14th August 2003 ~ “Yes, I can verify that my mother and my brother had a fire”
During his section 14 interview on 14th August 2003, sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell told the police his mother Corinne and his brother Shane Mitchell had a fire in their garden on the evening he committed his murder.
Below are extracts from Sgt George Thomson’s trial testimony;
Alan Turnbull: Right. And he was asked whether the log burner and his back garden was lit that night, that’s Monday the 30th?
Sgt George Thomson: Yes
Alan Turnbull: And what was his answer to that?
Sgt George Thomson: “Yes, I can verify that my mother and my brother had a fire”
Alan Turnbull: Right. So he says that his mother and his brother had a fire that night?
3rd September 2003
Less than 3 weeks later the murderer gave a Sky News interview to James Matthews, on the very day that Jodi Jones was laid to rest, pretending he knew nothing about his fires.
Below are excerpts from the Sky interview;
James Matthews: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife?
Murderer Luke Mitchell: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes
James Matthews: Was that you or anyone connected to you?
Misleading evidence was presented to the three judges presiding over the appeal hearing of violent rapist and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson.
Saturday 19th July 2003: Was the date of Andrew Malkinson’s Violent Attack & Rapes
Sunday 20th July 2003: Was the date Edward Henry claimed to the appeal judges police constables (Pc’s) Chris Baybutt & Gary Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
Your lordships the very next morning, purely as a result of a hunch, when the description of the attacker had been recited to them, the night before at the scene, police constable Waite and police constable Baybutt, on hearing the description of the attacker said ‘that’s Andrew Malkinson’ because about a month before they had stopped him erm, he hadn’t committed any offence, but he was seen riding pillion on the back of a young Mr Hardman’s moped
And they had stopped him, so as a result of the hunch they went to see him the following day
Immediately the day after the attack at his place of work
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal hearing on 26th July 2023 here
Monday 21st July 2003: Said to be the date the VICTIM in this case gave her police witness statement
Monday 21st July 2003: Was the date Andrew Malkinson stated in 2016 (via writer Bob Woffinden) that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited him at work
The evidence was that at 2.00pm on the day of the attack two community beat officers, after hearing the description of the attacker, had ‘immediately’ and ‘simultaneously’ named Malkinson as the suspect.
Why would anyone, having heard of the attacker’s ‘smart’ clothes, instantly think of the generally dishevelled Malkinson?
Secondly, two days later, on Monday 21 July, the officers saw Malkinson at work.
Excerpts by Bob Woffinden’s taken from chapter 5 of his book The Nicholas cases
Friday 25th July 2003: The date the CCRC submitted to the appeal court judges that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work
My learned friend and the respondent says that the commission has over stated this matter
In fact actually if we go to the statement of reason, eh and if I may ask you, and if I do erm ask you very briefly my lords to go to page 114, eh and eh paragraph 165
Forgive me 164, this is what the commission said
‘This is significant because the trial judge raised the question of whether the victim was mistaken about having scratched her attacker at all and told the jury that if she may have scratched her attacker then the person responsible for the attack cannot be the defendant
Dr Anderson’s mistake allowed the judge to suggest that the victim may have been mistaken in her account of scratching her attacker. This undermined an important defence point made by Mr Malkinson’s counsel at trial that the fact that Mr Malkinson was not injured or disfigured in anyway when he was seen by the police on the 25th of July, six days after the attack, meant that he could not have been the attacker’
With the greatest respect to my learned friend but also to the commission, erm the commission erm got that wrong
It was the very next day
Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal on 26th July 2023 at around 1:14:44 here
Who Was & Is Wrong?
It is not clear who was and is wrong in relation to the date Pc’s Chris Baybutt and Gary Waite visited Ellesmere shopping centre.
However it was reported that both Pc’s Baybutt and Waite were “recommended for a commendation” by Judge Michael Henshall, who presided over the February 2004 trial, for helping to bring violent rapist Andrew Malkinson to justice.
