Luke Mitchell documentary C5 last night

[KeithTheHibby]

Haven’t seen any chat about this yet.
What were peoples thoughts on it so far?
Certainly put a different slant on the case.

[AugustaHibs]

I think it’s heavily weighted towards making the viewer believe he was innocent. In all honestly I’m not sure what I think as the police clearly didn’t come across well.

However, the fact the guy was being sexually abused by his mother makes me think he was clearly unhinged and it’s definitely possible he done it

[Lee Marvin]

I think it’s heavily weighted towards making the viewer believe he was innocent. In all honestly I’m not sure what I think as the police clearly didn’t come across well.

However, the fact the guy was being sexually abused by his mother makes me think he was clearly unhinged and it’s definitely possible he done it

Where have you pulled that last paragraph from? Where is this 'fact'?

[Jakhog1]

Strange one, think that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence, for such a brutal murder and for there to be no DNA trace found on Jodi from Luke and vice versa.
I'm sure I read that one of the things he was convicted on was a jacket that he had went missing along with a knife that his mum gave him that could not be explained away, he may well be guilty but to me it was more trial by media.

[AugustaHibs]

Where have you pulled that last paragraph from? Where is this 'fact'?

https://t.co/ww6cK10crz

[Billy Whizz]

I missed this last night, will try and catch up on it later
I’ve listened to quite a few podcasts on this murder

[bringbackbenny]

https://t.co/ww6cK10crz

The conclusion you implied from that article is not factual. Much innuendo in it but nothing else.

[Jim44]

I think it’s heavily weighted towards making the viewer believe he was innocent. In all honestly I’m not sure what I think as the police clearly didn’t come across well.

However, the fact the guy was being sexually abused by his mother makes me think he was clearly unhinged and it’s definitely possible he done it

:agree: I thought it was very biased. The main female ‘criminologist’ ( I think she was Mitchell’s ‘legal adviser’ ) was terrible, amateurish with odd facial expressions and stagey presentation. The retired police officers content was poorly presented and I got the impression they were getting their fifteen minutes of glory for their private detective business. Having said all that, I realise that I am showing my prejudice. I’ve no idea of his guilt or innocence but I just felt uncomfortable with the whole set up of the production. Interesting enough, however, to make me tune in for the second part tonight.

[Santa Cruz]

Strange one, think that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence, for such a brutal murder and for there to be no DNA trace found on Jodi from Luke and vice versa.
I'm sure I read that one of the things he was convicted on was a jacket that he had went missing along with a knife that his mum gave him that could not be explained away, he may well be guilty but to me it was more trial by media.

I've not watched the programme, from memory was there not DNA which the defence attributed to Luke picking Jodi up when her body was discovered by Luke and a relative of Jodi?

[lord bunberry]

Strange one, think that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence, for such a brutal murder and for there to be no DNA trace found on Jodi from Luke and vice versa.
I'm sure I read that one of the things he was convicted on was a jacket that he had went missing along with a knife that his mum gave him that could not be explained away, he may well be guilty but to me it was more trial by media.
Did his mum not burn his clothes?

[wookie70]

No idea if he was guilty or not but from what I read at the time I don't think there was enough evidence to find him guilty and the press basically played a big part in his conviction. We walk past the spot where the body was found quite regularly and I will watch the programme later today

[Jim44]

I've not watched the programme, from memory was there not DNA which the defence attributed to Luke picking Jodi up when her body was discovered by Luke and a relative of Jodi?

That wasn’t mentioned last night. What was interesting was that DNA from sperm on Jodi’s tee shirt was that of her sister’s boyfriend but that was explained away as Jodi borrowing the tee shirt from her sister that day. The other interesting bit was the discovery, near the murder scene, of a used condom. The DNA was eventually ( I think after the conviction ) traced to a dodgy character who was a student at Newbattle Abbey college at the time of the murder.

[wookie70]

Did his mum not burn his clothes? A prime example of circumstantial evidence.

[Jakhog1]

I've not watched the programme, from memory was there not DNA which the defence attributed to Luke picking Jodi up when her body was discovered by Luke and a relative of Jodi?

There was also blood on Jodi's t-shirt from her sisters boyfriend, apparently Jodi had borrowed the t-shirt from her sister that night.

[Jakhog1]

Did his mum not burn his clothes?

Apparently neighbours could smell something burning from the garden

[Jim44]

There was also blood on Jodi's t-shirt from her sisters boyfriend, apparently Jodi had borrowed the t-shirt from her sister that night.

I wrote above that it was sperm. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jakhog1]

That wasn’t mentioned last night. What was interesting was that DNA from sperm on Jodi’s tee shirt was that of her sister’s boyfriend but that was explained away as Jodi borrowing the tee shirt from her sister that day. The other interesting bit was the discovery, near the murder scene, of a used condom. The DNA was eventually ( I think after the conviction ) traced to a dodgy character who was a student at Newbattle Abbey college at the time of the murder.

That was a weird one to find a used condom near the scene of the crime, was it some weirdo having a posh Tommy tank just before the murder as they said the sperm was fresh.

[Santa Cruz]

Did his mum not burn his clothes?

Again from memory, recall no forensic evidence was found in the device in the garden they used for burning, not sure if it was an incinerator or wood burner.

[Santa Cruz]

:agree: I thought it was very biased. The main female ‘criminologist’ ( I think she was Mitchell’s ‘legal adviser’ ) was terrible, amateurish with odd facial expressions and stagey presentation. The retired police officers content was poorly presented and I got the impression they were getting their fifteen minutes of glory for their private detective business. Having said all that, I realise that I am showing my prejudice. I’ve no idea of his guilt or innocence but I just felt uncomfortable with the whole set up of the production. Interesting enough, however, to make me tune in for the second part tonight.

I've listened to the female criminologist on a previous programme, know what you mean, something didn't sit right with her, could be her mannerisms are a wee bit different, it's just a hunch I had at the time.

[JJP]

The way he (at 14 or 15 years of age) and his family were demonised in the press, prior to his trial and the circumstantial nature of the evidence against him has never sat right with me. Using nonsense like his interest in Marilyn Manson and saying he was a satan worshipper and cannabis smoker that pissed in bottles and left them in his room always suggested to me that they couldn't have had too much strong evidence against him if, after such a long investigation, that was what was what was being presented as evidence of his guilt. I also don't understand why the trial took place in Edinburgh considering how high profile the case was around here. I hope that there is more to this case than I know of because based on what I do know, I don't think that I would have been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt had I sat on the jury.

[silverhibee]

The way he (at 14 or 15 years of age) and his family were demonised in the press, prior to his trial and the circumstantial nature of the evidence against him has never sat right with me. Using nonsense like his interest in Marilyn Manson and saying he was a satan worshipper and cannabis smoker that pissed in bottles and left them in his room always suggested to me that they couldn't have had too much strong evidence against him if, after such a long investigation, that was what was what was being presented as evidence of his guilt. I also don't understand why the trial took place in Edinburgh considering how high profile the case was around here. I hope that there is more to this case than I know of because based on what I do know, I don't think that I would have been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt had I sat on the jury.

There must be other evidence that we haven't heard about that convicted him, the documentary is only giving us one side of things, we haven't heard from all the witnesses statements, all seemed to have picked out LM in the area on the night, not forgetting that Donald Findlay defended him who is one of the best QCs going, you would think he would have sussed all this stuff out that this group have found, 4 appeals and still the courts think they have/had a solid case against him and why he is still languishing in prison for the murder of JJ.

[CropleyWasGod]

There must be other evidence that we haven't heard about that convicted him, the documentary is only giving us one side of things, we haven't heard from all the witnesses statements, all seemed to have picked out LM in the area on the night, not forgetting that Donald Findlay defended him who is one of the best QCs going, you would think he would have sussed all this stuff out that this group have found, 4 appeals and still the courts think they have/had a solid case against him and why he is still languishing in prison for the murder of JJ.

Tonight's episode will talk about the witness statements, and the suggestion that they actually saw the other guy who is in the frame.

But, I agree, there is a big hole in the programme....

[JimBHibees]

Did his mum not burn his clothes?

Think so which innocent people always do

[Jay]

:agree: I thought it was very biased. The main female ‘criminologist’ ( I think she was Mitchell’s ‘legal adviser’ ) was terrible, amateurish with odd facial expressions and stagey presentation. The retired police officers content was poorly presented and I got the impression they were getting their fifteen minutes of glory for their private detective business. Having said all that, I realise that I am showing my prejudice. I’ve no idea of his guilt or innocence but I just felt uncomfortable with the whole set up of the production. Interesting enough, however, to make me tune in for the second part tonight.

This is how I felt too. Much of the stuff they were disputing was newspaper headlines., nobody takes that as evidence. The 'experts' were awful and proved nothing and of course the person they are pointing the finger at has died.
I dont think I'll bother with part 2.

[Pretty Boy]

I've not seen the programme from last night but I have listened to a few podcasts and read a few pieces on the case over the years.

The most obvious thing from all of these is that the person presenting them is coming at it from the miscarriage of justice angle and presents their argument as such. There is little attempt at objectivity and evidence that doesn't fit their narrative is downplayed or omitted. Of course that's understandable to an extent. A young man wrongly convicted of a crime he didn't commit, framed by a Police force desperate for a resolution and a good fit because he was a bit weird is the story.

It's worth remembering Mitchell launched a special defence of alibi, an alibi his own brother failed to back up in court when cross examined.

[G B Young]

This was a very big story at the time and IIRC most observers would have been fully convinced of Mitchell's guilt based on the evidence presented.

Haven't seen the programme, but what's the gist of the claims he might not have done it?

[CropleyWasGod]

This was a very big story at the time and IIRC most observers would have been fully convinced of Mitchell's guilt based on the evidence presented.

Haven't seen the programme, but what's the gist of the claims he might not have done it?

No DNA evidence is the main thing. For such a brutal killing, one would have expected some.

[silverhibee]

Tonight's episode will talk about the witness statements, and the suggestion that they actually saw the other guy who is in the frame.

But, I agree, there is a big hole in the programme....

And I'm sure they will select bits and pieces to suit there agenda, we aren't going to get the whole picture I doubt, it would seem that the mum just blames everyone else for him being guilty, trial by media, and yet she invited the press in to her house on the day of the girls funeral and had a cheek to complain that it turned in to a interview, blaming the mis carriage people of not doing there job, she is basically just touting her sons case to anyone that will listen and take it on, even after having the best QC and 4 appeals he is still in prison and the police are confident they have the right person.

