Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: nugnug on March 14, 2022, 03:18:PM
-
why would many foreni eeperts and e ops all onspire to lie just in order to et luke out of prion whywould they do it what would e in it for them.
-
The same could be said for L&B police, 100's of witnesses, the justice system, the press and his very own brother. The difference is, they were not paid a fee for their opinion by producers of sensationalized documentaries.
The only one of these so-called expert's opinion that is worth anything, is Busttilli, although this has been asked multiple times, i have yet to see anyone point in the direction, that he has ever put his name towards the innocent campaign.
Really need to try harder.
-
Yeah, the C5 doco was extremely biased, and, let’s face it, without any reference to the Prosecution’s case it is worthless and untenable. As I recall, they seemed to cherry-pick and focus on AB’s sighting at 1654, saying, inaccurately, that she didn’t identify him in court; she didn’t categorically say it wasn’t him, but rather she said she didn’t know. There’s quite a difference. Besides, AB was only being truthful, as LM had changed considerably between 30.06.03 and her court appearance; 18 months had elapsed and in that time Luke had gained weight, his hair was longer, and was still developing and going through puberty. However, there were far more people at court who testified and id’d LM in court (the 3 pushbike boys, Carol Heatlie and LF & RW). Also, the doco focused on the lack of forensics, saying there was no DNA linking LM to the murder; again, this was misleading, as LM’s dna was found on Jodi’s bra and there were many markers from partial profiles on Jodi’s clothes and body, so much so that LM couldn’t be ruled out as the donor.
-
AB’s sighting at 1654, saying, inaccurately, that she didn’t identify him in court; she didn’t categorically say it wasn’t him, but rather she said she didn’t know. There’s quite a difference. Besides, AB was only being truthful,
And that is why, over the years, they have tried to discredit her sighting, they focus on this much more than any of the others. They have even gone as far as trying to connect her to the Jones. Simply because, she told the truth in court that she did not know that Mitchell was in court that day. We know why, it was actually quite a clever move from Donald Findley, he knew Bryson was due up that day, he knew what he was going to ask her what a better way to confuse her, by getting Luke to change his appearance, quite considerably as well. But the fact she told the truth, tells us, she is an honest person, she probably knew it was Luke, just not the Luke she saw on the day of the murder. From a scruffy teen, to some kind of slick pornstar.
The dumb and dumber with daughter in tow, reconstruction. It was something out of a Benny Hill sketch. Wonder what those two are up to these days? Exactly, nothing, drowning in their sorrows after getting bumped off the force.
-
And that is why, over the years, they have tried to discredit her sighting, they focus on this much more than any of the others. They have even gone as far as trying to connect her to the Jones. Simply because, she told the truth in court that she did not know that Mitchell was in court that day. We know why, it was actually quite a clever move from Donald Findley, he knew Bryson was due up that day, he knew what he was going to ask her what a better way to confuse her, by getting Luke to change his appearance, quite considerably as well. But the fact she told the truth, tells us, she is an honest person, she probably knew it was Luke, just not the Luke she saw on the day of the murder. From a scruffy teen, to some kind of slick pornstar.
The dumb and dumber with daughter in tow, reconstruction. It was something out of a Benny Hill sketch. Wonder what those two are up to these days? Exactly, nothing, drowning in their sorrows after getting bumped off the force.
The reason AB is discredited is because her description of the two people once properly scrutinised fell apart when you know the clothes , hair colour etc of Jodi in particular, it's clear to most including the appeal judge this is an area that could be argued.
Also , the not picking Luke out this has to be the most rediculas area of all to say Luke had changed etc, he was in the papers for God knows how long , please she knew exactly who she was to pick out that day , but when it got to court the lady would not lie , being unsure was her way of taking the easy way out.
The two other witnesses never saw his face but one of them said she would never forget those eyes , really how does somebody never forget a persons eyes when the never seen their face. DFindlay annihilated these two on the stand with their evidence as did the judge as it was very obvious they had collaborated , it's all out there in trial coverage and appeal docs.
The experts getting paid for their opinion , yeah that's how it works people get paid for a job. So what you are saying is these experts would put their name to an injustice just for the cash what about their credibility and their career , they would throw it all away just for one case, catch a grip
What about the expert from the FBI is he a liar as well, someone outlined all the experts on another thread on here it's worth checking them all out and ask yourself why would they support if their was even a possablility that it could be wrong , why take the chance if wrong it could be hugely detrimental for their career .
The two coppers had 30 years between them in serious crime , on the latter part of their career they where allegedly involved in some type of corruption within that department however I believe no charges where upheld so who knows. But I agree with their credibility being in question even though no charges it's never good no smoke without fire comes to mind.
Professor B stated in the BBC Documentary that it was very unlikely that Luke committed this crime, he also stated about 4 mins in Jodi fought for her life , Luke Mitchell had not a mark , scratch , DNA under those dirty finger nails all come back as clear. The BBC documentary was screened 2 years after conviction this was a balanced look at the crime and the investigation , nobody esp one of the top Patholigist in Scotland would appear in a documentary outlining the flaws and anomalies of a case if he didn't support , again Dave catch a grip.
-
Yeah, the C5 doco was extremely biased, and, let’s face it, without any reference to the Prosecution’s case it is worthless and untenable. As I recall, they seemed to cherry-pick and focus on AB’s sighting at 1654, saying, inaccurately, that she didn’t identify him in court; she didn’t categorically say it wasn’t him, but rather she said she didn’t know. There’s quite a difference. Besides, AB was only being truthful, as LM had changed considerably between 30.06.03 and her court appearance; 18 months had elapsed and in that time Luke had gained weight, his hair was longer, and was still developing and going through puberty. However, there were far more people at court who testified and id’d LM in court (the 3 pushbike boys, Carol Heatlie and LF & RW). Also, the doco focused on the lack of forensics, saying there was no DNA linking LM to the murder; again, this was misleading, as LM’s dna was found on Jodi’s bra and there were many markers from partial profiles on Jodi’s clothes and body, so much so that LM couldn’t be ruled out as the donor.
I agree Germane the programme was bias in as much as it was to outline the flaws in the investigation against Luke Mitchell, that was the purpose as the only side we (the public) knew only the prosecution and the medias bias pre trial and throughout so this programme was purposely to point out the many flaws that way we would then have both sides . However their was a separate production by the BBC The Devils own filmed 2 years after case ( Sandra lean had no part in this ) , so if you haven't seen that you should watch as it has some key experts . It's always a good thing to research fully it may not waver your opinion or it may highlight something you where not aware of before.
I've noticed you have mentioned Luke's DNA was on Jodi bra , this is factually incorrect their was no full profile of Luke on Jodi or her underclothes. The profile was a partial , the markers found could match some of Luke's but also many other males, including key people involved in the investigation. The only full profile found on Jodi Bra tshirt was from her sisters boyfriend which they said was via innocent transfer however my suspicious little mind would like that clarified via a fresh Forensic Analysis via Independent Enquiry .
-
The reason AB is discredited is because her description of the two people once properly scrutinised fell apart when you know the clothes , hair colour etc of Jodi in particular, it's clear to most including the appeal judge this is an area that could be argued.
That is because you have tunnel vision.
Also , the not picking Luke out this has to be the most rediculas area of all to say Luke had changed etc, he was in the papers for God knows how long , please she knew exactly who she was to pick out that day , but when it got to court the lady would not lie , being unsure was her way of taking the easy way out.
You just don't get it do you?
DFindlay annihilated these two on the stand with their evidence as did the judge as it was very obvious they had collaborated , it's all out there in trial coverage and appeal docs.
Oooo, a conspiracy theory. Need to back this up.
credibility and their career
How is that working out for them?
What about the expert from the FBI
Oooooo, big fancy names. The FBI, who gives a shit.
The two coppers had 30 years between them in serious crime
Yea? Who told you that. What sort of crime where they're solving, links to back this up.
Professor B stated in the BBC Documentary that it was very unlikely that Luke committed this crime
Show me anything, where he puts his name to the campaign. Why don't you go email him and ask him, bet ye won't..
-
Forensic Analysis via Independent Enquiry .
Not going to happen. Case it closed.
-
That is because you have tunnel vision.
You just don't get it do you?
Oooo, a conspiracy theory. Need to back this up.
How is that working out for them?
Oooooo, big fancy names. The FBI, who gives a shit.
Yea? Who told you that. What sort of crime where they're solving, links to back this up.
Show me anything, where he puts his name to the campaign. Why don't you go email him and ask him, bet ye won't..
Again you show yourself for what you are , how much research (not just one side) have you done. You questioned the police investigation being to a poor standard , you ask for proof why don't you bloody research the trial and the appeal detail even Donald Findlay was flabbergasted that a lead detective of his rank would be unaware of basic procedures with regards to identity parade , that was reported in the paper and also the appeal makes reference also. You don't even need to research Sandra for this info , it's out there in the public domain.
I can't be bothered with any the rest of that rabble , I know both sides you are only defending one so your imput is severely bias , but good luck to you if you are happy with the murder conviction and actively turn a blind eye to anything that does not line up with your belief , no need for any further clarification with u , the streets are safe..
Well I'm not , I want to make sure a murderer is off the streets, I want to know who all those unidentified male DNA profiles found on Jodi belong to , I want to be damn sure and all these credible experts putting their name towards support of miscarriage only further supports a further look, ( your interpretation of Prof B is like most of your opinion completely and utterly bias ) well we are just world a parts with our thinking but good luck to you ??
-
Again you show yourself for what you are
Intelligent, handsome, know it all.
you ask for proof why don't you bloody research the trial
You are the one making all sorts of claims, i have yet to see any sources to back them up. You're copping out, i almost feel embarrassed for you.
identity parade
Done the murdering psychopath a favour if you ask me.
the streets are safe..
From Mitchell, they are.
Well I'm not , I want to make sure a murderer is off the streets, I want to know who all those unidentified male DNA profiles found on Jodi belong to
There is more chance that Jesus comes back.
