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

[John]

I'm still waiting though John on your explanation as to why no DNA at all regarding this crime was every found on Jodi or lukes house? He could of done a million normal things that can be twisted to suit your agenda mate.

Best ask the fat lady at Lothian & Borders.  And when you eventually work out who the youth was that Walsh and Fleming saw do get in touch!

[gordo30]

Lets face it, his big brother initially lied to give him an alibi but when threatened with a charge of perjury he soon changed his mind.  Luke Mitchell was nowhere to be seen at the very moment  Jodi Jones was being murdered and all the waffle in the world won't change that fact.

Lets face it the brother wasn't allowed to change his statement hours after giving the initial one because of a threat of being charged with perjury,

Luke was nowhere to be seen because he was not in the line of site by his brother during the time from him coming home and luke leaving, a time difference of about 40 mins.


Jodi may well have at that time been in the process of being murdered but one witness in particular refutes this claim.

[gordo30]

Best ask the fat lady at Lothian & Borders.  And when you eventually work out who the youth was that Walsh and Fleming saw do get in touch!

I don't really care who the youth was that Fleming & Walsh seen!! was he part of the crime? I don't know, I do know it wasn't Luke Mitchell though.

[gordo30]

OH!! I don't think i will ever be getting in touch john unless through this type of medium.

[nugnug]

I don't really care who the youth was that Fleming & Walsh seen!! was he part of the crime? I don't know, I do know it wasn't Luke Mitchell though.

theres no reason to think the youth who ever he was had anything to do with the crime.

[gordo30]

Of course there aint mate, If anyone had did what happened to Jodi they were not in the frame of mind to just be standing at a broken old fence.

[nugnug]

well it would be a rather stupid thing for any killer to do stand by a fence so drivers could see them.

[John]

Of course there aint mate, If anyone had did what happened to Jodi they were not in the frame of mind to just be standing at a broken old fence.

It wasn't a broken fence or gate in 2003 but never mind, Mitchell was rightly found guilty on the evidence and nothing has been found since to change that decision.  You would think that after Prout and Hall that dear Sandra would have got it by now. 

Killers tell tales!

[gordo30]

Fence/gate my assessment still applies.

I wonder after the Prout/Hall scenario are you now saying that miscarriages of in justice do not exist? or is it only murderers that applies to John? Because the way I see it you had means , motive and opportunity in your case also.

I must hope that when you talk of evidence in this case you do so with the utmost of scrutiny on your part as there was none at all. OK the prosecution had a story! they had a lot of little stories to back up the big one!! but evidence c'mon mate that's crazy.

[nugnug]

fence and gate well thats pure pedantry the same logic still applys the lad standing to wasnt luke mitchell and had nothing to do with the murder anyway he was just a lad standing by a fence or gate or whatever you want to call it.

[Neil]

Very interesting reading chaps.

The two things that don't add up for me are;

1). None of Luke's DNA on Jodi

2). Corinnes testimony.  I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.

However, I'm off now to look for the testimony from the girl who alleged that Luke threatened her days before the murder.

[nugnug]

you find the trail reporting she didint give evedence at the trial you will probely find it in the daily record if you have a look.

[Neil]

you find the trail reporting she didint give evedence at the trial you will probely find it in the daily record if you have a look.

Cheers Nugnug.

[gordo30]

2). Corinnes testimony.  I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.

This has never made sense to me either as if we look at johns scenario Luke never went home, we know he never washed up and cleaned himself after a murder at his own house as per forensic's and was waiting at 5:50 on a wall where he was spotted by boys on bikes.
He then mucked about till just after 9 pm and went home, he then received a text and acted on that text within minuets and there are calls/texts to lukes mobile afterwards that clearly show that Corrine had no idea what was going on, these text's call attempts have been retrieved.
If your son/daughter was calling you and trying to explain something so unreal how could you react to that.

[John]

You might be surprised what some mothers will do to protect their sons.  If I recall there was a lot of talk about Luke and his mother and some might find these comments from the Herald somewhat worrying.


It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the well maintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.

www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue-1.64902