Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: guest29835 on January 17, 2022, 03:34:AM
-
In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders. Which of the allegations are true? If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred. Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?
Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).
I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations.
Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant.
For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.
Thanks in advance.
List of allegations
1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.
2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.
3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.
4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.
5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed] 1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.
-
well the canbis use is true but then it apply nearly everybody inoled in this case.
-
In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders. Which of the allegations are true? If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred. Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?
Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).
I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations.
Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant.
For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.
Thanks in advance.
List of allegations
1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.
2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.
3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.
4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.
5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed]1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.
They were Jodi's initials on the knife pouch.
-
In researching this case, I am coming across lots of different allegations against Luke Mitchell, some relevant to the murder, some not. The purpose of this thread is to list these allegations and ask for a response from Luke's defenders. Which of the allegations are true? If a claim is false, please give an account of what in fact occurred. Where an allegation is true, can anything be said in Luke's defence?
Assuming sensible replies are forthcoming, I will add a summary or gist of responses in bold below each question, with credit to the relevant poster(s).
I will edit this opening post and add to this list as I come across more allegations.
Unless otherwise indicated, I will not post the source for an allegation, as that's not relevant.
For the time being, nothing should be read into this thread about my own view and position on the case.
Thanks in advance.
List of allegations
1. Days before the murder, Luke threatened another girl at knife point.
2. Luke was an habitual cannabis user.
3. Luke was addicted to cannabis.
4. Luke was a cannabis dealer and had equipment for this purpose in his bedroom.
5. Among Luke's effects, police found a leather knife pouch (without the knife), with these words inscribed on it by Luke: '[name removed] 1989-2003' and 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came'.
One of the features of this case and probably others is the way that local gossip and rumours turn into so called facts via social media and newspapers.
1 I have been unable to find any corroboration of this. If you watch the first JE video (10 mins) SL states no such incidents were recorded except for being hauled over the coals for throwing a missile at a girl. This turned out to be half a Mars bar.
2 We have no evidence of the level of his cannabis use. Some reports were around saying he smoked 600 joints a week. How he managed this whilst attending school is open to debate. Seems a lot, I doubt Bob Marley smoked that much. Reference is made to stronger skunk use at this time but it seems he was using resin varieties.
3 I believe and many say for a fact that there is no physical dependence with cannabis though it is said to have a detrimental effect on people with other underlying mental issues particularly schizophrenia. There is said to be no withdrawal symptoms. There may well be some for whom its use becomes a psychological dependency.
4 There are dealers of all shapes and sizes in terms of their operation. Again I am not sure the level of trade he was conducting. Clearly not on the scale of a Pablo Escobar. His suppliers were the ‘moped boys’ (Ferris and Dickie). The former gave evidence at trial that he supplied LM on a regular basis. What is regular, daily weekly? And volumes are not discussed. Was he just a playground dealer? Did he act as the go between with his suppliers and his mates, who pooled their finances and he did the deals. It looks as if he was at the bottom of the ladder.
As an aside were Ferris and Dickie conducting a deal at around 17.00 hrs that day when their moped was spotted at the ‘V’. Did they not come forward to protect themselves and their memory loss is because they did not, at that time wish to incriminate themselves? They could also have attracted attention as to whether they were involved in the murder, because of the timing.
5 Another example of the twisted truth element to this case is the inscription on the knife pouch. It is not wholly from the Nirvana track. The start is but the end is not.
The lyrics actually read.
‘The smartest day I ever had was when I learned to cry on command’
Not ‘Was when tomorrow never came’.
Only LM can tell us why he inscribed this. We can only guess.
As another aside I suggest his knife possession was for Divvying up the resin. Many moons ago at rock festivals dealers would advertise with ‘Hot Knives’ signs outside their tents. The knife blade is heated which makes cutting resin slabs and pieces more easy and accurate.
I do not know what happened to the knife. Was it confiscated at school or just lost. It only had a four-inch blade which would mean significant contamination to the perpetrator if used for a stabbing attack given the number of wounds.
-
the girl he was suppose to hae threatne with a knife dident come forward untill after the coniction the inccedent was supposed to have happend 2 yearsearler but she never said anything about it at the time.
make of that what you will.
-
These things help understand the person. I have never been involved in drugs, but I have been around people who have. If Luke Mitchell was selling cannabis, to me that implies certain things about him.
On the other hand, much of what is said about him seems to be insubstantial twaddle. An example is this article that appeared in 2014 about a honeytrap by a journalist, who wrote to Luke pretending to be a 16 year old girl, and received sexually-suggestive replies from him in prison:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609
Only some way down the article is it admitted that the letters were written in 2008, which means Luke would have been 18 or 19 at the time.
