it seems there is nothing wrong with him, I think that alone would throw the prosecution case into doubt.

Were his medical records adduced to the court?  If not, why not?

I assume he was on drugs?  Need I ask?  Cannabis?

I don't know much about the case only enough to have doubt.  Dr Sandra Lean is the go to person. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Innocents-Betrayed-story-justice-abandoned/dp/199961710X/ref=asc_df_199961710X/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310856639426&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17761860942653280291&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046205&hvtargid=pla-575590595174&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

[lookout]

They've got the wrong man, haven't they ?

[killingeve]

They've got the wrong man, haven't they ?

No idea.

[David1819]

So no motive?  The issue I have with this is that, looking at what was done, the killer must have been deranged.  Based on what we know, Luke has remained a placid prisoner with no signs of significant mental or personality problems.  Of course, it could be that he is just psychopathic.

One thing is for sure: if Luke did this, then I can see why he was given a 20 year minimum sentence, despite his age.

He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.

His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?

[guest29835]

He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.

His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?

I think 'youthful lapse of judgement' should go down as English understatement.  It's more than a lapse of judgement.  It is not even an ordinary murder.  You could rationalise a situation where he is jealous and in a fit of rage, kills her, but this is so much more.  He has basically butchered her and tied her up, perhaps with the intention (the idea occurring to him on the spur of the moment) that he needed to make the murder look non-spontaneous in order to deflect suspicion from himself.

His mother is bound to defend him.  I would die for my children, though I'm not sure if I would actually lie in court in these circumstances.  I would go a long way for them though, I can tell you that.  Maybe Luke is the killer but he lied to his mother and brother and told them he had been waiting around for Jodi, so had no alibi as such, and they needed to cover for him otherwise he would be framed?  It's common for close relatives and loved ones to lie in court for that reason, hence the perjury warning that the trial judge gave both the mother and the brother, Shane Mitchell.  In the old days, the judge would not have even bothered doing that, he would have just told the jury to treat their evidence with due caution.

[David1819]

I think 'youthful lapse of judgement' should go down as English understatement.  It's more than a lapse of judgement.  It is not even an ordinary murder.  You could rationalise a situation where he is jealous and in a fit of rage, kills her, but this is so much more.  He has basically butchered her and tied her up, perhaps with the intention (the idea occurring to him on the spur of the moment) that he needed to make the murder look non-spontaneous in order to deflect suspicion from himself.

His mother is bound to defend him.  I would die for my children, though I'm not sure if I would actually lie in court in these circumstances.  I would go a long way for them though, I can tell you that.  Maybe Luke is the killer but he lied to his mother and brother and told them he had been waiting around for Jodi, so had no alibi as such, and they needed to cover for him otherwise he would be framed?  It's common for close relatives and loved ones to lie in court for that reason, hence the perjury warning that the trial judge gave both the mother and the brother, Shane Mitchell.  In the old days, the judge would not have even bothered doing that, he would have just told the jury to treat their evidence with due caution.

Like I have already said, I am not interested in going over this case again. I put forward the reasons why its obvious Luke is guilty. Why he done it and what was going through his mind at the time is not really important to me.

[killingeve]

He was 14 years old when this happened. It was a youthful lapse of judgement.

His mother took him to a tattoo shop and lied about his age to the owner so he could get a tattoo. Then she helped her son cover up a murder and got her other son to lie in court. This is the woman who raised him, so why is it surprising?

She will not be the first or last mother to indulge a child.  Far better he went to a professional tattooist with parental consent rather than go to some dodgy place without parental consent. 

You are forgetting that Luke was interviewed only as a witness in the immediate aftemath.  It was another 10 months before he was arrested and charged.  Why are the Mitchells going to remember what they were doing and when over routine mundane matters 10 months after the event?  And yes David teenage boys watching porn is a routine mundane matter!

[nugnug]

the tatoo was completlyirlvant to the case anyway how the hell igot admited as evdence i dont know

[Steve_uk]

The above can be countered by experts, lawyers and police officers in the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0

Why do you think experts, lawyers, police officers and prog makers are unable or unwilling to produce such a docu re Bamber's case?

I suppose because the issue of the silencer would be raised again, potentially libelling the relatives, as well as possibly Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, who to my knowledge is still alive.

As far as the YouTube video is concerned, do we know who Scott Forbes' friend is?

[killingeve]

I suppose because the issue of the silencer would be raised again, potentially libelling the relatives, as well as possibly Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson, who to my knowledge is still alive.

As far as the YouTube video is concerned, do we know who Scott Forbes' friend is?

I believe Scott Forbes has been discredited along with the individual he incriminated 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12458908.man-named-appeal-tried-sell-story-newspapers/