Re: The murder of Jodi Jones

[Steve_uk]

What I can't understand is why if Jodie was murdered so savagely there was no DNA of Luke Mitchell's found on the body or any incriminating forensic evidence on himself. Either Luke is guilty and his mother withheld evidence from Police or he's innocent and another person was responsible. https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/hundreds-pounds-raised-mother-jodi-19918926

[guest7363]

I would like to know more details about the knife found near the scene in 2010 that had Lukes name carved on it. And whether it belongs or fits with Luke's empty knife pouch.

It has no links to Jodi or Luke Mitchel, it was found a mile and half from the murder scene,

POLICE forensic teams have been testing a knife found just over a mile from where tragic Jodi Jones was murdered.

Found on wasteland, it has the word "Luke" etched on it.  It was found by a member of the public in March on wasteground off Causland Road, Dalkeith, Midlothian - a mile and a half from where Jodi's body was discovered.


So far, months of tests have been unable to link the knife to Jodi or Mitchell, 21.  Last night, a police source said: "It could be that all traces of blood or DNA have been washed away.

"The knife could have been lying out exposed to the elements for seven years.

[guest7363]

Was there not 2 knives found, one in 2010 with Luke’s name, police did tests but nothing found. Then another is 2015, brown handled kitchen knife type found in the wall, but i don’t think tests were carried out.

Do the police still have these? Would an independent review take these into account or is it only evidence used in the trial? If tests were carried out on all the dna/forensics they have plus these knives we might start to get somewhere.

I think there has been several found Bullseye?  The one with Luke’s name on has no trace of either Jodi or Luke Mitchel?

[guest7363]

So am I getting it right here, he was spotted out with his Parka Jacket on the night of the murders, One of the most significant pieces of evidence was that Mitchell had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the previous months and that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the murder.  So he owned one and miraculously this Jacket went missing, this jacket was never found, so his mother bought him a new identical Jacket to replace the one that couldn’t be accounted for?  The Skunting knife which we’ve seen an order for on the order form this also went missing and his mother Brought him a new knife, this knife was never found as well or was accounted for?  I suppose both items could have innocently gone missing and been accounted for, but they wasn’t so to me it seems more convenient. 

TWO DAYS AFTER JODI’s murder
Two days after the murder Mitchell purchased, and subsequently viewed, a Marilyn Manson DVD, “The Golden Age of the Grotesque”, which included images of apparently naked women tied together and subjected to a form of abduction. Manson had an exhibition of the same name publicised on his website, which included images depicting the death of the actress Elizabeth Short, also known as “The Black Dahlia”, who was mutilated and murdered in Los Angeles in 1947.

How does a 14 year old kid keep affording drugs, the court heard that when police arrested Mitchell and charged him with murdering Jodi, 14, they found a piece of cannabis resin in his trousers weighing more than 97 grammes, and two smaller pieces weighing almost seven grammes. Mitchell said he had paid around £150 for it.

[guest7363]

Steve there was DNA that matched Luke's genetic profile. And that of Jodi's on Luke. But it was argued by the defence that this could have been an innocent transfer that happened throughout the day. And tbh that is a perfectly reasonable explanation, Luke and Jodi did spend time with each other at school that day. The prosecution agreed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm

Agreed, any DNA of that sort could easily been explained away.

[Bullseye]

Steve there was DNA that matched Luke's genetic profile. And that of Jodi's on Luke. But it was argued by the defence that this could have been an innocent transfer that happened throughout the day. And tbh that is a perfectly reasonable explanation, Luke and Jodi did spend time with each other at school that day. The prosecution agreed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm

I don’t think anything of Luke was found on Jodi? Only full profile found on her was SK I’m sure.  I think it was  Jodi’s dna was found on Luke’s trousers but these were not a pair worn that day but from his house. Like sk’s being on his gf T-shirt that Jodi had borrowed that night, the dna on Luke trousers were deemed as innocent

“Looking at that picture, in all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a perfectly innocent transfer”

[Steve_uk]

Apparently Luke had dirty hair and fingernails, suggesting he hadn't cleaned himself up in the interim. What about the Parka jacket? What did Corinne know and when did she know it?

[Bullseye]

Apparently Luke had dirty hair and fingernails, suggesting he hadn't cleaned himself up in the interim. What about the Parka jacket? What did Corinne know and when did she know it?