The Daily Record is a vile rag: easily the worst newspaper in Scotland. I notice they are at the forefront of the anti-Luke position in the Scottish media.
-
One of the features of this case and probably others is the way that local gossip and rumours turn into so called facts via social media and newspapers.
1 I have been unable to find any corroboration of this. If you watch the first JE video (10 mins) SL states no such incidents were recorded except for being hauled over the coals for throwing a missile at a girl. This turned out to be half a Mars bar.
2 We have no evidence of the level of his cannabis use. Some reports were around saying he smoked 600 joints a week. How he managed this whilst attending school is open to debate. Seems a lot, I doubt Bob Marley smoked that much. Reference is made to stronger skunk use at this time but it seems he was using resin varieties.
3 I believe and many say for a fact that there is no physical dependence with cannabis though it is said to have a detrimental effect on people with other underlying mental issues particularly schizophrenia. There is said to be no withdrawal symptoms. There may well be some for whom its use becomes a psychological dependency.
4 There are dealers of all shapes and sizes in terms of their operation. Again I am not sure the level of trade he was conducting. Clearly not on the scale of a Pablo Escobar. His suppliers were the ‘moped boys’ (Ferris and Dickie). The former gave evidence at trial that he supplied LM on a regular basis. What is regular, daily weekly? And volumes are not discussed. Was he just a playground dealer? Did he act as the go between with his suppliers and his mates, who pooled their finances and he did the deals. It looks as if he was at the bottom of the ladder.
As an aside were Ferris and Dickie conducting a deal at around 17.00 hrs that day when their moped was spotted at the ‘V’. Did they not come forward to protect themselves and their memory loss is because they did not, at that time wish to incriminate themselves? They could also have attracted attention as to whether they were involved in the murder, because of the timing.
5 Another example of the twisted truth element to this case is the inscription on the knife pouch. It is not wholly from the Nirvana track. The start is but the end is not.
The lyrics actually read.
‘The smartest day I ever had was when I learned to cry on command’
Not ‘Was when tomorrow never came’.
Only LM can tell us why he inscribed this. We can only guess.
As another aside I suggest his knife possession was for Divvying up the resin. Many moons ago at rock festivals dealers would advertise with ‘Hot Knives’ signs outside their tents. The knife blade is heated which makes cutting resin slabs and pieces more easy and accurate.
I do not know what happened to the knife. Was it confiscated at school or just lost. It only had a four-inch blade which would mean significant contamination to the perpetrator if used for a stabbing attack given the number of wounds.
There's more information here according to one national newspaper: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
-
if you an the sun a newspaper
-
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.
As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.
-
With regard to your last point she was working as a self-employed owner of a caravan site, so must have had something about her. Her demeanour always looked to me defensive as if she were frightened of something: troubled, tormented. How does Shane fit into the equation: he seems to have kept out of the media intrusion and not involved in the cabal between mother and younger son, if that's what it is?
-
Dobbie's opinions of Luke were based on interrogations that the appeal Judges described as abhorrent and that the only point of the questions was to illicit some hoped for confession. If Luke Mitchell had confessed in those interviews he would be a free man today it would be deemed as a false confession.
Michele Lyndsay was the FLO that shouldn't have been in the Mitchells home at all. Both her and the investigation came under fire at trial for the role she played. DF described her as a 'vixen in the hen house'. She should never have been in the Mitchells home when Luke was a suspect. When asked by DF if the investigation was a 'shambles' she said 'yes sir'.
Do you have an opinion on the way the police conducted the investigation Germane? Do you agree with Dobbie that it was perfect and couldn't have been done better or do you think there were failings but it's ok because they knew Luke was guilty and they got there in the end despite the poor investigation?
'Forensically aware/partial match comment' It's disappointing that you think this is a sign of intelligence.
It's basic biology and you don't need a degree to understand that there is no such thing as a 'partial match'.
"Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning"
When you take away your interpretation it doesn't sound sinister at all.
At 14 years old Luke was; 'Confident, sexually active, intelligent, strong, enjoyed alternative music and was popular amongst friends with similar interests, smoked cannabis, enjoys the outdoors, liked horror films, got into one fight in school, was asked to write about euthanasia, explained that the world has good and bad parts wrote that the world needs 'satanic people like me to keep the balance'. Comes from a line of strong independent women that can be described as hot headed at times. Scribbled quotes from video games on school jotters.'
'Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage'
Luke's cannabis usage consisted of £15 worth of hash a week, one school friend said he brought the lunch and Luke brought the hash.
