Murder of Jodie Jones

[Bridewell]

How do you account for Luke finding the body?

He was one of the people looking for her. The fact that it was he who found the body is evidence neither of guilt, nor of innocence to my mind.

[Sand87]

[QUOTE=HollyDolly;219872
Did anyone question her sister's boyfriend, or know where he was at the time?
[/QUOTE]

He most certainly was known to the police, having previous convictions.

His blood AND his semen were found on Jodi's underwear, bra and t-shirt.
Not a single piece of DNA connected to Luke was found on the victim or at the scene.
He was also involved in the search party. He was the second person, after Luke, to come across the body.
So what? Well, both points, being involved in the search party and finding the body were used against Luke so why not Steven Kelly.
It gets sillier and sillier doesn't it?


Do you want to know something else equally as unbelievable? A while after the murder a blood stained shirt was found the woods. It was handed to police. Now, a blood stained shirt found near a murder victim might be considered important. A brainy person may even think of testing said shirt to see whos blood it may be. Do you know what the police did with it? Nothing. Not a thing. It was mentioned once in a court transcript and that's it. Did the lawyers pick up on this point? No.


By the way, that is the tip of the ice-berg with re: the evidence, direct or circumstancial, against Steven Kelly. If you really want to read more, and believe me there is more, please read this site:

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.or...-murder/13710/

[Sand87]

During one interview the detective decides to focus on a "Green army jacket". They go on and on, drawing sinister connotations about the dissapearance of the jacket - only for Luke to remind them that it has "dissapeared" into the hands of the police who confiscated it as evidenec!!

In another interview the subject is a black balaclava
Does Luke have one? No, says, Luke, I have a green ski mask.
"We know you had a black balaclava, and you used it to terrorise people"
"No, says Luke, I don't have one, have never had one, don't know what you're talking about."

This goes on and on until finally the detective produces the black balaclava. Probably delighted at having caught Luke out.

So, what have you got to say for yourself now?

Luke - that's green.

Detective - so it is.

End of line of questioning.

[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.

[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]

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).

[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]

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...

[jason_c]

How do you account for Luke finding the body?

[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

[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

[Sand87]

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

[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...ys-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>

[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.

[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