I want
You want lots of things, don't you, it reminds me of a 5 year old child. Stamp your feet and squeal outside Holyrood, might work. Oh you lot have tried that one already lol.
( your interpretation of Prof B is like most of your opinion completely and utterly bias )
So you bottled it? Never mailed him?
-
Intelligent, handsome, know it all.
You are the one making all sorts of claims, i have yet to see any sources to back them up. You're copping out, i almost feel embarrassed for you.
Done the murdering psychopath a favour if you ask me.
From Mitchell, they are.
There is more chance that Jesus comes back.
You want lots of things, don't you, it reminds me of a 5 year old child. Stamp your feet and squeal outside Holyrood, might work. Oh you lot have tried that one already lol.
So you bottled it? Never mailed him?
Your not aware of the police blunders in this case and that is not via Dr Lean- as I say you have done no research
You are embarrassing yourself with your complete ignorance , most people I have debated with who are on the guilty side even admit to the poor police investigation- like I say just embarrassing.
I want to ensure justice has been delivered not just to ensure safety but to ensure the wee girl who lost her life has proper justice and able to rest in peace.
I don't need to send a letter to Professor Bussattil he has clearly made his feelings known on the subject with his appearance on a BBC documentary outlining the flaws - just embarrassing . What is it you think he is saying in the documentary . If he supported the guilty he would not appear on a documentary about innocence - catch a grip
I can't debate with someone who is blinkered and closed off to the problems with this case .
Here I will help you research check out what the liaison officer at COURT as a prosecution witness admitted to D Findlay she said the investigation was a SHAMBLES - just embarrassing that you are trying to state all the problems with that investigation . Even the BBC Doc outline the problems with that investigation - just embarrassing.
Can't really debate a subject where the person has not even done the most basic of research , your a closed book , and a danger to our society with such closed views.
One more time for old time sake , What does the forensic analysis in the Luke Mitchell case tell you and no the answer is not " because it's a circumstancial case" - what type of answer is that , just embarrassing.
-
Your not aware of the police blunders in this case and that is not via Dr Lean- as I say you have done no research
You are embarrassing yourself with your complete ignorance , most people I have debated with who are on the guilty side even admit to the poor police investigation- like I say just embarrassing.
I want to ensure justice has been delivered not just to ensure safety but to ensure the wee girl who lost her life has proper justice and able to rest in peace.
I don't need to send a letter to Professor Bussattil he has clearly made his feelings known on the subject with his appearance on a BBC documentary outlining the flaws - just embarrassing . What is it you think he is saying in the documentary . If he supported the guilty he would not appear on a documentary about innocence - catch a grip
I can't debate with someone who is blinkered and closed off to the problems with this case .
Here I will help you research check out what the liaison officer at COURT as a prosecution witness admitted to D Findlay she said the investigation was a SHAMBLES - just embarrassing that you are trying to state all the problems with that investigation . Even the BBC Doc outline the problems with that investigation - just embarrassing.
Can't really debate a subject where the person has not even done the most basic of research , your a closed book , and a danger to our society with such closed views.
One more time for old time sake , What does the forensic analysis in the Luke Mitchell case tell you and no the answer is not " because it's a circumstant case" - what type of answer is that , just embarrassing.
What would you say were the problems and errors in the police investigation? Could you perhaps provide a quick bullet list?
-
What would you say were the problems and errors in the police investigation? Could you perhaps provide a quick bullet list?
1. Within in the first few hours of this investigation a complete lack of crime scene management was obvious by Leaving the victim out in the rain , no cover of the victim to a. Retain vital evidence and b. Give the victim some dignity.
2. Police where instructed to collect all the clothing in a hap hazard fashion which created cross contamination.
3. Forensic officer who arrived could not get over the v in the wall due to a bad back so instead of going in another way decided to leave again leaving potential evidence to be damaged and lost . A different forensic officer officer then turned up at 8:00 am the following day to walk the scene and gather evidence.
4. No time of death given or assessed properly
5. Police disturbed the scene before forensic officer appeared with cutting down branches with blood splatter on them.
6. Jodi body was moved by rolling on to plastic covering , who knows Jodi position when body was initiall moved by police.
7. The Forensic officer admitted at trial it was not an ideal situation as the body being moved and not covered would of course cause problems with assessing the scene as it was left by the murderer.
8. An order to bleach the scene therefor destroying any escape scent by the murderer and then the best bit getting the dogs brought in to help find a scent however the scene being bleached meant the dogs could not do their job.
9 No cancellation of bins being picked up , maybe the murderer disposed of clothing, knife etc but it would not matter as bins are gone.
10. A person who's fresh semen was found in a condom ( not identified for 3 years) went back to the same spot the following day to masturbate again , he must have been unaware of the police presence and walked over what should have been a cordoned off area and did his business again , I can only assume no police presence the day after a wee girl was murdered to be of little deterennt for this weirdo who liked to do his thing in a public area.
11. Only one of Jodi hand was forensically covered and that was done incorrectly going by the evidence outlined at court , a common and very unusual result yielding no reportable result, this was 2003 not the 80's
12. I will go back in my notes and quote the Forensic persons words at trial
13 . Liaison officer who was at Mitchell's house said at court the investigation was a shambles, and that is one of their own ( do people think this is made up , it's all out there to be found if you research every single side of this case
14. The search party clothes should have all been taken at the same time as Luke's, Jodi grans held her grandchild she could have had transfer on her clothes , she had no idea what she was wearing five days later when police thought yeah we probably should check her/ their clothes.
15. Donald Finlay at appeal was dumbfounded that the Detective in charge of a brutal murder was unaware of basic procedures when it came to Identity parade , Mr Dobie a man of his rank had no idea of BASIC procedures , if he was unaware of the most basic areas of policing how can anyone trust his ability , total and completly incompetent.
Ive probably missed other areas of incompetence but I think this little list gives you an idea to why I have no faith in this investigation.
And I have not even started on the outrageous and deplorable conduct by these officers on a 15 year old boy.
Let me ask a question of you , are/ where you unaware of these issues around the police investigation , my research consists of BBC Documentary, Media reporting on trial and after. Donald Findlay touched on these areas at appeal. Sandra Leans book and further podcasts . She is one person who has access to the defence information no one here has that access so forgive me if I find her information relevant you may choose to ignore but I believe in a murder investigation these many areas of flaws , evidence of incompetence are all just a bit too much and completely unacceptable.
That is why a full Independent Enquiry should be completed on this case, fully transparent . If the police did an ace job then an Enquiry will highlight that. Only the truth must be sought for this case , it's the right thing to do for Jodi, for the community and for Luke and for all of us who are still arguing about a magical fishing jacket and a boy calling the talking clock.??
-
Great post Fairplay1 I think you've covered some of them already but I'll post my list too.
Evidence gathering/crime scene management
Treating LM as a suspect from the start then denying that was the case.
Forensically examining LM as soon as possible but not even realising that the other 3 members of the search party were important witnesses too and not asking for their clothing until at least 3-4 days later.
Not having a proper identity parade. Showing witnesses a leading photo line up and even a picture of LM in the newspaper.
Naming Luke in the papers in relation to black magic, 'the violent world of gothic sub-culture' rituals and Satanism as early as 6th July.
Appointing an FLO while LM was being treated as a suspect.
Having advice from a criminal psychologist that Luke may self harm or reoffend in line with goth culture then releasing him with no protection in place for himself or the public.
Searching the house with the specific goal of finding Marilyn Manson related items.
Telling the press that the moped boys had been cleared of any involvement before any kind of forensic analysis had came back to definitively clear them.
Here's some further reading that highlights just some of the failures in this case.
From the Scotsman in 2005
But today as Mitchell was found guilty, Lothian and Borders Police’s hunch was proved right, although there was severe criticism of their handling of the investigation during the case.
There was no murder weapon, no blood covered clothes - despite the gruesome nature of the murder - and no damning DNA find.
There was not even convincing eye-witness testimony.
The trial heard that Jodi’s body was left uncovered and exposed to the elements for eight hours after it was first discovered, possibly risking the destruction of vital DNA evidence.
The schoolgirl’s body and items around it had been moved before the forensic team started work.
Even though the knife used to murder Jodi had not been found, the bins in the area were allowed to be emptied before a thorough search could be carried out.
The way police carried out a virtual identity parade, presenting photographs of Luke and other youths to one witness, was also criticised during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
A string of incidents were highlighted by Mitchell’s defence lawyer Donald Findlay, QC, during the 42-day trial.
In one blistering courtroom attack, Mr Findlay described the behaviour of detectives as "a disgrace".
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.
Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
The jury also heard that a pioneering lab using the most sensitive DNA test in Britain failed to identify Mitchell as the
It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade.
Mr Findlay claimed "a tactical decision" had been taken not to treat the boy fairly.
From <https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415>
From the 2008 appeal
[139] Counsel then proceeded to draw our attention to the transcript of the interview, from page 14 onwards. An example of the outrageous questioning conducted by the police interviewers was to be found at page 20 of the transcript. In the lengthy question on that page, numerous points had been put in a conflated manner, without the interviewer waiting for the suspect to give an answer. The inference was that the interviewer had not actually been interested in obtaining an answer to the various points in the question, but had rather been putting pressure upon the suspect, with a view to extracting some admission of significance from him. Similar questioning occurred at pages 21 and 22. At page 17, the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived. At page 21 the suspect had, following multiple assertions by the questioner of knife-carrying by the suspect, agreed that a knife shown to him, Crown label production 301, was his fishing knife. More questioning of an unfair nature was to be found at page 25 of the transcript. At page 27 a further composite question was put making very serious allegations to the suspect. Much of the questioning was of a repetitive nature. At pages 28 to 29 there was more questioning of a bullying and badgering nature .
It was submitted that the police questioning was quite plainly a deliberate pre-planned attempt to provoke the appellant, which, it was hoped, would result in him incriminating himself. There could be no other explanation for the character of the questioning. It was evident from some of the appellant's answers that he had been riled and provoked by the police questioning into giving coarse and abusive answers to them, which might be thought to reflect badly upon him. In the course of some passages, police officers had put to the appellant suggestions that were not in fact vouched by any evidence in their possession.
