The Various Allegations Against Luke Mitchell

[guest29835]

In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders.  Which of the allegations are true?  If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred.  Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?

Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).

I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations. 

Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant. 

For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.

Thanks in advance.

List of allegations

1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.

2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.

3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.

4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.

5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed] 1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.

[nugnug]

well the canbis use is true but then it apply nearly everybody inoled in this case.

[David1819]

In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders.  Which of the allegations are true?  If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred.  Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?

Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).

I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations. 

Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant. 

For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.

Thanks in advance.

List of allegations

1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.

2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.

3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.

4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.

5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed]1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.

They were Jodi's initials on the knife pouch.

[Bubo bubo]

In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders.  Which of the allegations are true?  If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred.  Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?

Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).

I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations. 

Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant. 

For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.

Thanks in advance.

List of allegations

1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.

2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.

3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.

4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.

5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed] 1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.

One of the features of this case and probably others is the way that local gossip and rumours turn into so called facts via social media and newspapers.

1 I have been unable to find any corroboration of this. If you watch the first JE video (10 mins) SL states no such incidents were recorded except for being hauled over the coals for throwing a missile at a girl. This turned out to be half a Mars bar.

2 We have no evidence of the level of his cannabis use. Some reports were around saying he smoked 600 joints a week. How he managed this whilst attending school is open to debate. Seems a lot, I doubt Bob Marley smoked that much. Reference is made to stronger skunk use at this time but it seems he was using resin varieties.

3 I believe and many say for a fact that there is no physical dependence with cannabis though it is said to have a detrimental effect on people with other underlying mental issues particularly schizophrenia. There is said to be no withdrawal symptoms. There may well be some for whom its use becomes a psychological dependency.

4 There are dealers of all shapes and sizes in terms of their operation. Again I am not sure the level of trade he was conducting. Clearly not on the scale of a Pablo Escobar. His suppliers were the ‘moped boys’ (Ferris and Dickie). The former gave evidence at trial that he supplied LM on a regular basis. What is regular, daily weekly? And volumes are not discussed. Was he just a playground dealer? Did he act as the go between with his suppliers and his mates, who pooled their finances and he did the deals. It looks as if he was at the bottom of the ladder.

As an aside were Ferris and Dickie conducting a deal at around 17.00 hrs that day when their moped was spotted at the ‘V’. Did they not come forward to protect themselves and their memory loss is because they did not, at that time wish to incriminate themselves? They could also have attracted attention as to whether they were involved in the murder, because of the timing.

5 Another example of the twisted truth element to this case is the inscription on the knife pouch. It is not wholly from the Nirvana track. The start is but the end is not.

The lyrics actually read.

‘The smartest day I ever had was when I learned to cry on command’

Not ‘Was when tomorrow never came’.

Only LM can tell us why he inscribed this. We can only guess.

As another aside I suggest his knife possession was for Divvying up the resin. Many moons ago at rock festivals dealers would advertise with ‘Hot Knives’ signs outside their tents. The knife blade is heated which makes cutting resin slabs and pieces more easy and accurate.

I do not know what happened to the knife. Was it confiscated at school or just lost. It only had a four-inch blade which would mean significant contamination to the perpetrator if used for a stabbing attack given the number of wounds.

[nugnug]

the girl he was suppose to hae threatne with a knife dident come forward untill after the coniction the inccedent was supposed to have happend 2 yearsearler but she never said anything about it at the time.

make of that what you will.

[guest29835]

These things help understand the person.  I have never been involved in drugs, but I have been around people who have.  If Luke Mitchell was selling cannabis, to me that implies certain things about him.

On the other hand, much of what is said about him seems to be insubstantial twaddle.  An example is this article that appeared in 2014 about a honeytrap by a journalist, who wrote to Luke pretending to be a 16 year old girl, and received sexually-suggestive replies from him in prison:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609

Only some way down the article is it admitted that the letters were written in 2008, which means Luke would have been 18 or 19 at the time.

The Daily Record is a vile rag: easily the worst newspaper in Scotland.  I notice they are at the forefront of the anti-Luke position in the Scottish media.

[Steve_uk]

One of the features of this case and probably others is the way that local gossip and rumours turn into so called facts via social media and newspapers.

1 I have been unable to find any corroboration of this. If you watch the first JE video (10 mins) SL states no such incidents were recorded except for being hauled over the coals for throwing a missile at a girl. This turned out to be half a Mars bar.

