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

[nugnug]

so somone ocasionaly looks at  porn listens to crap music and watchs horror films and that makes them guilty of murder beyound reasonable doubt.

[Stephanie]

Not one mention of his innocence in these letters?

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

[Stephanie]

so somone ocasionaly looks at  porn listens to crap music and watchs horror films and that makes them guilty of murder beyound reasonable doubt.

No, not someone - a 14 year old boy!

Who was also also into the occult, admitted to violent traits, was clearly obsessed with knives, blood and guts, sold and smoked dope, threatened a 12 year old girl with a knife, came and went as he pleased, apparent shallow emotions, the list goes on...

[Stephanie]

Luke was utterly silent for almost 10 years in response to his innocence until  that offensive letter Sandra staged so she could send it to a newspaper. Luke swaggered around HMYOI Polmont smirking at people lapping up his notoriety.

This you mean.... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13057041.Mitchell_tells_of_night_he_found_girlfriend_Jodi_dead/

[Stephanie]

"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."

I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.

[Stephanie]

"He understands that ranting and getting angry is not going to take him anywhere. For such a young man, he's very mature. He knows that the only thing that's going to get this moved forward is sticking with the facts of the case."

Not mature enough to have grown out of his 14 year old Satanic/rebellion phase.

I don't believe he is mature at all. He was a young boy when he went to prison. It's unlikely he's matured much since then; just learned to become more manipulative etc.

[Stephanie]

"In four interviews Mitchell gave to police, he came across as confident and collected.

He even gave a TV interview as Jodi, whose body he had supposedly discovered, was being buried.

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.

He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

[sandra L]

A parka Luke was owned disappeared from the face of the Earth regardless of what Sandra says. Why would you believe a woman who had never met Luke before the murder over Luke's own friends and school teachers who confirmed he owned one? Totally illogical.

Ok, let's look a little more carefully at the facts. No-one was asked about a Parka jacket prior to August 14th 2003 - the police were not looking for a Parka jacket, as is clearly evidenced by the interrogation of Luke on that day. The first picture of Luke in a Parka in the media was on August 15th.

According to Dobbie, when the house was searched on April 14th 2004 - 8 months later - police realised the parka was "missing." These are Dobbie's words, not mine. The existence of dozens of pictures of Luke in a Parka for 8 months renders all these statements unreliable - how could anyone be sure when they were "remembering" Luke in a parka? And there is not one single picture of Luke in a parka anywhere before August 15th 2003 - no friends, no relatives, no school pictures - nothing at all.

[sandra L]

That's sneaky of you. The problem for you is I provided a link showing that those statements had never been written any where else on the entire internet, so stop deceiving readers by implying I'm attempting something dishonest when they can click the link or google the phrases and see for themselves. If Luke got them from games, movies or songs, there would be references to them online. There is absolutely none. You were lying with your "video game." response. The "devil's green blood" is the only quote he plagiarised.

Don't do that again. This is my problem with you.

Oh, I think your problem with me is a lot more than that! I did nothing sneaky - I said you are able to call me a liar beause I am unable to provide a source. Goodle "Shake hands with the Devil" - song lyrics. So, I was mistaken and said "Quote from video game" rather than "song lyric" - I did, however, say in my next post that all of the quotes had come from video games, song lyrics and t shirts.

[marty]

"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."

I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.

Oh, she's a doctor now.

[marty]

His hair was matted on the night of the murder? Can you provide a source for that?

I'm sure it was the police who checked him over for cuts bruises and such that determined his hair hadn't been washed for a couple of days.

[marty]

Ok, let's look a little more carefully at the facts. No-one was asked about a Parka jacket prior to August 14th 2003 - the police were not looking for a Parka jacket, as is clearly evidenced by the interrogation of Luke on that day. The first picture of Luke in a Parka in the media was on August 15th.

According to Dobbie, when the house was searched on April 14th 2004 - 8 months later - police realised the parka was "missing." These are Dobbie's words, not mine. The existence of dozens of pictures of Luke in a Parka for 8 months renders all these statements unreliable - how could anyone be sure when they were "remembering" Luke in a parka? And there is not one single picture of Luke in a parka anywhere before August 15th 2003 - no friends, no relatives, no school pictures - nothing at all.

I remember an argument on the old forum about the parka. Where basically it came down to a "yes he did" "know he didn't" type thing.
Eventually one poster said "yes he did, the one in the picture" The shock for me was the poster was a female and turned out to be a close family member of jodis. That said it all for me.

[marty]

SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.

You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.

[marty]

In your opinion*

Pure speculation.

How can you be satisfied just believing that every single person is simply mistaken? You're smarter than that.

The school teacher confirmed Luke had a parka because staff joked about Luke resembling a hooded monk with it on at school. It's these wee things that stick in your memory. Before the murder. This teacher had left the school before June 30th. Why would his brain conjure up this false memory and why would an educated man involve himself in a murder trial without being 100% sure?

As I previously mentioned is far too easy an explanation to just rubbish every every single witness as easily led/dim witted etc and one that I wouldn't be comfortable just accepting so readily like many of your followers. Just like you rubbished those quotes that appear nowhere else online as song lyrics etc.

Luke's friends all confirmed he had a parka, it would be pretty easy to remember a jacket a friend owned without being confused by a newspaper photograph of a person you'd seen countless times before. No doubt they'd have numerous occasions/locations in their memory of him wearing it. I can picture in my mind what jackets my friends own right now.

There isn't a photograph of him wearing a parka before the murder? I don't believe any of us have seen a picture of Luke before the murder fullstop. And why would there be pictures of him doing such mundane things as being at school or hanging around with mates? I was 14 at the same time as Luke in Edinburgh and can confirm we weren't bringing cameras to school and taking pictures. (This was before camera phones yet - Nokia 3310s etc were considered top of the range)

Luke's friends who actually knew him and witnessed his behaviour unlike you also find it easy to accept that he's guilty. Why is that? Why does Shane find it perfectly possible for his younger brother to be guilty? Does his dad believe him to be innocent?

How many teachers went to court. Did more than one of the staff that joked in staff room confirm this?
I'm sure Luke's friends did say this, there's also a lot who don't think this. And even more sow as time passes. It easy to say things to try and distance yourself from something so horrific, especially at the time. But after all, as you say, they were his friends and you would have to presume were into mostly the same things,went to the same parties, smoked pot together, listened to much the same music. Except they weren't accused of murder. If the shoe was on the other foot , how many of his friends could luke have said exactly the same things about.

[marty]

He's immature. He's done absolutely nothing positive with his time, no trade, no education. Just smoking weed with the other beasts.

This eejit is my age and still trying to be edgy by requesting books on Satanism.

And I'm sure if he hadn't been incarcerated he would have grown out of it. Who knows.