[SteveHFC]

I live a few mins away from where Jodi's body was found and she lived in the same estate as me at the time.

Watching it last night made me think he deserves a re-trial at least. Most people in the area think he was innocent.

[JimBHibees]

I live a few mins away from where Jodi's body was found and she lived in the same estate as me at the time.

Watching it last night made me think he deserves a re-trial at least. Most people in the area think he was innocent.

Is that true?

[greenlex]

Is that true?
No.

[SteveHFC]

Is that true?

Going by the reaction of my facebook and twitter timeline last night most said he was innocent.

[JimBHibees]

No.

That's what I thought

[JimBHibees]

Going by the reaction of my facebook and twitter timeline last night most said he was innocent.

They thought he was innocent (opinion) rather than was innocent (fact)

[lord bunberry]

There was potential to make this a really fascinating documentary if they tried to look at it from both sides. It was still interesting to watch, but it could’ve been better. I suspect they’ll try and pin it on the dead guy tonight.

[speedy_gonzales]

Did his mum not burn his clothes?


Apparently neighbours could smell something burning from the garden


Again from memory, recall no forensic evidence was found in the device in the garden they used for burning, not sure if it was an incinerator or wood burner.

His mum absolutely did have a burn in an incinerator on the day Jodi went missing.
More than one of her Newbattle neighbours raised this with the Police, citing a smell of plastic or material.
None of them were called to give any form of evidence at court.
Over many conversations with the police and subsequent investigators, there was a clear intimation the police were not looking for any 3rd parties. Whether they knew something that couldn't be submitted as evidence (it happens) or thet simply put ask their eggs in one basket,,,, who knows?

[KeithTheHibby]

There was potential to make this a really fascinating documentary if they tried to look at it from both sides. It was still interesting to watch, but it could’ve been better. I suspect they’ll try and pin it on the dead guy tonight.


He did seem really dodgy. Mitchell’s mum hasn’t had the best of times the last few years given where she lives now. Felt a bit of a shame for her.

[Jay]

Going by the reaction of my facebook and twitter timeline last night most said he was innocent.

That would be on the back of that prog which was heavily biased. I had a few messages from friends saying the same but when I pointed out the way it was edited and how the stuff they were denying was mostly news headlines and not evidence most agreed that the prog was useless

[lord bunberry]

He did seem really dodgy. Mitchell’s mum hasn’t had the best of times the last few years given where she lives now. Felt a bit of a shame for her.
From what I remember at the time his mum was a very strange character. I remember thinking that she seemed to be enjoying being in the limelight.

[Billy Whizz]

Sis he not pass a lie detector test, although not sure how reliable these are?

[kaimendhibs]

A young girl lost her life needlessly in the most horrific circumstances, thats the main thing. RIP Jodi.
Who committed this heinous crime for me is up for question and should 100 per cent be revisited.
Everyone bangs on about fairness, discrimination but the main evidence against LM seems driven by predjudice.
How LM dressed or behaved in his home is no indicator of whether he was guilty. We all say never judge a book by its cover but this case was certainly driven by this.
The main thing is proper justice for Jodi, and if the wrong person has been convicted she hasnt got that.
These are all my opinions, I could of course be completely on the wrong track.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

The first episode is how I remember it at the time. A witch hunt with ridiculous headlines in papers and the press, possibly fuelled by the police, making sure he never got a fair trial. No forensic evidence and an investigation that seemed to only look at him from the word go. The first episode paints the police in a terrible light. You only have to look at the likes of Trump and Johnson to see what a powerful influencer the press is particularly when it is over the top, lies, suggestions and completely one sided. Yes the programme has an angle but it is what I remember from the time and I have family in Mitchells street. I have no idea who did it and perhaps it was Mitchell but there is no danger Mitchell goes down without the press involvement.

[Pretty Boy]

I referenced it earlier but I'm curious as to why an experienced QC like Findlay and the extensive legal team he works with would have chosen to lodge a special defence when there were so many gaping holes in the prosecution case?

They went with alibi yet must have known or suspected said alibi would fall apart under cross examination, as it did. That left a huge question mark over Mitchell's whereabouts at the time of the murder and gave reasonable grounds to suspect he was being untruthful. Whether that is enough to convict someone of murder is another question but it raises questions.

[JimBHibees]

This programme is torture. Think the woman investigator is clueless as are the investigators imo.

[Smartie]

The first episode is how I remember it at the time. A witch hunt with ridiculous headlines in papers and the press, possibly fuelled by the police, making sure he never got a fair trial. No forensic evidence and an investigation that seemed to only look at him from the word go. The first episode paints the police in a terrible light. You only have to look at the likes of Trump and Johnson to see what a powerful influencer the press is particularly when it is over the top, lies, suggestions and completely one sided. Yes the programme has an angle but it is what I remember from the time and I have family in Mitchells street. I have no idea who did it and perhaps it was Mitchell but there is no danger Mitchell goes down without the press involvement.

I remember my brother being a very junior reporter and having to cover the case.

He’d had to interview people who were intricately involved in the investigation and even he was distressed and shell shocked just having to deal with the people who dealt with it.

It was really grisly stuff and I think the trauma of this sort of stuff nudged him towards “a different sort of journalism” a wee bit further down the line that wasn’t so unpleasant to be part of.

Since then he’s had some pretty senior and pretty unpleasant jobs dealing with all sorts of horrible people but he’s been largely motivated by never having to get involved with stuff like that again.

[CropleyWasGod]

Any idea who the un-named suspect might be? (Yeah, I know... 😉).

And why might the programme be unable to name them?

[Mon Dieu4]

Any idea who the un-named suspect might be? (Yeah, I know... 😉).

And why might the programme be unable to name them?

Probably on trial or on the police radar for something else just now

[lord bunberry]

That was quite an interesting second half to the program tonight. I was convinced it was him at the time, but now I’m not so sure.

[silverhibee]

Any idea who the un-named suspect might be? (Yeah, I know... 😉).

And why might the programme be unable to name them?

The person who left the condom, or they through that in to make it juicy and they don't have a suspect.

And the sob story bit at the end, Deary me.

[overdrive]

Any idea who the un-named suspect might be? (Yeah, I know... 😉).

And why might the programme be unable to name them?

I had an inclination who it might be. An infamous criminal from the Midlothian area. When I googled his name with ‘Jodie Jones’ after the show it seems Luke Mitchell has accused him in the past.

[CropleyWasGod]

I had an inclination who it might be. An infamous criminal from the Midlothian area. When I googled his name with ‘Jodie Jones’ after the show it seems Luke Mitchell has accused him in the past.

Yeah, I've just seen the name.

My guess is that they have taken out some sort of injunction against being named in the programme. The police certainly don't seem to think he was involved.

[Jakhog1]

Yeah, I've just seen the name.

My guess is that they have taken out some sort of injunction against being named in the programme. The police certainly don't seem to think he was involved.

Any links to this suspect?

[overdrive]

Yeah, I've just seen the name.

My guess is that they have taken out some sort of injunction against being named in the programme. The police certainly don't seem to think he was involved.

The consensus on Twitter (I know) is suggesting it is someone different to who I was thinking.

[Jim44]

The person who left the condom, or they through that in to make it juicy and they don't have a suspect.

And the sob story bit at the end, Deary me.

Unless I’m mistaken, in the first programme, they said that the DNA in the fresh semen in the condom did not match LM, but several years later, it was traced to Mark Kane ( after another crime he had been involved in ). In tonight’s programme they made only a fleeting reference to Kane, which, to me, seemed odd, considering the significance of that fact. I was also not impressed or convinced by the private detective’s ‘drive by re-enactment’ with his niece.

[overdrive]

Unless I’m mistaken, in the first programme, they said that the DNA in the fresh semen in the condom did not match LM, but several years later, it was traced to Mark Kane ( after another crime he had been involved in ). In tonight’s programme they made only a fleeting reference to Kane, which, to me, seemed odd, considering the significance of that fact. I was also not impressed or convinced by the private detective’s ‘drive by re-enactment’ with his niece.

I really couldn’t take to those two. Saying that I couldn’t really take to many people on the programme.

[CropleyWasGod]

Any links to this suspect?

Nah. The admins would boot ma baws 😁

[CropleyWasGod]

Unless I’m mistaken, in the first programme, they said that the DNA in the fresh semen in the condom did not match LM, but several years later, it was traced to Mark Kane ( after another crime he had been involved in ). In tonight’s programme they made only a fleeting reference to Kane, which, to me, seemed odd, considering the significance of that fact. I was also not impressed or convinced by the private detective’s ‘drive by re-enactment’ with his niece.

The condom was linked to someone else. They didn't name him in either programme.

[Hibby70]

Unless I’m mistaken, in the first programme, they said that the DNA in the fresh semen in the condom did not match LM, but several years later, it was traced to Mark Kane ( after another crime he had been involved in ). In tonight’s programme they made only a fleeting reference to Kane, which, to me, seemed odd, considering the significance of that fact. I was also not impressed or convinced by the private detective’s ‘drive by re-enactment’ with his niece.

No it was someone else - Falconer rings a bell.

Seemed to be a busy spot this V in the wall area.

[One Day Soon]

Contrary to the implications cast about the mother and her relationship with him I found her quite plausible in the interviews of her I saw on You Tube.

[gbhibby]

Looked at other information that was not brought out in the programme on the Internet some of it was not detailed in full in the programme. Without seeing all the papers involved and the police evidence it is difficult to prove either way
In my opinion there seems to have been some bad practice by the police, interviewing him at 14 without representation. Also a majority verdict was accepted in such a serious case.
I my opinion there seems to be enough doubt for the case to be reopened and the conviction appealed. The police seem reluctant to entertain this.

[wookie70]

I started reading some of the appeals and this caught my eye regarding the interview of Mitchell by Police. The Crown only introduced parts of the interview into evidence and while it was dismissed as the points from the interview were covered by other evidence it said much to me about the way the Police approached Mitchell. Remember, he was a boy at the time.

"Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."