2 We have no evidence of the level of his cannabis use. Some reports were around saying he smoked 600 joints a week. How he managed this whilst attending school is open to debate. Seems a lot, I doubt Bob Marley smoked that much. Reference is made to stronger skunk use at this time but it seems he was using resin varieties.

3 I believe and many say for a fact that there is no physical dependence with cannabis though it is said to have a detrimental effect on people with other underlying mental issues particularly schizophrenia. There is said to be no withdrawal symptoms. There may well be some for whom its use becomes a psychological dependency.

4 There are dealers of all shapes and sizes in terms of their operation. Again I am not sure the level of trade he was conducting. Clearly not on the scale of a Pablo Escobar. His suppliers were the ‘moped boys’ (Ferris and Dickie). The former gave evidence at trial that he supplied LM on a regular basis. What is regular, daily weekly? And volumes are not discussed. Was he just a playground dealer? Did he act as the go between with his suppliers and his mates, who pooled their finances and he did the deals. It looks as if he was at the bottom of the ladder.

As an aside were Ferris and Dickie conducting a deal at around 17.00 hrs that day when their moped was spotted at the ‘V’. Did they not come forward to protect themselves and their memory loss is because they did not, at that time wish to incriminate themselves? They could also have attracted attention as to whether they were involved in the murder, because of the timing.

5 Another example of the twisted truth element to this case is the inscription on the knife pouch. It is not wholly from the Nirvana track. The start is but the end is not.

The lyrics actually read.

‘The smartest day I ever had was when I learned to cry on command’

Not ‘Was when tomorrow never came’.

Only LM can tell us why he inscribed this. We can only guess.

As another aside I suggest his knife possession was for Divvying up the resin. Many moons ago at rock festivals dealers would advertise with ‘Hot Knives’ signs outside their tents. The knife blade is heated which makes cutting resin slabs and pieces more easy and accurate.

I do not know what happened to the knife. Was it confiscated at school or just lost. It only had a four-inch blade which would mean significant contamination to the perpetrator if used for a stabbing attack given the number of wounds.

There's more information here according to one national newspaper: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/

[nugnug]

if you an the sun a newspaper

[Germane]

Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at  all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.

As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.

[Steve_uk]

With regard to your last point she was working as a self-employed owner of a caravan site, so must have had something about her. Her demeanour always looked to me defensive as if she were frightened of something: troubled, tormented. How does Shane fit into the equation: he seems to have kept out of the media intrusion and not involved in the cabal between mother and younger son, if that's what it is?

[Roadrunner]

Dobbie's opinions of Luke were based on interrogations that the appeal Judges described as abhorrent and that the only point of the questions was to illicit some hoped for confession. If Luke Mitchell had confessed in those interviews he would be a free man today it would be deemed as a false confession.

Michele Lyndsay was the FLO that shouldn't have been in the Mitchells home at all. Both her and the investigation came under fire at trial for the role she played. DF described her as a 'vixen in the hen house'. She should never have been in the Mitchells home when Luke was a suspect. When asked by DF if the investigation was a 'shambles' she said 'yes sir'.

Do you have an opinion on the way the police conducted the investigation Germane? Do you agree with Dobbie that it was perfect and couldn't have been done better or do you think there were failings but it's ok because they knew Luke was guilty and they got there in the end despite the poor investigation?

'Forensically aware/partial match comment' It's disappointing that you think this is a sign of intelligence.
It's basic biology and you don't need a degree to understand that there is no such thing as a 'partial match'.   


"Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning"

When you take away your interpretation it doesn't sound sinister at all.
At 14 years old Luke was; 'Confident, sexually active, intelligent, strong, enjoyed alternative music and was popular amongst friends with similar interests, smoked cannabis, enjoys the outdoors, liked horror films, got into one fight in school, was asked to write about euthanasia, explained that the world has good and bad parts wrote that the world needs 'satanic people like me to keep the balance'. Comes from a line of strong independent women that can be described as hot headed at times. Scribbled quotes from video games on school jotters.'

'Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage'

Luke's cannabis usage consisted of £15 worth of hash a week, one school friend said he brought the lunch and Luke brought the hash.
If cannabis usage was a criteria for viewing someone as a person of interest you would have to include everyone in Jodi's household barring her mother. There was someone known to the investigation who was having home visits from a psychiatrist due to problems brought on early by excessive cannabis use. One of the moped boys smoked cannabis and sold it to Luke Mitchell.  Cannabis was smoked regularly in Jodi's grans house and in her cousins YW's. SM probably did too I've never heard of Corrine Mitchell smoking it though.