If cannabis usage was a criteria for viewing someone as a person of interest you would have to include everyone in Jodi's household barring her mother. There was someone known to the investigation who was having home visits from a psychiatrist due to problems brought on early by excessive cannabis use. One of the moped boys smoked cannabis and sold it to Luke Mitchell. Cannabis was smoked regularly in Jodi's grans house and in her cousins YW's. SM probably did too I've never heard of Corrine Mitchell smoking it though.
There is poster over on the red forum that describes Luke as the 'Davey Crockett' type.
He/She used the fact that Jodi's trousers were tied with a 'granny' knot' to support his view of Luke being this outdoorsy type that knew his knots from cadets and camping etc.
Granny knots are called granny knots because they're the most common knot used by 'land-goers' I.e. Someone that doesn't have any specialist knowledge on knots. It's just a common double knot but because it had a special name in the article the poster used it to confirm his bias.
If you look for information to confirm your bias you will find it and it will feel right to you whether it's in line with the true information or not.
-
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old. He was advanced for his age (was cool and calculating and, according to Dobbie, was able to take control of police interviews despite never having any experience previously in the legal process), sexually mature for his age (a female journalist who interviewed him, or perhaps it was FLO Michelle Lindsay, commented that, judging from his body language, eye contact and confidence in conversation, Luke was sexually confident and advanced for his age), was forensically aware (as per his comments to the police, “you don’t have a match then”), was physically very strong (as per his ex-girlfriend’s comments when he pranked her at cadets), was something of an outcast, used and distributed large quantities of cannabis (usage that could clearly affect his mental health in a negative way), had an assortment of knives and was clearly interested in them as a hobby of sorts (was a David Crockett type — was keen on camping, the outdoors, hunting, the cadets), was an ardent fan of the macabre (court heard excerpts from taped police interviews where Luke admitted that ‘The Omen’ films were his particular favourites), was advised, even as early as primary school, to seek psychological help for trying to ‘throttle’ another pupil, in high school he was advised to seek psychological help as teachers were concerned about the content of his English essays, then there are the girls/previous girlfriends that Luke had threatened with knives and tried to sexually impose himself on, was used to getting his own way as he was spoiled by his mother in lieu of not having a father in the house (parents were divorced), was the man about the house in the absence of his father, making him more grown up and independent (ties in with him being ‘advanced’ for his age), was clearly two-timing Jodi, by his own admission ‘had a short fuse’ and quick temper (inherited from Corrine and Granny Ruby). Now, each of these things per se aren’t alarming or concerning, but, when taken together, along with the strong circumstancial evidence against him in the case, is very unsettling. Looking at all of the aforementioned, can you say that this is normal for a boy of 14? Given his nature, all of what I mentioned above and his cannabis usage, I think it’s entirely possible he carried out the horrific murder and acted nonchalantly and in control immediately after, especially if he was stoned.
As regards Luke not telling his mum and her not covering it up, well, just look at my list of reasons above; it negates your argument, imo. Furthermore, Corrine, while being an intelligent & independent woman, was not exactly a paragon of innocence. She indulged Luke, lied in order to get Luke a tattoo, had a short fuse, smoked cannabis herself and frequently drank (she had been drinking on the Monday evening and had to walk to the police station that night. Said the log burner wasn’t lit on that evening, but was refuted by her sons and neighbours. The bond between a mother and son is probably the strongest of all bonds, so, yes, I think she would be prepared to lie and cover up for him (the tatto parlour dishonesty does seem minor, but it nonetheless exposes a willingness to lie so her son can get his way). Also, just my gut instinct, I think there’s something a bit off about Corrine. Nothing against her, but there’s just something about her that doesn’t sit right with me.
I think the clue to your post lays in the title ‘ALLEGATIONS’ for that is all you have produced they are only a string of unattributed allegations.
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old.
Since when have you been a qualified psychologist and what is normal. I am sure you could attribute much of what you say to thousands of 14 year olds up and down the country.
Sexually mature for his age.
Applies to lots of lads, puberty onset and development is not something that can be the same for all.
Was forensically aware
So what. This type of information is easily obtained just by watching television.
Was physically strong
Boys are stronger than most girls in their early teens. Who is this girl? Unattributed ‘small town talk’ IMO.
Had an assortment of knives
Evidence required please. I was in the scouts we all liked knives.
Throttled another child at junior school.
Evidence please. Could have just been a minor playground bust up.
English essay concerns
What were the contents that caused this concern? Maybe he had a more vivid imagination and wrote in a more adult style tackling topics which stimulated his curiosity.
He tried to impose himself sexually on girls.
Names please and witness statements. More small town tittle tattle IMO.
Was clearly two timing JJ
Evidence please. Who was this other girlfriend?
His actions were fuelled by Cannabis.