[CropleyWasGod]

Looked at other information that was not brought out in the programme on the Internet some of it was not detailed in full in the programme. Without seeing all the papers involved and the police evidence it is difficult to prove either way
In my opinion there seems to have been some bad practice by the police, interviewing him at 14 without representation. Also a majority verdict was accepted in such a serious case.
I my opinion there seems to be enough doubt for the case to be reopened and the conviction appealed. The police seem reluctant to entertain this.

There have already been 3 appeals.

[gbhibby]

I started reading some of the appeals and this caught my eye regarding the interview of Mitchell by Police. The Crown only introduced parts of the interview into evidence and while it was dismissed as the points from the interview were covered by other evidence it said much to me about the way the Police approached Mitchell. Remember, he was a boy at the time.

"Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."


He seemed to maintain his innocence under pressure in the interview. There was also the person who said she saw him at the path, then could not identify him in court.

[gbhibby]

There have already been 3 appeals.
I am sure in other cases that numerous appeals have been turned down before finally an appeal happens and have been successful.
There was an appeal heard the appeal was against his sentence.

[Willis1875]

Bit of a lengthy read and could be construed as being heavily sided for LM but an interesting read all the same
https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/infamous-cases-4689531

[wookie70]

He seemed to maintain his innocence under pressure in the interview. There was also the person who said she saw him at the path, then could not identify him in court.

I just read about the evidence at both ends of the path. The lady you said, who never got an ID parade only photos, couldn't identify him in court. However the other end of the path shortly after the murder two youths who knew him said he looked like he had "been up to no good". Given it was June around 6pm and broad daylight they seemed to not notice any blood etc.

I'm not sure how complete this piece (https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/) is on the evidence but it does seem to cover the main points I remember from the time. Flimsy isn't the word as far as I am concerned. My wife is a seamstress and funnily enough was talking about fabrics and how they took a flame to material at college to show its properties, smell, burn, melt etc. It got me thinking why the police never burnt a parka jacket and then burnt say a plastic bag and seen if the witnesses who said there was an unusual smell coming from the log burner at Mitchell's house could have identified it.

The circumstantial case was also allowed and direction from the judge based on the Lockerbie Trial. Another trial where there were more questions than answers and where there is a huge suggestion that the establishment closed ranks.

Whatever your thoughts on Mitchell it is a very interesting look into Scottish justice, the Police and the media.

[BroxburnHibee]

I've just watched both programs and frankly I think they've done nothing for him.

They've just regurgitated stuff that was already in the public domain. That re-enactment of the drive-by witness for example. She had already failed to identify him in court so what was the point of it other than to fill the program.

There's no doubt there's holes in the case but as PB alluded to above why didn't Donald Findlay use them to cast enough doubt. If there's doubt you shouldn't convict. If you're on that jury you may well want to convict for the sake of the girl but you surely don't want to rob a young man of his future unless the evidence is damning?

I've not read enough on it but I remember at the time of the court case that what was being reported was pretty circumstantial.

Finally no matter what the truth I really feel for his mother. Why is she living like that? Surely social services could help her? If she's so determined to see him free then why not stay as healthy as possible? Her choices seem like a death wish :confused:

[wookie70]

Bit of a lengthy read and could be construed as being heavily sided for LM but an interesting read all the same
https://paulviking.websitetoolbox.com/post/infamous-cases-4689531Thanks, an interesting read

[CropleyWasGod]

I am sure in other cases that numerous appeals have been turned down before finally an appeal happens and have been successful.
There was an appeal heard the appeal was against his sentence.

There was also one against his conviction and an appeal via the SCCRC.

[CropleyWasGod]

I've just watched both programs and frankly I think they've done nothing for him.

They've just regurgitated stuff that was already in the public domain. That re-enactment of the drive-by witness for example. She had already failed to identify him in court so what was the point of it other than to fill the program.

There's no doubt there's holes in the case but as PB alluded to above why didn't Donald Findlay use them to cast enough doubt. If there's doubt you shouldn't convict. If you're on that jury you may well want to convict for the sake of the girl but you surely don't want to rob a young man of his future unless the evidence is damning?

I've not read enough on it but I remember at the time of the court case that what was being reported was pretty circumstantial.

Finally no matter what the truth I really feel for his mother. Why is she living like that? Surely social services could help her? If she's so determined to see him free then why not stay as healthy as possible? Her choices seem like a death wish :confused:

Yeah, the drive-by thing confused me too.

Apparently, the mother has been rehoused now.The cynic in me asks why that wasn't mentioned.

[JimBHibees]

Unless I’m mistaken, in the first programme, they said that the DNA in the fresh semen in the condom did not match LM, but several years later, it was traced to Mark Kane ( after another crime he had been involved in ). In tonight’s programme they made only a fleeting reference to Kane, which, to me, seemed odd, considering the significance of that fact. I was also not impressed or convinced by the private detective’s ‘drive by re-enactment’ with his niece.

His name was frequently shown on the guys screen for some reason. Think if I was him I would be getting my own lawyer involved.

[JimBHibees]

He seemed to maintain his innocence under pressure in the interview. There was also the person who said she saw him at the path, then could not identify him in court.

Think did not rather than could not.

[overdrive]

His name was frequently shown on the guys screen for some reason. Think if I was him I would be getting my own lawyer involved.

Do you mean Mark Kane? The guy from the flat in Leith that knew him said he had died.

[hibsbollah]

I

There's no doubt there's holes in the case but as PB alluded to above why didn't Donald Findlay use them to cast enough doubt. If there's doubt you shouldn't convict. If you're on that jury you may well want to convict for the sake of the girl but you surely don't want to rob a young man of his future unless the evidence is damning?



There’s a thing in psychology called ‘othering’ which is a really common phenomenon where you put all your negative impressions onto people with different or alien characteristics. The jury in this case had all the gory details of the crime, and thanks to the press had all the details of Luke’s weird habits, the bottles of pish in the bedroom, the goth/emo thing, some of the family problems. For most of us, He was an 'other' in a very extreme sense. As a jury member you’re racking your brains to come up with the right verdict, your brain automatically switches to an ‘othering’ response in high stress situations. It’s also the root of racist behaviour and is easily explicable just because of our flawed mental chemistry. Very interesting.

[Billy Whizz]

Yeah, the drive-by thing confused me too.

Apparently, the mother has been rehoused now.The cynic in me asks why that wasn't mentioned.

Was she not getting abuse from the locals?

[CropleyWasGod]

Was she not getting abuse from the locals?

I was meaning that the programme tried to play the emotional card about her health and her living conditions, but omitted to mention that she's no longer living there. That was a bit cynical IMO.

[Coco Bryce]

The two Glesga detectives have a shady past also.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239?fbclid=IwAR20Sqs2nkpCXBkSsVUXBSwxAQmQMDRjN Oelwe9atf7Pwy6ShFzdrVWpxJE

[lord bunberry]

The two Glesga detectives have a shady past also.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239?fbclid=IwAR20Sqs2nkpCXBkSsVUXBSwxAQmQMDRjN Oelwe9atf7Pwy6ShFzdrVWpxJE
What was the outcome of that investigation? I seem to recall there was quite a bit of controversy around the Govan police station a while back.

[Frazerbob]

Again from memory, recall no forensic evidence was found in the device in the garden they used for burning, not sure if it was an incinerator or wood burner.

It was a wood burner and you’re correct, there was no evidence of any jacket found in the ashes. Turns out he didn’t own a green jacket until a few days later when his mum took him clothes shopping after the police removed all his clothes to be tested.

[Frazerbob]

The 2 lie detector tests, whilst not submissable in court, deserve more attention. Supposedly, for both to falsely pass the tests is impossible. Odds of millions to one apparently.

[wookie70]

The 2 lie detector tests, whilst not submissable in court, deserve more attention. Supposedly, for both to falsely pass the tests is impossible. Odds of millions to one apparently. Millions to one if guilty but very high odds of passing when telling the truth. I have digested quite a lot of information in the last few days and the whole thing stinks. My memory was that Parka jackets and burning of evidence were critical. That is just nonsense. I thought there was good eye witnesses, again absolute rubbish. When you read through the case even the circumstantial evidence is manufactured and often happened after the murder. Bottles of pish, after, Parka, after, Marilyn Manson, after, witness seeing Luke in parka, after. No forensic evidence, crime scene appallingly dealt with, interviews bullying and not following procedure, timeframe not proven. There is pretty much nothing to suggest Luke Mitchell did it apart from the Police creating a storyline not based of fact and leaking it to the papers

[Santa Cruz]

Millions to one if guilty but very high odds of passing when telling the truth. I have digested quite a lot of information in the last few days and the whole thing stinks. My memory was that Parka jackets and burning of evidence were critical. That is just nonsense. I thought there was good eye witnesses, again absolute rubbish. When you read through the case even the circumstantial evidence is manufactured and often happened after the murder. Bottles of pish, after, Parka, after, Marilyn Manson, after, witness seeing Luke in parka, after. No forensic evidence, crime scene appallingly dealt with, interviews bullying and not following procedure, timeframe not proven. There is pretty much nothing to suggest Luke Mitchell did it apart from the Police creating a storyline not based of fact and leaking it to the papers

I watched both programmes last night. I'm happy to admit my opinion of the case at the time was heavily biased based on what was being reported. This trial by media has to stop. There's no way juror's are able to discard everything they have heard pre trial and only concentrate on the facts presented to them in court without having formed their own opinions before it began. It's not just Luke who deserves a retrial, Jodi's family have been let down badly if so many other people of interest weren't investigated properly.

[Zambernardi1875]

Where is her brother nowadays ?

[Killiehibbie]

I watched both programmes last night. I'm happy to admit my opinion of the case at the time was heavily biased based on what was being reported. This trial by media has to stop. There's no way juror's are able to discard everything they have heard pre trial and only concentrate on the facts presented to them in court without having formed their own opinions before it began. It's not just Luke who deserves a retrial, Jodi's family have been let down badly if so many other people of interest weren't investigated properly.
There should be reporting restrictions in place for every case to ensure a fair trial. It seems to work for big drugs trials.

[Jim44]

The two Glesga detectives have a shady past also.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/four-detectives-elite-anti-terrorist-unit-1941239?fbclid=IwAR20Sqs2nkpCXBkSsVUXBSwxAQmQMDRjN Oelwe9atf7Pwy6ShFzdrVWpxJE

During the first episode, which I watched with my daughter, we talked about the naff quality of the whole programme, and, in passing, I commented on what I detected as an anti police attitude by the two PIs. I unwittingly said that ‘I wondered why they had left the police force’ and flippantly said they might have left under a cloud of some sort. I’m interested to read that article.

