Luke Mitchell

Well well, the rats are getting scared now.
Just seen on Twitter. Stephen Kelly and James Falconer arrested over the weekend for breach of the peace, and Joseph Jones sectioned himself

 

Source?

 

Again, this is why the documentary was such a shambles. You’ve called out 3 different people here as rats, even if (big if) Mitchell didn’t do it then you’ve named 2 innocents.

 

The ‘documentary’ was an utter farce! Completely disrespectful to the memory of Jodi Jones.

Sandra McLean! Bam.

The 2 ex cops - neither held a senior rank when they served and both were bounced from the Polis following corruption investigations. Both very much un-credible and neither fit to review a shoplifting enquiry, far rather a crime of such magnitude and complexity. Their involvement was a joke!

The programme did nothing to make me doubt Luke Mitchell’s guilt - the editing and the leading soundbites just infuriated me!

 

There’s 3 different peoples names been mentioned. 2 of them have ties to the family, 1 doesn’t have anything to do with anyone connected to the murder.

 

Probably says a lot about me that all I could think about when reading that was the "oh ah Falconer" chant.

 

I completely agree with the independent review. The case was a shambles from start to finish and now continues to be with this documentary. There’s a lot of unanswered questions which need to be addressed however that doesn’t excuse people from targeting individuals in the community after hearing theories on a channel 5 documentary.

As mentioned previously, I’m from the town this happened and the majority of people here are raging at the programme. The fact channel 5 have had to re-edit the programme after releasing the name of a legally protected person just shows how * it was.

 

Someone can correct me if i am wrong, but aren't appeals and retrials only granted if there is new evidence submitted that would sway the case 100% one way or the other? So the appeals would not be rejected because they think Luke is guilty but because there is no evidence to prove the original conviction was wrong in that case. Until someone is caught or confesses to this with any credibility Luke will never be released from prison.

A serious difficulty with this case is that only Luke appears to have been treated as a suspect the whole way through. Right at the start, when the police arrived on the path where the search party were gathered, they separated Luke from the other three. They bundled him into a police car or van and whisked him off to the police station even before his mother caught up with what was going on. By the time she reached the police station he had already been stripped and put into a paper suit and all his clothes confiscated.

Meanwhile the rest of the search party was taken to a different police station, treated in a much less aggressive manner and allowed to go home without their clothes being taken or any intimate examination or sampling. Since both Alice and Steven had been over the wall and Alice actually touched Jodi's body then their clothes ought also to have been taken and their bodies sampled for evidential purposes in case they had picked up something significant. It was some time later (a week?) before they were asked to hand over the clothes they had been wearing and mostly these had been washed. There also seems to be some confusion over what Steven Kelly was actually wearing at the time.

 

Frightens me that folks can be so easily swayed by such an agenda-driven piece of ‘journalism’.

There were no ‘revelations’ in this programme - the investigation found mitigating circumstances for the other DNA profiles / items found at the scene. They didn’t just dismiss them because they were focusing on Mitchell!

Mitchell was well know to have had violent fantasies - he habitually carried a knife - he found the body - he was as cold as ice throughout the enquiry - he had no DNA on him despite dating the girl and having been with her a short time before (you want to talk about unusual - now THAT is unusual - he had likely been planning this for some time and his preparation / execution was meticulous. Too meticulous!).

His mother is another weirdo - she doesn’t have to live in that ramshackle building - she has a perfectly decent flat! The programme makers chose not to mention this, instead they inferred she was destitute. Fitted their agenda.

His brother (who wouldn’t support the alibi) wants nothing to do with the pair of them! And now Luke supporters are questioning whether he (the brother) had anything to do with it.

The guy from Leith - another attention (money!) seeking no-mark without a shred of credibly. It’s a sadly normal requirement for polis working a murder enquiry to have to sift through a mountain of Walter-Mitty arseholes seeking to inject themselves into the matter.

The polygraph - there’s a reason the courts don’t accept them. They’re not worth a *! I’ve repeatedly read that there’s a certain type of personality that can skoosh these tests - I’m no psychologist, but I’d strongly suspect that Mitchell and his mother would fit that bill. Both are odd as *!

Moped Boys - oh aye, let’s zoom to the scene on noisy feckin machines, park them visibly on a public lane RIGHT at the spot and rip a wee lassie to shreds. You want to talk about ‘credible’ possibilities - does that sound like a credible possibility to you?