Liar and scammer Sandra Lean stated on the 23rd July 2023 on actual, factual guilty murderer Luke Mitchell;
..a 35 year oldman
Who has never driven a car
Let me see I’ve got a list of what he’s never done
He’s never driven a car
Had a legal drink
Had a job
Shopped for his own needs
“Shopped For His Own Needs”
Chris Taylor and Harry Williamson’s 17thJune2023 article for the Scottish Sun here headed;
evidenced killer Luke Mitchell shopping “for his own needs” and contained many quotes of statements made by the killer including the following;
I visited a few shops — bought some toiletries, bought some games, bought some food
Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell
Had An Illegal Drink
Killer Luke Mitchell may not have had a “legal drink” but he most definitely drunk illegally before he was sent to prison.
There are photographs online of killer Luke Mitchell’s bedroom with bottles of alcohol clearly visible on the top shelf of his pine unit, as can be seen in the copy of the photograph below next to Beavis and Butt-Head;
Sandra Lean also stated;
Isn’t it amazing how quickly we forget
Sandra Lean – 23rd July 2023
A Few Days After Killer Luke Mitchell’s 2003 Police Interview
Sandra Lean might want to remind herself of Grace McLean’s 22nd January 2005 Daily Mail article headed “I’msimplynotanormalteenager: EXCLUSIVE: Luke Mitchell’s chilling boast to the Mail“.
Journalist Grace McLean first met with killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne Mitchell a few days after his section 14 interview which took place on the 14th of August 2003.
Grace McLean stated;
Iinterviewed Mitchell months before he had been charged with the murder of Jodi, and days after he had been questioned by detectives hunting for her killer
Grace McLean
Grace McLean also met with killer Luke Mitchell “four weeks” before he was arrested in April 2004.
It appears killer Luke Mitchell orchestrated their meeting.
What is clear is that around this time the killer and his mother were courting the media, as is also evidenced by the Sky TV interview on the day of Jodi Jones funeral with James Matthews.
A copy of Grace McLean’s article has been reproduced below;
THE words coming out of his mouth were enough to chill the heart.
His voice flat and emotionless, Luke Mitchell was describing to me the moment he discovered the body of his girlfriend, mutilated and abandoned on the muddy earth.
For the schoolgirl who died an unspeakable death, horrifically mutilated, there was no expression of love from Luke Mitchell – and no tears.
This was Luke’s story in his own words – the account the jury never heard as the teenager never gave evidence during his trial.
“My torch lit up the path like daytime and I was about 12 yards from Jodi when I saw her lying there” he began.
“She was so white. Her throat had been slit and her head was to the side.
“Her eyes were staring up at me and she was naked but for a pair of socks, I think… no, she wasn’t wearing anything. Her body was so white and she was just staring and staring.
‘”I shouted to the others but I couldn’t tell them I’d found Jodi because I didn’t want to upset her gran, but she said she wanted to come over the wall.
‘The others held her back but she scrambled over the wall and said if her granddaugher was there she wanted to be with her.
“She sat down beside Jodi and cradled her in her arms.
I guess the family are suspicious of me because my dog Mia was the one who found Jodi and I was the one who first saw her lying there”
I interviewed Mitchell months before he had been charged with the murder of Jodi, and days after he had been questioned by detectives hunting for her killer.
Aged 15 at the time, the Luke Mitchell in front of me was an adult in everything but name.
Chain smoking and dressed in baggy jeans and a dark-coloured T-shirt, he exuded confidence bordering on arrogance.
Yet all the time his eyes flicked towards his mother Corinne, as if seeking reassurance from the woman with whom he obviously had an extra-special bond.
Mitchell and his mother were like a well-rehearsed double act.
As Corinne Mitchell ranted about the unfair treatment of her son, Mitchell would pace the floor as he vented his anger at the way the police had dealt with him.
Then his mother would touch him lightly on the arm and he would, as if by magic, calm down.
And as he gave his version of his whereabouts the night Jodi was brutally murdered, he constantly looked to her for reassurance, particularly when recalling the time he left the house to meet his girlfriend and the time he went on to meet his friends.
In the first moments of meeting Mitchell I was struck by how confident he was.
After a day at school he knew he was about to meet a journalist, but he walked into the room with a nonchalant air.
As I shook his hand, he gave me a cursory glance before sitting in a chair diagonally across from his mother.
It was clear he was a very sexually aware young man. I immediately felt uncomfortable as his eyes slowly looked me up and down. Mitchell may be a child but his sexuality, arrogance and misplaced maturity make him appear far older than his tender years.