[Santa Cruz]

There should be reporting restrictions in place for every case to ensure a fair trial. It seems to work for big drugs trials.
Aye, agreed. Why is anonymity selectively applied to some accused of crimes? Not just drugs, I'm thinking of other murders where the accused has not been named until they've been charged.

[Pretty Boy]

Aye, agreed. Why is anonymity selectively applied to some accused of crimes? Not just drugs, I'm thinking of other murders where the accused has not been named until they've been charged.

I take the wider point but would anonymity have made any difference in the case of Mitchell?

It was months between the murder and his arrest and he was widely reported as the victims boyfriend, pictured grieving and reported as being interviewed as a witness. A lot of the character assassination if you like had already started before his arrest.

Had the media reported that 'a 15/16/17 year old has been aressted on suspicion on murder' would anyone have been mystified as to who they were talking about?

[hibbydog]

I found the programme biased in the extreme, presenting only opinions and evidence from the defendant's side. Surely every argument has a counter argument and the prosecution's point of view on each matter was missed completely.

That said, it did manage to convince me that there was a reasonable doubt, so I came away thinking he shouldn't have been convicted. I just wish I could have heard the other side of the argument, which was missing.

[wookie70]

During the first episode, which I watched with my daughter, we talked about the naff quality of the whole programme, and, in passing, I commented on what I detected as an anti police attitude by the two PIs. I unwittingly said that ‘I wondered why they had left the police force’ and flippantly said they might have left under a cloud of some sort. I’m interested to read that article.

But is what they are saying true or not. Look at some of the facts that cannot be disputed. Complete cock up of forensics, bullying interviewing by the police, statements that agreed with Luke changed at a later stage. The whole thing stinks. Findlay's role in this is very interesting too. The one thing I found fascinating was the judge directing the Jury to say that Luke turned left after climbing through the wall. Notwithstanding the dog apparently alerted Luke it was a 50/50 to turn left or right so why would he say that.

My view is the police cocked this up from the very first moments. They knew it and needed someone to fit up. The police have more form for criminality and fitting people up than Luke had form for anything

[Santa Cruz]

I take the wider point but would anonymity have made any difference in the case of Mitchell?

It was months between the murder and his arrest and he was widely reported as the victims boyfriend, pictured grieving and reported as being interviewed as a witness. A lot of the character assassination if you like had already started before his arrest.

Had the media reported that 'a 15/16/17 year old has been aressted on suspicion on murder' would anyone have been mystified as to who they were talking about?

I think so. The jury presumably wouldn't have had the level of published background info on him that appears to be baseless to the actual crime, which would then lead them to form a prejudiced view on the type of character he was. I don't think any names should be reported on any suspect until they are charged.

[wookie70]

We looked into fostering a child a couple of years back and did the training. I can remember the social worker setting up a scenario which was all about prejudice. The scenario was that you were walking along the road and saw a young person in a hoodie with Marylin Manson logo etc. She then asked what you would do and what would you think. The whole group answered they would be wary and some made comments about what they thought the young person would be like, some said they would cross the road etc. I said they might like the same type of music as me.

Prejudice is hard wired through us, I certainly have some for the Police although I have never had any arrests or been in trouble barring a couple of speeding fines 30 odd years ago. My comments here will stink of my prejudice of the police. My point is that the police knew fine well what they were doing in creating the character of Luke Mitchell in the media. They know what that means in the heads of jurors and they knew they never had a case and the media would need to get them their guilty verdict. They certainly had a motive given the complete mess they made of forensics and the profile of the case,

I'd love a few of the Police Officers to take polygraphs, there goes my prejudice again

[Frazerbob]

I found the programme biased in the extreme, presenting only opinions and evidence from the defendant's side. Surely every argument has a counter argument and the prosecution's point of view on each matter was missed completely.

That said, it did manage to convince me that there was a reasonable doubt, so I came away thinking he shouldn't have been convicted. I just wish I could have heard the other side of the argument, which was missing.

Here’s your balance.......

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/?fbclid=IwAR1h6oE58UlmSRY8_AJztgS5Syqj5dFyvrS6FM58 uvs0TXYE7YbIiwRNGjI

[Jim44]

We looked into fostering a child a couple of years back and did the training. I can remember the social worker setting up a scenario which was all about prejudice. The scenario was that you were walking along the road and saw a young person in a hoodie with Marylin Manson logo etc. She then asked what you would do and what would you think. The whole group answered they would be wary and some made comments about what they thought the young person would be like, some said they would cross the road etc. I said they might like the same type of music as me.

Prejudice is hard wired through us, I certainly have some for the Police although I have never had any arrests or been in trouble barring a couple of speeding fines 30 odd years ago. My comments here will stink of my prejudice of the police. My point is that the police knew fine well what they were doing in creating the character of Luke Mitchell in the media. They know what that means in the heads of jurors and they knew they never had a case and the media would need to get them their guilty verdict. They certainly had a motive given the complete mess they made of forensics and the profile of the case,

I'd love a few of the Police Officers to take polygraphs, there goes my prejudice again

Notwithstanding your prejudice against the police and legal system and my possibly misguided faith in the police and the legal system, the truth in this case probably lies between the two. This documentary appears, certainly according to social media, to have raised grave doubts about LM’s guilt or innocence. I wonder if it will lead to a reopening of the case or be short-lived and ineffectual?

[wookie70]

Notwithstanding your prejudice against the police and legal system and my possibly misguided faith in the police and the legal system, the truth in this case probably lies between the two. This documentary appears, certainly according to social media, to have raised grave doubts about LM’s guilt or innocence. I wonder if it will lead to a reopening of the case or be short-lived and ineffectual?Hopefully, he gets a re-trial. I think there is more than enough to suggest reasonable doubt and there is certainly some answers needed about the way the case was conducted and the media involvement

[CropleyWasGod]

Notwithstanding your prejudice against the police and legal system and my possibly misguided faith in the police and the legal system, the truth in this case probably lies between the two. This documentary appears, certainly according to social media, to have raised grave doubts about LM’s guilt or innocence. I wonder if it will lead to a reopening of the case or be short-lived and ineffectual?

I can't see that programme, of itself, being enough to justify a retrial. There's already been 3 appeals.

There was no new evidence offered. Albeit that I'm somewhere in the middle, I really don't see any justification for yet another hearing of the same evidence.

[lord bunberry]

I can't see that programme, of itself, being enough to justify a retrial. There's already been 3 appeals.

There was no new evidence offered. Albeit that I'm somewhere in the middle, I really don't see any justification for yet another hearing of the same evidence.
I suppose that would depend on the evidence the programme has on the person they weren’t allowed to name.

[CropleyWasGod]

I suppose that would depend on the evidence the programme has on the person they weren’t allowed to name.

If that guy is who I think it is, that evidence has already been considered.

If they had new evidence, I'm sure it would have made for good telly that they had "new evidence which we can't disclose, but which has been passed to the Police"

[lord bunberry]

If that guy is who I think it is, that evidence has already been considered.

If they had new evidence, I'm sure it would have made for good telly that they had "new evidence which we can't disclose, but which has been passed to the Police"
I hadn’t realised the evidence had already been considered. I thought the person they were talking about was a new suspect.

[CropleyWasGod]

I hadn’t realised the evidence had already been considered. I thought the person they were talking about was a new suspect.

Yeah there's plenty info out there. If it's the same guy, his involvement was central to one of the appeals.

We can only speculate on what the legal reasons for not naming him are.

[Pretty Boy]

Here’s your balance.......

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/?fbclid=IwAR1h6oE58UlmSRY8_AJztgS5Syqj5dFyvrS6FM58 uvs0TXYE7YbIiwRNGjI

It's mightily inconvenient for Mitchell's defence that he couldn't produce either of those knives or even give an explanation as to where they went. Their absence doesn't prove anything of course but those 2 knives free of any DNA evidence would have been a huge help to him.

2 alibis from family members that fell apart and 2 missing knives with no consistent explanation for their whereabouts offered. Huge blows to the credibility of his defence and both largely down to him, his family and his legal team.

[Billy Whizz]

A couple of Podcasts from around 2 years ago. I would listen in this order if you’re interested
1st one with a criminologist and the 2nd one is with Luke’s mum


https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/anything-goes-with-james-english/id1397924687?i=1000433811957


https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/anything-goes-with-james-english/id1397924687?i=1000440234602

[EI255]

Would have been good to see the crown evidence. Two sides to every story I'm afraid. I'm not gonna let two ex Glasgow coppers sway my judgement.

I found the programme irritating and lacking any basic narrative.

Very poor imo.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

Would have been good to see the crown evidence. Two sides to every story I'm afraid. I'm not gonna let two ex Glasgow coppers sway my judgement.

I found the programme irritating and lacking any basic narrative.

Very poor imo.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

Agree personally think he is guilty as sin

[wookie70]

Looks like they pulled the second episode from the catch up as I can't see it.

I walked past the V in the wall today. There may be some changes from the time but I cannot understand how the forensic scientist couldn't get over or round the wall(assuming they weren't very old or in a wheelchair etc) and had to wait until the second forensic scientist came the next day.

[wookie70]

I can't see that programme, of itself, being enough to justify a retrial. There's already been 3 appeals.

There was no new evidence offered. Albeit that I'm somewhere in the middle, I really don't see any justification for yet another hearing of the same evidence.

Unfortunately, I think you are right and certainly not during the pandemic. A large petition or very large and vocal social media campaigns might get a retrial but I doubt it. There would be far too much for the establishment to lose. It would be fascinating though seeing how it would play out. I think the same levers would be used and the press prompted and mobilised. The Scottish public, particularly after Hillsborough, Independence, Brexit, elections etc are far more savvy when it comes to the media.

[Jim44]

Would have been good to see the crown evidence. Two sides to every story I'm afraid. I'm not gonna let two ex Glasgow coppers sway my judgement.

I found the programme irritating and lacking any basic narrative.

