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

[sandra L]

Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later

[John]

Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY

Bumped for Sandra L

[nugnug]

Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later

and anyone who has bothered to study the case should really no that.

[John]

Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later

From the Edinburgh Evening News...
23 January 2005

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

[nugnug]

the fact you both have to resort to lying says a lot about the case agianst luke its well known who the exolianed dna belongs to and theres plenty of links about the dna not belonging to luke nice try though.

[marty]

Like I said. "No 'unexplainable' DNA" has been transformed into "no DNA" over time.

"lacks critical DNA" is not "no DNA"

like we have said before,  partial or strands of dna isnt a match. its either a match or its not.
To say there was strands of his dna is utter snot, this was totally discredited.

[Baz]

From the Edinburgh Evening News...
23 January 2005

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861

So much of that article and Dobbie's theories are based on things that have been shown to be untrue (the Marilyn Manson worship... By someone who owned none of his music?!) and some of it is just sordid hearsay ("may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.")

From beginning to end it's a horribly biased piece of journalism tailored to meet the morbid interest of those reading it.

But thanks for sharing.....

[sandra L]

Either the media horribly misrepresented what Dobbie said on a number of occasions, or Dobbie is a liar. According to press reports, Dobbie claimed there was no DNA from an "unidentified person" and that all DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry, including Luke.

We know, for certain, that there were DNA samples listed in the results and "unidentified male one, unidentified male 2, etc, all the way to unidentified male 5." Then there were result mixed with Jodi's own DNA which were labelled "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." So, it is simply not true that there was no "unidentified DNA", nor is it true that all of the DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry.

He must have had a moment when the DNA of James Falconer was identified three years later - his officers had been in Falconer's house two days after the murder!!

As for the DNA "including Luke" this is true, but very misleading. Dobbie is, in fact, talking about Luke's DNA found on.... Luke's clothing. Seriously! There was a t shirt lited in the productions as "Blood - T shirt - Luke Mitchell." I thought, hang about, where did that come from? A little digging showed it wasa spot of  Luke's own blood on his own t shirt (which had never been claimed to have any connection whatsoever to the murder.)

[John]

Either the media horribly misrepresented what Dobbie said on a number of occasions, or Dobbie is a liar. According to press reports, Dobbie claimed there was no DNA from an "unidentified person" and that all DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry, including Luke.

We know, for certain, that there were DNA samples listed in the results and "unidentified male one, unidentified male 2, etc, all the way to unidentified male 5." Then there were result mixed with Jodi's own DNA which were labelled "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." So, it is simply not true that there was no "unidentified DNA", nor is it true that all of the DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry.

He must have had a moment when the DNA of James Falconer was identified three years later - his officers had been in Falconer's house two days after the murder!!

As for the DNA "including Luke" this is true, but very misleading. Dobbie is, in fact, talking about Luke's DNA found on.... Luke's clothing. Seriously! There was a t shirt lited in the productions as "Blood - T shirt - Luke Mitchell." I thought, hang about, where did that come from? A little digging showed it wasa spot of  Luke's own blood on his own t shirt (which had never been claimed to have any connection whatsoever to the murder.)

As Jodi and Luke were together earlier the day of the murder there should have been traces of her DNA on Luke and vice versa but the Scottish police forensics failed to find it.  That in itself doesn't surprise me in the least given they couldn't even find a crashed car which had come off the M9 motorway.


I notice you are avoiding answering my earlier question Sandra, should I infer from that you don't believe Luke Mitchell innocent any more?

Bumped again...

Sandra, can I ask you something.  Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe?  TY

[sandra L]

As Jodi and Luke were together earlier the day of the murder there should have been traces of her DNA on Luke and vice versa but the Scottish police forensics failed to find it.  That in itself doesn't surprise me in the least given they couldn't even find a crashed car which had come off the M9 motorway.

Could have been, not necessarily should have been - it would have been dependent on the amount of physical contact, if any, between them. There are no witness accounts of Jodi and Luke being in physical contact with each other that lunchtime, and they were in differrent classes throughout the day.

I notice you are avoiding answering my earlier question Sandra, should I infer from that you don't believe Luke Mitchell innocent any more?

No John, I was not avoiding it, I was completely ignoring it. I really shouldn't encourage your games, but you'll start talking about your "inference" as if it's fact, so here you are, an answer to your question.

No John, you should not infer that I don't believe Luke is innocent any more, because you would be wrong. Your original question asked whether I believed Luke to be factually innocent, or it was simply that I felt that the verdict was unsafe.

I believe Luke to be factually innocent on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen. I believe the verdict to be unsafe on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen.

From the technical approach, the law states that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - an unsafe verdict means a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But let's get absolutely real. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I've pointed out that I have two daughters around Luke's age - I still have two daughters - do you really believe that I would be proclaiming Luke's innocence if even a tiny part of me doubted it? Because that would still mean, 12 years down the line, that I'd be calling for the release of someone I suspected was guilty of a brutal murder into the community where my own daughters live.

Please don't ask the next question (which I can already see galloping over the horizon) - I am not prepared to discuss my deprture from Luke's campaign.

[marty]

same old same old

[John]

Could have been, not necessarily should have been - it would have been dependent on the amount of physical contact, if any, between them. There are no witness accounts of Jodi and Luke being in physical contact with each other that lunchtime, and they were in differrent classes throughout the day.


No John, I was not avoiding it, I was completely ignoring it. I really shouldn't encourage your games, but you'll start talking about your "inference" as if it's fact, so here you are, an answer to your question.

No John, you should not infer that I don't believe Luke is innocent any more, because you would be wrong. Your original question asked whether I believed Luke to be factually innocent, or it was simply that I felt that the verdict was unsafe.

I believe Luke to be factually innocent on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen. I believe the verdict to be unsafe on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen.

From the technical approach, the law states that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - an unsafe verdict means a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But let's get absolutely real. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I've pointed out that I have two daughters around Luke's age - I still have two daughters - do you really believe that I would be proclaiming Luke's innocence if even a tiny part of me doubted it? Because that would still mean, 12 years down the line, that I'd be calling for the release of someone I suspected was guilty of a brutal murder into the community where my own daughters live.

Please don't ask the next question (which I can already see galloping over the horizon) - I am not prepared to discuss my deprture from Luke's campaign.

Thank you for the reply Sandra.  The reason I asked was because many of your posts are suggestive of an unsafe verdict rather than a wrongful conviction.   

And speaking of evidence, as Luke Mitchell does not have an independently corroborated alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered and given that his own brother disputes his account of his whereabouts, what evidence do you hold up to support your contention that he is innocent?

[Baz]

The time of death is based on Luke being guilty, so might not be the time of death, and his brother doesn't exactly "dispute" the alibi. Even on the stand he didn't say Luke wasn't in the house. Is there more evidence you're basing your certainty of his guilt on?

[nugnug]

there was no actully time of death given the bodys was not in a good enough state to do that,

[John]

The time of death is based on Luke being guilty, so might not be the time of death, and his brother doesn't exactly "dispute" the alibi. Even on the stand he didn't say Luke wasn't in the house. Is there more evidence you're basing your certainty of his guilt on?

On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury.  Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived.  He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.

Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home.  I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.