There were a few flashes of childlike behaviour. But they only came as he was distracted by Mia – the dog he claimed picked up Jodi’s scent and led him to her body.
As his story unfolded, it was clear he was a master of manipulation. His story was just too word-perfect. It was also, as has now transpired, a tissue of lies.
This was a 15-year-old who never buckled once during interviews with some of Scotland’s most experienced policemen. The more police pushed him, the more arrogant he became.
He boasted to me: ‘After a few hours I told them, “charge me or let me go”.’
Mitchell leaned forward in his chair and stared intently at me as he told me how police had made his life ‘a misery’ and how they tried to relate to him through stories of rap star Eminem, shock rocker Marilyn Manson and pop singer Holly Valance.
He said: ‘The cops asked me about my relationship with Jodi’s friend Laura.
They kept asking me about the Eminem song Kim, the song where he fantasises about killing his wife.
“They asked me about the follow- up song in which Eminem sings about the “two of us”, meaning him and his daughter. They asked me about Laura and if I wanted it to be just the two of us and asked if that was why I killed Jodi”
“It was all rubbish. Jodi and I would still be together if she was here today”
Detectives were astonished by how arrogant Mitchell was during interviews. Even when confronted with evidence he remained defiant.
He seemed to realise police were trying to relate to him as a teenager and find some kind of common ground.
However, as Mitchell saw himself as an adult, he found the tactic amusing and gained a sense of confidence as the interrogation went on.
Mitchell took to pacing the floor again as he told me how he had ‘got really mad’ with police.
Clenching his fists he said: ‘I started to get really mad after about four hours and asked them to charge me if they had anything to charge me with.’ It was clear Mitchell enjoyed playing cat and mouse with detectives. He said: ‘ One copper stood, looked me straight in my face and said, “We’ve got you. We found your semen on her bra.
We’ve found sperm similar to yours.” I laughed and said, “If it’s similar, it’s not the same then, is it?” ‘ He told how detectives showed him a video reconstruction of how it would have been impossible for him to see Jodi’s body in the dark woods with only a torch – implying he must have known exactly where she was lying.
He said: ‘Jodi’s body was replaced with a tailor’s dummy and I pointed out to police that I could see a limb. That’ s when they switched the video off.’
But then, chillingly, he revealed that he, Jodi and their friend Laura had been talking about funeral arrangements a few nights before the murder.
He said: ‘What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.’ I could picture him that night, talking in the bedroom with Jodi – taking a perverse pleasure in knowing the fate that awaited her.
He said police took a lock knife from him after being tipped off by friends.
But he added:
‘The bloke who said this is a fantasist. Another of his friends told police Jodi and I were arguing all the time. But that’s not true. We never had a cross word”
Mitchell also denied he was taunting police when he left a note with flowers for Jodi which quoted from Kurt Cobain’s journals:
“The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came”
He said: “The only reason I left it was because she loved that line. I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else”
It was the first time in our interview that Mitchell spoke of any affection for Jodi.
But then, to change the subject, he spent ten minutes talking about newly learned computer skills – just like any other teenage boy – before asking his mother for the keys to her 4×4 Land Rover.
Then, nonchalantly, he walked outside, started up the engine and drove at high speeds around nearby waste ground.
It seemed, yet again, that Mitchell was playing at being an adult.
When he returned, he told his mother he was going to see his friend Laura and, since it was on my way, I offered to give Mitchell a lift.
In the car, he said very little about Jodi, continuing to talk about his computer course. When the car came to a standstill, he leaned over and gave me a hug before jumping out.
Just four weeks later, he was arrested for Jodi’s murder.
I truly believe Mitchell thought he could get away with it.
As we parted, he couldn’t resist having the final word.
A last gesture, and his last chance to goad the police:
“I was never going to break down in public – I’m not that kind of bloke”
“They made a mistake and thought I was just a normal teenager”
By Grace McLean for the Daily Mail article headed I’msimplynotanormalteenagerEXCLUSIVE: Luke Mitchell’s chilling boast to the Mail dated 22nd January 2005
Driving His Mother Corinne Mitchell’s 4×4 Land Rover & Had A Job
Not only had killer Luke Mitchell driven before he was sent to prison he also “had a job”.