An example of that was to be found at the bottom of page 40 of the transcript. The questioning at page 45 of the transcript concerning the finding of the body of the deceased was grotesquely unfair. That and the material at page 46 was crucial to the Crown's case and had been used by them. The Crown had also made use of the passage between pages 63 to 65 of the transcript, concerning the actions of the appellant after the deceased had not appeared for the meeting that he had contemplated would take place.
That had been preceded by more bullying questioning at pages 47 to 48 of the transcript. Passages at pages 53 and 55 demonstrated that the police had, quite simply, not been interested in receiving answers to their express questions; the questions were put in a bullying and overbearing manner, with the view to endeavouring to extracting damaging admissions from the appellant. On page 61 more inaccurate propositions had been put to the appellant. At page 70 there was a passage relating to the appellant's call to the speaking clock, upon which the Crown relied.
At page 65 of the transcript, the interview had reached a stage when Detective Sergeant David Gordon had entered the room. There followed what might be called the "good cop, bad cop" routine. That was quite simply a trick designed to extract an admission from the appellant. Associated with the arrival of Detective Sergeant Gordon the questioning had moved on to the alleged sexual satisfaction which the appellant might have enjoyed from killing the deceased.
[141] In elaborating his submission that the trial judge's decision to admit the parts of the interview objected to in evidence was wrong, counsel referred to Lord Advocate's Reference (No. 1 of 1983) 1984 J.C. 52. What had been said in that decision at page 58 could have been devised with this particular interview in mind. The police in the present case had fallen far short of all that was required of them. There had been unfairness, cross-examination, pressure, deception, or at least carelessness in questioning, and bullying. The police had plainly embarked upon a campaign to try to force a confession from the appellant. The trial judge had failed to recognise that state of affairs.
The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.
[152] Turning then to the decision of the trial judge, recorded in paragraph [168] of his report, it is to be noted that, although the appellant was but 15 years of age at the time of the interview, there was present at it, apart from the police officers involved, a senior social worker from the Dalkeith Social Work Department, who was there as a responsible adult, it being inappropriate that the appellant's mother should undertake that responsibility. Before coming to consider, so far as necessary, the details of the interview, it is appropriate to make some general observations. In that part of it which was objected to, commencing at page 12 of Crown production 44, undoubtedly some of the questions put by the police officers can only be described as outrageous. One of the clearest examples of what we mean is to be found at page 55 of the transcript. There, D.C.2, having shown to the suspect a video of the murder scene and having elicited from him certain answers, poses what purports to be a question as follows:
"You say you recognise it as Jodi and you say you can see that it had throat and you said you could see it was completely naked. Now what's nonsense cause you've just watched that and you cannae tell that, you say you can see you barely see something there. What you've said you're a liar, you're a liar. Everything you've been constantly lying to us all the way through this interview. You've lied to us about using cannabis - you use cannabis all the time, we've had loads of people tell us you use cannabis three times as much as anybody else would. You buy. We know who you buy the cannabis from, do you think we've no done an enquiry blah blah blah blah blah. We know who you bought the cannabis from, we know the amounts he sells it to you, we know the people that you sell it to a day after, we know that. You've lied about that, you've lied about all these knives, you say well I dinnae have these knives there's, as I say, 45 people telling us you had knives, you, are they all lying as well? These, the three people down the path, Alice, Steven and Janine, are they lying as well? That video reconstruction there shows that you could not have seen Jodi and recognise it as Jodi."
It will be seen from this purported question that, quite apart from its incoherence, the questioning officer sought to obtain a response on a range of disparate points. Yet, the appellant was given no opportunity to deal with each point as it was raised. Indeed, it is apparent to us from the nature of the questioning that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in the responses that separate parts of the question might evoke. One is driven to suppose that what was happening when questions, such as that quoted, were asked was that the questioning police officer was endeavouring to break the appellant down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Examination of the parts of the interview objected to shows that the interviewing police officers asked a number of similar questions. We are driven to conclude that their purpose was as we have described.
From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>
I WAS investigations editor with The Herald newspapers at the time of the Jodi Jones murder, and I appear as a interviewee in the documentary Murder In A Small Town. In the run-up to the Mitchell trial I received a very strange phone call from a senior police officer in which I was told a number of unsubstantiated and shocking claims about Mitchell.
I was told Mitchell was definitely guilty. In all my years as a reporter –covering some of the most serious crimes in recent British criminal history, including major terrorist offences – I’ve never received such a phone call from police. A lot of the telephone conversation centred on Mitchell’s love of Goth music and his alternative lifestyle.
At the time, there was a moral panic around teenagers listening to music their parents found disagreeable. I wondered at the time if part of the Mitchell case was “the prosecution of a lifestyle”.
As a reporter, I later visited Mitchell in jail, and spoke with his mother. To this day, due to the circumstantial nature of the case, I cannot say whether I know for sure if Mitchell is guilty or innocent.
This I am sure of, though: if Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones then he deserves all he got for one of the most appalling crimes to ever take place in Scotland; however, if he didn’t, then not only is a monstrous killer still at large, but society did something terrible to a 15-year-old boy back in 2005.
From <https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19106402.murder-small-town-luke-mitchell-innocent-murder-jodi-jones/>
-
Great post Fairplay1 I think you've covered some of them already but I'll post my list too.
Evidence gathering/crime scene management
Treating LM as a suspect from the start then denying that was the case.
Forensically examining LM as soon as possible but not even realising that the other 3 members of the search party were important witnesses too and not asking for their clothing until at least 3-4 days later.
Not having a proper identity parade. Showing witnesses a leading photo line up and even a picture of LM in the newspaper.
Naming Luke in the papers in relation to black magic, 'the violent world of gothic sub-culture' rituals and Satanism as early as 6th July.
Appointing an FLO while LM was being treated as a suspect.
Having advice from a criminal psychologist that Luke may self harm or reoffend in line with goth culture then releasing him with no protection in place for himself or the public.
Searching the house with the specific goal of finding Marilyn Manson related items.
Telling the press that the moped boys had been cleared of any involvement before any kind of forensic analysis had came back to definitively clear them.
Here's some further reading that highlights just some of the failures in this case.
From the Scotsman in 2005
But today as Mitchell was found guilty, Lothian and Borders Police’s hunch was proved right, although there was severe criticism of their handling of the investigation during the case.
There was no murder weapon, no blood covered clothes - despite the gruesome nature of the murder - and no damning DNA find.
There was not even convincing eye-witness testimony.
The trial heard that Jodi’s body was left uncovered and exposed to the elements for eight hours after it was first discovered, possibly risking the destruction of vital DNA evidence.
The schoolgirl’s body and items around it had been moved before the forensic team started work.
Even though the knife used to murder Jodi had not been found, the bins in the area were allowed to be emptied before a thorough search could be carried out.
The way police carried out a virtual identity parade, presenting photographs of Luke and other youths to one witness, was also criticised during the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
A string of incidents were highlighted by Mitchell’s defence lawyer Donald Findlay, QC, during the 42-day trial.
In one blistering courtroom attack, Mr Findlay described the behaviour of detectives as "a disgrace".
The court heard that the first forensic scientist to examine the crime scene arrived more than eight hours after Jodi's body was found. Not only had her body been left uncovered overnight in the rain, but it had also been moved and items around it moved before Derek Scrimger arrived at the scene.
Under questioning from Mr Findlay, Mr Scrimger was forced to admit that it was "not an ideally managed crime scene from the very start".
The forensic scientist said he believed that a tent should have been erected over the scene.
Mr Scrimger’s work was further delayed because an earlier female colleague had arrived at the scene, but could not get over the wall to get to the body because she had a bad back.
The jury also heard that a pioneering lab using the most sensitive DNA test in Britain failed to identify Mitchell as the
It also emerged that detectives probing the murder broke normal guidelines by not putting Mitchell on an ID parade.
Mr Findlay claimed "a tactical decision" had been taken not to treat the boy fairly.
From <https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415>
From the 2008 appeal
[139] Counsel then proceeded to draw our attention to the transcript of the interview, from page 14 onwards. An example of the outrageous questioning conducted by the police interviewers was to be found at page 20 of the transcript. In the lengthy question on that page, numerous points had been put in a conflated manner, without the interviewer waiting for the suspect to give an answer. The inference was that the interviewer had not actually been interested in obtaining an answer to the various points in the question, but had rather been putting pressure upon the suspect, with a view to extracting some admission of significance from him. Similar questioning occurred at pages 21 and 22. At page 17, the suspect had, following a barrage of questions to which the questioner had not awaited any answer, conceded that his mother and brother had had a fire on the night of 30 June 2003 in the log burner in the back garden of the house where the suspect lived. At page 21 the suspect had, following multiple assertions by the questioner of knife-carrying by the suspect, agreed that a knife shown to him, Crown label production 301, was his fishing knife. More questioning of an unfair nature was to be found at page 25 of the transcript. At page 27 a further composite question was put making very serious allegations to the suspect. Much of the questioning was of a repetitive nature. At pages 28 to 29 there was more questioning of a bullying and badgering nature .
It was submitted that the police questioning was quite plainly a deliberate pre-planned attempt to provoke the appellant, which, it was hoped, would result in him incriminating himself. There could be no other explanation for the character of the questioning. It was evident from some of the appellant's answers that he had been riled and provoked by the police questioning into giving coarse and abusive answers to them, which might be thought to reflect badly upon him. In the course of some passages, police officers had put to the appellant suggestions that were not in fact vouched by any evidence in their possession.
An example of that was to be found at the bottom of page 40 of the transcript. The questioning at page 45 of the transcript concerning the finding of the body of the deceased was grotesquely unfair. That and the material at page 46 was crucial to the Crown's case and had been used by them. The Crown had also made use of the passage between pages 63 to 65 of the transcript, concerning the actions of the appellant after the deceased had not appeared for the meeting that he had contemplated would take place.
