The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[nugnug]

What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.

Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question.  What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?

Million to one?

anyone who lives there or goes there knows itts not a remote spot.

what are chances being dressed the same or simlar well very likely.

but thenill get there interview up in a litle and will see what they described.

[John]

Since Sandra Lean always disputed where the wooden gate was and just in case anyone can't locate it, here is the original photo and beneath it what it now looks like with a metal gate.



Google image of the old wooden gate shown collapsed in 2009.



What the site looked like on my visit in November 2011.

[nugnug]

if it was a remote spot they wouldent of been driving down there.

[Neil]

Were the Police able to recover the green bomber jacket?

I seem to remember there being a suggestion that clothes were burnt in the Mitchell garden.

[nugnug]

i dont think they needed to find it he was wearing it when they questioned him.

the that log burner was examed and no evedence was ever found the that clothes had burnt in it.

[Neil]

If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefor, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?

John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?

I've obviously noted your posts regarding the eyewitnesses.  Are you able to point me in the direction of any statements/testimony from those witnesses?

[Neil]

i dont think they needed to find it he was wearing it when they questioned him.

the that log burner was examed and no evedence was ever found the that clothes had burnt in it.

Thanks for that Nugnug.  Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?

[nugnug]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fuk_news%2Fscotland%2Fedinburgh_and_east%2F7232548.stm&ei=_CCHU-etIMjZPKiygfgO&usg=AFQjCNG9tlzbxDSnhoGLOuev3xnEEqNRMQ&sig2=CDMe9Gh6DyY7DD36BGChfA

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fuk_news%2Fscotland%2F4063025.stm&ei=_CCHU-etIMjZPKiygfgO&usg=AFQjCNHXfrwdV5A-1zJX7Z2h3T7rJSwxkw&sig2=5cMy07bzi23aJNkITLPQpg

heres the 2 witness statements ill see if i can get more.

[gordo30]

John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?

I've obviously noted your posts regarding the eyewitnesses.  Are you able to point me in the direction of any statements/testimony from those witnesses?

To be honest Neil I don't think you will get a reply as john beliefs in what he wrote are based so strongly on his own minds correlation of events that he can't disern between right and wrong let alone what happened that night.

[gordo30]

Thanks for that Nugnug.  Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?

The coat thing is something of an enigma, it was used to explain how Luke managed to get from the murder scene to where ever he was going without anyone seeing him covered in blood, It doesn't however even under that scenario explain why he had no DNA on him or found at the crime scene. It does however imply that he should have.

[gordo30]

Coincidentally, the location where Mitchell was seen was on Mitchell's route home across the corner of a field and a wood.  A hop over the gate would have taken him home without ever having been seen on any public road until he reached his estate.

I already anwered this john as we have a witness that accompanied Luke 2/3rds of the way down Newbattle road, you can see where the youth broke from luke to go to his house, its even on that picture.So your assumption and route that Luke took is way off.

[John]

I already anwered this john as we have a witness that accompanied Luke 2/3rds of the way down Newbattle road, you can see where the youth broke from Luke to go to his house, its even on that picture.So your assumption and route that Luke took is way off.

Even if there was such a youth and I have my doubts since he failed to come forward despite appeals, the trip home from school was hours before the murder.  You would think at this stage that you would get even the basics right Gordon.

[John]

If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.

Therefore, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.

How rigorously were other suspects investigated?

The forensics failed to find any forensic link between Luke and Jodi yet they were together earlier.  At the very least there should have been hair from Luke on Jodi and vice versa.

That said however the crime scene was not protected overnight and Jodi's body lay out in the rain.  Little wonder incriminating evidence was lost.

Jodi was attacked from behind, hit with a stick and then her throat was slit, she would have bled out towards the front while her attacker stood back until she was unconscious.  Some blood was found on the nearby wall where she stumbled after the initial assault.  Something which is not widely known but such was the viciousness of the assault that her throat was almost severed. Her attacker also took sadistic pleasure in cutting her eyelids.

To answer your question therefore, no, it doesn't suggest that he was responsible.  A common myth which has been promoted is that Jodis attacked would have been covered in blood, there is no evidence to suggest this.

A little memento which Mitchell carved after Jodi's murder.

The Finest Day I Ever Had Was When tomorrow Never Came   
JJ 1989 - 2003

[gordo30]

It was you who had shown the route Luke would have taken from school not me John, i was replying to that and not the fact that the murder happened just over 1 HOUR after school. There very much was one youth John and he did come forward, he was interviewed by the police and processed in the correct manner, the problem you have is that dose'nt fit with your need for luke to have not gone home even although the prosecution and defence and well everyone in general accepts it he wasn't needed at trial.

Oh and basic!! you still think Jodi was tied up by a rope john??

[gordo30]

The forensics failed to find any forensic link between Luke and Jodi yet they were together earlier.  At the very least there should have been hair from Luke on Jodi and vice versa.

That said however the crime scene was not protected overnight and Jodi's body lay out in the rain.  Little wonder incriminating evidence was lost.

Jodi was attacked from behind, hit with a stick and then her throat was slit, she would have bled out towards the front while her attacker stood back until she was unconscious.  Some blood was found on the nearby wall where she stumbled after the initial assault.  Something which is not widely known but such was the viciousness of the assault that her throat was almost severed. Her attacker also took sadistic pleasure in cutting her eyelids.

To answer your question therefore, no, it doesn't suggest that he was responsible.  A common myth which has been promoted is that Jodis attacked would have been covered in blood, there is no evidence to suggest this.

Its strange then that even if what happened was as you have listed then that blood would have sprayed in other directions and onto other things like branches and such, Jodi was moved some distance where the post mortem mutilations occurred  and that as well even performing something like the eyelid cuts would leave DNA traces, for gods sake your first post about the two of them being together at school for a short time confirms this, how then could he have done what he done in that space of time and have NO DNA at all on him or on her??