Very poor imo.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk


Agree personally think he is guilty as sin

I repeat that I thought the programme was naff, with the sole purpose of highlighting a possible, but tenuous, ( my opinion ) miscarriage of justice. It certainly succeeded in stimulating interest in the case but nothing else. Much of the weight of the case was presented by ‘two ex Glasgow coppers’ with questionable credentials, with chips on their shoulders. I suspect Luke will eventually be released with the burden of guilt still heavily weighted on his shoulders.

[SteveHFC]

Looks like they pulled the second episode from the catch up as I can't see it.

I walked past the V in the wall today. There may be some changes from the time but I cannot understand how the forensic scientist couldn't get over or round the wall(assuming they weren't very old or in a wheelchair etc) and had to wait until the second forensic scientist came the next day.

Walked past there today with my dog. Think the vast majority of us could climb the wall.

[Hibby70]

There's definitely something odd about the Bryson lady's account of seeing the 2 of them at the end of the path.

In her initial statement she said she saw them when travelling south and then changed it to North (or vice versa).
Travelling north on that road I can't see how she could have seen someone further down that path if she was travelling at any speed never mind actually being able to describe them.

As this was very key to placing Mitchell there it all seems very bizarre. Feels like the police made her change her statement.

Not saying Mitchell is innocent but there's big holes all over this and something stinks.

[CropleyWasGod]

There's definitely something odd about the Bryson lady's account of seeing the 2 of them at the end of the path.

In her initial statement she said she saw them when travelling south and then changed it to North (or vice versa).
Travelling north on that road I can't see how she could have seen someone further down that path if she was travelling at any speed never mind actually being able to describe them.

As this was very key to placing Mitchell there it all seems very bizarre. Feels like the police made her change her statement.

Not saying Mitchell is innocent but there's big holes all over this and something stinks.

She didn't identify LM in Court, so that whole thing is irrelevant.

[Hibby70]

She didn't identify LM in Court, so that whole thing is irrelevant.

I suppose there's 2 aspects to that.

1. It's still a potential indication of the police getting witnesses to change their statements (didn't they also state that the 3 people on the search also changed theirs in respect of the dogs actions)

2. This would still plant a seed with the jury (who have basically convicted him on circumstantial evidence).

[CropleyWasGod]

I suppose there's 2 aspects to that.

1. It's still a potential indication of the police getting witnesses to change their statements (didn't they also state that the 3 people on the search also changed theirs in respect of the dogs actions)

2. This would still plant a seed with the jury (who have basically convicted him on circumstantial evidence).

Fair point.

On the issue of circumstantial evidence, AIUI there were 15 (17?) points of CE. Legal people on here might disagree, but that seems to me to be a lot.

[HH81]

I watched this on catch up due to this thread.

Based on the first one clearly indicates the lad was unlucky to be found guilty will watch the rest to see what else is on it.

Is this a weekly series?

[Hibby70]

Fair point.

On the issue of circumstantial evidence, AIUI there were 15 (17?) points of CE. Legal people on here might disagree, but that seems to me to be a lot.

Be interested in seeing those points. I imagine they will range from pretty damning to pretty stretching. I'll have a hunt.

[ronaldo7]

Looks like they pulled the second episode from the catch up as I can't see it.

I walked past the V in the wall today. There may be some changes from the time but I cannot understand how the forensic scientist couldn't get over or round the wall(assuming they weren't very old or in a wheelchair etc) and had to wait until the second forensic scientist came the next day.


I watched the second one on YouTube. It's got a few other things on there from previous years, most of it in favour of Mitchell.

I'd like to have seen more balance in the programmes, but the way the police dealt with the case, the prosecution might not want it opened up again. With the programmes I've watched (mostly supporting his case), I can't help feeling that the system let him down. So many people to investigate, but somehow nobody willing to do it.

[1875Sean]

The documentary is so one sided, I would suggest for people to do some research, I don’t like how they were pointing the finger at this dead guy, I would find more weird if a guy was out his face on drink and drugs he left no dna evidence? I also seen some chat that they monitored Luke’s phone and he called the parents house around 5.40 to check where Jodi was, trying to sound like she was waiting to meet her but he then goes onto say he never left the house? His brother statement was changed too, I think at the start he said he never saw Luke in the house. Also wasn’t there 2 witness who claimed to have saw Luke, and Luke described what Jodi was wearing however at the time they would her body it was dark and would have been hard to see the exact outfit! Don’t let the the tv show sway you, as people said he has had many appeals turned down there will be a reason for that

[Hibby70]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Lots of reading here. The evidence starts at [15]

[wookie70]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Lots of reading here. The evidence starts at [15] I read the appeals yesterday and often they are rejected as there was other evidence or that they alone would not cause change the verdict. It was a weight of evidence trial and one where his character was a major factor. A majority verdict shows there were different views so a single point of evidence being disallowed could change the verdict. The Bryson account is so flawed it seems incredible it was allowed and it is a cornerstone of the case

[K-Zazu]

Can’t watch the second part anywhere?

[SteveHFC]

Can’t watch the second part anywhere?

Apparently been removed. Which makes me think did the 2nd part show the name of the suspect that wasn't aloud to be named?

[Jakhog1]

Apparently been removed. Which makes me think did the 2nd part show the name of the suspect that wasn't aloud to be named?


It did have a name in the list when paused at the right moment that wasn't mentioned in doc

[ronaldo7]

Apparently been removed. Which makes me think did the 2nd part show the name of the suspect that wasn't aloud to be named?

It will be uploaded again. I watched it this morning, and the name was withheld.

[HH81]

The 2nd part is on YouTube as I just watched it. Steve if you want it I will message you the link pal.

[K-Zazu]

The 2nd part is on YouTube as I just watched it. Steve if you want it I will message you the link pal.

PM’d you

[SteveHFC]

The 2nd part is on YouTube as I just watched it. Steve if you want it I will message you the link pal.

Hi mate,

Already seen the 2nd part. Thanks for the offer. :aok:

[K-Zazu]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/luke-mitchell-wont-say-hes-23575193.amp

Whoever wrote this article seems to be taking it very personally?

[neil7908]

It's mightily inconvenient for Mitchell's defence that he couldn't produce either of those knives or even give an explanation as to where they went. Their absence doesn't prove anything of course but those 2 knives free of any DNA evidence would have been a huge help to him.

2 alibis from family members that fell apart and 2 missing knives with no consistent explanation for their whereabouts offered. Huge blows to the credibility of his defence and both largely down to him, his family and his legal team.

Yup. I think he was done by the press but I also think he's guilty as well. The way Jodi died strikes me as someone who either knows the victim or a seriously deranged mind that would repeat the crime again and again.

Whilst I don't think there is a "smoking gun" piece of evidence, there is plenty that makes me confident the right person is in jail. Our justice system isn't perfect but this case has been heavily scrutinised and through numerous appeals etc without anything showing up.

[EH6 Hibby]

Yup. I think he was done by the press but I also think he's guilty as well. The way Jodi died strikes me as someone who either knows the victim or a seriously deranged mind that would repeat the crime again and again.

Whilst I don't think there is a "smoking gun" piece of evidence, there is plenty that makes me confident the right person is in jail. Our justice system isn't perfect but this case has been heavily scrutinised and through numerous appeals etc without anything showing up.

Can I ask you what evidence makes you believe that the right person is in prison?

I will say that during the original trial, I was fully convinced that Luke was guilty, but since looking at the evidence he was convicted on and other cases in America like the West Memphis 3 and the McMartin daycare trial, it seems like the majority of the the evidence against Luke is connected to his alternative beliefs and his taste in music, but it my opinion he was an impressionable wee boy and I highly doubt that being 14/15 at the time that he was seriously worshiping Satan, more likely he thought saying these things made him edgy and cool. I would be happy to be wrong because that would mean that the right person has been locked up for the the last 17 years.

I also question why Luke would at this stage in his sentence still be campaigning his innocence, he was given a minimum tariff of 20 years, which he has almost completed. In order to have any chance of being released at the end of that time, he will have to have shown remorse and admitted his guilt. That would be quite the turnaround from what he is saying at the moment if he was to do that in a few years time when up for parole.

I am studying for a degree in criminology and law, my main interest is in wrongful conviction cases, and what most of them have in common is that the person will refuse to admit their guilt even when it means they have a strong chance of being released.

[Hibby70]

From what I understand the mystery suspect has a history of mental illness, prone to rage, history of knife violence, was possibly seen on day, associate of the moped boys, not taking his prescription drugs, smoking drugs, claimed he never left the house on the day and was never treated as a potential suspect.

Considering who he is I find this pretty surprising.

[wookie70]

Can I ask you what evidence makes you believe that the right person is in prison?

I will say that during the original trial, I was fully convinced that Luke was guilty, but since looking at the evidence he was convicted on and other cases in America like the West Memphis 3 and the McMartin daycare trial, it seems like the majority of the the evidence against Luke is connected to his alternative beliefs and his taste in music, but it my opinion he was an impressionable wee boy and I highly doubt that being 14/15 at the time that he was seriously worshiping Satan, more likely he thought saying these things made him edgy and cool. I would be happy to be wrong because that would mean that the right person has been locked up for the the last 17 years.

I also question why Luke would at this stage in his sentence still be campaigning his innocence, he was given a minimum tariff of 20 years, which he has almost completed. In order to have any chance of being released at the end of that time, he will have to have shown remorse and admitted his guilt. That would be quite the turnaround from what he is saying at the moment if he was to do that in a few years time when up for parole.

I am studying for a degree in criminology and law, my main interest is in wrongful conviction cases, and what most of them have in common is that the person will refuse to admit their guilt even when it means they have a strong chance of being released.

Great post, Most of the circumstantial evidence is flawed. The main eye witness statement was ridiculous. South then North, no line up, photos where only Luke had long hair, dark backgrounds for everyone barring Luke and then she fails to pick him out in court. The connection to the Black Dahlia appears to only there to create a narrative as there was zero evidence he had any knowledge of that case and pretty much zero he was a big Manson fan. Luke finding the body seems perfectly innocent when you look at the first accounts before statements were changed after police involvement. Anyone with a dog will tell you that they will make a bee line to any dead animal that close so it seems perfectly plausible that happened and it isn't exactly an uncommon way for bodies to be found. His do was also claimed to be trained in that regard. Those three are corner stones of the case and they were clearly flawed and imo there was more likelihood Lukes side of the story was true than the prosecution for those points. Even the alibis, which were definitely a bit odd weren't disproved. His brother never said he wasn't in the house and the mum was adamant he was and has passed a lie detector test. Her account seems more credible than Brysons.

