NOTE: The following chapter from Sandra Leans discredited first book has been reproduced from here for study, educational and evidential purposes only.
On the night of June 30th, 2003, the body of 14 year old schoolgirl Jodi Jones was found in woodland just yards from her home. She had been beaten about the head and face, her throat had been cut between 12 and 20 times, and her body mutilated after death. Police described the attack as “brutal” and “frenzied,” and issued requests through the media for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 10pm that evening to come forward. They also called for anyone who had noticed someone they knew behaving oddly – perhaps changing their appearance, or becoming anxious or agitated – to contact police.
Jodi, it was claimed, had left her home in Easthouses in the early evening of June 30th, to meet her boyfriend Luke Mitchell, who lived in Newbattle, a neighbouring village. A path, running in front of a stone wall which bordered the woodland where Jodi‟s body was found, was a shortcut between the two homes, and popular with walkers and dog-walkers. However, Jodi‟s mother insisted that Jodi was not allowed to use the path alone, because of its secluded nature, and insisted that Luke always met Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path, just a few minutes from her home, to walk with her down the path to his home in Newbattle. The path is not quite a mile long.
The alarm was raised when Jodi failed to return home at her curfew time of 10pm. Jodi‟s mother Judy contacted Luke (because Jodi‟s mobile was broken) to be told that he had not seen Jodi that evening. Arrangements were made for Luke to meet members of Jodi‟s family at the Easthouses end of the path to search for the missing girl. Luke was also 14 years old. He met the others as arranged, taking with him his German Shepherd dog and a torch. The rest of the search party comprised Jodi‟s 17 year old sister Janine, Janine‟s 19 year old fiancé Stephen Kelly, and the girls‟ grandmother, Alice Walker, 67. The finding of Jodi‟s body would later become central to the prosecution case. Luke would claim that he instructed the dog, which had had some training as a tracker dog to “Seek Jodi, Find Jodi,” after asking family members if they had anything of Jodi‟s from which the dog could get a scent. (This part of the story has never been contested by the prosecution.) Some way down the path, the dog, he says, began sniffing the air and pawing at the wall, as if she had picked up a scent. Luke and Alice Walker returned a little way back in the direction they had just come, to a V shaped break in the top of the wall, through which Luke climbed, and discovered the body. The prosecution would later claim that the dog did not lead him to the body, but that he went straight to the V, proving that he knew where the body was, and only the person who had murdered Jodi could have had that information. In spite of the fact that there was not a single scrap of evidence to link Luke Mitchell to the murder of Jodi Jones, and, in fact, there was a great deal of evidence pointing to other persons, Luke Mitchell was convicted of murder in January 2005, and handed down the longest sentence ever imposed on a person under 18 years old – a minimum of 20 years.
Witnesses and Identification
Initial press reports stated that Jodi had left home at around 5.30pm that afternoon. She was not positively identified at any point until her body was found at approximately 11.15 that night. Police distributed posters to be displayed in local shops, businesses, bus shelters and bill boards, all depicting Jodi as a young child, rather than a teenager – it would not be until late afternoon on Friday 4th July that up-to-date pictures were released. Yet on July 1st or 2nd, certainly well before these up-to-date pictures appeared, a witness, Andrina Bryson came forward to say she had seen a girl “matching Jodi‟s description” with a youth in his late teens or early twenties at the Easthouses end of the path at approximately 5pm. Checking till receipts from her shopping trip, the police reconstructed this witness‟s journey, and concluded that she must have been at the bend in the road between 4.49pm and 4.54pm in order to see these two people. She described the youth with “Jodi” as having long, curly or wavy, brown or ginger hair. This witness was later shown twelve photographs. One photograph was of Luke Mitchell – he was the only one of the 12 with long hair (although it was blond and poker straight), and his was the only photograph with a light background. The following day, this same witness “recognised” Luke (as the youth she had seen) from a photograph in the newspapers. Interestingly, although this witness claimed to have recognised Jodi from the description in the newspapers, in the ensuing court case, she was unable to describe the clothing worn by the girl she saw. Jodi was wearing a sweatshirt with a large, very distinctive logo that evening. Ms Bryson also told the court that she had only seen the back of the girl‟s head, and had not been able to view her face.
Other witnesses identified a youth “very like” Luke at the Newbattle end of the path at around 6pm, yet others still described a “mystery man” following Jodi towards the Easthouses entrance to the path.
Luke was positively identified, by some schoolboys who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street in Newbattle, at approximately 5.45pm, and again some 10 minutes later.
What becomes critical here is the prosecution‟s claim as to the sequence and timing of events. They would claim that Jodi left home at approximately 4.50pm, and was murdered around 5.15pm, her body being stripped and mutilated thereafter. In an attempt to pin down these timings, police video footage timed the walk from the point where Luke was identified at the end of his street to the Newbattle entrance to the path where Jodi was killed, at just over 5 minutes at a brisk walking pace. Walking the full length of the path, from end to end, at a similar pace would take an absolute minimum of 10 minutes. If, as the prosecution claimed, Luke left to meet Jodi in response to texts they‟d exchanged earlier (the last one being at 4.38pm), we have to accept that Luke was at the end of his street when these texts were exchanged, he left immediately, took a very brisk walk up the path, covering the distance in the minimum possible time, and arrived to meet Jodi with just one minute to spare within the “identification” window produced by Andrina Bryson‟s sighting. Had Luke been at home when he received these texts, it would have been impossible for him to have reached the Easthouses end of the path in time to have been “identified” by Andrina Bryson – yet by Jodi‟s own mother‟s admission, up until the exchange of those texts, Luke Mitchell would still have believed Jodi to be “grounded” that evening – the decision to “unground” her had been taken, completely by chance, by Judy at around 4.30pm. Luke, therefore, would have had no reason whatsoever to have been anywhere near the path.
All initial reports claimed that Jodi left home at around 5.30pm, yet if she had not left home until 5.30pm, then she could not have been the person seen by Ms Bryson between 4.49pm and 4.54pm. However, it is interesting to note that the 5.30pm timing, taken with the positive identification of Luke in Newbattle at 5.45pm would have clearly and categorically excluded Luke as a suspect. Following Andrina Bryson‟s statement, however, the time of Jodi‟s leaving changed to 4.50pm, opening a “window of opportunity” during which Luke Mitchell, according to the prosecution, did not have a solid alibi.
Some days after Andrina Bryson‟s statement, some other witnesses came forward to say they had seen two youths “mucking around” with a noisy motorbike at the Newbattle end of the path at 5pm, and had later seen the bike propped against the wall, close to the V shaped break, at approximately 5.15pm. Neither of these youths matched Luke‟s description.