That had been preceded by more bullying questioning at pages 47 to 48 of the transcript. Passages at pages 53 and 55 demonstrated that the police had, quite simply, not been interested in receiving answers to their express questions; the questions were put in a bullying and overbearing manner, with the view to endeavouring to extracting damaging admissions from the appellant. On page 61 more inaccurate propositions had been put to the appellant. At page 70 there was a passage relating to the appellant's call to the speaking clock, upon which the Crown relied.
At page 65 of the transcript, the interview had reached a stage when Detective Sergeant David Gordon had entered the room. There followed what might be called the "good cop, bad cop" routine. That was quite simply a trick designed to extract an admission from the appellant. Associated with the arrival of Detective Sergeant Gordon the questioning had moved on to the alleged sexual satisfaction which the appellant might have enjoyed from killing the deceased.
[141] In elaborating his submission that the trial judge's decision to admit the parts of the interview objected to in evidence was wrong, counsel referred to Lord Advocate's Reference (No. 1 of 1983) 1984 J.C. 52. What had been said in that decision at page 58 could have been devised with this particular interview in mind. The police in the present case had fallen far short of all that was required of them. There had been unfairness, cross-examination, pressure, deception, or at least carelessness in questioning, and bullying. The police had plainly embarked upon a campaign to try to force a confession from the appellant. The trial judge had failed to recognise that state of affairs.
The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.
[152] Turning then to the decision of the trial judge, recorded in paragraph [168] of his report, it is to be noted that, although the appellant was but 15 years of age at the time of the interview, there was present at it, apart from the police officers involved, a senior social worker from the Dalkeith Social Work Department, who was there as a responsible adult, it being inappropriate that the appellant's mother should undertake that responsibility. Before coming to consider, so far as necessary, the details of the interview, it is appropriate to make some general observations. In that part of it which was objected to, commencing at page 12 of Crown production 44, undoubtedly some of the questions put by the police officers can only be described as outrageous. One of the clearest examples of what we mean is to be found at page 55 of the transcript. There, D.C.2, having shown to the suspect a video of the murder scene and having elicited from him certain answers, poses what purports to be a question as follows:
"You say you recognise it as Jodi and you say you can see that it had throat and you said you could see it was completely naked. Now what's nonsense cause you've just watched that and you cannae tell that, you say you can see you barely see something there. What you've said you're a liar, you're a liar. Everything you've been constantly lying to us all the way through this interview. You've lied to us about using cannabis - you use cannabis all the time, we've had loads of people tell us you use cannabis three times as much as anybody else would. You buy. We know who you buy the cannabis from, do you think we've no done an enquiry blah blah blah blah blah. We know who you bought the cannabis from, we know the amounts he sells it to you, we know the people that you sell it to a day after, we know that. You've lied about that, you've lied about all these knives, you say well I dinnae have these knives there's, as I say, 45 people telling us you had knives, you, are they all lying as well? These, the three people down the path, Alice, Steven and Janine, are they lying as well? That video reconstruction there shows that you could not have seen Jodi and recognise it as Jodi."
It will be seen from this purported question that, quite apart from its incoherence, the questioning officer sought to obtain a response on a range of disparate points. Yet, the appellant was given no opportunity to deal with each point as it was raised. Indeed, it is apparent to us from the nature of the questioning that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in the responses that separate parts of the question might evoke. One is driven to suppose that what was happening when questions, such as that quoted, were asked was that the questioning police officer was endeavouring to break the appellant down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Examination of the parts of the interview objected to shows that the interviewing police officers asked a number of similar questions. We are driven to conclude that their purpose was as we have described.
From <https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7>
I WAS investigations editor with The Herald newspapers at the time of the Jodi Jones murder, and I appear as a interviewee in the documentary Murder In A Small Town. In the run-up to the Mitchell trial I received a very strange phone call from a senior police officer in which I was told a number of unsubstantiated and shocking claims about Mitchell.
I was told Mitchell was definitely guilty. In all my years as a reporter –covering some of the most serious crimes in recent British criminal history, including major terrorist offences – I’ve never received such a phone call from police. A lot of the telephone conversation centred on Mitchell’s love of Goth music and his alternative lifestyle.
At the time, there was a moral panic around teenagers listening to music their parents found disagreeable. I wondered at the time if part of the Mitchell case was “the prosecution of a lifestyle”.
As a reporter, I later visited Mitchell in jail, and spoke with his mother. To this day, due to the circumstantial nature of the case, I cannot say whether I know for sure if Mitchell is guilty or innocent.
This I am sure of, though: if Mitchell did kill Jodi Jones then he deserves all he got for one of the most appalling crimes to ever take place in Scotland; however, if he didn’t, then not only is a monstrous killer still at large, but society did something terrible to a 15-year-old boy back in 2005.
From <https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19106402.murder-small-town-luke-mitchell-innocent-murder-jodi-jones/>
Perfect and detailed supportive material with reference to court, articles to substantiate all the facts surrounding this case.
Dave this post is for you son , try and read it and not just discard it because it does not suit your belief, try your best to be fair and impartial and then come back to me and let me know if this is all nonsense and maybe you will get the point , this is not about two sides anymore this is about doing the RIGHT THING by Jodi, Luke and the Dalkeith community and the wider public in Scotland. They just have to test the evidence and everything else will follow suit .??
-
The same could be said for L&B police, 100's of witnesses, the justice system, the press and his very own brother. The difference is, they were not paid a fee for their opinion by producers of sensationalized documentaries.
The only one of these so-called expert's opinion that is worth anything, is Busttilli, although this has been asked multiple times, i have yet to see anyone point in the direction, that he has ever put his name towards the innocent campaign.
Really need to try harder.
well the answeris obios in the case of the police theywanted a convition an they dident weather the person they convite wass guilty or not.
-
And that is why, over the years, they have tried to discredit her sighting, they focus on this much more than any of the others. They have even gone as far as trying to connect her to the Jones. Simply because, she told the truth in court that she did not know that Mitchell was in court that day. We know why, it was actually quite a clever move from Donald Findley, he knew Bryson was due up that day, he knew what he was going to ask her what a better way to confuse her, by getting Luke to change his appearance, quite considerably as well. But the fact she told the truth, tells us, she is an honest person, she probably knew it was Luke, just not the Luke she saw on the day of the murder. From a scruffy teen, to some kind of slick pornstar.
The dumb and dumber with daughter in tow, reconstruction. It was something out of a Benny Hill sketch. Wonder what those two are up to these days? Exactly, nothing, drowning in their sorrows after getting bumped off the force.
Davie2, are you from the area where this crime took place? Were you at the trial at any point? Did you know anyone associated or involved with the whole thing? Just curious, as I think you mentioned previously that you knew the local area well.
Doesn’t surprise me that DF advised Luke to go out of his way to look as different as possible on the days the eyewitnesses were due up at court; it’s standard tactics for the defence and goes with the territory.
As regards the two private detectives from the C5 doco, I don’t know anything about them. Obviously, AB’s evidence was part of the jigsaw, and her evidence per se is worthless without the rest of it; it’s only when each piece of the circumstantial evidence is put together that they become important, and I think when it is all combined it makes for a very compelling and robust case against LM. While you’re here, Davie2, do you know which one of the 3 boys who met up with LM at the abbey that night saiid he looked more cleaner than normal and less unkempt? Someone I know recently asked David High via messenger about LM looking cleaner that night and he allegedly said he never noticed. That means it must have been one (or both) of the other 2 boys. Who were they (think one of the other guys was called David Tulloch)?
-
I am fairly knowledgeable about the case. The reason I asked for you to bullet list the points of concern is that I don't pretend to know everything about it and I am always interested in hearing other people's views, whether it's Davie2 or yourself.
My stance is neutral. I think, like the Jeremy Bamber case, the question of Luke Mitchell's guilt is very much in the grey zone. If I were a trial juror, I might well find him Not Guilty on the basis of the case not meeting the criminal standard of proof in Scots law. That does not mean I think he is innocent. To the contrary, as with the Jeremy Bamber case, it does look quite probable that he did it, but there are things that I am not happy about.
Regarding how the Forum moves forward in discussing this case, my personal view is that we need to somehow get hold of case documents, especially the trial transcripts, the pathology report, any report done on the type of knife used, and the records of DNA evidence obtained. (It may help to start a thread in which we discuss what is needed and how we could go about it. I will also be starting a thread about the Scots law of disclosure, once I have completed my research).
Until we have this information, it seems to me that it is hard to assess the strength of the case against Luke. He looks guilty from a distance, but like the Bamber case, it's one of those cases where if you look at things in detail, some of it starts to unravel and doubts arise. That does not augur well for the prosecution. When a conviction is safe, how it should work is that the more you look at it in detail, the safer it looks because a closer look at the evidence assuages any concerns and answers doubts. When the opposite happens, it's a bit like finding a critical fault with a complex machine. The machine may still function day-to-day, but the fault shakes your confidence and makes you wonder if the machine might break down at any moment.
Now, let me turn to your points. Thanks for listing these. I respond in green below.
1. Within in the first few hours of this investigation a complete lack of crime scene management was obvious by Leaving the victim out in the rain , no cover of the victim to a. Retain vital evidence and b. Give the victim some dignity.
I agree this is not good, but I'm not sure we can blame the police for this. It's quite likely that arrangements to cover the body would have been difficult due to the location and the time of day.
2. Police where instructed to collect all the clothing in a hap hazard fashion which created cross contamination.
I would need to know more detail, but yes, this doesn't sound good.
3. Forensic officer who arrived could not get over the v in the wall due to a bad back so instead of going in another way decided to leave again leaving potential evidence to be damaged and lost . A different forensic officer officer then turned up at 8:00 am the following day to walk the scene and gather evidence.
Not good, I agree, but points like this have to be assessed against what could have been found had the crime scene been managed more efficiently. The reality is that there will always be mistakes and mishaps in police investigations. It's a human system. The simple fact that mistakes were made does not, in itself, make a conviction unsafe.
