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

[marty]

My impression is that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi, but I don't know enough about the case to be 100% certain of his innocence...

Where were the victims clothes found?

Strewn around the scene

[marty]

Strewn around the scene

Her jeans were used to tie her hands behind her back

[mike tesko]

Her jeans were used to tie her hands behind her back

How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?

[Baz]

How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?

I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.

[Stephanie]

How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?

Mike you've asked a set of questions regarding this case which I can assure you were already investigated.

Luke Mitchell is not serving a life sentence for his brother Shane. I agree with you that the brothers silence over these years is questionable but I do not believe for one minute it's because he's a killer.

If JJ's killer were still at large my opinion is that he'd have struck again by now. I'm not aware of any murders that have been linked to this case and my opinion is that, even at the tender age of 14, Luke Mitchell had motive, means and the opportunity - and was clearly already presenting with behavioural problems.

[nugnug]

I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.

yes he was 21 at the time.

[Baz]

Mike you've asked a set of questions regarding this case which I can assure you were already investigated.

Luke Mitchell is not serving a life sentence for his brother Shane. I agree with you that the brothers silence over these years is questionable but I do not believe for one minute it's because he's a killer.

If JJ's killer were still at large my opinion is that he'd have struck again by now. I'm not aware of any murders that have been linked to this case and my opinion is that, even at the tender age of 14, Luke Mitchell had motive, means and the opportunity - and was clearly already presenting with behavioural problems.

What was his motive?

[marty]

I struggle with opportunity also

[Stephanie]

The murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones, and the subsequent conviction of her teenage boyfriend Luke Mitchell, was one of the most high-profile legal cases in Scotland this century.

Luke Mitchell was convicted after weeks of evidence

It was a profoundly disturbing case for a variety of reasons and one that the Frontline team felt should be closely re-examined.

There was shock at the sheer brutality of Jodi's death - she was stripped and then her body was mutilated, either just before or after she was killed.

Her youth and the fact that her murderer was adjudged to be her boyfriend, who himself was only 14 years old, compounded the horror felt by everyone.

And then there was Luke Mitchell's apparent insensitivity and callousness - his reported obsession with Satanism and weird rock music - coupled with the alleged collusion of his mother in covering up his crime.

Circling the case was a hurricane of innuendo, salacious hints, and a febrile clamour from the press and public for 'justice' for Jodi.

Marilyn Manson, Kurt Cobain and even the Devil himself all made fleeting appearances in the court room.

Luke Mitchell found himself at the eye of this hurricane.

Some would argue he was convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion a long time before the jurors in the High Court in Edinburgh had even been sworn in.

Yet right from the outset it was clear this was not going to be an easy case for the prosecution.

Despite the bloody nature of the crime, there was no forensic evidence to speak of.

Nothing physically linked Luke Mitchell to Jodi's murder.

Nevertheless, the prosecution case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, was compelling.

The jury agreed with that case and Luke Mitchell was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

But worries within the legal and forensic world about the investigation and subsequent conviction have never completely gone away.

And when, late in 2006, sketchy details emerged of a possible new suspect, those worries began to grow.

That was when we decided to take a closer look at the case including the initial police investigation as well as the trial.

It was one of the largest police investigations in recent Scottish history, with more than 3,000 people interviewed. It was also the longest trial of a single assailant.

There were three main planks of circumstantial evidence which convicted Luke Mitchell.

The first was eye-witness testimony - a woman claimed she had seen a man 'similar' to Luke Mitchell near the scene of the crime.

The second plank of evidence were statements from Jodi's family who described Mitchell as having taken them straight to Jodi's body as they searched for her.

The third plank of evidence was Luke Mitchell's character itself. He regularly carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.

It was argued he was so wild and out of control that he was capable of anything - including murder.
   
Many of the points raised are defence issues that were heard in court and vigorously debated in the course of the judicial process. 

Yet our investigations looked again at flaws not only in each of these three key planks of evidence heard in court, but also in part of the initial police investigation which produced that evidence.

Luke Mitchell's mother Corinne also agreed to an interview.

It was her first since her son's trial and conviction.

She was a character with little public sympathy, in fact she became almost as vilified as Mitchell himself during the months before his arrest. Her story was compelling.

We knew we also had to try to track down a man who had come forward with information on this possible new suspect.

After a lengthy search, we managed to find Scott Forbes who had given a statement to police about the disturbing behaviour of one of his friends.

According to Forbes, it was three-and-a-half years before his friend was eventually contacted by the police.

Mitchell is appealing against his conviction.

Scott Forbes's statement is being investigated by Mitchell's defence team and may form part of that appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm

[Baz]

Have you posted that as an answer to my motive question?

[nugnug]

I struggle with opportunity also

if the last one of the 3 diffrent times given by the police is corect he would of had around 50 minutes.

in that 50 minutes he had meet her knock her down strugle with her then tie her up kill here do all the mutliations to the body then go and clean himself up and go back out agian to dit on the wall.

and that depends n the third time for jodi leaving the house being correct.

[Stephanie]

He doesn't look upset does he, infact quite the opposite imo.

[nugnug]

when was that taken.

[sandra L]

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.

Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

[Stephanie]

Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

You make me laugh Sandra and are full of crap and a lot of people know it - thank goodness!

It had nothing to do with the confession and had everything to do with you telling me about the dysfunction in the Mitchell family. My opinion of Luke Mitchell's innocence changed mainly after what YOU TOLD ME!

Who exactly did I phone to tell them they were misguided? There's only one person I recall talking to and she had already told me she believed her partner to be guilty after all. It's clear you are attempting to suggest it's because of 'sour grapes' on my part. For the record - it's not!

Again, it's based mainly on the things you told me and also your behaviours in the years prior to this.

I already thought Luke Mitchell was guilty prior to the confession of SH - others can confirm this.