GUILTY UK - Jodi Jones, 14, Dalkeith, Scotland, 30 June 2003

New Posts

I wonder who this unnamed individual is who the two investigators believe is the prime suspect, and whether we will ever find out? Obviously LM is not far off release, and to be honest, as three appeals have been turned down I can't see another succeeding in the next years.

I don't know whether he is innocent or guilty, but the trial and conviction do not stand up on the evidence that was presented.
 
MsMiniSleuth said:
I wonder who this unnamed individual is who the two investigators believe is the prime suspect, and whether we will ever find out? Obviously LM is not far off release, and to be honest, as three appeals have been turned down I can't see another succeeding in the next years.

I don't know whether he is innocent or guilty, but the trial and conviction do not stand up on the evidence that was presented.
Click to expand...
 
Hoopy88 said:
If you listen to the James English podcasts on this case, it will become apparent who the unnamed person is.
Click to expand...

Where do I find those? Link?

Edit: It's okay, found through another site others detailing it. Stocky Man... hmm, yes, I see who has been named. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Kasmeer said:
I've always wondered what evidence they actually had against LM (other than his musical preferences :rolleyes:) which was so compelling as to get him convicted... I'm guessing from reactions above that the answer is probably "not much", but maybe it'll help fill in some gaps. On the face of it it's long seemed like a case of "blame the weirdish boyfriend", which is not an attitude I'm at all comfortable with.
Click to expand...
As far as I can remember there was no evidence at all implicating Luke.

Some of the so-called evidence was completely spurious, such as the claim that he went straight to the body so must have known where it was. He had brought his dog with him to help with the search, and the dog naturally caught the scent and found the body, simple as that. Nothing incriminating about that, many bodies are discovered by dog walkers, or rather by their dogs.

Apart from anything else, I could never see how he would have had the opportunity time-wise.
 
Happygirlie2003 said:
This documentary is fascinating, have to say I’m already not convinced Luke Mitchell was guilty it’s actually awful IF he wasn’t. At the time I hold my hands up and say I was adamant from the media speculation that he was
Click to expand...

Same. Ashamed to say it. Although I was only 17 at the time. Sure at that time I bought the sun everyday going to my office job. Oh the shame.
 
The entire case against Luke is circumstantial - whether or not you should allow someone to be convicted based on this is entirely up for debate.

There is so much for/against I find it hard enough to choose - if I was asked if I am 100% sure he did it I would definitely have found him not guilty.

That being said I think the following happened:

* Luke had some severe mental issues - his teacher raised it, he collected his own piss, he even admitted he wasn't a normal kid.
* His mum would do anything for him - take him for a tattoo and pretend he was 18 and buy him a knife for example.
* He killed Jodi that day and went back and told his mum who tried to clear it up by burning his clothes, getting him a new knife,

Some facts from the top of my head to help you form an opinion:

* No blood/skin where found under his nails, although dirt was found that had been obviously there for a long time. Although you could argue he may have wore gloves.
* Defence marks where found on Jodi - but there was no signs of any altercations on Luke.
* Obsesion of 'Black Dahlia' - which Jodi had a number of injuries that seemed to emulate this. Although I cannot find any true evidence on how exactly Luke was 'obsessed' with this.
* He has yet to confess - surely there would be nothing holding him back now that he has about to finish his mandatory time in jail, in fact it would be beneficial to him to confess to get parole.
* The writing on the knife - "JJ 1989 – 2003" and "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came".
* Eyewitness said they seen them together which she picked luke out of photos.
* If you killed someone why would you lead people to the body? extreme narcissism if that is the case.
* Luke told a friend that he 'could imagine getting “stoned” and killing someone' and 'had shown him a knife and said that he knew the best way to slit someone’s throat'
* At the time of the murder Mitchell owned a ‘skunting’ knife which has never been found
* He wore a parka-style jacket that he was wearing that day, that has never been found.
* Mitchell’s mother then bought him an identical jacket to the one that was missing.
 
Just came on here to see what the chat was after the documentaries.
Years ago I would have had him guilty but I was naive then and was only privy to the information put out by the media.
Now, I'm older and wiser, I don't think LM is guilty at all.
I've read loads on this, listened to the podcasts, watched the 2007 BBC documentary about it and the CH5 one.
Been down rabbit holes on it, there's been talk on social media of certain police officers contaminating the crime scene and covering up for themselves.
However, what really stands out for me is the 10 months it took for the police to arrest a suspect who was 1) a child, 2) already had a trial by media and 3) not the only person to be at the crime scene when Jodi was discovered.
Not only that, he was refused a lawyer at questioning and he was questioned without an appropriate adult which, is outrageous.
He was bullied by media and police.
So many cases are found guilty on DNA evidence but with this case the poor girl was mutilated yet no DNA evidence of LM on her or JJ on LM.
The case stinks.
 