You clearly missed out on the TV show the Young Ones. Neil was constantly stoned and could hardly get up from a chair and constantly messed up especially when cooking.
Your post seems to have been produced in order to convince yourself of his guilt. It has not changed my view.
-
he ient look ery pysally strong to me.
-
Luke's cannabis usage consisted of £15 worth of hash a week, one school friend said he brought the lunch and Luke brought the hash.
If cannabis usage was a criteria for viewing someone as a person of interest you would have to include everyone in Jodi's household barring her mother. There was someone known to the investigation who was having home visits from a psychiatrist due to problems brought on early by excessive cannabis use. One of the moped boys smoked cannabis and sold it to Luke Mitchell. Cannabis was smoked regularly in Jodi's grans house and in her cousins YW's. SM probably did too I've never heard of Corrine Mitchell smoking it though.
Is that you still trying to smear the Jones. You would think in the day and age you would change tac, but you just cannot help yourself. But i'm sure you will provide source to back all this up right?
£15 worth of hash is 4/5 joints, 3 grams, we know by Luke's own admission he smoked considerably more. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409362.jodi-boy-friend-smoked-300-cannabis-joints-a-week-teenagers-boast-to-psychiatrist-in-doubt/
-
Is that you still trying to smear the Jones. You would think in the day and age you would change tac, but you just cannot help yourself. But i'm sure you will provide source to back all this up right?
£15 worth of hash is 4/5 joints, 3 grams, we know by Luke's own admission he smoked considerably more. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409362.jodi-boy-friend-smoked-300-cannabis-joints-a-week-teenagers-boast-to-psychiatrist-in-doubt/
The whole article is more revealing if you care to read it. I think he meant grams not ounces. It also reveals what JJ's best friend thought.
She described herself as really close to Jodi and also "best mates" with Luke.
"They really, really loved each other. They were always hugging and stuff, which was cool because most guys won't do that in front of people, " she said.
However, she also described how she "went radge" when she discovered Mr Mitchell was buying a lock-knife some time after Jodi's death.
"I told him it was really disrespectful, " she said. Mr Mitchell, she claimed, replied:
"It is only for cutting weed."
The detectives asked her in September if Mr Mitchell had ever done or said anything to make her suspect he had been involved in Jodi's death. Laura told them: "No, I would - see - if he did tell me I would have killed him there and then and it would have been me sitting in the jail now."
She added: "I think he is innocent."
-
I think he meant grams not ounces.
Hahahahaha, source to back this up please.
-
I think the clue to your post lays in the title ‘ALLEGATIONS’ for that is all you have produced they are only a string of unattributed allegations.
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old.
Since when have you been a qualified psychologist and what is normal. I am sure you could attribute much of what you say to thousands of 14 year olds up and down the country.
Sexually mature for his age.
Applies to lots of lads, puberty onset and development is not something that can be the same for all.
Was forensically aware
So what. This type of information is easily obtained just by watching television.
Was physically strong
Boys are stronger than most girls in their early teens. Who is this girl? Unattributed ‘small town talk’ IMO.
Had an assortment of knives
Evidence required please. I was in the scouts we all liked knives.
Throttled another child at junior school.
Evidence please. Could have just been a minor playground bust up.
English essay concerns
What were the contents that caused this concern? Maybe he had a more vivid imagination and wrote in a more adult style tackling topics which stimulated his curiosity.
He tried to impose himself sexually on girls.
Names please and witness statements. More small town tittle tattle IMO.
Was clearly two timing JJ
Evidence please. Who was this other girlfriend?
His actions were fuelled by Cannabis.
You clearly missed out on the TV show the Young Ones. Neil was constantly stoned and could hardly get up from a chair and constantly messed up especially when cooking.
Your post seems to have been produced in order to convince yourself of his guilt. It has not changed my view.
Luke was not a normal 14-year-old.
It's not really normal to store more than twenty bottles of urine in your bedroom I would have thought. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3a+The+finest+day+I+ever+had+was+when+tomorrow...-a0126288471
Evidence required please. I was in the scouts we all liked knives.
Kirsten Ford's evidence. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Evidence please. Who was this other girlfriend? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/31/1
What were the contents that caused this concern? Maybe he had a more vivid imagination and wrote in a more adult style tackling topics which stimulated his curiosity Mrs Mackie's concerns: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4042321.stm
-
With regard to your last point she was working as a self-employed owner of a caravan site, so must have had something about her. Her demeanour always looked to me defensive as if she were frightened of something: troubled, tormented. How does Shane fit into the equation: he seems to have kept out of the media intrusion and not involved in the cabal between mother and younger son, if that's what it is?