There is poster over on the red forum that describes Luke as the 'Davey Crockett' type.
He/She used the fact that Jodi's trousers were tied with a 'granny' knot' to support his view of Luke being this outdoorsy type that knew his knots from cadets and camping etc.

Granny knots are called granny knots because they're the most common knot used by 'land-goers' I.e. Someone that doesn't have any specialist knowledge on knots. It's just a common double knot but because it had a special name in the article the poster used it to confirm his bias.

If you look for information to confirm your bias you will find it and it will feel right to you whether it's in line with the true information or not.

[Bubo bubo]

Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at  all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.

As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.

I think the clue to your post lays in the title ‘ALLEGATIONS’ for that is all you have produced they are only a string of unattributed allegations.

Luke was not a normal 14-year-old.

Since when have you been a qualified psychologist and what is normal. I am sure you could attribute much of what you say to thousands of 14 year olds up and down the country.

Sexually mature for his age.

Applies to lots of lads, puberty onset and development is not something that can be the same for all.

Was forensically aware

So what. This type of information is easily obtained just by watching television.

Was physically strong

Boys are stronger than most girls in their early teens. Who is this girl? Unattributed ‘small town talk’ IMO.

Had an assortment of knives

Evidence required please. I was in the scouts we all liked knives.

Throttled another child at junior school.

Evidence please. Could have just been a minor playground bust up.

English essay concerns

What were the contents that caused this concern? Maybe he had a more vivid imagination and wrote in a more adult style tackling topics which stimulated his curiosity.

He tried to impose himself sexually on girls.

Names please and witness statements. More small town tittle tattle IMO.

Was clearly two timing JJ

Evidence please. Who was this other girlfriend?

His actions were fuelled by Cannabis.

You clearly missed out on the TV show the Young Ones. Neil was constantly stoned and could hardly get up from a chair and constantly messed up especially when cooking.

Your post seems to have been produced in order to convince yourself of his guilt. It has not changed my view.

[nugnug]

he ient look ery pysally strong to me.

[Davie2]

Luke's cannabis usage consisted of £15 worth of hash a week, one school friend said he brought the lunch and Luke brought the hash.
If cannabis usage was a criteria for viewing someone as a person of interest you would have to include everyone in Jodi's household barring her mother. There was someone known to the investigation who was having home visits from a psychiatrist due to problems brought on early by excessive cannabis use. One of the moped boys smoked cannabis and sold it to Luke Mitchell.  Cannabis was smoked regularly in Jodi's grans house and in her cousins YW's. SM probably did too I've never heard of Corrine Mitchell smoking it though.

Is that you still trying to smear the Jones. You would think in the day and age you would change tac, but you just cannot help yourself. But i'm sure you will provide source to back all this up right?

£15 worth of hash is 4/5 joints, 3 grams, we know by Luke's own admission he smoked considerably more. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409362.jodi-boy-friend-smoked-300-cannabis-joints-a-week-teenagers-boast-to-psychiatrist-in-doubt/

[Bubo bubo]

Is that you still trying to smear the Jones. You would think in the day and age you would change tac, but you just cannot help yourself. But i'm sure you will provide source to back all this up right?

£15 worth of hash is 4/5 joints, 3 grams, we know by Luke's own admission he smoked considerably more. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409362.jodi-boy-friend-smoked-300-cannabis-joints-a-week-teenagers-boast-to-psychiatrist-in-doubt/

The whole article is more revealing if you care to read it. I think he meant grams not ounces. It also reveals what JJ's best friend thought.

She described herself as really close to Jodi and also "best mates" with Luke.

"They really, really loved each other. They were always hugging and stuff, which was cool because most guys won't do that in front of people, " she said.

However, she also described how she "went radge" when she discovered Mr Mitchell was buying a lock-knife some time after Jodi's death.

"I told him it was really disrespectful, " she said. Mr Mitchell, she claimed, replied:

"It is only for cutting weed."

The detectives asked her in September if Mr Mitchell had ever done or said anything to make her suspect he had been involved in Jodi's death. Laura told them: "No, I would - see - if he did tell me I would have killed him there and then and it would have been me sitting in the jail now."

She added: "I think he is innocent."