Murder of Jodie Jones

[RivkahChaya]

I don't think this trial had a confession though or did I miss that part?

No; just a comment on how easily teens can be manipulated. The WM3 confession is shocking because of how transparent it is, in my opinion. The kid was borderline retarded, and in special ed. He was held for the better part of a day, and changes his story over and over again, trying to say what the police want, so he can go home, and it's blatantly obvious. The first version of the "confession" doesn't tally on any point with what the police already know happened from visiting the crime scene, then slowly, over hours of feeding the kid information, he comes to say what they want, and they arrest him.

If the judge had allowed a change of venue, I really wonder if he would have been convicted based on that confession.

[Sand87]

If the police are the ones stating that his hands and hair were unwashed, that doesn't seem to do much for their case, though, does it? if they are suggesting he got home, washed, then got back and started calling her?

Spot on. But not only does this suggest Luke left the murder scene covered in blood, walked through very public places to his home, washed himself, changed his clothes, went back to the site where he was supposed to have been seen by another witness and phoned a relative. All within a period of time that comes to less than 20 minutes. Possible 15. Oh, and in this time he disposed of the murder weapon and changed his behaviour from one of a crazed killer who killed his 14 year old girlfriend in such a way that a senior detective described it as the most violent scene he had come across to one of a 14 year old boy who was sat on a wall swinging his legs and minding his business (in full view of the public).

The next time you read of Donald Findlay QC winning a case for a high profile client - please remember how he defended Luke.

[Sand87]

No; just a comment on how easily teens can be manipulated. The WM3 confession is shocking because of how transparent it is, in my opinion. The kid was borderline retarded, and in special ed. He was held for the better part of a day, and changes his story over and over again, trying to say what the police want, so he can go home, and it's blatantly obvious. The first version of the "confession" doesn't tally on any point with what the police already know happened from visiting the crime scene, then slowly, over hours of feeding the kid information, he comes to say what they want, and they arrest him.

So familiar. So sad.
Being in the States do you know how these guys went on with their lifes? I'd love to hear they are living full and productive lifes. Were they ever the target of people who doubted their innocence?

[jason_c]

Can I just say one thing, jason.

A few times you have picked me up on something I have said. I have answered you but you don't aknowledge the answer, you don't tell me I am correct and you don't argue the point. You create some argument and then drop it and move on to the next one.
This is totally counter productive, it moves the thread on far too fast and it causes some decent posts/info to be moved back.

I'm taking time to post what I am and it requires a lot of searching through documents and articles and it just gets pushed back by another slightly loaded question or point.
This is not an egotistical thing, believe me. But how can we have a discussion when incredibly important and valid points are just washed over and forgotten?

However, I do appreciate your contribution. Anybody showing an interest in this case is important and without discussion and argument it would sit and fester and the only person caring would be Luke's mother so I would like to thank you for being active and dynamic.

I don't have time to look up all the evidence presented at the case. Most of the online sites(apart from newspaper articles) give a pro Mitchell slant. Your side has a lot of info easily at it's disposal on the internet. A number of your claims I cannot argue, simply because not enough countering evidence is easily found online. I then found the link to Mitchell's appeal which I posted so anyone on here can view.

[jason_c]

The WM3 confession is not surprising to me at all since the kid who confessed had an extremely low IQ to begin with just slightly above being mentally retarded.

If you want a case of forced confessions that blows your mind, read up on the Norfolk Four. That one just leaves you shaking your head in wonderment.

I don't think this trial had a confession though or did I miss that part?

This isn't 100% true. Jessie Misskelley's IQ test showed results varying from 72 to 88. He continued to admit his guilt for the next year to 18 months.

[Sand87]

Yes, the problem with quoting things like that is that, just like the original trial, they ignore important facts. The facts are not invented, they are there in black and white in court transcripts, police notebooks, witness statements - everything I have said here is true in so much as it appears in an official transcript of some sort which is why I raise serious doubts about Luke's defence team. There are law students in University who'd have picked up on things that DF QC missed.

[jason_c]

While I agree that Sand87 seems a little uh...fervent... in her discussion of this case, it does appear that he was convicted solely because he found her body.
Which in my mind is a really weak piece of evidence to hang a kid on.

According to what I've read so far she was punched in the face several times. How does one do that without leaving a single mark on your hands? Ever punched someone? You get bruised knuckles at the very least. How was his DNA not found in the wounds? She didn't scratch him at all or fight back in the slightest against him? There was DNA on her, and none of it appears to match him.

I don't know. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But the evidence here is seriously lacking.

I wouldn't disagree with too much of this. The evidence against him is/was weak for a conviction imo. However, Sand's interpretation was biased and one sided.

[Sand87]

I think I agree with you. I could come across as severely critical and possibly suspicious of JJ's family.

What I want to reiterate is that I am not trying to investigate who JJ's killer was.

I want to show how no court of law should have found Luke guilty on the genuine evidence available.