The way the police went about the investigation also makes you wonder what they were thinking about. Why only focus on Luke from the very start and to the exclusion of the others on the search one of whom actually touched the body.

[Speedy]

That's what I thought

It's definitely mixed. And from my experience those who do think he was guilty tend to shrug off the possibility that he could be innocent with a suggestion 'well he's definitely up to something'.

He's weird, lots of people linked to the case are a bit weird but it's worth remembering loads of kids that age were goths at the time. Doesn't make them all murderers.

I'm yet to be convinced either way.

[CropleyWasGod]

Great post, Most of the circumstantial evidence is flawed. The main eye witness statement was ridiculous. South then North, no line up, photos where only Luke had long hair, dark backgrounds for everyone barring Luke and then she fails to pick him out in court. The connection to the Black Dahlia appears to only there to create a narrative as there was zero evidence he had any knowledge of that case and pretty much zero he was a big Manson fan. Luke finding the body seems perfectly innocent when you look at the first accounts before statements were changed after police involvement. Anyone with a dog will tell you that they will make a bee line to any dead animal that close so it seems perfectly plausible that happened and it isn't exactly an uncommon way for bodies to be found. His do was also claimed to be trained in that regard. Those three are corner stones of the case and they were clearly flawed and imo there was more likelihood Lukes side of the story was true than the prosecution for those points. Even the alibis, which were definitely a bit odd weren't disproved. His brother never said he wasn't in the house and the mum was adamant he was and has passed a lie detector test. Her account seems more credible than Brysons.

The way the police went about the investigation also makes you wonder what they were thinking about. Why only focus on Luke from the very start and to the exclusion of the others on the search one of whom actually touched the body.

All of what you say about the CE is reasonable. However, the question remains as to why Donald Finlay and his colleagues didn't press those doubts, not only in the trial but also in the appeals.

[wookie70]

All of what you say about the CE is reasonable. However, the question remains as to why Donald Finlay and his colleagues didn't press those doubts, not only in the trial but also in the appeals. I suppose there are two ways that goes. It may open up other evidence they don't want or according to Luke's mum Findlay perhaps wasn't doing the best job of representing them. He is certainly a massive establishment figure but my gut says this was a cock up that needed someone locked up and the establishment closed ranks. Luke looked the most likely so they went after him. The press lapped it up and I think the appeals courts didn't want to open the wound. The appeals were pretty tame though as the evidence could really only be challenged in terms of the procedure to introduce it. The procecution had succesfully convinced the Jury and I don't think you can appeal a jury decision. In my view the Judge was terrible. Allowing a DNA expert to say some of the DNA was a partial match when it only proved half the male population could have done it is shocking. Saying that Luke turned left so that shows he knew where the body is was corrupt in my view. Findlay should have had a field day with the evidence, he never laid a glove on them. The whole thing stinks

[Speedy]

Findlay is a high profile name but that doesn’t mean he'll get everything right.

[StevieC]

A lot has been made of failed appeals.
My understanding is that appeals hinge on specific requirements needing to be met, before any conviction could go to a retrial, never mind overturned.
New evidence, not available at the time of the trial, I think is critical.
I think even new witnesses coming forward are no guarantee of an appeal being successful, if it’s felt sufficient evidence was available at the time of the original trial.

So failed appeals are not necessarily confirmation of guilt, but could simply be not enough boxes ticked to be successful.

[SideBurns]

A lot has been made of failed appeals.
My understanding is that appeals hinge on specific requirements needing to be met, before any conviction could go to a retrial, never mind overturned.
New evidence, not available at the time of the trial, I think is critical.
I think even new witnesses coming forward are no guarantee of an appeal being successful, if it’s felt sufficient evidence was available at the time of the original trial.

So failed appeals are not necessarily confirmation of guilt, but could simply be not enough boxes ticked to be successful.

Aye. Think there might be a defence lawyer or two better qualified than me to reply to your post, but appeals have to go through a sifting process before they get to a hearing - a judge will look at the grounds of appeal lodged and decide if they are arguable; if they are refused at that stage, the appellant has the right to appeal to the 2nd sift and another judge can give an opinion as to whether leave to appeal should be granted.

[PatHead]

Why was his brother not in this programme? Surely he could have helped.

[Hibby70]

Why was his brother not in this programme? Surely he could have helped.

On the basis that his part in the story was effectively watching porn on a PC I'm not sure he would want to.

[Coco Bryce]

Apparently been removed. Which makes me think did the 2nd part show the name of the suspect that wasn't aloud to be named?

It did and his name has been plastered all over the net since.

[Ayrshire Hibee]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/luke-mitchell-wont-say-hes-23575193.amp

Whoever wrote this article seems to be taking it very personally?

She's done another story on it much the same tone....She's originally from Dalkeith and may know one of the families

[EI255]

I read the appeals yesterday and often they are rejected as there was other evidence or that they alone would not cause change the verdict. It was a weight of evidence trial and one where his character was a major factor. A majority verdict shows there were different views so a single point of evidence being disallowed could change the verdict. The Bryson account is so flawed it seems incredible it was allowed and it is a cornerstone of the caseYet we were supposed to be swayed by two ex Glesgie coppers, sitting in a pub pointing fingers at others?

The programme was nothing short of farcical.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Itsnoteasy]

Yeah, the drive-by thing confused me too.

Apparently, the mother has been rehoused now.The cynic in me asks why that wasn't mentioned.

Are you sure she has been rehoused ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Are you sure she has been rehoused ?

Her legal adviser claimed that on Twitter. If I can mind her name 😏...I'll dig it out.

Edit...here it is.

https://twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1364893721444163585?s=19

[LaMotta]

She's done another story on it much the same tone....She's originally from Dalkeith and may know one of the families

Her main line is that because the jury said Mitchell was guilty then that's all that matters.

Which is a pretty terrible line given that research has suggested juries get 1 in 8 cases wrong.

[wookie70]

Yet we were supposed to be swayed by two ex Glesgie coppers, sitting in a pub pointing fingers at others?

The programme was nothing short of farcical.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

It was certainly one sided but what matters is what they said, was it true and was it material to the verdict. In my view it was material and it is the verdict I find farcical, that incidentally has nothing to do with the programme I have thought the same thing since he was found guilty. Why do you think it was farcical. Was what they were saying untrue. Who they are and the style of the programme really doesn't matter much imo it is the content they have been discussing that matters.

[CropleyWasGod]

This might help.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583

[Jim44]

This might help.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583

The apparently compelling case made in the documentary is diminished greatly by the information given in this article. In particular, I find the involvement of Forbes in relation to what he said in the documentary about conversations with Kane after the murder and what is in the article, re telling Kane to ‘go along with a story for £50k’, a bit dodgy, to say the least. I admit to questioning the verdict after seeing the two parts of the documentary but now have second thoughts having read the article.

[BroxburnHibee]

This might help.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583

The DR calls that hard facts but all I can see there are the same set of circumstantial stuff that the documentary was guilty of.

The main incriminating piece of evidence seems to be his lying about his whereabouts which whilst certainly suggests guilt, is in no way enough to convict someone.

I can only go on what I've seen obviously but if I had been on that jury I'd have had doubts.

[LaMotta]

The DR calls that hard facts but all I can see there are the same set of circumstantial stuff that the documentary was guilty of.

The main incriminating piece of evidence seems to be his lying about his whereabouts which whilst certainly suggests guilt, is in no way enough to convict someone.

I can only go on what I've seen obviously but if I had been on that jury I'd have had doubts.

Agreed - those hard facts don't provide proof that he killed her :cb

[StevieC]

The DR calls that hard facts but all I can see there are the same set of circumstantial stuff that the documentary was guilty of.

That was my thoughts as well. You could easily pick holes in those “hard facts” if you wanted to. And some of those “hard facts” occurred weeks AFTER the murder, at a time when a teenage boy was getting publicly berated in the media with the threat of a murder charge hanging over his head. Imagine what sort of place his mind would have been at, regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty.

[wookie70]

One of the few things that cannot be disputed is the interview with Mitchell was an abuse of Police powers. When they say in the article that Mitchell couldn't remember why he called the speaking clock when was he asked that and did the officers even wait for a reply. Did he have an adult or Lawyer present.

The "facts" of the article are indeed what convicted him but they are wholly circumstantial and some have major flaws particularly the eye witness at the top of the lane. Her evidence should not have been allowed imo as it was collected in the wrong way with a huge bias against Mitchell. Imagine a police line up with everyone on a black background and Mitchell on a white one and with Mitchell the only one with long hair.

I also wonder why they searched his house months later. he was number one suspect within an hour or so of the body being found. Surely all the searches that needed done would have been conducted the next days or shortly afterwards.

[K-Zazu]

It’s a bit strange that the guys knife and jacket completely disappeared and never seen again?

[StevieC]

It’s a bit strange that the guys knife and jacket completely disappeared and never seen again?

I suppose it depends when (and why?) they went missing. I get the impression that police procedures might not have been as thorough as they could have been. Searching a house months after the event seems strange. When did they decide to go looking for a knife or jacket? If you were a 15 year old boy, under scrutiny in the media, is it necessarily a sign of guilt if you start ditching stuff that makes you look bad in the public eye?

I’m not saying it’s not suspicious, but without all the full facts and information on the police investigations it’s hard to make a definitive conclusion.

[silverhibee]

One of the few things that cannot be disputed is the interview with Mitchell was an abuse of Police powers. When they say in the article that Mitchell couldn't remember why he called the speaking clock when was he asked that and did the officers even wait for a reply. Did he have an adult or Lawyer present.

The "facts" of the article are indeed what convicted him but they are wholly circumstantial and some have major flaws particularly the eye witness at the top of the lane. Her evidence should not have been allowed imo as it was collected in the wrong way with a huge bias against Mitchell. Imagine a police line up with everyone on a black background and Mitchell on a white one and with Mitchell the only one with long hair.

I also wonder why they searched his house months later. he was number one suspect within an hour or so of the body being found. Surely all the searches that needed done would have been conducted the next days or shortly afterwards.

I'm pretty sure he would have seeked legal advice from a lawyer before he was arrested, he shouldn't have being saying anything in a interview and that would have been advised from a CDL, he wouldn't have been allowed a lawyer while being interviewed but a parent or social worker should have sat in, did the mum not sit in the interview.?