I don’t have anything against CM whastsoever. I think she may be in denial, though. I’m still not sure if LM ever told her if he was responsible for Jodi’s murder, but I think LM had help that evening disposing of incriminating evidence (clothing). Either CM or LM were involved, or both, imo. Another piece of info I’ve gleaned in relation to this case over the past few months, from books and online forums, is that CM’s burgundy Frontera was spotted near the entrance to rdp on the battle road that evening (I think this info came from people who were at the original trial, either as witnesses or who attended the trial out of curiosity ... info has a way of filtering through, though how accurate said info is is up for debate). Regardless, the prosecution built a complelling case against LM; the circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming.
As for SM ... I’ve already highlighted in another thread that his testimony severely undermined his younger brother’s alibi. In fact, for me, SM’s testimony was the most salient evidence of Luke’s guilt; it showed that CM tried to supply Luke with a false alibi (and I think the only reason that she wasn’t charged with perjury was because the prosecution probably felt that she’d endured enough by losing her son to a life sentence and felt sorry for her, to an extent). I also think that SM’s reticence throughout the years (as well as the father’s reticence) about the case speaks volumes. If I thought my own brother was innocent, especially of a brutal murder, I would be very vocal about it and very much in the public eye getting the message out there. But not a peep from SM in all these years. Very telling, imo. Likewise, I’ve always felt that LM’s lack of emotion throughout the trial and at sentencing was concerning and telling (and I don’t buy all these theories that he was emotionless because he was heavily medicated or advised by the judge not to show any emotion; if he was innocent, he would’ve been shouting and being animated, protesting his innocence).
-
Hahahahaha, source to back this up please.
Have you had a fresh supply of oxygen. It is clear he had no idea of his own consumption. Even Bob Marley and all the Wailers would have struggled to consume at that level as was testified by the expert and a detective.
-
I don’t have anything against CM whastsoever. I think she may be in denial, though. I’m still not sure if LM ever told her if he was responsible for Jodi’s murder, but I think LM had help that evening disposing of incriminating evidence (clothing). Either CM or LM were involved, or both, imo. Another piece of info I’ve gleaned in relation to this case over the past few months, from books and online forums, is that CM’s burgundy Frontera was spotted near the entrance to rdp on the battle road that evening (I think this info came from people who were at the original trial, either as witnesses or who attended the trial out of curiosity ... info has a way of filtering through, though how accurate said info is is up for debate). Regardless, the prosecution built a complelling case against LM; the circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming.
As for SM ... I’ve already highlighted in another thread that his testimony severely undermined his younger brother’s alibi. In fact, for me, SM’s testimony was the most salient evidence of Luke’s guilt; it showed that CM tried to supply Luke with a false alibi (and I think the only reason that she wasn’t charged with perjury was because the prosecution probably felt that she’d endured enough by losing her son to a life sentence and felt sorry for her, to an extent). I also think that SM’s reticence throughout the years (as well as the father’s reticence) about the case speaks volumes. If I thought my own brother was innocent, especially of a brutal murder, I would be very vocal about it and very much in the public eye getting the message out there. But not a peep from SM in all these years. Very telling, imo. Likewise, I’ve always felt that LM’s lack of emotion throughout the trial and at sentencing was concerning and telling (and I don’t buy all these theories that he was emotionless because he was heavily medicated or advised by the judge not to show any emotion; if he was innocent, he would’ve been shouting and being animated, protesting his innocence).
Yes these are good points. I always wondered why the brother and father kept silent. As far as Luke's emotions are concerned, does cannabis have a mind-numbing effect, and what about withdrawal symptoms?
-
Is that you still trying to smear the Jones. You would think in the day and age you would change tac, but you just cannot help yourself. But i'm sure you will provide source to back all this up right?
£15 worth of hash is 4/5 joints, 3 grams, we know by Luke's own admission he smoked considerably more. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409362.jodi-boy-friend-smoked-300-cannabis-joints-a-week-teenagers-boast-to-psychiatrist-in-doubt/
Can you please make your own separate thread to discredit Dr Sandra Lean. I understand that you don't like her that's coming through loud and clear across the 4 separate threads that you've brought her into now.
Dr Sandra lean is the author of the only book completely devoted to this case. She is Luke Mitchells advocate and has access to the defence's case papers. Regardless of anyone's opinion of her as an individual, it is almost entirely impossible to discuss the case without mentioning her.
As I've said before much of my own reading into this case supports what she claims in her book. I get that you don't agree with that, it's ok to disagree. Derailing the conversation to make it about her is not helpful to the people who are trying to understand the ins and out of the case.
JF admitted in court that he used and supplied cannabis. https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
Additional information from Dr Sandra Lean based on the statements of JF, JoJ and JuJ, is that JF and JoJ stayed over at AW house on the night before Jodi was murdered, smoked cannabis and had a few beers then they walked to Judith's the following morning and smoked cannabis in JoJ's bedroom until JF left in the afternoon.