No-one positively identified Luke or Jodi between 4.50pm and 5.45pm. Luke‟s alibi, that he was at home preparing dinner, was completely discredited by prosecution claims that his mother and brother had “lied” to give him an alibi. There was nothing to suggest, far less prove, that Mrs Mitchell had lied, aside from the prosecution‟s claim that this was so – charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice against her and Luke‟s brother Shane, were dropped. Also, although it would be suggested over and over in court, and reported widely in the press, that Mrs Mitchell had lied in court, she was never charged with perjury.
In an attempt to ensure he had given as accurate a statement as possible, Luke‟s brother gave a second statement to police following discussion with his mother – in the event, this was used against the Mitchell family, the prosecution claiming it as “evidence” that Mrs Mitchell had persuaded Shane also to lie to cover for Luke, even though it is clear from the two statements that Shane is simply trying to further clarify a slight ambiguity in his earlier statement. Other witnesses who admitted discussing their statements before talking to police were not accused of any wrongdoing – indeed, the statements produced as a result of their discussions were later used against Luke Mitchell in evidence!
The Police Investigation
On the night Jodi’s body was found, police officers arrived without tracker dogs, although they had access to such dogs. Luke was taken directly from the scene to Dalkeith Police Station, but the remaining three members of the search party were not. In spite of the fact that he was just 14 years old, he was stripped and questioned without the presence of a responsible adult, being told his clothing was needed for forensic examination as “routine procedure.” Later, it would become apparent that none of the other members of the search party had had their clothes taken in this manner, a point which would be of great significance.
A forensics officer who arrived at the scene was unable to climb over the wall to get to the body because she had a “bad back.” As a result, the body was left, uncovered, in the rain, for a further 7 – 8 hours, until another forensics officer, a Mr Scrimger, attended the following morning. By the time he arrived, the body had been moved, and items around it gathered up.
That same morning, although the location of the body itself had been cordoned off, local schoolchildren were walking through a field and playing fields directly adjacent to the scene, council gardeners were cutting hedgerows in the immediate vicinity, and the refuse collection went ahead as normal. Later, in court, Mr Scrimger would be forced to admit that the crime scene had not been “ideally managed” – it would later emerge that the body had been rolled onto plastic sheeting prior to forensic examination.
On Friday 4th July, Luke was taken for further questioning, and his house searched amidst a blaze of media coverage. (Later that day, the first up-to-date photographs of Jodi were released.) On Saturday July 5th, police appealed for the two youths on the moped to come forward (this was the first mention of these youths), and by Monday July 7th, reported that those youths had come forward, and been eliminated from the enquiry. This was in spite of the fact that, on Friday 4th July, a police source had reported that the results of DNA and other forensic tests were expected to take approximately another week to be returned. This begs the question, of course, on what grounds were these two youths eliminated from the enquiry?
On August 14th, some six weeks later, the police arrived at the Mitchell household at 7.25am. A huge contingent of reporters and photographers was already waiting, and Luke was photographed being led away in handcuffs. Luke Mitchell had just turned 15 years old, yet the police did nothing to shield his identity. The question has never been answered as to how such a large group of press knew to congregate outside the Mitchell home at that time of the morning on that particular day. Luke was again released without charge, but the tone of press reports claiming to be from police sources had, by that stage, begun to carry the clear and obvious implication that Luke was the only suspect, and that police were just gathering enough information to prove the point.
On September 7th 2003, for example, the Sunday Herald printed the following:
“Meanwhile, detectives say they are focusing on only one suspect in the hunt for Jodi’s killer. A police source added: “Although we are centering the investigation on one suspect, we are not doing this to the exclusion of all other possibilities – to do that would be to court disaster. There are other lines of inquiry – such as vagrants who had been in the area – but as time goes by these are being eliminated. Police say they were “still interested” in Luke, particularly in relation to the last meeting he had with Jodi and the fact that he was involved in finding her body.”
The implication is obvious, but the police did nothing to refute or discourage these reports, although they did “break their silence” to quash rumours that the murder had been ritualistic, or had had black magic or satanic connotations (as reported in a few newspapers.) How ironic, then, that this satanic connection would ultimately provide one of the main planks in the prosecution‟s case!
On November 25th 2003, the Edinburgh Evening News reported that a dossier had been submitted by Lothian and Borders Police to the Procurator Fiscal, naming Luke Mitchell as the only suspect. The police did not deny this report, re-iterating only that a report had been submitted. He was still, at that time, only 15 years old.
In spite of a massive police investigation, the murder weapon was never recovered. Although the report was sent to the procurator fiscal in November 2003, Luke was not arrested until April 2004. He was, at that point, charged with attacking Jodi, striking her about the head and face, compressing her neck until she fell to the ground, and repeatedly striking her with a knife. He was also charged with possession of a knife or knives, and “in relation to the supply of cannabis.” He was held under the 110 day rule, meaning that he had to be brought to trial or released by the end of that period. Two weeks and two days before the end of that period, Luke Mitchell turned 16. This had two important effects – firstly, he would be tried as an adult. Secondly, the press, who had freely named and photographed him (even though he was a minor) until his arrest, had been prohibited from doing so after his arrest. However, following his 16th birthday, in that critical two week period prior to the trial, they were once again free to name him and print his photograph. At this stage, they were also free to report that his mother and brother had been charged with “attempting to pervert the course of justice.”
The trial and the evidence
The evidence presented in court was purely circumstantial, and based on speculation and innuendo. The prosecution claimed that Luke had known where the body lay, and had carried out an extremely cold and calculating plan. He had escaped without detection, and his mother had burned his clothes in the back garden. His fascination with the satanic was presented as evidence of his preoccupation with evil. School jotters scribbled with so-called satanic slogans, along with essays questioning Christianity and the existence of God were produced to back up these claims, yet two of the slogans, which were widely reported, were actually lines from the popular computer game, Max Payne.
DNA found on Jodi‟s underwear and trainer belonged to two people, neither of which was Luke. The DNA on her underwear, shown to be from semen, belonged to Stephen Kelly, her sister‟s fiancé. This was explained away thus: Jodi had borrowed her sister‟s T shirt, and the DNA had transferred from the T shirt to her bra. The only proof that this was the case is the word of Janine Jones and Stephen Kelly himself. Further, Jodi lived with her mother, and Janine lived with her Grandmother. Judy Jones claimed Jodi had “gone upstairs to get ready to meet Luke” that evening. Therefore, she had changed into a semen stained t-shirt, borrowed from her sister at an earlier date, but not washed? The DNA on her trainer remains unidentified, in spite of later police claims that “no DNA at the scene was unaccounted for” – this statement would later come back to haunt the investigating team.