4. No time of death given or assessed properly
It's a canard of forensic medicine that a doctor can give you the time of death, or even a reasonably accurate rough estimate. He can't. Medical knowledge has not advanced that far. Obviously, this is a generalisation: in particular cases, the evidence apparent or inferable at the scene may reliably allow an estimation of time of death, but those are special circumstances, not the general run of things.
5. Police disturbed the scene before forensic officer appeared with cutting down branches with blood splatter on them.
Again, this doesn't sound good, but what do you mean by "cutting down branches"? Were they out with the shears? Or do you mean that branches were snapped by officers on the scene as they went about their business there? Furthermore, was the presence of the blood spatter recorded, in pocketbooks and statements, and ideally in photographs? The important point here is whether the evidence was preserved in some way.
6. Jodi body was moved by rolling on to plastic covering , who knows Jodi position when body was initiall moved by police
If you mean the police moved that poor girl's body prior to forensic photography, and this was not done for any proper reason (such as an attempt to resuscitate her), then I agree that's bad in principle, regardless of the forensic significance of it. However, we still have to consider the forensic significance of this. Does it actually make any difference to any relevant point of proof? We know her injuries, don't we? (At least, we do in general terms, as we haven't seen the pathology evidence).
7. The Forensic officer admitted at trial it was not an ideal situation as the body being moved and not covered would of course cause problems with assessing the scene as it was left by the murderer.
Agreed. It's bad.
8. An order to bleach the scene therefor destroying any escape scent by the murderer and then the best bit getting the dogs brought in to help find a scent however the scene being bleached meant the dogs could not do their job.
Not good, but to be fair, dogs probably would not have been of much use. I think I know what you are getting at: it seems intuitively likely that the killer retreated to a spot nearby where he could collect himself and clean or change, and given what we know about Luke's appearance on the day, this suggests that the killer may in fact have lived very close by rather than on the housing estate. Hence, the possibility of a scent trail to a nearby location, but I doubt this would have been of much evidential value.
9 No cancellation of bins being picked up , maybe the murderer disposed of clothing, knife etc but it would not matter as bins are gone.
Again, I can't disagree with you. That does sound slack.
10. A person who's fresh semen was found in a condom ( not identified for 3 years) went back to the same spot the following day to masturbate again , he must have been unaware of the police presence and walked over what should have been a cordoned off area and did his business again , I can only assume no police presence the day after a wee girl was murdered to be of little deterennt for this weirdo who liked to do his thing in a public area.
I've heard about this individual, but I didn't realise his conduct was as egregious at this. I don't know what to say really. It's quite bizarre.
11. Only one of Jodi hand was forensically covered and that was done incorrectly going by the evidence outlined at court , a common and very unusual result yielding no reportable result, this was 2003 not the 80's
Noted. But what do you think a forensic examination of her hands, fingers and nails would have revealed? Are you saying there was evidence of a struggle? If so, how does this fit with the evidence that she suffered a blow to the head?
12. I will go back in my notes and quote the Forensic persons words at trial
13 . Liaison officer who was at Mitchell's house said at court the investigation was a shambles, and that is one of their own ( do people think this is made up , it's all out there to be found if you research every single side of this case
Noted.
14. The search party clothes should have all been taken at the same time as Luke's, Jodi grans held her grandchild she could have had transfer on her clothes , she had no idea what she was wearing five days later when police thought yeah we probably should check her/ their clothes.
OK, but the police have obviously quickly come to the conclusion that Luke was the probable killer. I accept that the police have been sloppy because they should have taken the other evidence as well for the purpose of elimination (and apart from that, they should have been trying to eliminate Luke). However, a pro-guilt person will just say that the police did not need to do this, as (in their belief) Luke was the killer.
15. Donald Finlay at appeal was dumbfounded that the Detective in charge of a brutal murder was unaware of basic procedures when it came to Identity parade , Mr Dobie a man of his rank had no idea of BASIC procedures , if he was unaware of the most basic areas of policing how can anyone trust his ability , total and completly incompetent.
What was the procedural defect in the identification evidence? If this defect was signifcant, then why wasn't the relevant evidence excluded from the trial?
probably missed other areas of incompetence but I think this little list gives you an idea to why I have no faith in this investigation.
And I have not even started on the outrageous and deplorable conduct by these officers on a 15 year old boy.
But a 15 year-old is not a boy. Young men do not mature as quickly as females, but a 15 year-old is to be considered a young man and certainly old enough to know right from wrong and understand the situation he was in. The prosecution at the Scots appeal hearing pointed out that he gave as good as he got. I don't buy that argument per se. I regard a 15 year old as a young man, but I accept there is a nuance to it: that he will be immature and inexperienced and will have had a particular need for the presence of an appropriate adult to monitor what was happening. This partly boils down to a peculiarity of Scots law that existed at that time but is no longer extant: he had no right to a solicitor and it seems not to have occurred to the officers that his age made him vulnerable in a way that could undermine later in the legal process any admissions or a confession he might make. It was not just uncouth, it was bad investigative practice on the part of the officers to treat him that way. They could have hobbled the prosecution case, but overall I am inclined to agree with the prosecution on the broad point, even if I think they put it across a little crudely.
Let me ask a question of you , are/ where you unaware of these issues around the police investigation , my research consists of BBC Documentary, Media reporting on trial and after. Donald Findlay touched on these areas at appeal. Sandra Leans book and further podcasts . She is one person who has access to the defence information no one here has that access so forgive me if I find her information relevant you may choose to ignore but I believe in a murder investigation these many areas of flaws , evidence of incompetence are all just a bit too much and completely unacceptable.
That is why a full Independent Enquiry should be completed on this case, fully transparent . If the police did an ace job then an Enquiry will highlight that. Only the truth must be sought for this case , it's the right thing to do for Jodi, for the community and for Luke and for all of us who are still arguing about a magical fishing jacket and a boy calling the talking clock.??
-
Perfect and detailed supportive material with reference to court, articles to substantiate all the facts surrounding this case.
Dave this post is for you son
It's old news. It's boring going over and over and over and over the same old.
Instead of Lean, copy & paste all that, she should head over to the other thread and answer Gascoigne question around the legality of posting case papers. Why she cant post it all, but just bits that suits the narrative. What does the law say? Now that's more important.
-
Davie2, are you from the area where this crime took place? Were you at the trial at any point? Did you know anyone associated or involved with the whole thing? Just curious, as I think you mentioned previously that you knew the local area well.
Doesn’t surprise me that DF advised Luke to go out of his way to look as different as possible on the days the eyewitnesses were due up at court; it’s standard tactics for the defence and goes with the territory.
Well since me/my family have been threatened in the past by these nut jobs, for my content of this forum (most was deleted) I'll refrain from answering personal questions.
As regards the two private detectives from the C5 doco, I don’t know anything about them.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239
Probably explains, why they are no longer in the force.
Davie2, do you know which one of the 3 boys who met up with LM at the abbey that night saiid he looked more cleaner than normal and less unkempt? Someone I know recently asked David High via messenger about LM looking cleaner that night and he allegedly said he never noticed. That means it must have been one (or both) of the other 2 boys. Who were they (think one of the other guys was called David Tulloch)?
The other lad name is not in the public domain, as far as I'm aware.
-
1. Within in the first few hours of this investigation a complete lack of crime scene management was obvious by Leaving the victim out in the rain , no cover of the victim to a. Retain vital evidence and b. Give the victim some dignity.
I won't quote the rest.
But all these points you make, are the reason why i cannot take you seriously. Not only is some of it made up nonsense, you also fail to apply common sense too much of it. Was it even possible to erect a tent? What experience did the first police on scene have? Who did they call? What is the procedure? How long does it take? Did Luke not volunteer his clothes? Was he not interviewed as a witness? Was there an adult from social services present?
What is your source for all this?
I think in future, it is best you provide sources to back up anything you are typing.
Blood splattered branches getting cut.
JF going back to the crime scene.
How on earth can you possibly know this? Have you even bothered to get this information you are fed, fact-checked?
-
It's old news. It's boring going over and over and over and over the same old.
Instead of Lean, copy & paste all that, she should head over to the other thread and answer Gascoigne question around the legality of posting case papers. Why she cant post it all, but just bits that suits the narrative. What does the law say? Now that's more important.
I agree Dave , shock horror . I want all this case warts and all out in the open and it's frustrating that we don't have it all out and transparently clear.
I want to see all those original statements and how they morphed into something completely different again transparency would help us come to a balanced judgement.
I have looked into this and found some things under the code of conduct in criminal law and some other document that I could not grasp as it's very detailed and has some jargon that may be easy for a legal person or someone able to understand a lot better than I do.
The only thing I will say is Sandra has been saying the same thing for a long time I'm sure she has ruffled a few feathers within legal circles , you would think if she is talking shi** someone , anyone would have came after her by now , just my opinion
But as I say I would like this explained in more detail
-
I am fairly knowledgeable about the case. The reason I asked for you to bullet list the points of concern is that I don't pretend to know everything about it and I am always interested in hearing other people's views, whether it's Davie2 or yourself.
My stance is neutral. I think, like the Jeremy Bamber case, the question of Luke Mitchell's guilt is very much in the grey zone. If I were a trial juror, I might well find him Not Guilty on the basis of the case not meeting the criminal standard of proof in Scots law. That does not mean I think he is innocent. To the contrary, as with the Jeremy Bamber case, it does look quite probable that he did it, but there are things that I am not happy about.
Regarding how the Forum moves forward in discussing this case, my personal view is that we need to somehow get hold of case documents, especially the trial transcripts, the pathology report, any report done on the type of knife used, and the records of DNA evidence obtained. (It may help to start a thread in which we discuss what is needed and how we could go about it. I will also be starting a thread about the Scots law of disclosure, once I have completed my research).