The thing that irks me about the "police set up" is the police would have done a better job of setting him up than they did, planting some evidence on him that would put the case to bed where there would be no appeals because the evidence would be so damaging against him, a group of officers who worked out from Dalkeith police station had previous for making cases stick allegedly back in that time, I still don't think we are getting to hear all evidence shown at time of trial but I don't see any new evidence from dumb & dumber to say it should go in front of the appeals system again, the killer may have worn gloves, he could have got home had a shower got rid of clothes and put some gel on his hair to make it look greasy and that would mean that someone else must have helped him dispose of clothing and weapon used.

Prisons are full of innocent people if you hear all there stories, "I was set up, it wasn't me Tam done it, they planted evidence on me" LM is just another one of these people serving a long sentence.

[silverhibee]

Her legal adviser claimed that on Twitter. If I can mind her name 😏...I'll dig it out.

Edit...here it is.

https://twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1364893721444163585?s=19

The mum says she hast lost her lot due to legal fees, would the lad not have got legal aid for his trial and appeals., the mum looks shifty imo, something just not right with her, I know that doesn't mean she has done anything wrong but this poor me & Luke just doesn't wash, maybe I missed it but did she mention how hard it must be for the Jones family in the documentary.

[JimBHibees]

The mum says she hast lost her lot due to legal fees, would the lad not have got legal aid for his trial and appeals., the mum looks shifty imo, something just not right with her, I know that doesn't mean she has done anything wrong but this poor me & Luke just doesn't wash, maybe I missed it but did she mention how hard it must be for the Jones family in the documentary.

Certainly the mothers behaviour was utterly atrocious at the time of the murder. Inviting in sky for interview on day of funeral, then going to cemetery with camera crew to get pics at graveside.

[Frazerbob]

It’s a bit strange that the guys knife and jacket completely disappeared and never seen again?

As I understand it, there was no jacket. The first green Parker style jacket he owned was bought after the murder and after the police confiscated all his close for forensic testing. He was pictured in the after the event and it became synonymous with him as a result. The eye witness reports claiming he was wearing it only came a after photos of him wearing it appeared in the press.

The claim was that his mum burned his clothes in the log burner but the police took all the ashes for testing and no traces of his clothes where found. Quite how they managed to hide every trace of clothing that would’ve been covered in blood is beyond me. Surely there would some blood left on some contact points in or around the house.

[wookie70]

I'm pretty sure he would have seeked legal advice from a lawyer before he was arrested, he shouldn't have being saying anything in a interview and that would have been advised from a CDL, he wouldn't have been allowed a lawyer while being interviewed but a parent or social worker should have sat in, did the mum not sit in the interview.?

The thing that irks me about the "police set up" is the police would have done a better job of setting him up than they did, planting some evidence on him that would put the case to bed where there would be no appeals because the evidence would be so damaging against him, a group of officers who worked out from Dalkeith police station had previous for making cases stick allegedly back in that time, I still don't think we are getting to hear all evidence shown at time of trial but I don't see any new evidence from dumb & dumber to say it should go in front of the appeals system again, the killer may have worn gloves, he could have got home had a shower got rid of clothes and put some gel on his hair to make it look greasy and that would mean that someone else must have helped him dispose of clothing and weapon used.

Prisons are full of innocent people if you hear all there stories, "I was set up, it wasn't me Tam done it, they planted evidence on me" LM is just another one of these people serving a long sentence.

The initial interview was after the body was found. He had already been stripped and according to his mum his tape was marked suspect. The appeal court said the officers behaviour was outrageous and he was alone as he was being bullied. He had not had any advice at that point but I don't know what happened at future interviews.

The jacket could be a red(green) herring. The mum says it was bought after the murder and there is certainly no proof it was burnt. The evidence of a fire in her back garden is very flawed. They never knew it was even her garden from what I read just in that direction and if you know that street the houses are tightly packed and hers, I think, backed on to another row, so why only one witness of something being burned and no evidence of the jacket.


I think it is unfair to blame the mum for inviting Sky in. She would have been getting hammered by the press and was probably sick of her son being demonised and naïve enough to think she would be able to change that narrative. Not wise going to the cemetery but say her son is innocent and he was wanting to pay respects to his girlfriend. Not exactly unbelievable.


I bet many of those prisoners saying they are innocent have been caught red handed with lots of compelling physical and eye witness evidence. That is far from what we have here and while I don't know if he is innocent and his account isn't wholly satisfactory I absolutely don't think the jury had enough to come to a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. I wasn't sat there for 40 odd days so that is a consideration too but given how little evidence there was the length of trial is even suspicious to me. It was like the Jury were being worn down and brainwashed and then followed the very suspicious night at home before making a very quick verdict the next morning.

[Billy Whizz]

Would someone of Mitchell’s age when he committed the crime, not be eligible for parole sometime soon
I’m presume he’s getting monitored on a regular basis, to check if he’s a risk to the public

Will be horrible for Jody’s family though

[duffers]

Would someone of Mitchell’s age when he committed the crime, not be eligible for parole sometime soon
I’m presume he’s getting monitored on a regular basis, to check if he’s a risk to the public

Will be horrible for Jody’s family though

I’m no expert in this field, but I’m sure I read somewhere that he is unlikely to get out anytime soon while he still claims his innocence

[Frazerbob]

Would someone of Mitchell’s age when he committed the crime, not be eligible for parole sometime soon
I’m presume he’s getting monitored on a regular basis, to check if he’s a risk to the public

Will be horrible for Jody’s family though

He could’ve been out by now but to do so he needs to prove he’s rehabilitated. To do that, he needs to admit that the he didn’t something wrong in the first place. He refuses to admit any guilt so will serve the full term.

[Hibs Class]

He could’ve been out by now but to do so he needs to prove he’s rehabilitated. To do that, he needs to admit that the he didn’t something wrong in the first place. He refuses to admit any guilt so will serve the full term.

Will he have received a minimum term or a full term?

[lord bunberry]

Will he have received a minimum term or a full term?
He was given a 20 year minimum sentence.

[speedy_gonzales]

The initial interview was after the body was found. He had already been stripped and according to his mum his tape was marked suspect. The appeal court said the officers behaviour was outrageous and he was alone as he was being bullied. He had not had any advice at that point but I don't know what happened at future interviews.

The jacket could be a red(green) herring. The mum says it was bought after the murder and there is certainly no proof it was burnt. The evidence of a fire in her back garden is very flawed. They never knew it was even her garden from what I read just in that direction and if you know that street the houses are tightly packed and hers, I think, backed on to another row, so why only one witness of something being burned and no evidence of the jacket.


I think it is unfair to blame the mum for inviting Sky in. She would have been getting hammered by the press and was probably sick of her son being demonised and naïve enough to think she would be able to change that narrative. Not wise going to the cemetery but say her son is innocent and he was wanting to pay respects to his girlfriend. Not exactly unbelievable.


I bet many of those prisoners saying they are innocent have been caught red handed with lots of compelling physical and eye witness evidence. That is far from what we have here and while I don't know if he is innocent and his account isn't wholly satisfactory I absolutely don't think the jury had enough to come to a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. I wasn't sat there for 40 odd days so that is a consideration too but given how little evidence there was the length of trial is even suspicious to me. It was like the Jury were being worn down and brainwashed and then followed the very suspicious night at home before making a very quick verdict the next morning.

This in bold is definitely not the case. Numerous neighbours reported the garden fire because of the smoke/smell. Not a single one was invited as a witness.
The Police made it clear at the time there was only ever one person of interest. This, with hindsight, was flawed.

[Hibs Class]

He was given a 20 year minimum sentence.

Ta. That’s what I’d have expected. So he couldn’t have been out by now, but Frazerbob’s point will still apply after 20 years when he first may become eligible for release.

[calumhibee1]

Her main line is that because the jury said Mitchell was guilty then that's all that matters.

Which is a pretty terrible line given that research has suggested juries get 1 in 8 cases wrong.

Surely that can’t be true? 1 in 8? How do they measure a stat like that?

[lord bunberry]

Ta. That’s what I’d have expected. So he couldn’t have been out by now, but Frazerbob’s point will still apply after 20 years when he first may become eligible for release.
That’s my understanding of it. I’m not sure if it would’ve been possible to get out earlier because of his age and if he’d shown remorse.

[stantonhibby]

Surely that can’t be true? 1 in 8? How do they measure a stat like that?

Indeed....that seems a ridiculously high error rate.

[Billy Whizz]

Ta. That’s what I’d have expected. So he couldn’t have been out by now, but Frazerbob’s point will still apply after 20 years when he first may become eligible for release.

Has this his been agreed yet?
I know they were wanting to introduce this law after the Gilroy case

[Hibs Class]

Has this his been agreed yet?
I know they were wanting to introduce this law after the Gilroy case

Was the question with Gilroy not more to do with not being eligible for release until he disclosed where he put the body?

[LaMotta]

Surely that can’t be true? 1 in 8? How do they measure a stat like that?


Indeed....that seems a ridiculously high error rate.

That was a stat from a US study, so I shouldn't have used it.:greengrin

But the point stands that juries can get things wrong. She shouldn't just say a jury decided so it must be right. Random jurors are plucked from the streets with no relevant experience or training then asked to follow the facts of sometimes complex cases for long periods of time. Some jurors will understandably struggle with this and many can also be easily influenced by a number of things: preconceived beliefs they hold; the opinion of other jurors with strong characters; or things they see/hear in the media.

I'm not saying there is a better system, but it is undoubtedly wrong to say that because a jury seen all the evidence and decided on a verdict, then that verdict must be true.

[Kato]

I'm not saying there is a better system, but it is undoubtedly wrong to say that because a jury seen all the evidence and decided on a verdict, then that verdict must be true.

I'm sure most people who have been on jury duty would say there are some doughnuts chosen. When I sat there were two people who paid zero attention and just went with the flow of the discussion willing to agree with whatever got them out quickest, saying that it was a minor compensation case, not a murder. Still it's the luck of the draw.

[LaMotta]

I'm sure most people who have been on jury duty would say there are some doughnuts chosen. When I sat there were two people who paid zero attention and just went with the flow of the discussion willing to agree with whatever got them out quickest, saying that it was a minor compensation case, not a murder. Still it's the luck of the draw.