John Ferris, Jodi’s cousin, and Gordon Dickie, a second cousin, were the two youths on the moped that evening. However, it emerged that when they had finally come forward after almost a week of pleas from the police for anyone who had been in the vicinity, they both lied to police about the time they had been on the path. John Ferris, who had long, curly, reddish brown hair had hacked it off himself after reports emerged that police were looking for someone fitting that description. He could not explain why he had done so, but agreed that he had done so before contacting police. He was reported as having been shaking whilst watching a television appeal for the youths on the moped to come forward. These two did not even come to the attention of police for almost a week after Jodi‟s death, yet investigators eliminated them from the enquiry within 48 hours, before the results of DNA tests were returned. The moped, and the clothes they were wearing that evening were never tested for forensics. John Ferris would go on to give damning (but uncorroborated) testimony against Luke – that he (Luke) had left a knife at a friend‟s house which
Ferris had handed to police, that Ferris had witnessed Luke jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife, telling her to shut up, and so forth. John Ferris was a drug dealer, who admitted supplying Luke and others with cannabis. John Ferris was never charged “in relation to the supply of cannabis.”
A great deal was made of the “fact” that a parka jacket that Luke had been wearing that night had disappeared, “burned,” the prosecution claimed, in a log burner in the back garden by Luke‟s mother Corrine. No evidence was ever provided as to how this was achieved – Luke would have had to travel up a wide street, in broad day light to his front door, without being seen, (at a time when people would be beginning to arrive home from work), get into the house, and stripped out of the incriminating clothing without leaving a single trace of forensic evidence. Nothing was found in the contents of the log burner to suggest that any articles of clothing had been burned there, far less a bulky, eyelet studded jacket. Furthermore, witnesses who claimed to have noticed “burning smells” coming from the garden that evening reported these as being “between 6.30pm and 7.30pm” and later, “some time around 10pm.” Since Luke had been positively identified at the end of his street at 5.45pm, is it really conceivable that his mother was still trying to burn the evidence, in her own garden, some 4 hours later? It was light until around 10pm, Jodi had been murdered in an area popular with walkers; her body could have been discovered at any moment. Also, to return momentarily to the timing aspect of the prosecution‟s claims, Jodi, it is alleged, was murdered at 5.15pm. Just 30 minutes remain, therefore, for Luke, had he been the killer, to strip and mutilate the body, get back to his own house, strip out of all of his clothing and get cleaned up and changed, and organise for his mother to dispose of the evidence, then return to the wall at the end of his street.
Several witnesses were produced in court to say they had seen Luke Mitchell wearing such a parka jacket. Indeed, several hundred people could honestly have made the same claim, since he had been pictured in newspapers wearing one. The ludicrous (and completely unsubstantiated) claim by the prosecution was that Corinne Mitchell had burned the parka jacket her son had been wearing that night, then gone out and bought him an identical one to cover up for the “missing” one. The necessary proof that Luke owned a parka jacket prior to Jodi‟s death was never produced. Receipts proving that the parka jacket had been bought after Jodi‟s death were produced, but the prosecution dismissed these as irrelevant, continuing to claim that this was a replacement jacket.
If Luke Mitchell had committed such a brutal murder, wearing such a recognisable garment, is it feasible to believe that his mother would provide him with an identical (and therefore readily identifiable) one? It simply makes no sense – having disposed of the jacket, the obvious move would have been to buy something completely different.
It was also claimed that Corrine Mitchell had lied to give her son an alibi, as had his brother Shane. The prosecution did not back up these claims with evidence – rather, it opted for character assassination instead, introducing, for example, the completely unrelated suggestion that Shane had been “viewing pornography” on the internet, in an attempt to both discredit and humiliate him.
Again, these events raise the question of timing. For Corinne Mitchell to have received the clothes to be burned in the back garden, it has to be accepted that Luke must have returned home prior to his appearance on the wall at the end of the road at 5.45pm. The prosecution contention that he was not “at home” between 5pm and 5.45pm begins to unravel at this point – how did the clothing, alleged to have been burned in the garden, get to his home without him? There is not, and has never been, any suggestion that Corinne Mitchell collected clothing from anywhere else that evening – indeed, other, concrete evidence, such as cctv footage in a local store, rules out any such eventuality.
Jodi was brutally murdered. Her throat was cut several times, and her body mutilated, some of the injuries being very precisely inflicted after death. She had been stripped, her arms tied behind her back with her own jeans, after her throat had been cut, the prosecution claimed. The police had stated repeatedly that her killer would have been “heavily bloodstained” and that she had “fought to the end” (a fact later confirmed by the pathologist), so they were looking for someone with fresh scratches or other injuries. When Luke Mitchell was examined by police that night, he did not have a single mark on him. No traces of Jodi‟s DNA were ever found on him, nor his on her.
According to William Clegg QC, in a completely separate case,
“this lack of forensic evidence {is} extremely unusual.” Clegg quoted Lockhart’s Theory – the accepted foundation of forensic science – which states that ‘every contact leaves a trace’. “That being so,” said Clegg, ‘the murderer would have left a trace of himself at the scene.‟”
If this theory is “the accepted foundation of forensic science,” then the weight of forensic science would appear to be stating, quite categorically, that Luke Mitchell was not present at the scene, given the amount of contact between Jodi and the person who murdered her.
On two occasions, expert witnesses made statements which fly in the face of all the evidence, in their attempt to support the prosecution case. Susan Ure, who had been involved with examining DNA found on Jodi‟s clothing and body, stated that a stain had been found which was “similar in parts to parts of DNA belonging to Luke” – in other words, No Match! This is a clear example of wording a statement in a specific way so as to mislead – what this woman was clearly saying was that there were not enough similarities between the two pieces of DNA to conclude a match with Luke‟s, yet it is stated in such a way that is sounds like she is suggesting exactly the opposite! The fact of the matter is that all of us have parts of our DNA which are similar to parts of other people‟s DNA.
Mr Scrimger, the forensics officer who was first to examine the scene of the crime, stated that the killer would “not necessarily” be heavily bloodstained. To back this up, he agreed with the prosecution suggestion that Jodi may have been sitting or kneeling when her throat was cut from behind, explaining a blood spray stain on the wall being the result of the blood spraying forwards – i.e., away from the killer. However, there are a few problems with this explanation – firstly, the case against Luke was that he had compressed her neck until she fell, unconscious, to the ground. Since we know that unconscious people tend not to sit or kneel, Mr Scrimger‟s explanation requires us to now believe that the killer was holding Jodi in a sitting or kneeling position. In this case, he is far more likely to have become bloodstained. Further, the case against Luke claims that he stripped her, tied her hands behind her back with her trousers and mutilated the body, all after he cut her throat. Mr Scrimger had to concede that, whilst the killer would “not necessarily” have been heavily bloodstained, it was “highly likely” that he would have been.
Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or
Jodi, or indeed, any of the others, on the path. At this point, the murderer is highly likely to have been heavily bloodstained, probably scratched or having other injuries consistent with having been in a fight, almost certainly behaving in an agitated manner, and attempting to flee the scene. It is possible, once these factors are taken into consideration, that Jodi Jones was not murdered at the time all of these other people were known to be on the path, and we are required, once more, to consider the original time of Jodi leaving home as reported at 5.30pm.
Due to the scarcity of definitive evidence (and perhaps because of the mounting evidence pointing away from Luke Mitchell as the murderer), in a highly dubious move, the prosecution introduced “evidence” pertaining to the gothic rocker Marilyn Manson, in an attempt to prove that this person‟s art had influenced Luke Mitchell. It was shown that a few days after Jodi‟s murder, Luke had purchased a music magazine at the local Sainsbury store which contained a free cd and bonus dvd of some of Manson‟s work. The audio cd was called Golden Age of the Grotesque, and the dvd showed images of apparent violence towards two young women. The police had investigated the “Manson connection,” one officer accessing a website which showed paintings by Manson depicting the “Black Dahlia” murder of Elizabeth Short in the 1950s. The prosecution claimed that there were startling similarities between the injuries inflicted on Elizabeth Short, and those on Jodi Jones. Under cross examination, those “startling similarities” were reduced to “some similarities,” and “superficial similarities” but even that is irrelevant – Luke Mitchell was proven to have come into contact with Marilyn Manson “influences” (which did not contain any images of the Black Dahlia paintings) after Jodi‟s death. There was never any evidence whatsoever that he had come into contact with the Black Dahlia images at any time – the police officer who found the images admitted that it was highly unlikely that anyone who had not visited the website would have seen those images. There were no connections to that website on the computer taken from the Mitchell home.
Still, the prosecution repeated its contention that Luke had “copied” the Black Dahlia murder because, in part, he was so heavily influenced by Manson. Even the Judge, after the jury returned their verdict, would show his complete lack of understanding on this point – i.e., that something which happens after an event cannot possibly have influenced that event.
Although it was clear that Luke indulged in cannabis, the same was true of Jodi – the prosecution tried to imply that Luke had somehow corrupted her, even though he received his cannabis from Jodi‟s cousin! Indeed, several school-friend witnesses were also shown to indulge in cannabis, as was Jodi‟s brother, Joseph, who was also supplied by cousin John Ferris. Amidst this particular group, cannabis was hardly an indicator of anything odd or peculiar, yet the claims that it was cannabis which fuelled the “frenzied‟ attack on Jodi were repeatedly reported. Unfortunately, no expert witnesses on the effects of cannabis, or its likelihood of fuelling such an attack were called, either by the prosecution or the defence; however, there is a general understanding that the effects of cannabis are quite the opposite to those claimed by the prosecution.
Another complete red herring was the finding of bottles of urine found in Luke‟s bedroom. Just what, exactly, these had to do with Luke‟s likelihood of having been Jodi‟s murderer is still unclear, yet the finding of these bottles was given great significance by both the prosecution and the press, in a blatant attempt to encourage suspicion and revulsion towards Luke Mitchell. The perfectly innocent explanation – that the trauma of events had triggered a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), compelling him to “hold on” to literally everything, never made it to the public domain.
Similarly, proof that Luke had other girlfriends was not only used to blacken his character, it would later be used by the detective in charge of the case to provide a motive for Luke murdering Jodi, even though all of the evidence actually proved that this officer‟s explanation simply could not be the case. Unfortunately, this motive theory was not presented to the jury – it was offered to the press after the trial. However, it does beg the question, if teenage boys two-timing their girlfriends is an indicator of their likelihood to commit murder, then surely none of us can sleep safe in our beds!
In another attempt to show the Mitchell family as unreliable, the prosecution called witnesses who had not, previously, been made known to the defence team. Staff from a tattoo parlour were called to show that Corrine Mitchell had “lied” for her son, by providing him with fake id, so that he could have a tattoo. The fake id was not produced in court – only the word of the staff that it had been produced was available. It was, they claimed, a birth certificate, and Corrine Mitchell had claimed her son was the person named on that certificate. With prior warning, the defence would have been able to prove that either (a) Corrine Mitchell produced no such document, or (b) the staff at the tattoo parlour had broken the law by tattooing someone with an obviously fake id – the person they named on the birth certificate which Corrine Mitchell is supposed to have provided is a 58 year old man!
In summary of the trial and evidence presented so far, therefore, there were several pieces of “evidence” led which should not have been allowed to be led, on various grounds – the eyewitness testimony of Andrina Bryson, who failed to identify Luke Mitchell in court, was flawed from the start – the mug shots highlighting Luke as the only one of 12 with long hair, pictured against the only light background, shown to her by police, were, the judge agreed, misleading. In what the defence called a deliberate tactical decision to treat Luke Mitchell unfairly, no identity parade was held. Andrina Bryson also admitted making a statement some weeks later that she recognised Luke from his picture in the newspaper, even though the judge had expressly instructed jurors that they should “put out of their minds anything they had seen, heard or read outside of the court proceedings.”
All that was ever proven with regard to the parka jacket was that Luke owned one after Jodi‟s death. There was no evidence whatsoever that he had owned one prior to the murder of Jodi, nor that clothing of any description had been burned in the garden. Much confusion was encouraged between reports of both Luke and his mother denying the existence of the parka jacket, and pictures of him wearing such a jacket – the deliberate omission of the fact that they claimed he did not own the jacket prior to Jodi‟s death making it appear self evident that they were lying. Further, the prosecution repeatedly referred to the “missing” jacket, although there had never been a single shred of evidence to suggest that there had been any “missing” jacket.
The tattoo evidence, led to prove the dishonesty of Corrine Mitchell, was not revealed to the defence prior to being led in court. Further, this evidence raised serious questions as to the honesty of the people testifying – they had no corroborating evidence (such as the birth certificate and photographic id they claimed to have been shown), and the name they claimed to have been given was that of a 58 year old man.
All of the Marilyn Manson evidence should not have been allowed on the grounds that it proved nothing – the cd and dvd were purchased after Jodi died, and the Black Dahlia connection had nothing to support it whatsoever.
The urine bottles found in Luke‟s bedroom were in no way connected with the case – they could not be used to prove anything related to the crime.
But what is most interesting is the weight given to uncorroborated testimony from Jodi‟s family members.
According to Alan Turnbull QC, there were three things that proved that Luke was the killer:
The “identification” of him at the Easthouses end of the path with Jodi at around 5pm.