In the book it says he did not own a parka before the murder, he was wearing a green bomber jacket when he was arrested which he says is the same one worn to school that afternoon.

There are a lot of reports I think of people who said he did have one before, but no photos or any evidence. Might be something out there in the back of someone’s drawer, an old photo, if he did own one, but in this case it’s ones sides word against the other.

[guest7363]

lol. This made me laugh. £150 for 97 grams of hash, is the deal of the century. Although in the grand scheme of things what I'm about to explain is irrelevant. But its dose prove, he was a heavy smoker and dealer. A score(7grams) was well, where I stay was bought for £30. in 2003 Small-time dealers would normally buy, or get laid-on(loaned) what is known in the trade as a bar (100grams or there about) prices would vary, but £150 is way off the mark. The small time dealer (Luke) would then cut this into scores £30(7gram) and half scores £15(3.5grams) to sell off or laid-on to his kiddy friends. A nice little profit for a 14yo. If true he got for £150, but i'm guessing it closer to the £300 mark for his bar.

Oh right thanks Davie2.  I read that he told a psychiatrist he’d smoked 40 joints a day in the lead up to the murder, but I think this was dismissed?

[guest7363]

That is because he went to play on the swings and mucking about with his pals, later that evening, getting himself all dirty again. He also told the very same pals, who asked him where Jodi was. He told these pals, that Jodi was not allowed out. Strange, when he arranged to meet Jodi, proved by text messages and the testimony of a witness that told Luke that she has already left.. He was also waiting at the end of the road that leads into his estate, waiting for Jodi for over an hour, as has been claimed. He knew she was dead at this point.

Thats how I understood it as well Davie. I was going  to ask the Question was her injuries consistent with the Skunting Knife, but I think this answers this at the appeal.

The deceased's cutting injuries are consistent with their having been caused by a knife of the kind which, at the relevant time, the appellant owned and which, without adequate explanation, then disappeared.

[guest7363]

That is because he went to play on the swings and mucking about with his pals, later that evening, getting himself all dirty again. He also told the very same pals, who asked him where Jodi was. He told these pals, that Jodi was not allowed out. Strange, when he arranged to meet Jodi, proved by text messages and the testimony of a witness that told Luke that she has already left.. He was also waiting at the end of the road that leads into his estate, waiting for Jodi for over an hour, as has been claimed. He knew she was dead at this point.

At first After his discovery of the body, Mitchell was initially questioned as a witness; So when did they do a thorough examination of him or his clothing Davie?  He wasn’t arrested till 10 months after the murder..so when everyone is saying there was no forensic evidence on him after the murders, was this just a visual examination or a thorough examination?

[Bullseye]

At first After his discovery of the body, Mitchell was initially questioned as a witness; So when did they do a thorough examination of him or his clothing Davie?  He wasn’t arrested till 10 months after the murder..so when everyone is saying there was no forensic evidence on him after the murders, was this just a visual examination or a thorough examination?

From what I remember he found the body was taken right to the police station there and then, stripped and put in ones of those white forensic suit. He was wearing same clothes he had on to school that day. Looks like he was a suspect right from the start, not a witness as nobody else in the search party had to give over clothes, or were interviewed like was right after Jodi was found. I think it was days later, when they had been cleaned, they were asked for their clothes.

[guest7363]

From what I remember he found the body was taken right to the police station there and then, stripped and put in ones of those white forensic suit. He was wearing same clothes he had on to school that day. Looks like he was a suspect right from the start, not a witness as nobody else in the search party had to give over clothes, or were interviewed like was right after Jodi was found. I think it was days later, when they had been cleaned, they were asked for their clothes.

Thanks Bullseye, we always help Newbie’s who join the Bamber forum to bring them up to speed, I only took interest because of the latest Documentary, Anyway it’s not a case I will be following anymore.

[guest7363]

I'm pretty sure you have been on these threads before, asking similar type questions. Anyway, I'm done for the night, off to watch a movie, non-crime. I fancy a bit of a laugh, so comedy related. I may or may not be on tomorrow, so you can integrate me at your pleasure. Other than that, you can scroll back though these threads and find the answers you are looking for.

Nope I can’t remember joining in before, if I have I apologise,  like I’ve said I only joined in because of the new interest, but thanks for your help anyway.

[WakeyWakey]

i think it's time for legal action and libel cases. ridiculous.