[RivkahChaya]

The WM3 seem to be doing well so far. There were several documentaries, and a lot of celebrity support, and pretty much everyone in their community, including the parents of the victims, agrees that they were railroaded. I'm not sure if they got a settlement. They may have made money off the documentaries. They ended up taking Alford pleas, which is a "no contest" plea, that sort of mean "I didn't do it, but I know you have convincing evidence, so I'll take a plea bargain." In the US, there's a federal law that a person cannot profit from a crime, which means that a criminal cannot write memoirs which include accounts of a crime, or give interviews, and be paid for it. I don't know whether someone who has taken an Alford plea can be paid for interviews or not. Once the publicity has died down, and they have to go on, I don't know how they will do. The two who were not borderline retarded are actually quite intelligent; they both finished high school in prison, and one got a college degree (I don't remember which one-- they may both have). The one who was on death row is now married, and comes across very intelligent and introspective, and not bitter at all in interviews. There's probably a "high" of being out, finally, and maybe bitterness will come later, I don't know. It's still a very sad story. Three little boys still died, and whoever the killer is, he's free.

[Bridie O'Reilly]

I have followed this case quite closely. I know a few University students are looking in to it too. My son is taking a Law degree and they are considering taking it on as part of their assignment. It sounds cold but all help matters surely? I have grave misgivings too. Have you tried contacting Gareth Pierce? This is exactly her area of expertise x

[RivkahChaya]

BTW, when I said above that a criminal cannot write memoirs that give accounts of a crime, that's not exactly correct. Someone can write an account of a crime he has been found "not guilty" of, although I wouldn't recommend it. And anyone can always write and publish an account of a crime, and just not make any money off of it, which people have done. Occasionally, people have written accounts of crimes for which the statute of limitations have passed, and other well-known accounts of crimes, like some of the famous accounts by members of the mafia, including the one that was the basis for the movie Goodfellas, written under a pseudonym, were written before the assets-of-crime laws were in place.

[Sand87]

Mitchell's alibi also fell down fairly sharply, there were also claims the incinerator in his back garden was used to burn clothes that afternoon. Neighbour's claimed it gave off a strange smell the day in question.

Personally, I'd like to see the mother doing time for aiding and abetting.

To answer the fabricated media spew about how Lukes mother helped burn his clothes I have copied a fairly large piece of text from their site which explains the whole log burner thing.

(c) a “Parka jacket” worn by Luke on the night of the murder had “disappeared” – burned, it was claimed, by his mother in a log burner in the family garden, then later replaced

After the police took all of Luke’s clothing, his mother had to buy replacements. One of the things bought was a Parka Jacket, although Luke had not owned one before. The witness AB did not describe a Parka Jacket, nor did any of the other witnesses who saw “a youth” at the Newbattle end between 5.45pm and 6.10pm.

The log burner in the Mitchell garden is 11” in diameter. The ash contents were taken for analysis, and no forensic evidence whatsoever to support the contention that clothing of any type had been burned there was found. There was no time between the claimed time of the “burning of the jacket” and the collection of the ash for contents to have been disposed of.

This is a picture of the actual burner, with a pair of boots beside it. Does anyone honestly believe that it would have been possible to have burned a Parka jacket in this, without leaving a single forensic trace?

It was claimed that the jacket had been burned firstly around 7pm, and then again later between 9.30 and 10pm.

This was a summer evening, when it was daylight until after 10.30pm. Jodi’s body lay in a place popular with walkers and dog walkers, and could have been discovered at any time. Is it feasible that Mrs Mitchell would have still been trying to “dispose of the evidence” in her own back garden almost 5 hours after the murder, knowing that the body could have been discovered at any time.

Although one witness said the smoke from the burner smelled “funny,” two others said that it was woodsmoke they smelled, commenting that they liked the smell and, most importantly, had not had to close their kitchen window to keep the smoke out. The window was less than 40 feet from the log burner – had a parka jacket been burned there, the amount of smoke, and the stench, would have been significant

Also, it began to rain somewhere around 9.30pm that evening. We are now asked to believe that not only did Corinne hang on to such “incriminating” evidence for several hours before trying to dispose of it in her own garden, but that she decided that the best way to go about this would be by setting a fire in the rain, without using any accelerants of any description.

There is another problem with the police claims about the Parka. After the trial, the police claimed that they had gone looking for the parka which they “believed Luke had been wearing” on the night of the murder, during their raid on the family home on July 4th, but had been unable to find it. How, then, can the following excerpts from the police interrogation of Luke on August 14th, some 6 weeks later, be explained?

DC1 “Right, you’ve told us what you were wearing the day Jodi died. We have people saying you weren’t wearing that, you were wearing your murder dolls t-shirt. We also have people telling us that you were wearing your German army shirt.

Luke “I didn’t have a German army shirt at that time.”

DC1 “People are telling us you did….and not only that, people are telling us you were wearing it the day Jodi Jones died.”

DC1 “The obvious question is where is that German army shirt now?

Luke “I only bought the German army shirt on the Wednesday, a week after it happened.”

DC1 “What I’m telling you, you owned one and you were wearing one …prior to Jodi’s death.

Later in the interview, DC2 says “In addition we’ve traced another two witnesses……..(who) have given a desctiption which matches you to a tee” (presumably they are describing the same German army shirt?)