The “fact” that Shane said Luke was not at home between 5pm and 5.45pm.
The testimony of the other three members of the search party.
These three things were “central” to the prosecution‟s case, he claimed. Yet Andrina Bryson‟s identification was nothing of the sort, as has already been shown.
Shane did not claim that Luke “had not been at home between 5pm and 5.45pm.” He said that he did not know if Luke had been at home, and that he had thought he (Shane) was alone “in the house,” a subtle, but very important difference.
Finally, the testimony of the other members of the search party, and the evidence of Jodi‟s family in general, raises many more questions than it answered.
Firstly, the timing of Jodi leaving her mother‟s home on the evening of June 30th: Judy Jones claimed that Jodi had been grounded, and that she had decided that evening to end the punishment. Texts were exchanged between Judy‟s phone (Jodi‟s phone was broken) and Luke‟s between 4.34 and 4.38pm – this obviously being the time Judy told Jodi her punishment had been lifted. The description of what occurred between then and the claimed time of Jodi leaving is very detailed, involving cooking lasagna and playing a Rod Stewart track. These events left Jodi less than 7 minutes to “go upstairs and get ready to meet Mitchell,” then come back downstairs, give her mother a kiss and leave. Texts on both Judy‟s and Luke‟s phones had been erased, so there is nothing to prove what was said in those texts. However, if this was the first point at which Luke became aware that he would be seeing Jodi that night (since she was still “grounded”) an important issue arises. There are only 11 – 16 minutes between those texts being exchanged, and the “sighting” by Andrina Bryson at the Easthouses end of the path. It is not possible for Luke to have made the journey, on foot, from his home to the Easthouses end of the path in that time. Yet, what reason would he have, prior to that time, to be anywhere near the path? He believed he was not meeting Jodi because she had been grounded.
Alan Ovens, Judy Jones‟ partner, took a call, on the home phone, from Luke at 5.40pm, apparently asking where Jodi was. He said he told Luke Jodi had already left to meet him. A great deal of emphasis was put on the fact that Luke did not call back later, when Jodi failed to show up. But by 5.40pm, Jodi had been gone from her home for 50 minutes. She was expected to have met Luke at the Easthouses end of the path within “a couple of minutes” of leaving her house, yet Luke‟s call did not raise alarm with either Mr Ovens, or Mrs Jones? It was portrayed in court that 14 year old Luke had somehow failed in his responsibility to his girlfriend, by not calling back when Jodi failed to show, the implication being that he was covering up what he had done by trying to appear normal. Yet basic logic suggests that the last thing he would do at that time, had he been the killer, would be to alert her parents to the fact that she was not where she should be. What if they had launched an immediate search following his 5.40pm call? Jodi‟s body would have been found much more quickly – surely the murderer would want to buy as much time as possible? If, as the prosecution claims, Jodi died at around 5.15pm, and the murderer needed time to strip her after death, and mutilate her body in a calm, deliberate fashion, then the timing of this call suggests that he was calling almost immediately after carrying out these actions. Yet nothing in his voice or manner raised even the slightest alarm in Mr Ovens. It would later be shown from telephone records that Luke had actually tried to phone Jodi‟s home 8 minutes earlier, at 5.32pm, just 17 minutes after the claimed time of death, but had been unable to connect. This makes the timescale even less believable.
Given that there were no positive sightings of Jodi that evening, there is no proof of what time she left the house. When police later claimed that they were interested in Luke because he had been “the last person to see her alive, and the first to find her dead,” they appear to have missed this critical factor! In an interesting display of double standards, the police accept, without corroboration, the word of one mother, but not another! Similarly, there is nothing to prove that Mr Ovens told Luke that Jodi had “left to meet him,” except Mr Ovens own contention that this is so. Had he said, “Jodi‟s gone out,” or “Jodi‟s not here,” the whole insinuation surrounding the reasons for Luke not calling back collapses.
When it emerged that DNA belonging to Stephen Kelly had been found on Jodi‟s t shirt and underwear, the explanation given was that Jodi had been wearing her sister Janine‟s T-shirt. Yet we have only Stephen Kelly (who is implicated by the presence of his DNA) and Janine (his fiancé)‟s word that this was, in fact, the case. The significance of the fact that none of the other members of the search party‟s clothes were taken for forensic testing that night becomes immediately apparent – no-one can ever know what evidence such testing may have yielded.
Similarly, the elimination of John Ferris and Gordon Dickie from the enquiry before forensic testing had been completed, the failure to test the bike or their clothing, and the fact that Ferris had dramatically changed his appearance and stalled for five days before contacting police leaves a raft of possible evidence that could never be recovered. In fact, these two were supposed to go to Jodi‟s house that evening, to smoke cannabis with her brother Joseph. They did not go, and could not explain why, nor could John Ferris or Judy Jones explain, by the time of the court case, why John Ferris had been ostracised by the Jones family.
But the central, critical evidence is that of the members of the search party. All three of Jodi‟s family members, by the time the case came to court, some 17 months after the event, told exactly the same story; one which differed in fundamental respects from that told by Luke Mitchell. Janine Jones, Stephen Kelly and Alice Walker all reported that the dog had not alerted Luke, but that Luke had gone straight to the V in the wall, climbed through, and immediately knew to turn left, rather than going straight ahead or turning right. All three claimed that he remained calm and emotionless throughout.
Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true.
Luke‟s version of events is that the search party had passed the V in the wall when his dog began pawing at the wall and sniffing the air. He went back to the V, because it was slightly easier to get over the wall at that point, then made his way to where the dog had reacted on the other side of the wall (i.e. he turned left.) Both Janine and Stephen said that they were “shouted back” by Luke. But back from where, exactly? By their own contention, Luke had gone straight to the V. This being “shouted back” suggests that, after Luke had gone over the wall, they had carried on down the path. If that is the case, then they were not at the V to see what Luke did when he got to the other side of the wall. Or, Luke was telling the truth , and they had all gone past the V before he and Mrs Walker had gone back, hence Janine and Stephen having to be “shouted back.” Moreover, even if they had been at the V itself, the lowest point of the V is around 6 feet high. The wall is stone built, around 12‟‟ thick, and has no other breaks – it would not have been possible for them to have “seen” what Luke was doing. A reconstruction of the wall and the V shaped gap was built for the trial. Stephen Kelly was unable to state where the various members of the search party were at the crucial times. Janine Jones said she ran back to the V and saw Luke standing at the other side. Ms Jones is quite short – around 5‟3‟‟ – unless she had climbed onto the top of the wall (and it was never suggested that this happened), it would have been physically impossible for her to see anyone standing on the other side of the wall. Prompted by Alan Turnbull as to whether Luke was shaking, or what the expression on his face was like, she provided the expected negative responses, yet these were things she could not had have seen. She was also the only member of the search party not to have gone over the wall, so she is the one least likely to have noted Luke‟s behaviour.
