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

[Stephanie]

More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

Furthermore my simple A or B cannot be incorrect, he's either innocent or guilty. Surely you can understand this; especially in a case like this? Someone committed the murder. You cannot have a suspect like LM and then think 'oh he could be guilty but all the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to settle my mind into believing he did it, I need to see a DNA match or photograph to prove to my mind he didn't do it.' Not in a case like this.

If this mentality was allowed to stand then there would be numerous unsolved cases and more worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets.

[Stephanie]

It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.

I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.

May I suggest it is you who is being petty.

I'm merely trying to point out that if you believe LM to be innocent then you need to have another suspect in mind, one with the means, motive and opportunity in order to establish their guilt.

Who do you believe carried out the murder if you believe in your mind that LM should have been given a 'not proven' verdict (based on your belief there were too many police errors, inconsistencies, suspicions surrounding other individuals etc etc)?

[Stephanie]

14th April 2014

JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.

Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.

The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.

The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.

A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.

Mitchell’s school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

Criminologist Elizabeth Rudman said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.”

The SPS said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”

Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or antisocial behaviour."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

[sandra L]

I'm merely trying to point out that if you believe LM to be innocent then you need to have another suspect in mind, one with the means, motive and opportunity in order to establish their guilt.

Why? Isn't it enough to look at the evidence, investigation and prosecution tactics etc, and come to the conclusion that none of it actually supports the contention that he is the killer?

Believing someone to be innocent on this basis is entirely separate from "having another suspect in mind."

There were a number of people in this case who were not properly investigated, so cannot be said to have been safely eliminated from the enquiry. Does that make them "suspects" or does it just leave, 12 years later, a mountain of unanswered questions, all of which undermine the safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell.

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?

You said earlier

You cannot have a suspect like LM and then think 'oh he could be guilty but all the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to settle my mind into believing he did it, I need to see a DNA match or photograph to prove to my mind he didn't do it.' Not in a case like this.

Why not? Our justice system is supposed to demand two fundamental premises - that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was Luke afforded the presumption of innocence? Not according to the SCCRC, not according to John Scott QC, Roy Ramm, Keith Ashcroft... I could go on, but you get the picture. Not even according to SIO Craig Dobbie himself! It's not the case of circumstantial evidence "settling" anyone's mind - the evidence has to piece logically together to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and a number of professionals do not believe that happened. Far too many of the normal rules of justice were broken - events which happened after the murder, for example, cannot have influenced the murder itself - that is basic logic. Yet they were allowed to be used to support claims (nothing more than that) about behaviours, propensities etc, prior to the murder.

If this mentality was allowed to stand then there would be numerous unsolved cases and more worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets

Does that mean it's ok to get someone - anyone, rather than have an "unsolved case?" And what if they get the wrong person - doesn't that leave "worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets?"

[guest154]

14th April 2014

JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.

Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.

Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.

The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.

The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.

A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.

Mitchell’s school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

Criminologist Elizabeth Rudman said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.”

The SPS said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”

Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or antisocial behaviour."

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

Good post. I think that it shows LM's state of mind  - and that is important in a case like this.

Some people have a financial incentive in MOJ cases, I think that needs to be kept in mind.

I think LM is guilty as sin. When a suspect can't keep their stroy straight, and those around him don't either, then there is usually a reason for that.  If it was my brother inside for a crime I didn't believe he committed I would be SCREAMING from the rooft tops.

[Stephanie]

"Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.

One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.

“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression?

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.

Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

[Stephanie]

"Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.

One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.

“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression?

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.

Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

I can confirm that I have seen LM satanical writings firsthand and have original copies of such. Explain that?

[Stephanie]

Why? Isn't it enough to look at the evidence, investigation and prosecution tactics etc, and come to the conclusion that none of it actually supports the contention that he is the killer?

Believing someone to be innocent on this basis is entirely separate from "having another suspect in mind."

There were a number of people in this case who were not properly investigated, so cannot be said to have been safely eliminated from the enquiry. Does that make them "suspects" or does it just leave, 12 years later, a mountain of unanswered questions, all of which undermine the safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell.

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?

You said earlier
Why not? Our justice system is supposed to demand two fundamental premises - that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Was Luke afforded the presumption of innocence? Not according to the SCCRC, not according to John Scott QC, Roy Ramm, Keith Ashcroft... I could go on, but you get the picture. Not even according to SIO Craig Dobbie himself! It's not the case of circumstantial evidence "settling" anyone's mind - the evidence has to piece logically together to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and a number of professionals do not believe that happened. Far too many of the normal rules of justice were broken - events which happened after the murder, for example, cannot have influenced the murder itself - that is basic logic. Yet they were allowed to be used to support claims (nothing more than that) about behaviours, propensities etc, prior to the murder.