No mention of the Parka jacket they “believed” Luke was wearing the night of the murder. Instead, a German army shirt which they insist several people were telling them Luke was wearing. If all these people were telling them about a German army shirt, what on earth led them to “believe” he was wearing a Parka, and when did it change? Mr Dobbie is on record as saying they believed as early as July 4th that Luke was wearing a Parka, so we have three questions here – (1) how did he come to believe that, (2) why, when they apparently had clear statements from several people that Luke was wearing a German army shirt did they continue to claim he was wearing a Parka, and (3) why do none of the witness statements refer to either a parka or a German army shirt?


You'll notice the common tactic used by the Police here which played a role in every interview, even those where it was just Luke by himself - "People are telling us..." ... "What I'm telling you..." ... "We have people saying..."

[Cogidubnus]

From the (Scottish) Daily Record of 9 September 2013:-

Murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones’s mum has been left devastated after learning that her killer Luke Mitchell’s case is to be re-examined. New forensic tests have been ordered on Jodi’s clothing amid continued claims by her boyfriend Mitchell that he was wrongly convicted of her killing.

The teenager’s mum Judy, 48, was yesterday at her home in Easthouses, Midlothian, close to the murder scene, but was too upset to comment. A family member speaking on her behalf, understood to be Jodi’s brother Joseph, 29, described the new probe as “an unwelcome development”. A family source said later: “Poor Judy has had to put up with this for years but to hear the case is being reopened is appalling news. “How much grief can one woman be expected to put up with?”

The Scottish *Criminal Cases Review Commission, who probe possible miscarriages of justice, believe advances in DNA *technology could uncover new crime scene evidence.

The discovery of 14-year-old Jodi’s mutilated body in woodland near her home in June 2003 triggered shock and revulsion across Scotland. Her hands were tied behind her back, her throat had been slashed and there were further cuts to her cheek, breast, abdomen and forearm.

Mitchell, a fourth-year pupil at St David’s High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, became the focus of the investigation because Jodi had been going to meet him when she was killed.

The murder trial, which began in 2005, heard there was no direct DNA link between Mitchell and the crime scene and no murder weapon was recovered.
But a jury convicted him after hearing a compelling circumstantial case as well as evidence of Mitchell’s cannabis use and obsession with gothic rock music.

Judge Lord Nimmo Smith told Mitchell, then 16, that “it lies beyond any skill of mine to look into the black depths of your mind”, and ordered him to serve at least 20 years behind bars.

The conviction stands despite a series of appeals by Mitchell’s legal team.

Both Mitchell and his mother Corinne – who said in evidence he had been with her at the time of the murder – reportedly passed lie detector tests last year.

Although scores of samples were examined during the original inquiry, the equipment in use now is more likely to yield a profile from smaller samples which were unable to be identified. The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests. They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.

Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands. Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles. The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.

Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile. “I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”

The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.

His mum Corinne said yesterday: “Luke’s DNA was never found on Jodi. He has no fears about new tests. He knows his DNA won’t be there. We just hope all the forensics have been retained and properly stored over the years.”

Some Mitchell supporters believe Da Vinci rapist Robert Greens, from Dalkeith, who raped and battered a student visiting Rosslyn chapel in 2005, could be responsible for Jodi’s death.

An SCCRC spokesman said: “Once we have accepted a case for review, we are unable to say more.”

All the best

Dave

[Sand87]

I am so glad they're looking at the whole DNA thing. Because it was a complete and utter farce, start to finish.

These pictures I took should make it a little easier to imagine the "V in the wall" so often described. Before I saw it, I had it down as a gap in the wall right down to the ground. It's actually quite high and you need to scramble to climb over it and it's at least a foot lower than it was when she was murdered.

Hopefully shows how plausible it is that a passing G.S.D with some experience using its nose may pop up and smell something untoward. Clear evidence the handler killed her? Well my dog did the exact same thing, numerous times, apparantly for fun.







Notice the large pasture field in the background of the first pic. This to me offers a possible entrance/escape route for the killer that was never explored and also a possible reason for Jodie entering the wood. If she were running from someone on the path it is possible she scrambled over the V in the wall with the aim of making it to that field and away. I find it hard to believe she was attacked on the path and forced over that wall against her will without any blood being found on the wall (and one person doing that himself, on a public path, with no idea who was coming is difficult to believe...two boys doing it together is slightly easier on the brain...perhaps the two boys who's trail bike was seen propped against the same wall at the same time...? )and her glasses/blood being found on the wood side of it indicating a struggle occured there...possibly just as she was about to make it to open ground?

[Sand87]

This is a photo of the path. The wall is directly to the right. Behind which her body was found. As you can see, you have no idea who is coming toward you (from either direction).




Apparantly this is the best location her boyfriend, who lived locally, knew the area like the back of his hand and knew numerous more secluded places for her to be killed, could come up with. Being her boyfriend he also had the means to get her to go almost anywhere, to kill her. This is the best he came up with?

Stinks of an unplanned murder by someone who didn't care, or got off on the knowledge anyone could come across the scene from either side of the path or either side of the woodland.