From the accounts of all three family members, Luke stayed at the other side of the wall whilst Stephen Kelly went over, then returned to the path, then Alice Walker went over the wall. At the point where Stephen has returned to the path, and Alice Walker has been helped over the wall and started screaming, Janine claimed that Luke “looked fine.” At the same time, she claimed that she, herself, had also started screaming. Cross examined by Donald Findlay, quoting from a statement given to police by Janine a month after the murder, it was put to her that she had told police that when they had been “shouted back” by Luke, her “heart sank” because it was clear from the “concern in his voice” that he had found “something bad.” She had also stated that “everyone was in hysterics.”
Alice Walker, Jodi‟s grandmother, who was reported as shaking, screaming, and “a mess” following the discovery of the body, made the same claims as the others regarding Luke‟s reaction. Yet, just after the murder, when police had called “some days later” to collect the clothing they should have collected on the night the body was found, Mrs Walker could not remember what she had been wearing.
(The police operator who took Luke‟s call asking police to come quickly noted, “The laddie‟s in a right state.”)
The prosecution case rested almost entirely on the evidence given by these three people. The prosecution claimed that only the killer would have been able to find her body in woodland, in the dark, with such ease. There was, they claimed, no other explanation as to how he knew to turn left after climbing through the V in the wall. Yet there were, clearly, other equally reasonable explanations – that he had turned to where the dog had reacted, or, alternatively, that the others had continued down the path, he was a 14 year old boy, alone on the other side of the wall in woodland, so he was likely to travel in the same direction as the others for safety and security.
The testimonies given by these three people, which were so crucial to the prosecution‟s claims, are dangerously flawed, in that what was claimed to have been “seen” could not possibly have been seen.
Repeated references to being “shouted back” or “running back” to the V are not adequately explained. If, as the prosecution claimed, Luke did not pass the V, but went straight to it, how did Janine and Stephen get to be so much further down the path as to have to be “shouted back.” If they were that much further down the path, how can they have seen what they claimed to have seen at the V, since they were clearly not there.
Finally, there is the problem of “time of death” – no official time of death appears to have been recorded – all of the reports state that Jodi‟s death is “presumed” to have occurred between 5pm and 5.45pm –the only point in the evening that Luke does not have an alibi other than the word of his own family.
The Media
From the outset, this was a high profile media case. Initially, newspapers and tv reports carried images of a very young Jodi, aged ten or eleven. By the end of the first week, the link with the satanic, and claims of a ritualistic murder began to emerge. Coverage of Luke Mitchell first being taken for questioning, and his house being searched on July 4th blazed from every paper, and was reported on national television, despite the fact that Luke was just 14 years old, and had not been charged with anything. This would set the tone for the remainder of the press coverage of the case. Everything Luke Mitchell did made the news. He was excluded from returning to school at the beginning of the new term for his own safety, even though he had not been charged with any wrong doing. Newspaper photographs of him being driven away from the school by his mother claimed he was making “obscene hand gestures” to reporters, yet the photograph in question clearly shows him reaching back for his seat belt. Any right he my have had to be presumed innocent until proven guilty evaporated following two very highly publicised events. Both happened on the day of Jodi‟s funeral. Police told Luke that Jodi‟s family did not want him to attend. In what, retrospectively, was probably a misguided move, he gave an interview to Sky News that day, in an attempt to stem the barrage of negative publicity, and to proclaim his innocence of any involvement in Jodi‟s death. Later that evening, after the funeral was over, and he felt sure all the mourners would have left, he visited the grave and laid some flowers. The headlines the next day could not have been more damaging. Bordering on hysteria, headlines such as “How Could You?” portrayed him as completely uncaring, insensitive, and downright cruel. Completely untrue reports claiming that he had been smoking at the graveside, discarding cigarette butts on the grave ran alongside others insinuating a less than normal relationship between mother and son. That the press must have hung around the graveside for hours in the hope of Luke turning up at some point slips by almost un-noticed. A female friend who also visited the grave was reported as his new girlfriend, the negative implication being obvious. (Interestingly, although she and Luke were the same age, her face was blanked out from photographs, and she was not named). Reports that Mrs Jones had dumped the flowers back on the Mitchell doorstep all fed a growing tide of hatred, prejudice and suspicion.
By the time of the trial, the press had been reporting, for the best part of 14 months, that Luke was the only suspect. During the trial, the majority of the reporting was biased and prejudicial – much of the prosecution evidence was reported in detail, whilst the defence information was kept to an absolute minimum. The insinuation regarding the abnormal relationship between mother and son emerged again with reports that, when police had gone to arrest Luke, he was sharing a bedroom with his mother, although this was completely untrue. After the verdict, stories were run about other girls who had apparently been threatened and frightened by Luke in the past, yet these were not presented in court.
The Judge and the Chief Investigating Officer.
Questions as to why the judge allowed certain evidence to be presented need to be answered. Holding the trial so close to Luke‟s home meant that the danger of jurors having been influenced by gossip, media, and so forth, was very great. The first trial had to be abandoned because one jury member had expressed her “delight‟ at being selected for the case. The second trial was halted, and when it resumed, the judge told the jury that “following an incident with one of {their} number” they should be aware that if anyone tried to approach them, they should tell the court!
As has already been shown, Andrina Bryson was allowed to give evidence, even though the identification she had made was discredited.
The tattoo evidence was sprung on the defence, in spite of the requirement for all evidence to be made known to both prosecution and defence, yet the judge allowed this evidence to be led. Indeed, the judge, in his charge to the jury before they retired to consider their verdict stated,
“…the Advocate Depute‟s purpose in leading that evidence was to seek to discredit Mrs Mitchell…”
– knowing that to be the case, surely it becomes even more critical that the rules are seen to be obeyed?
But it is Lord Nimmo Smith‟s comments after the verdict which give rise to the most serious questions.
On 11th February 2005, he said,
“Jodi regarded you with affection and trust, she went out joyfully to meet you”
– yet this is in complete opposition to what Craig Dobbie (the Chief Investigating Officer in the case) claimed to be the very motive for the murder – i.e. that Jodi had found out about another girlfriend and had set out that evening to confront Luke, leading to the fight which culminated in her death.
The judge continued,
“You found evil attractive and you thought that there might be a kind of perverted glamour in doing something wicked,”
but then says,
“Looking back over the evidence, I still cannot fathom what led you to do what you did.”