The fact that ‘someone’ committed this utter atrocity and managed to slip from the scene un-noticed indicates this was a carefully planned attack. Not just rock up on your unsilenced mopeds, get your filthy rocks off, and * off.

The only thing the polis were known to have * up was their aggressive interview of Mitchell without there being an appropriate * present. That said, the interview didn’t yield anything of importance, so other than just bad practice, it had * all impact on the enquiry. The judge called the polis out and the polis acknowledge their shortcomings in this regards!

I’m embarrassed that folks can watch such a lop-sided *-show so thoroughly lacking in detail and deduce that Mitchell was likely innocent. Just because folks on the telly told you so doesn’t MAKE it so!

Thankfully the jury and the appeal courts had access to ALL the information!

 

A lot of stuff frightens you, going by your mental posts.

So because somone is classed (in your opinion) as 'odd' or a 'weirdo' it means they are capable of murder and/or covering it up?

So, because the police failed to do their job correctly i.e collect evidence from a crime scene correctly, someone had to be a mastermind? It's there in the reports/trial transcript that all the experts agreed this was a 'frenzied' attack going by the injuries. The body was also left there some time while it * * down with rain, again washing any potential evidence away. Her clothes were taken and bundled together (again a no-no) and two of the 5 pieces of unidentified DNA on her clothes are suspected to be from police officers. They * this up badly.

See this bother me. There have been cases where children have been interviewed by the police in the incorrect manner and the whole trial gets thrown out. Yet this one was allowed to go ahead. Also there were changes to police procedures in Scotland as a result of this trial and subsequent inquiry into the polices treatment of Mitchell. Other than bad practice. If you * up at work and break company procedures/policy you get sacked. In the police you get promoted.

Considering some of the conspiracies you believe in and the * you post, you should be more embarrased about that than people questioning evidence of a bungled investigation and obvious witch-hunt.

 

I’m not 100% convinced he done it but if I was to put money on it I’d say he is. There’s no denying there are unanswered questions, a murder of this nature and complexity deserves a full independent review. Whilst the documentary was a shambles, I really hope some good comes out of it in the form of a review so that a line can be drawn under this once and for all.

 

I haven't even seen the documentary but i've read about this case a bit when i heard a podcast on it a while back. Don't know if the docu mentioned their (Luke and Jodi's mothers phone which Jodi used to text Luke) mobile phones?
The text messages between Luke and Jodi (the details of which could have proved that Luke was telling the truth about waiting in Newbattle to meet Jodi and then "hang out" there) were deleted from both phones while Luke's phone was in the possession of the police and no attempt was made to retrieve the data from the mobile phone operators.

Not to mention the fact the police quite clearly coerced witnesses to change their statements to fit their own confirmation bias that Luke was guilty - Bryson driving the car initially gave a description of two people who were nothing like Luke and/or Jodi and didn't see their faces, to it then being she did see Luke as she picked him from a photo line up? The coppers making Shane Mitchell confess to watching * and having a *, when he didn't as it proved Luke wouldn't be in the house when he said he was.
Corinne was alleged to have burned clothing of Luke's some time during the evening - clothing that never existed and for which the burning of same had no evidence at all, but a neighbour said in a statement they 'smelled burning'?
The statements of the other three members of the search party were re-taken until the narrative was that Mia (the dog) didn't do anything at all and Luke simply climbed the wall for no apparent reason, even though Mia found Jodi's body. Also Jodi's family members touched and handled her body. Kelly is the one who directed the search to this footpath, not Luke as he wanted to search the fields.

I could go on. This just reeks of a fit up to me.

Oh and also Abbott the prosecutor was the prosecutor who 'mislead' the court to get Al-Megrahi convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. He's now a Lord Abbott.

 

The police do have something to hide though. If they have fitted someone up. Often murder cases secure a conviction on the lead detectives 'hunch'. Sometimes these 'hunches' can be wrong, especially when there is little to no evidence to support it.
Luke got convicted on the Bryson eye-witness statement for me and that statement was changed (and i think if you look on Google Maps she was driving the wrong way in her original statement to have seen then end of the alley where the police have Luke and Jodi at).

A hunch was followed, crime scene bungled and they fitted a 14 year old boy up to secure a detection.

 

Why?

The highest court in the land has assessed all the information and concluded Luke Mitchell was guilty.

Subsequent law lords have reviewed the case and concluded he is guilty.

If we were to review every murder trial just because of * *-raking (as per this ‘documentary’), then the legal system would collapse!

The programme was offensive junk! I’m heartbroken for Jodi’s family having to relive things through this absurdity!