Luke Mitchell

It all seems to be centred around: him 'finding' the body, having a knife pouch that had "JJ 1989 - 2003" and ""The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" written on it and also the fact he was interested in some murder cases.

I find it incredible that guy can be found guilty of such a heinous crime on those pieces of circumstantial evidence.

 

This guy, Forbes, is the only person to have pointed the finger at Kane, Forbes also said Kane wrote a story about murdering a girl in the woods, a lecturer at Newbattle College dismissed this. Forbes also tried to sell the story to the press for 50K

 

Some of the things the show didn't really say. Mitchell was known to carry a knife and showed it off at times to people at St David's, only the pouch was ever found, no explanation given on what happened to it? His Mum bought him a new one later, who brings attention on themselves by getting their son, a suspect in a murder a knife? He was also known to have worn a long parka, again this was never retrieved, and again his mother bought a new one afterwards. She took him later that year to get a tattoo and lied that he was over 18. Not much in itself, but it does cast doubt on her honesty. Oh and much has been said about the lack of DNA. While that is true of the murder scene, Jodi's DNA was found Mitchell's trousers. Donald Findlay QC argued that it was only natural there would be as they had a physical relationship. A partial match of DNA was also found on her bra. Neighbours gave a statement saying there was smoke and a strange smell coming from gardens around the area that afternoon. Could this have been the mother burning the evidence? There is a lot more that the documentary ignored, remember this was the longest trial for a single accused in Scottish history. The Forbes guy accusing Kane of the murder? He is the only person to say this and later tried to sell the story for 50K. The show was laid down to cast doubt on the conviction and it looks like it has done it's job in the eyes of much of the public.

 

The documentary was very one-sided and clearly had the narrative to show Luke was innocent. It didn't feel balanced.

Pulling on the heartstrings to make people feel sorry for his mum's hardship shouldn't have been used as emotional pressure.

The police made a short statement at the end. Now that it's been aired they might be forced to expand on that.

 

Who's to say they didn't give a longer statement and the programme makers merely put up the short one?

 

I would also like to point out Mitchell's mother, according to the show living in a shack without basic amenities is living in "a wee flat" The show has not mentioned this to garner further sympathy for her. Although it is Scott Forbes who has said this and I have no way of knowing if this is true.

 

Seen that the 2nd episode was pulled from the channel 5 catch up app because you briefly see the name of Jodis brother in the suspect list on the detective guys laptop. He was the main suspect they couldn't speak about for legal reasons. A theory that has been alluded to a couple of times on the james english podcasts on this is that her brother and her 2 cousins "the moped boys" are the ones who did it, and the brother is apparently the one who has confessed sometime in the past couple of years. Im sure lukes' mother mentioned something about a confession on the podcast.

 

Too much emotion about the full trial and aftermath, can remember it vividly and totally understand as a young kid was murdered.

I do believe though that the conviction itself is nonsensical and without evidence.

It's how we roll in the UK.

 

I saw these 2 episodes as well, can’t remember the initial case as I was out of the country at the time.
I am sorry no way would a 14 yr old boy kill and mutilate a girl fighting for her life to the death and not have any marks or dna on them. He would’ve done a runner somewhere not stick around the crime scene.
He won’t ever get released because you have to show remorse and admit the offence you are convicted of.
Another thing and I am sorry for being a bigot, but * was Findlay doing representing a young RC boy in court, as if he would’ve give a fk being on the rangers board and singing sectarian songs.

 

Channel 5 are having to take down the second episode from streaming services as a shot of the investigators spreadsheet revealed the name of a suspect who’s protected for legal reasons.

The documentary was a shambles. Makes me angry how much damage they’ll be doing to Jodis family by throwing about some dramatic theories. Any programme like that, especially one in which it involves the murder or a young girl should have to show a balanced approach and explain the evidence on both sides.

The jury didn’t decide the verdict by watching a 2 hour channel 5 documentary. There is evidence which puts it beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. The evidence has also subsequently been reassessed for appeals 4 times since the conviction and each one rejected.

That fat James English * is an absolute scum bag as well. Guy is a total weapon who gives every type of low life a voice to drum up his podcast hits. Who the * gives air time to Tommy Robinson and right wing Chelsea casuals!

 

I should have phrased that sentence better mate, I meant there must be evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt considering there was a conviction and 4 rejected appeals. There is definitely holes in the case and the media involvement was ridiculous but I still believe/hope to * it was him.

 

Same here, don’t want to upset anybody everyone has their own opinion, but the only thing I have seen is the lady stating she saw Jody and Luke together at the end of the lane.
I dint trust Scotland police one bit, I think they messed up and just went for Luke as they fk’d up the crime scene.
Totally out of order how they left jodies body like that for more than 12 hrs.

 

I find it hard to believe a 14 year old boy carried out this brutal murder without getting 1 speckle of her dna on him. I have read into it a wee bit and haven't seen any evidence which puts his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I know lie detectors arent admissable in court but the odds of both him and his mother passing the lie detector must be sky high. 3 questions each asked 3 times each. So 9 questions each and passed every single one. Wouldnt be the first time someone has been jailed for a crime they did not commit.

 

He’s clearly guilty...

 

There was a more impartial bbc documentary done a few years after his trial. This also cast huge doubts over the conviction. The police investigation at the time was a shambles and completely inept. That has been proven. At the very least he deserves an appeal.