Until we have this information, it seems to me that it is hard to assess the strength of the case against Luke. He looks guilty from a distance, but like the Bamber case, it's one of those cases where if you look at things in detail, some of it starts to unravel and doubts arise. That does not augur well for the prosecution. When a conviction is safe, how it should work is that the more you look at it in detail, the safer it looks because a closer look at the evidence assuages any concerns and answers doubts. When the opposite happens, it's a bit like finding a critical fault with a complex machine. The machine may still function day-to-day, but the fault shakes your confidence and makes you wonder if the machine might break down at any moment.
Now, let me turn to your points. Thanks for listing these. I respond in green below.
I agree this is not good, but I'm not sure we can blame the police for this. It's quite likely that arrangements to cover the body would have been difficult due to the location and the time of day.
I would need to know more detail, but yes, this doesn't sound good.
Not good, I agree, but points like this have to be assessed against what could have been found had the crime scene been managed more efficiently. The reality is that there will always be mistakes and mishaps in police investigations. It's a human system. The simple fact that mistakes were made does not, in itself, make a conviction unsafe.
It's a canard of forensic medicine that a doctor can give you the time of death, or even a reasonably accurate rough estimate. He can't. Medical knowledge has not advanced that far. Obviously, this is a generalisation: in particular cases, the evidence apparent or inferable at the scene may reliably allow an estimation of time of death, but those are special circumstances, not the general run of things.
Again, this doesn't sound good, but what do you mean by "cutting down branches"? Were they out with the shears? Or do you mean that branches were snapped by officers on the scene as they went about their business there? Furthermore, was the presence of the blood spatter recorded, in pocketbooks and statements, and ideally in photographs? The important point here is whether the evidence was preserved in some way.
If you mean the police moved that poor girl's body prior to forensic photography, and this was not done for any proper reason (such as an attempt to resuscitate her), then I agree that's bad in principle, regardless of the forensic significance of it. However, we still have to consider the forensic significance of this. Does it actually make any difference to any relevant point of proof? We know her injuries, don't we? (At least, we do in general terms, as we haven't seen the pathology evidence).
Agreed. It's bad.
Not good, but to be fair, dogs probably would not have been of much use. I think I know what you are getting at: it seems intuitively likely that the killer retreated to a spot nearby where he could collect himself and clean or change, and given what we know about Luke's appearance on the day, this suggests that the killer may in fact have lived very close by rather than on the housing estate. Hence, the possibility of a scent trail to a nearby location, but I doubt this would have been of much evidential value.
Again, I can't disagree with you. That does sound slack.
I've heard about this individual, but I didn't realise his conduct was as egregious at this. I don't know what to say really. It's quite bizarre.
Noted. But what do you think a forensic examination of her hands, fingers and nails would have revealed? Are you saying there was evidence of a struggle? If so, how does this fit with the evidence that she suffered a blow to the head?
Noted.
OK, but the police have obviously quickly come to the conclusion that Luke was the probable killer. I accept that the police have been sloppy because they should have taken the other evidence as well for the purpose of elimination (and apart from that, they should have been trying to eliminate Luke). However, a pro-guilt person will just say that the police did not need to do this, as (in their belief) Luke was the killer.
What was the procedural defect in the identification evidence? If this defect was signifcant, then why wasn't the relevant evidence excluded from the trial?
But a 15 year-old is not a boy. Young men do not mature as quickly as females, but a 15 year-old is to be considered a young man and certainly old enough to know right from wrong and understand the situation he was in. The prosecution at the Scots appeal hearing pointed out that he gave as good as he got. I don't buy that argument per se. I regard a 15 year old as a young man, but I accept there is a nuance to it: that he will be immature and inexperienced and will have had a particular need for the presence of an appropriate adult to monitor what was happening. This partly boils down to a peculiarity of Scots law that existed at that time but is no longer extant: he had no right to a solicitor and it seems not to have occurred to the officers that his age made him vulnerable in a way that could undermine later in the legal process any admissions or a confession he might make. It was not just uncouth, it was bad investigative practice on the part of the officers to treat him that way. They could have hobbled the prosecution case, but overall I am inclined to agree with the prosecution on the broad point, even if I think they put it across a little crudely.
Thank you for sharing your view , I found it interesting and fair .
You have taken the time to detail each point with a good balance view and certainly gives me some things to think about , I will come back to your points you asked me about once I have put the thought and care you showed in your response , a little busy just now but will address as soon as I can as I would like to show the same respectfull thought out reply , Many thanks
-
I won't quote the rest.
But all these points you make, are the reason why i cannot take you seriously. Not only is some of it made up nonsense, you also fail to apply common sense too much of it. Was it even possible to erect a tent? What experience did the first police on scene have? Who did they call? What is the procedure? How long does it take? Did Luke not volunteer his clothes? Was he not interviewed as a witness? Was there an adult from social services present?
What is your source for all this?
I think in future, it is best you provide sources to back up anything you are typing.
Blood splattered branches getting cut.
JF going back to the crime scene.
How on earth can you possibly know this? Have you even bothered to get this information you are fed, fact-checked?
What are you talking about Dave , this is why I don't take you seriously !
Roadrunner post clearly outlines sources from the trial , appeal, Donald Findlay and the media reporting on events as they were happening, WTAF are you on , what would I gain from detailing these failings. Don't you think these failures had consequences, the consequences of those initial police failures are part of the reason why we are still arguing about this case today nearly 20 years later
You clearly have blocked yourself off to any information that goes against your belief and that is why you can not properly discuss this case , your bias is out of control as you only wish to discredit anybody that says their are problems , you are literally closed off to learning or evolving your belief system even when you are shown fact after fact of the incompetence of that police investigation, your a lost cause we're this is concerned.
Hopefully that Independent Enquiry will prove you were right or maybe it will prove you have been wrong in your assessment , to base opinion on a one side view and gleefully denying facts out in the public domain as nonsense is just a dumb ass move in my opinion not that you care about anybody else's opinion Dave , your purpose on this forum is just to discredit, belittle and stop any type of useful discussion.
I accept their are areas within this case that are compelling against Mitchell but that's it , it's all the missing REAL evidence that supports guilt it's all Missing that's what I find more compelling the missing evidence that would support guilt . Run those tests put us both out of our misery and maybe put a lid on this finally , don't you think 18 years is a rather long time to be discussing an air tight case , matter of time the right thing will happen with this and no matter what your belief is it will bring resolution and finally allow Jodi Jones to rest in peace ??
.
-
transparency would help us come to a balanced judgement.
Well done, I'm glad you think that. Now the problem you have, you are asking the wrong people for transparency.
The only thing I will say is Sandra has been saying the same thing for a long time
Now this is the person you need to be asking the questions too. The harder the questions, the more you start to see the cracks appear, the hypocrisy and the blatant lies.
-
What are you talking about Dave , this is why I don't take you seriously !
I used to do what you do today. But i have seen thought it all. You asking me these questions is boring, been there done that, got the tshirt. If you want transparency, you need to go back to your source.
Roadrunner
Is a spamming troll.
You clearly have blocked yourself off to any information that goes against your belief and that is why you can not properly discuss this case
You misunderstand my position, I have no interest going over the same stuff i did 10 years ago, but i will confront those that spread misinformation, sensationalism and blatant lies.
Hopefully that Independent Enquiry
I have already addressed this, it won't happen. Simply because most of the stuff you are complaining about, has already been addressed by the authorities.
-
Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there. Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.
Things like AB description of Jodi and not identifying Luke in court, the lack of forensic evidence, the dog finding the body?, the changing of statements etc does shed doubt on the case and the reason many of us still have an interest in the case all these years later but without more information, an independent documentary or something similar we really are going in circles.
Unfortunately Fairplay1 as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen. Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?) Any evidence still in their possession has no reason to be released for forensic retesting that we are aware (even though I don’t see why not if someone else is paying for the testing and any other costs) It would take a new break in the case imo. Scottish law is just crazy. As for Sandra releasing any information she may have, that also is not going to happen, we have been asking for years and she has said a number of times she won’t put full documentation out to public. She would be putting herself at too much risk if she was to release sensitive information (like the channel 5 documentary did when it showed names listed) I think the closest we came to seeing it was the statement from Lisa C Reynolds Peden last year, even that turned into nothing
“Luke has also advised that all documents that have been withheld for years be released immediately. Were law allows of course, Luke's new lawyer will be looking over everything and advising what inform can be made more readily available.”
I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.
-
Here's Bullseye, hope your keeping well.
Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there.
Yep, you are right, I may be a little dismissive towards these so-called new people and their questions. Although you will probably know how suspicious i'm of new screen handles that pop up.
Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.
This is where we differ, I think it's full of lies and misinformation. And as Parky likes to say > Waffle.
as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen.
It certainly won't come out of the public purse. Which means it would have to be independently funded, and even then, how would they get the powers to get access to the information they require for the enquiry? And how much would it cost? I have no idea to be honest, but my best guess, would be in to the 100's of thousands.
Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?)
Also something i that have mentioned, iv'e tried to look up this imformation, but could never find anything offical. I came accross articles, that said 15 years, but also came accross articles, that said as soon as the conviction by the jury, although i find this hard to belive, i will try find these articles again.
It would take a new break in the case imo.
As hard as they have tried to senstionalise (claimed) new evidance, confessions etc etc. They keep hitting a brick wall, do the supporters ever ask why? Multiple failed appeals, why? They cant just keep resorting back to the same old excuses, the systum is corrupt, the media is against us etc. These appeal rejections would have had outcomes and the reasons for it, maybe it is best they go back to the source and ask for more transparency.
she won’t put full documentation out to public.
Very true, but what documentation does she really have? It has been of great debate over the past few years by some individuals. I'm of the opinion, that if these documents were released, then Luke's guilt would become very apparent.
I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.
LOL, thats saying something. He aint getting out, maybe when he is a frail old man.
-
Hey Davie2, I’m good thanks hope you are well too.
I think it’s clear Sandra does/did have access to a lot of the defence papers but agree there is a hell of a lot missing and that might shed light on some of the questions we had over the years. Even Sandra herself admits in her book and here on this forum that there is alot missing. So for her to say things like, for example, there was no further investigation into other people, there may have been a lot but as it was not connected to the court case it’s not in the documents she has?
