Murder of Jodie Jones

[Sand87]

Hello.

I am aware there are a couple of threads on this subject but neither have any real discussion. Nobody seemed interested.

I was going to type up a long spew of fact, argument and counterargument regarding this case before I thought it may be an idea to gauge interest before I possibly waste my time.

So firstly, does anyone know about this case?
Secondly, does anyone believe the verdict was anything other than the correct decision?


I believe there is an innocent man locked up for this murder. I also believe those involved in prosecuting this case knew, before and during proceedings, that there were serious flaws in the evidence provided.

The one thing that always bothers me, not more nor less than other seriously suspect evidence I must stress, is the prosecutions inclusion of witnesses who claim they saw Luke sitting on a wall at the end of the path where Jodie was later discovered shortly after the murder. So we have a 14 year old boy who has apparently just murdered and seriously mutilated his girlfriend sitting calmly on a wall a short distance away from the crime scene with no visible blood stains on him trying to contact his girlfriend and her family.

This has made me feel uneasy since 2003.

And then of course there are the other suspects who in my opinion, had Luke been given a fair trial, would currently be serving life for her murder.

Anyway, before we get specific and detailed, does anyone know or care about this case?

[Limehouse]

This case is vaguely familiar - but could you kust give us a bit of an outline so that we can discuss it more fully? I think it took place in Wales, right?

[louisa]

I haven't heard of this case before either. I'll be Googling it tomorrow.

[OneRound]

Sand87 - I don't know very much about the case but would certainly be interested to learn more.

From my basic understanding, I would draw one parallel with the infamous Hanratty case. In UK law, there is no obligation on the defendant to prove an alibi. However, in practice, failure to convincingly do so appears to weigh heavily with a jury.

As far as I'm concerned, you certainly won't be wasting your time if you set matters out further. I hope you do.

Best regards,

OneRound

[jason_c]

I know of the case.

It's difficult to debate the case rationally here in Scotland. Luke Mitchell was viewed as an evil little s.o.b. by most. On the other hand teenage girls(mainly goths) are convinced of his innocence and continue to send him love letters in prison.

[Sand87]

I'll give a brief outline before I go out and then I can post some more detailed info later.

Luke Mitchell was the boyfriend of Jodie Jones, both were 14 when she was murdered. Both lived in Dalkeith, just outside Edinburgh in Scotland.

She was murdered in June 2003 after going to meet Luke. They lived on opposite sides of a wood and would meet either in the middle on a path or at one of two ends but she didn't show up.
Her savagely mutilated body was found behind a gap in a stone wall in the woodland by Luke after a search party involving family members had set out earlier. The prosecution made a big deal about the fact that Luke knew exactly where to "find" her body despite the fact he was with his dog which had been trained in tracking scents.

Another large part of the prosecution was a statement given by Luke's brother who did not corroborate Luke's alibi that he was at home at the time of the murder. His brother said he was looking at pornography on the internet and didn't usually do this if somebody was at home.

The strangest detail to me was a potential suspect 'J a F'. A condom leaking his semen was found a short distance from the body the day after the murder. He admitted to being behind the wall at some point that evening but somehow missed both the savage murder, the blood and the body despite the route he said he took taking him quite literally over the body.

Luke tried to contact Jodi through mobile phone after she failed to turn up for the meeting. The prosecution claim this was him trying to cover his tracks.

Due to the high interest and subsequent appeals in this case there is an awful lot of information on it so I suggest anyone interested should make a coffee and spend half an hour reading through the details on this site here:

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/phone-calls-and-the-familys-statements/

And tell me if you feel as uneasy as I do.

I remember at the time, just before his arrest, he was interviewed on T.V about the interview and the interview was shown on local and national news. I doubt this did him any favours regarding a fair trial.

The other aspect that really bothers me is the sexual nature of the crime. Jodi was strangled and then had her throat cut between 12-20 times before being stripped naked and having her hands tied behind her with her jeans. How did Luke get home without being seen covered in blood? Why, when examined by forensic officers the next day was no blood found on him despite the forensic officer stating his hair and hands had not been washed recently>

[Sand87]

I should point out I have shamelessly misspelled the girls name. It is Jodi not Jodie.

[Sand87]

Nobody?

This case has concerned me since I started to dig into it 3 years ago. Now, I know I haven't put forward the most elegant or elloquent of arguments but I feel there are so many arguments, details and points of interest that I just can't put it into one post.

What I do know is that the Mother of the convicted, who got a seriously hard and seriously unfair time by the Great British Media, has, thankfully, been offered the services of an incredibly talented team and I believe they volunteered their serviced free of charge such is their belief in this boys innocence.

Cases like this chill me because I believe the Police utterly failed in their duty at the time of the murder and then tried to cover up the fact at subsequent appeals.

If I ever won the Euromillions I'd hire the best legal team on Earth and I bet that kid would be free.

He didn't do it

[OneRound]

Nobody?

This case has concerned me since I started to dig into it 3 years ago. Now, I know I haven't put forward the most elegant or elloquent of arguments but I feel there are so many arguments, details and points of interest that I just can't put it into one post.

What I do know is that the Mother of the convicted, who got a seriously hard and seriously unfair time by the Great British Media, has, thankfully, been offered the services of an incredibly talented team and I believe they volunteered their serviced free of charge such is their belief in this boys innocence.

Cases like this chill me because I believe the Police utterly failed in their duty at the time of the murder and then tried to cover up the fact at subsequent appeals.

If I ever won the Euromillions I'd hire the best legal team on Earth and I bet that kid would be free.

He didn't do it

Sand87 - I have read the Appeal judgment. There is a lot more there, admittedly some of it circumstantial, to support a guilty verdict.

I appreciate that you are a strong supporter of Luke Mitchell. However, I believe you need to show fully the case against him and then seek to discredit it. By keeping things back, you weaken your cause.

Best regards,

OneRound

[jason_c]

How do you account for Luke finding the body?

[Sand87]

Well, both Luke and his Mother who provided him with an alibi have passed lie detector tests. It is surely only a matter of time now...

[HollyDolly]

Murder of Jodie Jones

Luke may have been able to find the body due to having the dog along.If he took the dog with him at times for a walk when he met Jodi, the dog when they searched for her might have picked up her scent.
Did anyone question her sister's boyfriend, or know where he was at the time?
Did the police look to see if there were any boys at school who maybe had a crush on her?Maybe this boy followed her one day and saw her meet Luke.
Maybe he on this occassion followed her and tried to get her to dump Luke, and they got into a fight and he killed her and and sexually assulated her.

[Sand87]

I think the fact that Luke found the body is close to irrelevant bearing in mind he was in a group of people who set out to a very specific location do just that (perhaps not a body, but you get my drift).

[Sand87]

Here is a youtube clip of Luke passing a lie detector test. His mother, who provided an alabi, also passed a lie detector test.

Unfortunately lie detectors are not admissible in Scottish courts and so the media have decided to focus on 'how did a killer get a video on youtube' rather than 'a killer and his alibi have passed a lie detector test'.

It should be clear now that he is in prison because certain detectives failed spectacularly in the first weeks of their investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boKXAggpHoQ

The examiner concluded that it was unbelievable that the subject had been convicted. He passed every test question and every question with high levels of conviction.

[Sand87]

Actually, it didn't take weeks for them to utterly fail in their investigation.
The failures began as soon as the body was found.
It remained uncovered for 10 hours after the discovery - the reason? The forensic officer, an obese lady, was too fat to climb over the wall. Did she walk around the wall? No, she decided to go home and the leave the body uncovered and open to contamination.