-
Was clearly two timing JJ
Evidence please. Who was this other girlfriend?
Yes Luke was cheating on Jodi with KT. He met her while on holiday and they stayed in touch through phone calls and met up another once or twice. It's also true that on a Saturday night Luke arranged for a taxi to take Jodi home so she wouldn't miss her curfew of 10pm then phoned KT and had phone sex. Was this a really shitty way to treat Jodi and KT? Yes. Does it make Luke Mitchell a murderer? No.
Remember these were 13 and 14 year old kids not serious long term relationships.
The motive put forward by the prosecution was that Luke had an upcoming holiday and would be visiting KT, Jodi found out, an argument ensued and he killed her. Corinne said that this holiday had been cancelled. Judith said Jodi left the house in a good mood and was happy to be seeing Luke so no indication of an earlier argument.
-
Can you please make your own separate thread to discredit Dr Sandra Lean. I understand that you don't like her that's coming through loud and clear across the 4 separate threads that you've brought her into now.
Dr Sandra lean is the author of the only book completely devoted to this case. She is Luke Mitchells advocate and has access to the defence's case papers. Regardless of anyone's opinion of her as an individual, it is almost entirely impossible to discuss the case without mentioning her.
As I've said before much of my own reading into this case supports what she claims in her book. I get that you don't agree with that, it's ok to disagree. Derailing the conversation to make it about her is not helpful to the people who are trying to understand the ins and out of the case.
JF admitted in court that he used and supplied cannabis. https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
Additional information from Dr Sandra Lean based on the statements of JF, JoJ and JuJ, is that JF and JoJ stayed over at AW house on the night before Jodi was murdered, smoked cannabis and had a few beers then they walked to Judith's the following morning and smoked cannabis in JoJ's bedroom until JF left in the afternoon.
Not good enough, you are the one making these claims and trying to pass them on as facts, back them up, it really is that simple.
-
Have you had a fresh supply of oxygen. It is clear he had no idea of his own consumption. Even Bob Marley and all the Wailers would have struggled to consume at that level as was testified by the expert and a detective.
Are you calling Luke a lier now? I'm glad you're catching on.
-
Surely the way Jodie was killed suggests a perpetrator who is obsessed with violence of an extreme nature? It would also to my mind tend to suggest premeditation rather than an opportunistic sex predator, who would have his way with Jodie, make a clean kill and clear out of the area as soon as possible.
-
Are you calling Luke a lier now? I'm glad you're catching on.
It is possible he was making fun of the prosecution by exaggerating his consumption level because he thought this was a silly issue to be used as a reason for his behaviour. I tend to think it was as said originally he had no idea of his consumption level.
-
Surely the way Jodie was killed suggests a perpetrator who is obsessed with violence of an extreme nature? It would also to my mind tend to suggest premeditation rather than an opportunistic sex predator, who would have his way with Jodie, make a clean kill and clear out of the area as soon as possible.
I suppose what I'm getting at is: due to the extreme violent nature of the crime did Luke Mitchell leave his calling card at the site?
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is: due to the extreme violent nature of the crime did Luke Mitchell leave his calling card at the site?
See answer below.
One of the features of this case and probably others is the way that local gossip and rumours turn into so called facts via social media and newspapers.
1 I have been unable to find any corroboration of this. If you watch the first JE video (10 mins) SL states no such incidents were recorded except for being hauled over the coals for throwing a missile at a girl. This turned out to be half a Mars bar.
2 We have no evidence of the level of his cannabis use. Some reports were around saying he smoked 600 joints a week. How he managed this whilst attending school is open to debate. Seems a lot, I doubt Bob Marley smoked that much. Reference is made to stronger skunk use at this time but it seems he was using resin varieties.
3 I believe and many say for a fact that there is no physical dependence with cannabis though it is said to have a detrimental effect on people with other underlying mental issues particularly schizophrenia. There is said to be no withdrawal symptoms. There may well be some for whom its use becomes a psychological dependency.
4 There are dealers of all shapes and sizes in terms of their operation. Again I am not sure the level of trade he was conducting. Clearly not on the scale of a Pablo Escobar. His suppliers were the ‘moped boys’ (Ferris and Dickie). The former gave evidence at trial that he supplied LM on a regular basis. What is regular, daily weekly? And volumes are not discussed. Was he just a playground dealer? Did he act as the go between with his suppliers and his mates, who pooled their finances and he did the deals. It looks as if he was at the bottom of the ladder.