But with the information she does have it’s caused enough of a stir for us all to still be debating and talking about it.
Sandra’s reply to when I asked her
Q
Is there dna evidence still available to retest or have they all now been destroyed? Can this be done independently or is there red tape making this difficult? I think some answers are there!
A
Sorry, I can't answer that question because of the ongoing case review.
Q
You said a few times in the book there may be tests statements, phone call logs, etc that were carried out but not given to the defence, I always assumed the defence were entitled to all information obtained not selected evidence, can you clarify this?
A
Sadly, that's a mistake many people make. The defence is entitled only to what the "Disclosure Officer" (working for the police) deems worthy of disclosing to the defence. Officially, that is information that might undermine the Crown case or assist the defence case. In reality, those re the very things least likely to be disclosed. Everything else that the prosecution is not relying on goes onto an "unused evidence" schedule. The defence can request items from this schedule, but they must (a) know what it is they're asking for and why it's relevant and (b) give "good reason" for requesting it - once again, if the disclosure officer doesn't agree that it's "good reason," s/he can refuse to release it.
If he is guilty I hope he never gets out but considering his age when convicted, he was a young offender. Remember the Bulger killers and Mary Bell were out after a few years, they were younger though. He would have served his punishment part of the sentence-20 years. If he kept his nose clean all these years who knows what could happen. Personally I agree it should be a long time, considering the nature of the crime.
-
Davie2 is right in saying it’s the same old stuff that we all go over but there are new people looking into the case all the time that have the same questions and it’s always good to hear people fresh thought on the information out there. Like it or hate it Sandra’s book is full of details and other than the little information on the internet it really is one of the only sources of case details out there.
Things like AB description of Jodi and not identifying Luke in court, the lack of forensic evidence, the dog finding the body?, the changing of statements etc does shed doubt on the case and the reason many of us still have an interest in the case all these years later but without more information, an independent documentary or something similar we really are going in circles.
Unfortunately Fairplay1 as much as I would love to see an independent enquiry i really don’t think it’s going to happen. Imo the police are not going to release any documents they may still hold (if anything, does anyone know how long the stuff is kept?) Any evidence still in their possession has no reason to be released for forensic retesting that we are aware (even though I don’t see why not if someone else is paying for the testing and any other costs) It would take a new break in the case imo. Scottish law is just crazy. As for Sandra releasing any information she may have, that also is not going to happen, we have been asking for years and she has said a number of times she won’t put full documentation out to public. She would be putting herself at too much risk if she was to release sensitive information (like the channel 5 documentary did when it showed names listed) I think the closest we came to seeing it was the statement from Lisa C Reynolds Peden last year, even that turned into nothing
“Luke has also advised that all documents that have been withheld for years be released immediately. Were law allows of course, Luke's new lawyer will be looking over everything and advising what inform can be made more readily available.”
I honestly think Luke has more chance of parole in a few years before getting an independent review.
Yes I agree parole may come first but I absolutely believe an Enquiry will happen , it may happen after the evidence that is left ( I read but would have to go back and source , that evidence at least some of it his held for a certain time it might be 30 years but I really need to check where I read it.
I would hope in particular Jodi trousers which had male unidentified DNA on zip, button and inside leg will be there. People have a right to appeal esp with a case like this where there was no forensic analysis giving any conclusive evidence. Stefan Kiszco held for 17 years for a murder in 1975 so their was evidence from that trial retested that got the right killers profile , so if they just throw evidence away whilst a. A person is says their innocent and b. The case is purely cicumstansctial , the advancements in forensic technology could become available that could bring more conclusive results, that I would think is fair.
I also agree Sandra Lean has the most detailed information that is why she can dedicate hundreds of pages in a book to outline the flaws in this full investigation. I find it laughable that people think she is lying about everything . If they read the book it is full of detail and can really be backed up with some media reporting and the crumbs we get via Scot court on the appeal docs.
But then their is the question of why , why stay in an area where the abuse and hate for her opinion and something she feels strongly about is faced with rude, bullying and just horrible behaviour esp on forums.
Someone thinks Sandra is not being transparent , she didicated a book to the case , she furthers her own knowledge by achieving qualifications relating to the subject. She PUBLICALLY with her OWN name out here in the public , opened to all sorts of questions which again she does PUBLICALLY. Whereas we have a Scottish criminal justice system that hide most away from the public, never come out to defend their case . Not one expert has PUBLICALLY came out and tell us why they have faith in guilt, not one book, not one documentary supporting guilt , the only people not being transparent is the criminal justice system in Scotland.
Further , Sandra lean had two daughters ages with Jodi and Luke why would she make up lies to get a murderer out in the same streets as her own children , she does not come across as some type of nutter who has no concern for her own children safety . So their is no logical sense why she would put her own children at harm unless she feels very strongly that the person in prison is not correct, now I can see that being motivational the fact that the killer is still in her area therefore her children are not safe.
The character assignation of this lady by computer bods who's only agenda is to discredit , troll and just horrible vile comments about a lady who's only crime is to report on the bias and unfair treatment of a 15 year old , I'm thankful she has shown courage , determination and has been as transparent as this Scottish legal systems allow. She has said for years she cannot put all out in the public, my feelings are if their was no truth in this then legal minded person would come out and say she is lying she can show it , in light of that never been done I can only concur that Sandra Lean is telling the truth.
I believe a fresh forensic analysis will bring resolve for all, and that will be followed by the Enquiry if that real evidence points to another person , the Enquiry will follow suit depending on results. 15- 25 years can be an averag time for these type of cases getting sorted out , it's painthfully slow as ther s many parties involved and these institutes don't take accountability freely but it will happen as more fair minded people read about this the more out rage will be built forcing an fair review esp when it comes to the forensic analysis on this case, that needs explaining its not an area that doesn't matter this type of evidence far out weighs a phone log of Luke calling the talking clock . We need real unmovable evidence to seal this case with reassurance and certainty.???
-
Agree with you fairplay1, I have nothing but respect for Sandra and all her hard work and dedication she has put in over the years, putting up with the threats she received and all the stuff that’s said about her online. She handles it well, no way I could do it.
As I said I would love to see an independent review and evidence being retested. Some sort of enquiry. One thing is for sure, this case and the questions that come with it has not gone away in 17 years and I can’t see how it’s going to stop until the case is properly reviewed or Luke gets out. If he does get out on parole and he is innocent I’m sure he will continue to fight to prove this.
-
Agree with you fairplay1, I have nothing but respect for Sandra and all her hard work and dedication she has put in over the years, putting up with the threats she received and all the stuff that’s said about her online. She handles it well, no way I could do it.
As I said I would love to see an independent review and evidence being retested. Some sort of enquiry. One thing is for sure, this case and the questions that come with it has not gone away in 17 years and I can’t see how it’s going to stop until the case is properly reviewed or Luke gets out. If he does get out on parole and he is innocent I’m sure he will continue to fight to prove this.
Yes fully agree , nearly 20 years and like you can only see resolve coming from an Independent Enquiry I think it's time to test the case it's an ideal case to test those great forensic advancement techniques and bring a much more understandable forensic analysis , it would shut the discussion down with the possablility of conclusive DNA results left on Jodi body and clothes . It's all very messy with all the changing statements , dog doing a Houdini act in time for trial all very messy. But no type of forensic science played a part in this trial I think with today's technology science could finish this and bring it to a definitive conclusion , and then maybe after just about 20 years Jodi will be able to rest in peace . Here's hoping theirs more like us, an Enquiry will end this and I really think it's the right thing to do for all of us and of course the families who have had to deal with the worst trauma and that's the Mitchell's and the Jones and all the people in Dalkieth , I can only see good coming from a Enquiry , I think we just need the evidence reviewed and everything else will follow suit
-
Yes I agree parole may come first but I absolutely believe an Enquiry will happen , it may happen after the evidence that is left ( I read but would have to go back and source , that evidence at least some of it his held for a certain time it might be 30 years but I really need to check where I read it.
I would hope in particular Jodi trousers which had male unidentified DNA on zip, button and inside leg will be there. People have a right to appeal esp with a case like this where there was no forensic analysis giving any conclusive evidence. Stefan Kiszco held for 17 years for a murder in 1975 so their was evidence from that trial retested that got the right killers profile , so if they just throw evidence away whilst a. A person is says their innocent and b. The case is purely cicumstansctial , the advancements in forensic technology could become available that could bring more conclusive results, that I would think is fair.
I also agree Sandra Lean has the most detailed information that is why she can dedicate hundreds of pages in a book to outline the flaws in this full investigation. I find it laughable that people think she is lying about everything . If they read the book it is full of detail and can really be backed up with some media reporting and the crumbs we get via Scot court on the appeal docs.
But then their is the question of why , why stay in an area where the abuse and hate for her opinion and something she feels strongly about is faced with rude, bullying and just horrible behaviour esp on forums.
Someone thinks Sandra is not being transparent , she didicated a book to the case , she furthers her own knowledge by achieving qualifications relating to the subject. She PUBLICALLY with her OWN name out here in the public , opened to all sorts of questions which again she does PUBLICALLY. Whereas we have a Scottish criminal justice system that hide most away from the public, never come out to defend their case . Not one expert has PUBLICALLY came out and tell us why they have faith in guilt, not one book, not one documentary supporting guilt , the only people not being transparent is the criminal justice system in Scotland.
Further , Sandra lean had two daughters ages with Jodi and Luke why would she make up lies to get a murderer out in the same streets as her own children , she does not come across as some type of nutter who has no concern for her own children safety . So their is no logical sense why she would put her own children at harm unless she feels very strongly that the person in prison is not correct, now I can see that being motivational the fact that the killer is still in her area therefore her children are not safe.
The character assignation of this lady by computer bods who's only agenda is to discredit , troll and just horrible vile comments about a lady who's only crime is to report on the bias and unfair treatment of a 15 year old , I'm thankful she has shown courage , determination and has been as transparent as this Scottish legal systems allow. She has said for years she cannot put all out in the public, my feelings are if their was no truth in this then legal minded person would come out and say she is lying she can show it , in light of that never been done I can only concur that Sandra Lean is telling the truth.