Hi guys just following this thread now as I, like many others, have watched the documentary. I was only 9 when this murder happened and don’t remember it at all. I cannot believe Luke was found guilty. From what I’ve read the standard of proof does not meet “beyond all reasonable doubt”!
 
That documentary was very difficult to take seriously. Completely biased, didn’t share any information about the evidence against LM, and very selective about the way they discussed other persons of interest or the reasons they were ruled out. They also didn’t say much about the charges against LM’s mother either - they’re worth looking into. Channel 5 isn’t known for quality programming so it didn’t really come as a shock but the way they presented the story was terrible.

Those two PIs have a very ‘colourful’ past and some of the other talking heads they included were lame like that’ forensics institute’ guy who basically just runs a private forensic services company but gave it a big fancy name.

It’s a difficult one because some of the evidence has never been shared outside the courtroom but people who know jurors always confirm that they said they were left in no doubt of his guilt.

I think he did it. I think he was/is an arrogant narcissist who believed himself to be rather clever and there were incidents prior to Jodi’s death that suggest a violent nature. This sudden desire to speak about it is preparation for his parole hearings and subsequent release. I don’t know if that’s because he intends to try and return to live in the same area but I’d hope not - there’s no way that situation wouldn’t become a complete circus.
 
I'm willing to be open-minded, as the documentary was certainly one-sided, but if there was any actual evidence, surely it wouldn't come up again and again as a questionable case? Or at least any time it came up, there'd be an instant counter-argument with the proof. Now I've watched it all through, it appears there are multiple people who could be linked to the scene, meanwhile LM is not linked to it, in any way.

Even if he actually did do it (somehow managing to remove every single microscopic trace of forensic evidence from himself in a matter of hours, while seemingly not having cleaned either nails or hair - that's pretty amazing forensic awareness for a 14-year-old!), it really does not seem to me that the conviction can be called safe. We have the "innocent until proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt" (now reworded but still, effectively the same) standard in this country to avoid innocent people going to prison just because someone said they're a weirdo so they must have done it... and it appears that's about the sum of the evidence in this case - he was weird, and he knew her. It simply doesn't meet the standard of proof that we should expect to see - I can only assume the jury had been influenced by the media witch-hunt against him.

(Side question: how did the media frenzy even happen? I thought minor suspects weren't allowed to be named or even have their identity implied until they're found guilty/turn 18? I googled it to check and found Why can't you name a teenage accused? - "In Scotland the age at which a suspect can be named is 18, under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The act prohibits the publication of the name, address, school or any particulars which could to lead to the identification of any person under 18 who is an accused, victim or witness in criminal proceedings." Last I checked 1995 was before 2003, so...?? )

The statement at the end from the police just made me angry - it's not a character failing to admit there's a possibility of new evidence/methods leading to a different conclusion, but no, lets blank ignore any such possibility, of course. Who cares that there might be a murderer walking free these last 17 years who could strike again? :rolleyes:
 
If he did do it, he should rot behind bars forever.
But the evidence is circumstantial and while I agree that Ch5 haven't made a documentary that should've been impartial, the fact still remains that there was no DNA evidence whatsoever. He was 14 at the time but managed to ensure he left no forensic evidence at the scene or on himself. The man is happy to stay in jail forever because he will never admit to something he said he never did.
They found DNA from her sister's boyfriend on her clothes, that was explained by Jodi borrowing her sister's top but why wasn't there any DNA from her sister present?
There are so many unanswered questions in this that we'll never know the answer to but I don't think the conviction is safe. And where is the justice for all parties if the conviction isn't safe?
I don't know how the media got away with naming him within days, that in itself doesn't allow for a fair trial, however we need to keep in mind he's lost 3 appeals, how is that?
Whether or not he's guilty, none of this was done right and in my opinion, that isn't justice for Jodi or her family.
 
Edited:
Just on the preparation for parole, his mum and others have been campaigning for years to get him released. It'll be 5 years before he's even considered for parole and he's been in closed conditions for the last 15 years.
There's another BBC documentary from 2007, it's not as biased but also highlights the lack of DNA evidence.
Bearing in mind DNA is the gold standard in securing a conviction.
 
Yenriac said:
Edited:
Just on the preparation for parole, his mum and others have been campaigning for years to get him released. It'll be 5 years before he's even considered for parole and he's been in closed conditions for the last 15 years.
There's another BBC documentary from 2007, it's not as biased but also highlights the lack of DNA evidence.
Bearing in mind DNA is the gold standard in securing a conviction.
Click to expand...
lack of DNA evidence? DNA from anyone? Did she attack herself with a knife?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 105 more.
Total: 2,004 (members: 106, guests: 1,898)

Online statistics

Members online
106
Guests online
1,898
Total visitors
2,004
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,854
Messages
18,013,753
Members
229,532
Latest member
Sarti
Back
Top