As an aside were Ferris and Dickie conducting a deal at around 17.00 hrs that day when their moped was spotted at the ‘V’. Did they not come forward to protect themselves and their memory loss is because they did not, at that time wish to incriminate themselves? They could also have attracted attention as to whether they were involved in the murder, because of the timing.
5 Another example of the twisted truth element to this case is the inscription on the knife pouch. It is not wholly from the Nirvana track. The start is but the end is not.
The lyrics actually read.
‘The smartest day I ever had was when I learned to cry on command’
Not ‘Was when tomorrow never came’.
Only LM can tell us why he inscribed this. We can only guess.
As another aside I suggest his knife possession was for Divvying up the resin. Many moons ago at rock festivals dealers would advertise with ‘Hot Knives’ signs outside their tents. The knife blade is heated which makes cutting resin slabs and pieces more easy and accurate.
I do not know what happened to the knife. Was it confiscated at school or just lost. It only had a four-inch blade which would mean significant contamination to the perpetrator if used for a stabbing attack given the number of wounds.
For some killers it is the act of slaughter that they crave rather than sexual gratification. By all the guilters postings it seems that he had no problem with getting sex even over the phone. I see you asking questions about cannabis use. Perhaps you missed my earlier post details above. You will also notice that I said he bought the knife for cutting resin cannabis which I now see that this is the reason he gave to JJ's best mate and she stated this at trial. It was purchased after the murder
Sorry Steve if you do not pay attention in class you will (a) have to do a detention (b) sit at the front of the class where I can keep an eye on you (c) force me to write to your parents (d) force me to send you for a psychological assessment
-
See answer below.
For some killers it is the act of slaughter that they crave rather than sexual gratification. By all the guilters postings it seems that he had no problem with getting sex even over the phone. I see you asking questions about cannabis use. Perhaps you missed my earlier post details above. You will also notice that I said he bought the knife for cutting resin cannabis which I now see that this is the reason he gave to JJ's best mate and she stated this at trial. It was purchased after the murder
Sorry Steve if you do not pay attention in class you will (a) have to do a detention (b) sit at the front of the class where I can keep an eye on you (c) force me to write to your parents (d) force me to send you for a psychological assessment
I'm not taking the bait. You have been provided with links showing Mitchell's cannabis use (as far as I'm concerned the amount is irrelevant), that he had at least one other girlfriend, that his English teacher was so concerned about his essays she contacted the school guardian, that he used a knife on another girl during Cadets, that his alibi failed to stand up in court and that he had at least a passing interest in the Devil.
-
I suppose what I'm getting at is: due to the extreme violent nature of the crime did Luke Mitchell leave his calling card at the site?
Could’ve been the birth of a serial killer. You never know. I know it is well known that it was testified in court that LM had previously talked about getting stoned and killing a person and how funny that would be, how he knew how to kill a person and how to eviscerate animals like cows and horses, but what conclusions can you really draw from this? Sure, it is disturbing, but probably was not uncommon ramblings amongst goths and grunge music types back in 2003. Such a complex case.
-
I'm not taking the bait. You have been provided with links showing Mitchell's cannabis use (as far as I'm concerned the amount is irrelevant), that he had at least one other girlfriend, that his English teacher was so concerned about his essays she contacted the school guardian, that he used a knife on another girl during Cadets, that his alibi failed to stand up in court and that he had at least a passing interest in the Devil.
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.
-
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
-
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
The clue is in the words 'than usual' . Remember teenage boys can be less than scrupulous when it comes to personal hygiene. What you and I might call scruffy and a bit grimy may be viewed by them as 'smart' Since he was meeting JJ he may have tidied himself up a bit. So he was cleaner THAN USUAL.
-
There is a source claiming Luke was cleaner than usual when he met some friends later. There are other indicators, all circumstantial admittedly. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6759709/luke-mitchell-evidence-guilty-jodi-jones-murder/
Yes there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Much of it with the view of hindsight is highly contestable and weak. There is also a high degree of misinformation brought about by local rags peddling unattributed gossip. To convict on this basis with absolutely no forensics is not right. The chances of committing this crime with no forensics is almost impossible in my way of thinking.
-
It was a joke Steve lighten up. For me it is the forensics above all the other issues. I cannot see how he could have done it without contamination. He was tested that night. The report shows he had not washed yet he was able to commit the crime without any, ANY contamination from blood or DNA evidence. Quite a feat for someone high on cannabis, stoned out of his mind and killing in a frenzied attack for the first time.
With a weapon that was not sufficient to produce the wounds found and would have damaged the killers hand. That it according to the pathologist.
A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).