I believe a fresh forensic analysis will bring resolve for all, and that will be followed by the Enquiry if that real evidence points to another person , the Enquiry will follow suit depending on results. 15- 25 years can be an averag time for these type of cases getting sorted out , it's painthfully slow as ther s many parties involved and these institutes don't take accountability freely but it will happen as more fair minded people read about this the more out rage will be built forcing an fair review esp when it comes to the forensic analysis on this case, that needs explaining its not an area that doesn't matter this type of evidence far out weighs a phone log of Luke calling the talking clock . We need real unmovable evidence to seal this case with reassurance and certainty.???
I would be all for the forensics in this case being retested and reanalysed, but think it’s a forlorn hope as the initial management of the crime scene on the morning of 01.07.03 was not ideal and likely resulted in crucial evidence being lost. I know the locus presented logistical problems due to how inaccessible it was and how trees and branches prevented a police marquee being erected right there and then at the locus, but leaving the body uncovered for 8 hours, exposing it to the rain and elements, was totally unprofessional. In addition to this, they rolled Jodi’s body onto a plastic sheet and moved it from its original position, and piled Jodi’s clothes on top of one another, possibly causing cross-contamination. So, there you have it — right away the investigation was off to an inauspicious start, with potentially lost vital DNA and degraded and contaminated DNA. But, even if the DNA was retested and analysed with the best technology has to offer, what really will the results yield? Nothing I suspect. Besides, as part of the SCCRC’s review in 2014, the DNA was tested again by experts and all that was found were 2 unidentified profiles likely originating from semen on the top of Jodi’s trousers. Now, a lot of people would naturally worry about unidentified profiles, but you have to remember that the crime scene was in a woodland that was frequented by a lot of youths, courting teenage couples, walkers and dog walkers, so there would be a lot of DNA present in the area — DNA that could be innocently transferred by an unknown, unidentified source. Also, like I said, the crime scene wasn’t ideally managed which likely resulted in degraded and contaminated DNA which yielded results that were of no use to the investigation (eg, inconclusive and non-reportable findings). I surmise that a lot of the unidentified profiles were innocently transferred by locals not involved in the case. It was interesting that DNA traces (semen) were found all over Jodi’s body, face and hands that produced mixed samples that had markers that matched the markers in Luke’s profile, so I wonder if the forensics department analysed these and looked at the loci and alleles to see who the likely contributor was?
-
What I’m essentially saying, is that while DNA can often produce concrete, irrefutable
proof, it sometimes can create more questions than answers — like with this case. Bottom line is: DNA is not a magical silver bullet. This is compounded by people’s lack of understanding of how DNA works, how it is tested and what its results mean. There is also the problem that many forensics experts do their work differently from lab to lab, and are often analysing and testing in line with what they have been instructed, to suit a particular theory or narrative (eg, the prosecution’s narrative and terms of reference).
-
I would be all for the forensics in this case being retested and reanalysed, but think it’s a forlorn hope as the initial management of the crime scene on the morning of 01.07.03 was not ideal and likely resulted in crucial evidence being lost. I know the locus presented logistical problems due to how inaccessible it was and how trees and branches prevented a police marquee being erected right there and then at the locus, but leaving the body uncovered for 8 hours, exposing it to the rain and elements, was totally unprofessional. In addition to this, they rolled Jodi’s body onto a plastic sheet and moved it from its original position, and piled Jodi’s clothes on top of one another, possibly causing cross-contamination. So, there you have it — right away the investigation was off to an inauspicious start, with potentially lost vital DNA and degraded and contaminated DNA. But, even if the DNA was retested and analysed with the best technology has to offer, what really will the results yield? Nothing I suspect. Besides, as part of the SCCRC’s review in 2014, the DNA was tested again by experts and all that was found were 2 unidentified profiles likely originating from semen on the top of Jodi’s trousers. Now, a lot of people would naturally worry about unidentified profiles, but you have to remember that the crime scene was in a woodland that was frequented by a lot of youths, courting teenage couples, walkers and dog walkers, so there would be a lot of DNA present in the area — DNA that could be innocently transferred by an unknown, unidentified source. Also, like I said, the crime scene wasn’t ideally managed which likely resulted in degraded and contaminated DNA which yielded results that were of no use to the investigation (eg, inconclusive and non-reportable findings). I surmise that a lot of the unidentified profiles were innocently transferred by locals not involved in the case. It was interesting that DNA traces (semen) were found all over Jodi’s body, face and hands that produced mixed samples that had markers that matched the markers in Luke’s profile, so I wonder if the forensics department analysed these and looked at the loci and alleles to see who the likely contributor was?
I agree with all that you say with regards to crime scene not being managed to a sufficient level this can be seen with all you have listed which are huge areas of concern , I don't belief we can just brush that under the carpet , those vital mistakes had serious consequences for Luke Mitchell . When you are made aware of these many examples of incompetence then add that to the media slander and character assignation on a 15 year old boy BEFORE trial how anyone can say they are satisfied with the verdict when they must be well aware of the inept investigation , even the appeal judges stated the adult police where outrageous , deplorable these are strong words , I simply can't understand why people can't see the police blunders like it means nothing , the very foundations of this case is crumbling because of all those police blunders , I certainly don't have faith in that investigation team and I base this on everything from above.
I disagree with you here germane , I often read and watch much about forensic science in the fight against crime , for one of the bloodiest scenes and the 100 pieces of evidence taken from the scene and their is a huge red flag that this information is coming back with no reportable results. I just don't believe it simple . I think when their is a horrific murder and their is evidence of sperm on Jodi clothes and body with unidentified male profile that has to be continued to be tested , we may differ with this but the semen, hair, saliva found on Jodi , an answer scientifically should be sought till they get the hit. Sorry, I see this is one of the most important areas of evidence that needs clarified. It's not okay or it shouldn't be to just say well yeah someone left hair, sperm, blood saliva on Jodi and we don't really know who it is , awe should be fine we've got Luke calling the talking clock job done. I find the evidence even when you put it all together is weak at best but certainly in no way gives me total reassurance they got the right guy. The evidence that would have mattered to me and given me confidence in the conviction is all missing.
The forensic experts outlined on Frontline Scot and Channel 5 documentary state catagorically their is a problem with this case when it comes to the forensic analysis of the crime , I trust these experts views and this is why I can't let this area go , I believe this will be the silver bullet if Indepentently reexamined , I have faith the answer was always left on Jodi and it's time we received some clear understandable direction when it comes to this undisputable evidence. This type of evidence should not be played down like it doesn't really matter, think stagg/ Napper case or Stefan Kizko/ castree both these men where free to go about and commit further crime whilst innocent men done their time, DNA advancements got the right guys in the end but the damage was immense esp to the further victims , all they have to do is demonstrate some due deligence and test the evidence make sure it's not another Napper or castree. It's the fair thing to do and will bring resolve no matter what way it goes .
I don't think he had a chance with an unfair trial and a seriously incompetent police investigation , the best way I can describe my view is if it was me and my child , I would not be happy with the treatment the Mitchell's received and he simply did not have a chance of a fair trial. I think a just fair thinking Person can see how off it is and no amount going round the houses will change my view , he was presumed guilty with the complete and unethical practises adopted by the media and the police investigation to completely annihilate his character , it screams of unfairness . I want them to give him the first fair hearing in 20 years and test the evidence with today's advancements , it could bring a conclusion which I really feel is needed , it must bring back all the trauma and never really has had a chance to grieve esp for Jodi Mum, I really think it has to move on and some reassurances must be given esp around those unidentified male DNA found on the victim, hopefully they will be working on this area now with his legal team , just hope for some resolve to come out of this .
-
I often read and watch much about forensic science in the fight against crime
Do you? I cannot wait to read more of your expert forensic analysis.
I want them to give him the first fair hearing in 20 years
Not how it will work, but anyway, probably best you get Shane on side, lol.
chance to grieve esp for Jodi Mum
Never realised you are the Jones spokesperson?
-
Do you? I cannot wait to read more of your expert forensic analysis.
Not how it will work, but anyway, probably best you get Shane on side, lol.
Never realised you are the Jones spokesperson?
It's only by viewing other cases where the police and forensic teams complete outstanding work that I make the comparison to this investigation. I have never really looked in to miscarriages I was more interested in the opposite side , where the police and forensic teams complete an investigation to a high standard . This case stands out to me because of the many flaws and incompetence of the police investigation in comparison to the excellent work carried out by police on other cases.
Shane can offer nothing he like many other witnesses have a serious problem with memory ( everybody involved in this case where all smoking from the Devils garden , maybe the strain was very strong this might account for Moped boys not having a clue to why they where at a murder scene at the time a horrific murder happened.
Shane's evidence was pointless he did not say Luke was not in the house he simply did not know , maybe Luke was in the toilet or maybe in the garden letting the dog out who knows but his evidence was he did not know. So why does he not support , well we have no idea . It could be that the papers reported that Shane did not give him an alibi , possible he feels responsible for his wee brother going to prison as the papers and all the guilty mob say Shane says he wasn't there when in reality he just didn't know.
It's also possible that Shane dosnt support which would raise some flags but we just don't know , I believe he has his own family maybe after the horrendous way the media, police treated Luke and his mum he went into the background for self preservation and to have some type of life that is away from public glare and scrutiny- I could understand this on some level.
But in essence I would agree with this area of doubt but I am basing this on myself if it was my brother and I knew 100% he was innocent I would fight for him but that's me and like I say I don't think Shane can offer much in the way of definitive proof as he just did not know , he was unsure and he stated as much to the police many times and also to the qc at court.
I'm not a spokesperson Dave for the Jones family but any person with empathy can see the Jones family have not had a chance to grieve and that is not okay after 18 years , it must be raw but whilst understanding their grief it cannot detract from the issues around Luke Mitchels plight to clear his name he has that right and the evidence ( forensic analysis) tells me he has every right to fight it.