This suggests that the statement regarding finding evil attractive etc, has not been taken from the evidence. On what, then does the judge base his claim?
Regarding the Black Dahlia murder, the judge says,
“I think you carried an image of these paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi,”
yet, having looked back over the evidence, he should have realised that it was not possible for Luke to have carried these images in his memory, because there was no evidence to say that he had ever even seen these images, and what evidence there was of Luke coming into contact with Marilyn Manson material shows that this occurred after Jodi‟s death.
The judge said that nothing in the reports prepared on Luke would have suggested that he was liable to commit such a serious crime, and then goes on to say about cannabis,
“I believe that in some instances, at least, it can seriously damage the mental processes of those who habitually consume drugs”
– it appears now that the judge is questioning the abilities of the experts who prepared the reports which showed “nothing to suggest he was liable to commit such a serious crime.” If habitual consumption of drugs had so damaged Luke‟s mental processes, one would have expected the psychology and psychiatry reports to have picked this up.
The judge then makes an outrageous suggestion:
“In your case, I think that it {cannabis} may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgements, and that this, along with other factors I have mentioned, may have meant that when you killed Jodi you were unable to recognise what a truly wicked deed this was.”
If the judge truly believed that, then surely he should have deemed Luke Mitchell mentally unfit to stand trial?
In fact, when clarifying the definition of “murder” to the jury, the very same judge states:
“someone who brings about the death of his victim by carrying out an assault with the necessary degree of wicked recklessness…commits murder.”
How could Luke have been deemed to have carried out an assault with the “necessary degree of wicked recklessness” and at the same time have been “unable to recognise what a truly wicked deed this was?”
Whatever the judge based these comments on when sentencing Luke Mitchell, it was not the evidence which had been presented in court during the trial, and suggests that the judge, himself, may have been influenced by “other factors.”
Craig Dobbie, who led the police investigation, gave a press interview following the verdict on January 23rd 2005. He claims that by July 3rd 2003, his suspicions regarding Luke as the murderer led him to have Luke re-questioned, and his house searched. These suspicions were caused by alleged inconsistencies in Luke‟s statement, given in the early hours of July 1st, immediately after Jodi‟s body had been found. Mr Dobbie claims that the other members of the search party‟s statements were consistent, in both how he had gone over the wall, and in his lack of emotional response. Yet Janine Jones, a month later, was saying that she had known because of the concern in Luke‟s voice that something was wrong. Also, this was prior to the appeal for Ferris and Dickie to come forward, yet, when they did, Mr Dobbie‟s suspicions appear not to be raised by the obvious inconsistencies in the statements given by these two people. It also fails to address the most glaring inconsistency of all – that Janine Jones could not possibly have seen what she claimed to have seen.
Mr Dobbie also claims that Luke came under suspicion because he was the last person to have seen Jodi alive, and the first to have found her dead. Yet there is no evidence, anywhere, which places Luke Mitchell with Jodi Jones that evening. Indeed, what evidence exists proves that the last person to see Jodi alive was her mother.
Although Shane and Corrine Mitchell‟s discussion about their statements raised enough suspicion to have them charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (although these charges were later dropped, having served the purpose of creating suspicion of wrongdoing, without actually having to prove it), the admitted discussions between Ferris and Dickie, before speaking to the police, raise no such suspicions or charges. Indeed the composite story from these two is used as evidence against Luke in court. It is worth noting that these two people had almost five days to discuss their story – the amendment to Shane‟s statement was made within 48 hours.
Mr Dobbie then offers his theory of motive for why Luke killed Jodi. He claims that Jodi had found out about Luke‟s “other girlfriend” during the day at school, and had set out to challenge him about it that night. An argument had ensued, leading to Luke attacking her. There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, Jodi did not know she would be ungrounded that evening. There is no evidence to suggest that, even at the point that she was ungrounded, Jodi was setting out to challenge Luke about anything. The girl who had written in her diary “I think I would die if he finished with me” would, presumably, have been devastated to find out he was two-timing her. Yet according to her mother, she was “chuffed” at being allowed out, and left the house perfectly happy. According to the judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, “She went out joyfully to meet {Luke}.” The two just do not fit together.
The judge claimed that there had been at least some pre-meditation on Luke‟s part, but Mr Dobbie seems to be suggesting that it was an argument that got out of hand.
Mr Dobbie‟s suspicion of Luke also seems based more on Luke‟s personality than on any evidence. Regarding the questioning of July 4th, Mr Dobbie says,
“..all he did was make me more suspicious. In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence,” and in the questioning of August 14th, he says,
“…He was challenging. He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. It was like taunts. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview, and that‟s incredible from someone who has not previously been part of the criminal process….”
Luke raises suspicion because he is intelligent and unafraid? Confident enough to “challenge the authority and abilities of the police?” Could this not just as easily be evidence of his innocence? Knowing 100% that he has done nothing wrong, he is most likely going to challenge, in the strongest terms, any suggestion to the contrary. Mr Dobbie seems to be suggesting that Luke should have been intimidated by police procedures if he was innocent! Also, Mr Dobbie‟s perception “it was almost like taunts” must surely have influenced the manner in which the interview proceeded. Was this negative opinion a result of Luke‟s responses themselves, or did it arise from Mr Dobbie‟s unshakeable conviction regarding his suspicion of Luke?
Another point which requires examination is that by Craig Dobbie‟s own admission, Luke Mitchell had become a suspect (rather than just a witness) by July 3rd. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act does not apply under Scottish Law, so Luke was classed at this point as a “voluntary attender.” The general understanding of this term is that it applies to witnesses, not suspects. Although Luke was informed that he did not have to answer any questions, he was encouraged the whole time to believe that he was no more than a witness. The caution itself is completely misleading – still believing he is a witness, Luke is told that he doesn‟t have to answer any questions, but any information he gives may be recorded and used in evidence at a later date. This wording is critical – of course it may be used in evidence at a later date – there would be no point in police obtaining information if they did not intend to use it as evidence later. What is not stated is that it may be used as evidence against him. On that occasion (ie, July 4th 2003), Luke was questioned for six hours with no solicitor present. Similarly, no solicitor was present during the questioning of August 14th either – having arrived at the Mitchell home at 7.25am, police took Luke to the station and began questioning him immediately, despite several requests from Luke to speak to either his mother or his solicitor. At just fifteen years old, he was held and questioned for six hours, having been told that he had no right to speak to anyone!
Further, the Mitchell family were assigned a “liaison officer” on July 1st. What they were not told was that this officer was a member of the investigating team, even after Luke had been confirmed a suspect, by Craig Dobbie‟s own admission.