-
The clue is in the words 'than usual' . Remember teenage boys can be less than scrupulous when it comes to personal hygiene. What you and I might call scruffy and a bit grimy may be viewed by them as 'smart' Since he was meeting JJ he may have tidied himself up a bit. So he was cleaner THAN USUAL.
These boys were used to seeing Luke regularly, and Jodi was usually always with him when they did. David High testified in court that he had asked lm where jodi was that evening, as he was surpised that she was not with him. Strangely, LM said that ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Also, it’s very significant indeed that they testified in court that he was looking a lot cleaner than his usual scruffy self. The evening that a young girl is murdered — a young girl that set out specifically to meet him — her
boyfriend is looking a lot more cleaner than normal? Hmm
-
These boys were used to seeing Luke regularly, and Jodi was usually always with him when they did. David High testified in court that he had asked lm where jodi was that evening, as he was surpised that she was not with him. Strangely, LM said that ‘Jodi wouldn’t be coming out’. Also, it’s very significant indeed that they testified in court that he was looking a lot cleaner than his usual scruffy self. The evening that a young girl is murdered — a young girl that set out specifically to meet him — her
boyfriend is looking a lot more cleaner than normal? Hmm
I have to say the more I read about this case the blacker it looks for Mitchell. Of course you really have to be in the courtroom and follow the evidence, and even then you can be mistaken.
-
A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).
Your post is at odds with the pathological evidence from Prof Busuttil. He is on record as saying (@2.45 mins in) that Jodie lost some 5 litres of blood prior to death and that the perp would have needed to wear a covering over his clothes and person to avoid transfer including the wearing of gloves and googles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=222s
Please can you start supplying sources for your claims.
-
A lot of people seem to think that the killer would’ve had to have been covered in blood, which is simply not true. SL mentions in IB that the locus had surprisingly little blood on ground (as it had likely been absorbed into the damp soil). Sure, there was blood spray on the wall, Jodi’s neck was bloody, her t-shirt was heavily bloodstained and there were droplets of blood on branches at and near the locus, but it wasn’t the bloodbath that a lot of people were led to believe. Likewise, the killer didn’t emerge from the soc blood-soaked: if this had been the case, Lf&RW would have said so in their statements. I think lm’s parka jacket was probably slightly blood-stained and lm was smart enough to realise that he would have forensic traces on him, so disappeared into the woodlands at 1740 (immediately after the lf&rw sighting) and quickly cleaned up at the small river there and then got his mother or brother to have clothes ready for him to change into quickly in that garage of theirs or in the front hallway of the house, with LM being extremely careful not to leave any incriminating dna traces in or near his house, and then he was back on nbattle rd with clean clothes on (green bomber jacket, black baggy jeans and white snowboarding boots) in time for 6 separate sightings, the first one being by the 3 boys on pushbikes who knew him. So, no — no bloodbath murder scene, no blood-soaked killer and no killer going home and having a long relaxing shower (lm would be wise enough to realise he would risk leaving dna in the shower’s plumbing system, so opted to clean up at the small river in thecwoodland behind that gate on nbattle rd where lf&rw spotted him). Lm’s pyke knife that went missing could have easily inflicted all those wounds, and the reason the police forensics said he hadn’t washed was because he hadn’t really washed; he had quickly cleaned up at that small river in the woodland — enough to remove all incriminating dna traces — and then he went out and delibertately got dirty again with David High and David Tulloch at the abbey between 1930 and 2100 (these boys testified in court that LM was a lot cleaner than he normally was, that night).
I find this post so preposterous I question whether I should even bother to accord it validity and respond. How much more fantasy fuelled speculation must we endure. The key thing is, there is no record of LM contacting his home to set up the clothing exchange. That rather kills the main plank of your argument. Not only was there no evidence on Luke but he also managed to remove his DNA from JJ but leave other male DNA intact, some feat.
I will repeat the point that the knife was purchased after the killing and the pathologist gave solid reasons as to why that knife was unlikely to be the weapon for reasons already outlined.
If this was premeditated it would make more sense to take a change of clothes and hide them for future use. He could also have packed his soap bag and a towel.
He could have rolled in the dirt to provide a reason for a clothing change. I tripped and fell in the stream. Just how did he dirty himself up? You seem to have had a logic bypass.
-
Your post is at odds with the pathological evidence from Prof Busuttil. He is on record as saying (@2.45 mins in) that Jodie lost some 5 litres of blood prior to death and that the perp would have needed to wear a covering over his clothes and person to avoid transfer including the wearing of gloves and googles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m-zHEUOFR0&t=222s
Please can you start supplying sources for your claims.
I think Busuttil is a bit over the top with the goggles. Would stand out unless my QC theory and his snorkelling expedition is right. However a pair of aviator sunglasses would do the trick. Good size lenses to cover a large area.