:agree:

I was on a high court jury when I was 21 related to a drug dealing case. I can confirm there were a fair few doughnuts on that jury, including myself :greengrin.

I would like to think I'd be less of a doughnut now, but its fair to say there were two loud voices who largely dictated the thinking/decisions of the jury. The case lasted a week and I think by verdict time on the Friday, a lot of people were just keen to get out and get on with their weekend.

[Itsnoteasy]

Her legal adviser claimed that on Twitter. If I can mind her name 😏...I'll dig it out.

Edit...here it is.

https://twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1364893721444163585?s=19

Thanks for that. I was shot down when I told someone she was rehoused.

[Killiehibbie]

I'm sure most people who have been on jury duty would say there are some doughnuts chosen. When I sat there were two people who paid zero attention and just went with the flow of the discussion willing to agree with whatever got them out quickest, saying that it was a minor compensation case, not a murder. Still it's the luck of the draw.
It only takes 8 votes to convict or acquit. The undecided doughnuts just want out of there.

[18Craig75]

Just finished this. I found it quite interesting. I’m the same age as Luke and thinking back to that time I remember being totally convinced he was guilty. So much so that I actually told my wife (from London with no knowledge of the case) that he had confessed! I think that says a lot about the media coverage and police case. He may well be guilty, but I think with hindsight it was all too rushed, and the police clearly were keen to get their man, or boy.

Overall I wouldn’t say the program convinced me of his innocence, but it was definitely food for thought. The fact it was quite a budget production with the rent a cops and his daughter probably didn’t help with the credibility. The lack of forensic evidence blew my mind.

[Speedy]

Agreed - those hard facts don't provide proof that he killed her :cb

Agreed. Speculation at best.

[The Harp Awakes]

Just finished this. I found it quite interesting. I’m the same age as Luke and thinking back to that time I remember being totally convinced he was guilty. So much so that I actually told my wife (from London with no knowledge of the case) that he had confessed! I think that says a lot about the media coverage and police case. He may well be guilty, but I think with hindsight it was all too rushed, and the police clearly were keen to get their man, or boy.

Overall I wouldn’t say the program convinced me of his innocence, but it was definitely food for thought. The fact it was quite a budget production with the rent a cops and his daughter probably didn’t help with the credibility. The lack of forensic evidence blew my mind.

I think that's pretty much where I'm at having watched both episodes.

The lack of DNA evidence pointing to Luke at the crime scene, given the severity of the attack, does raise major doubts over the reliability of the conviction. It's also difficult to see how he could possibly have been given a fair trial, given the media circus and the delayed charge.

I do however think that the production lacked balance and the narrative around the other potential suspects seemed a bit light and scattershot. The problem with each of them was a lack of motive and presumably that was part of the reason the police didn't progress them further.

Thinking back to the conviction, am I right in saying there were witness accounts of Luke's mother lighting a bonfire outside her house a short time after the murder? If so, the production didn’t offer a reason as to why she did that, which seems a significant omission.

[wookie70]

Surely that can’t be true? 1 in 8? How do they measure a stat like that?Around 1 in 8 murder verdicts that are granted an appeal are quashed in Scotland from figures I saw that were around the time of his trial

[wookie70]

This in bold is definitely not the case. Numerous neighbours reported the garden fire because of the smoke/smell. Not a single one was invited as a witness.
The Police made it clear at the time there was only ever one person of interest. This, with hindsight, was flawed. Thanks for that. I was only going by what I had read. Have you a link to that. Not doubting you I just like to read all the sources. It makes no sense that they were not all called or at least all their evidence taken. Was it precise in terms of what house and was it recalled just after the crime or months later.

[speedy_gonzales]

Thanks for that. I was only going by what I had read. Have you a link to that. Not doubting you I just like to read all the sources. It makes no sense that they were not all called or at least all their evidence taken. Was it precise in terms of what house and was it recalled just after the crime or months later.
I posted further up the thread, but I know very well one of the complainants. As in know.
My daughter was born 2 days before the murder so I have decent memory of what I was doing and what happened that weekend.
A few years later, 2 years after Luke's conviction, I was at a wedding and after more than a few drinks we were discussing the back garden fire with one of the potential witnesses. I was surprised, maybe even shocked those events weren't pursued after so many neighbours complained.
One thing I will add, that summer was one of the hottest on record, 30°C temps,,,, unsure why the need for a warm jacket(parka).

[duffers]

I think that's pretty much where I'm at having watched both episodes.

The lack of DNA evidence pointing to Luke at the crime scene, given the severity of the attack, does raise major doubts over the reliability of the conviction. It's also difficult to see how he could possibly have been given a fair trial, given the media circus and the delayed charge.

I do however think that the production lacked balance and the narrative around the other potential suspects seemed a bit light and scattershot. The problem with each of them was a lack of motive and presumably that was part of the reason the police didn't progress them further.

Thinking back to the conviction, am I right in saying there were witness accounts of Luke's mother lighting a bonfire outside her house a short time after the murder? If so, the production didn’t offer a reason as to why she did that, which seems a significant omission.


Luke’s DNA was on Jodi.... However as Jodi was his partner, Donald Findlay successfully argued in court that it wouldn’t be fair to use this as evidence as you would expect his DNA to be on her. One of the many things they failed to mention on the documentary

[Jim44]

I think that's pretty much where I'm at having watched both episodes.

The lack of DNA evidence pointing to Luke at the crime scene, given the severity of the attack, does raise major doubts over the reliability of the conviction. It's also difficult to see how he could possibly have been given a fair trial, given the media circus and the delayed charge.

I do however think that the production lacked balance and the narrative around the other potential suspects seemed a bit light and scattershot. The problem with each of them was a lack of motive and presumably that was part of the reason the police didn't progress them further.

Thinking back to the conviction, am I right in saying there were witness accounts of Luke's mother lighting a bonfire outside her house a short time after the murder? If so, the production didn’t offer a reason as to why she did that, which seems a significant omission.


If I remember correctly, there was reference to the burning of something in the garden, but I thought the odd criminologist or the commentator said something along the lines of ‘no DNA belonging to LM was found in the contents of the stove or incinerator’. Maybe I got that wrong or invented it, but if correct, I wonder if DNA would survive intense heat and flames.

[wookie70]

If I remember correctly, there was reference to the burning of something in the garden, but I thought the odd criminologist or the commentator said something along the lines of ‘no DNA belonging to LM was found in the contents of the stove or incinerator’. Maybe I got that wrong or invented it, but if correct, I wonder if DNA would survive intense heat and flames.

I think it was more there was no sign of any clothing in the embers.

[wookie70]

I posted further up the thread, but I know very well one of the complainants. As in know.
My daughter was born 2 days before the murder so I have decent memory of what I was doing and what happened that weekend.
A few years later, 2 years after Luke's conviction, I was at a wedding and after more than a few drinks we were discussing the back garden fire with one of the potential witnesses. I was surprised, maybe even shocked those events weren't pursued after so many neighbours complained.
One thing I will add, that summer was one of the hottest on record, 30°C temps,,,, unsure why the need for a warm jacket(parka).

Why indeed. I think the Parka is only there because of the eye witness at the top of the lane saying a green jacket. Her evidence was changed and pretty inconclusive before she failed to pick Luke out in court. The damage was done in the press with the fire so it was probably not pursued because there was no evidence anything was burnt in relation to the case. The power of suggestion was much more effective in this case than calling witnesses and gathering evidence.

[lapsedhibee]

Around 1 in 8 murder verdicts that are granted an appeal are quashed in Scotland from figures I saw that were around the time of his trial

So that's not 1 in 8 murder verdicts, as suggested (not by you).

[wookie70]

So that's not 1 in 8 murder verdicts, as suggested (not by you). Far from it but it does go to show that you have a reasonable chance of quashing the case if you can get the appeal through. I wish you could see what the stats were for circumstantial cases. I bet very few of those gain appeals.

[wookie70]

There were Police everywhere around Newbattle yesterday and I notice the lane where Jodi was murdered has Police tape over it today. Any locals any idea what happened. I think I saw that police had responded to a report of an assault and we saw a couple of quads, 2 vans and a couple of cars too at the Abbey. They didn't look like they were celebrating The Rangers Title win so presume it was fairly serious.

[Radium]

There were Police everywhere around Newbattle yesterday and I notice the lane where Jodi was murdered has Police tape over it today. Any locals any idea what happened. I think I saw that police had responded to a report of an assault and we saw a couple of quads, 2 vans and a couple of cars too at the Abbey. They didn't look like they were celebrating The Rangers Title win so presume it was fairly serious.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210308/9a4f6904d2af8ba52b657ae46696b6a4.png

Is this nearby?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveHFC]

There were Police everywhere around Newbattle yesterday and I notice the lane where Jodi was murdered has Police tape over it today. Any locals any idea what happened. I think I saw that police had responded to a report of an assault and we saw a couple of quads, 2 vans and a couple of cars too at the Abbey. They didn't look like they were celebrating The Rangers Title win so presume it was fairly serious.

There was police at the top of my street last night. The lane was taped off last night and still was today when I walked past.

[wookie70]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210308/9a4f6904d2af8ba52b657ae46696b6a4.png

Is this nearby?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fairly close so probably the reason the lane has been closed off. Must have been in broad daylight

[lord bunberry]

Fairly close so probably the reason the lane has been closed off. Must have been in broad daylight
3pm apparently.

[wookie70]

3pm apparently.

yes, just read the Police Facebook plea for witnesses. Judging by the replies they must have originally said their was no threat in their post despite asking for witnesses to a sexual assault where the assailant had not been apprehended, not great. Hope they find whoever did this quickly as that is brazen to commit such an offence in an area there is always foot traffic and in broad daylight at the weekend.

[SteveHFC]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/police-find-no-crime-following-reported-sex-attack-on-19-year-old-near-midlothian-golf-club-3162752

[wookie70]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/police-find-no-crime-following-reported-sex-attack-on-19-year-old-near-midlothian-golf-club-3162752


An interesting end to that. At least nobody's name was dragged through the dirt. The outcome probably explains why the Police originally said there was no threat to the public despite not having apprehended anyone.

[lord bunberry]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/police-find-no-crime-following-reported-sex-attack-on-19-year-old-near-midlothian-golf-club-3162752
That’s a bit weird, I wonder what happened.