The reasons for Mr Dobbie‟s newspaper interview remain unclear. Having claimed that his force carried out a “first rate investigation,” and knowing that the jury had returned a guilty verdict, why did he feel compelled to give an interview explaining why police had been suspicious of Luke from such an early point, and what the “motive” had been?
In an unprecedented move, Alan Turnbull, the prosecuting QC also gave a press interview at the same time, explaining why he was convinced the right person had been prosecuted. Surely the verdict vindicates both of these people, without any need for further explanation?
More than a year after the guilty verdict, as the defence team were preparing to appeal, the existence of unidentified DNA was once again raised. Eventually, documents were released which clarified the situation – in spite of police claims during the initial investigation that there had been no DNA at the scene which had been unaccounted for, it now emerged that there had always been one DNA sample that remained unidentified.
Just prior to this book going to press, further witness statements, pointing to another, far more credible suspect were passed to the defence. The police claimed that these statements had not been followed up because the case was “closed.”
So where is the evidence which convicted Luke Mitchell?
He was not convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony placing him at, or near, the scene of the crime, nor with Jodi at any point during that evening.
He was not convicted in the absence of other suspects.
He was not convicted because of DNA or forensic evidence linking him to the body or the scene of the crime (although there was DNA linking others to the scene)
He was not convicted through association or identification with any weapon.
He was not convicted on forensic proof of any clothing having been destroyed or disposed of by his mother.
He was not convicted on the basis of wounds or marks associated with having been in a fight of any description.
He was not convicted on the basis of what he was seen to do once over the wall, as this testimony cannot, physically, be true.
Evidence concerning restricting Jodi‟s throat until she fell to the ground unconscious, then slashing her repeatedly with a knife shows that this series of events is inconsistent with the evidence.
He was not convicted on the basis of his mother or brother lying either to the police or to the court – neither of these individuals was charged with any such behaviour
He was not convicted on the basis of the Black Dahlia connection, since there was no evidence to even suggest that such a connection existed.
He was not convicted on the basis of a history of similar behaviour or psychological likelihood to offend in this manner.
He was not convicted on the basis that this was a “drug fuelled” attack, since his voluntary blood sample that evening showed this not to be the case.
He was not convicted on plausibility of timescale to have carried out such an attack.
In the case of Luke Mitchell, of the imaginary Twelve Points raised in the introduction, the following apply:
He was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence
Reasonable doubt was glaringly obvious
There was no DNA or forensic evidence linking Luke Mitchell to the scene of the crime, or to the victim
He was not identified at, or near, the scene of the crime, or with the victim at any point that evening
There were other, more credible suspects
There was clear over-reliance on expert testimony to the detriment of Luke Mitchell
There were serious questions about both timescale and physical ability for Luke Mitchell to have been the killer
Character assassination constituted a large part of the prosecution case
There was definite evidence of forensic experts selectively interpreting evidence to the prosecution‟s own ends
Persons with a vested interest in seeing Luke Mitchell convicted gave crucial evidence against him
Luke Mitchell was a child of previous good character, with no psychological conditions or previous convictions.
In this case, therefore, all twelve points are present.
The similarities with the others by this stage hardly need to be highlighted: poor police procedures leading to evidence being contaminated or lost, heavy emphasis on innuendo and speculation, and accusations of behaviours which have never been previously displayed. Like Simon Hall and John Taft, a central aspect to the case involves a piece of clothing claimed to have belonged to the defendant, but that claim is never, at any point, backed up by proof. Also, as with Simon Hall, the lack of a definitive time of death allows a presumption to be presented almost as fact – neither Luke nor Simon had a cast iron alibi at a specific time, therefore the prosecution presumes that to be the time of death. Failure of forensic experts to attend the scene in a timely manner allowed evidence to be lost in both of these cases. Similar to the case of Gordon Park, a series of events is claimed for which no explanation is offered – the “how” is not made clear and, on further examination, appears to be at the very least implausible, if not impossible. Police officers, after the cases have been concluded, make public remarks which appear to demonstrate prejudice in both this case and the case of Derek Christian.
Finally, as with Derek Christian and Simon Hall, we are asked to believe that Luke Mitchell suddenly and inexplicably “flipped,” behaving in a manner which is completely uncharacteristic, then almost instantly returns to normal. In fact, in the case of Luke Mitchell, he first loses control completely, then he regains so much control as to become coldly ruthless in his task, and finally, returns to his completely normal self, all within twenty five minutes, and at the ripe old age of fourteen years!
Even before the final two cases are highlighted, it is apparent that something is fundamentally wrong with our judicial system. It cannot possibly be pure coincidence that so many cases throw up so many similar mistakes or discrepancies. Indeed, what appears to be emerging is an alternative system, one which runs by a completely different set of rules to the official system, and one which has somehow managed to become both embedded and hidden within that official system.
The most worrying issues raised by the Luke Mitchell case:
Reasonable doubt is established, but the conviction still stands.
The police investigation is flawed to the point of negligence.
Although a child, in the eyes of the law, Luke Mitchell‟s identity was not protected
He was not advised he had become a suspect, and was questioned without clear caution or a solicitor present.
He was stripped and questioned on the night of the murder without an adult present
Police failed to follow up other leads – in fact, police appeared to dismiss other leads without first checking evidence
The press were fed a constant stream of negative information leading to extremely negative publicity regarding Luke Mitchell
Critical aspects of the prosecution case were allowed to be led as evidence without proof to back them up
The definition of circumstantial evidence as being corroborated by two independent sources was not met on several counts
Discredited, non-legal and unfair evidence was allowed to be led.
The judge drew conclusions from sources which had not been presented in court.
References:Transcript, Interview, ADS Fulton, DC Steven Quinn, Luke M Mitchell, July 4th 2003 Transcript, Interview, DC George Thomson, DC Russell Tennant, Luke M Mitchell, August 14th 2003 Transcript, Interview, DC George Thomson, DC Russell Tennant, DS David Gordon, Luke M Mitchell, August 14th 2003 Report; Copy Psychiatric Report on Luke Mitchell, October 29th 2004 Transcript: “Charge to the Jury”, Lord Nimmo Smith, January 20th & 21st 2005 Transcript: Note of Appeal, August 1st 2005 Transcript; Report by Lord Nimmo Smith, Note of Appeal, February 7th 2006 Transcript: Opinion of the Court, November 14th 2006 Scotland on Sunday, “Mitchell Holiday Plan led to Murder,” January 23rd 2005 Daily Record: “My Luke Torment,” Feb 14th 2005
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 
3 thoughts on “Copy of Chapter From Sandra Lean’s 1st Discredited Smoke & Mirrors “No Smoke” Book Promoting The Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Of Actually, Factually Guilty Killer Luke Mitchell & 6 Other Guilty Killers”