Does that mean it's ok to get someone - anyone, rather than have an "unsolved case?" And what if they get the wrong person - doesn't that leave "worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets?"

I do not take you seriously anymore Sandra L nor do I think you are credible (My opinion of course) and therefore see no point in responding to everything you have written. ...

However if you stand so strongly behind your arguments;

Who killed Jodi Jones if you believe LM didn't?

[Stephanie]

Not for you

As 'Baz' likes to say - irrelevant to the discussion!

[sandra L]

Good post. I think that it shows LM's state of mind  - and that is important in a case like this.

State of mind more than a decade later.

Some people have a financial incentive in MOJ cases, I think that needs to be kept in mind.

The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.

I think LM is guilty as sin. When a suspect can't keep their stroy straight, and those around him don't either, then there is usually a reason for that.  If it was my brother inside for a crime I didn't believe he committed I would be SCREAMING from the rooft tops.

Luke's story was the only one that stayed straight throughout all of the statements. Unless you've been in a situation where a relative has been wrongly convicted, I don't think you're in a positon to say what you'd do. I know of several families where some members are able to campaign tirelessly and others simply cannot cope.

For the record, I personally believe the request for this material was ill conceived - it doesn't, however,  change my view of the facts of the case or the so-called investigation

[Stephanie]

State of mind more than a decade later.
 The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.

Luke's story was the only one that stayed straight throughout all of the statements. Unless you've been in a situation where a relative has been wrongly convicted, I don't think you're in a positon to say what you'd do. I know of several families where some members are able to campaign tirelessly and others simply cannot cope.

For the record, I personally believe the request for this material was ill conceived - it doesn't, however,  change my view of the facts of the case or the so-called investigation

But it wasn't a decade later as the news article I posted shows....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242

I don't think Mat was suggesting you had made any money from your involvement in MOJ work - I believe he was referring to the person maintaining innocence and them having a financial motive...

Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?

And it would have been no use to Luke to have wavered from his original statements as this would have set off further alarm bells....

I'll-conceived? How and why?

What did he want with the books? Research material? If LM has nothing to hide then he would not need to careful plan when or how he would ask for copies of the books imo. However if this is the case, why no explanation? What is your explanation?

Nothing wrong in believing the investigation was flawed and outlining those flaws but doesn't mean a person is innocent because of them; as my experience proves.

[Baz]

I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?

Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.

The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.

[Stephanie]

Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.

The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.

How is it 'troubling?'

Not that your opinion of what side to 'come down on' will make an iota of difference to LM's conviction.....

[sandra L]

I do not take you seriously anymore Sandra L nor do I think you are credible (My opinion of course) and therefore see no point in responding to everything you have written. ...

However if you stand so strongly behind your arguments;

Who killed Jodi Jones if you believe LM didn't?

I see, so you'll ignore my questions and comments, but still feel perfectly justified in demanding answers from me that you've already said you're going to ignore. Not sure how that's going to work!

You did make me smile, though... "If you stand so strongly behind your arguments...." Really??? More than 12 years down the line, and you use "if." And, just for clarity, your opinion of me is none of my business - I came here to discuss Luke's case with people who seemed to be interested in discussing it - if that's not you, no worries!

[sandra L]

I don't think Mat was suggesting you had made any money from your involvement in MOJ work - I believe he was referring to the person maintaining innocence and them having a financial motive...

Where did that come from? Luke's never made any mention of gaining financially from his situation - he wouldn't get compensation under today's rules, even if his conviction was overturned. Luke's only concern, since the age of 15, has been to clear his name, and regain his freedom.

Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?

I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
 

I'll-conceived? How and why?

Let's not pllay silly games. It was ill conceived because the reaction, when the news was leaked to the media, was predictable, and did nothing to further his cause.

What did he want with the books? Research material? If LM has nothing to hide then he would not need to careful plan when or how he would ask for copies of the books imo. However if this is the case, why no explanation? What is your explanation?

Doesn't matter, remember? Credibility etc!

Nothing wrong in believing the investigation was flawed and outlining those flaws but doesn't mean a person is innocent because of them; as my experience proves.

But it may mean he's innocent because the circumstances may be different. Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?