He worked for his mother Corinne Mitchell and grandmother Ruby Guetta at Scott’s caravans in Mayfield.
Scammer Sandra Lean has previously acknowledge this fact, including in 2015 here, where she stated about the killer;
In Part 253 of this ongoing blog series (which can be read by tapping on the button below) it was evidenced how scammer Scott Forbes had confirmed via his Twitter social media account that killer Luke Mitchell had NOT stayed at his father Philip Mitchell’s house “forweeks” before he committed his murder;
On the 7th March 2021 Sandra Lean again referred to killer Luke Mitchell’s trousers with Jodi Jones🌻 DNA found on them.
The police found the trousers hidden in a hold-all in killer Luke Mitchell’s home on the 4th July 2003.
Scammer Sandra Lean stated ;
They were still in the hold-all from the previous week-end
Statement by Sandra Lean made on 7th March 2021 (from around 8:58 of her video)
In October 2018 Sandra Lean stated;
The DNA to which this expert referred was, in fact, on another pair of trousers taken from Luke’s home – there was no way of telling how long the DNA trace from Jodi had been there
Sandra Lean – from p.196 of her second Innocence fraud book
killer Luke Mitchell had not stayed at his father Philip Mitchell’s house “for weeks”.
There was no evidence produced to show killer Luke Mitchell had stayed at his father Philip Mitchell’s house “the previous week–end”.
The word hybristophilia was apparently derived from the Greek word hubrizein meaning “to commit an outrage against someone” and seemingly links back to a man called John Money who is said to have been a pro-pedophile pervert.
Having worked with a number of high profile, media-savvy offenders in prison I became immediately aware of the phenomenon known as hybristophilia – the sexual interest that some women have for those who have committed violent crimes.
Last month the Danes introduced a law to ban life-sentenced prisoners from receiving fan mail from new pen pals, and limiting their contact to friends that they had had before they were convicted for the first 10 years of their sentence.
As the Danish justice minister Nick Haekkerup said when introducing the bill, convicted criminals “should not be able to use prisons as dating centres, or media platforms.”
Danish justice minister Nick Haekkerup also stated around the time;
We have seen distasteful examples in recent years of prisoners who have committed vile crimes contacting young people in order to gain their sympathy and attention
In response to David Wilson’s article Innocence Fraud Watch tweeted the following;
What David Wilson @ProfDavidWilson omits to mention in his @Daily_Record article is the ‘fan mail’ of these killers also includes letters from lawyers, students, criminologists, authors, journalists & others
Do these individuals also suffer from the ‘hybristophilia’ phenomenon?
Cammilla Kurstein was a 17 year old schoolgirl who appears to have been exploited and groomed by psychopathic killer Peter Madsen after she apparently wrote to him wanting ‘to know what happened in the man’s head’
Interested to know why you would appear to attach the ‘hybristophilia’ phenomenon to a 17 year old school girl yet seemingly discount it (Or not recognise it) in some lawyers, students, criminologists, authors & journalists etc. who also write letters to killers
David Wilson has seemingly done a 180 degree turn on his “…convicted criminals ‘should not be able to use prisons as dating centres, or media platforms” spiel, and has added his support to 14 year old Jodi Jones’ murderers’ fraudulent public relations (PR) spin campaign and written a bizarre article for the Scottish Herald.
David Wilson made the following obscene statement;
..there is literally nothing – nothing – I could uncover that warranted Luke even being charged with Jodi’s murder, never mind being sent to trial
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
In January 2005 Rosalind McInness wrote an article for the BBC headedA uniquely hard case, in which she referred to some of the difficulties reporters faced reporting on the murderers 42 day trial.
This included “protecting vulnerable participants”, like the other young teenage girls who gave evidence about the violent assaults they had suffered at the hands of the then future killer.
After his murder trial, it came to light that other girls had been threatened with a knife held to their throats by Luke Mitchell, who clearly had an undiagnosed “conduct disorder with callous-unemotional traits”.
Tap on the below link to read about some of the facts which came to light regarding the murderers apparent undiagnosed “conductdisorderwithcallous–unemotionaltraits”
When Luke Mitchell decided to commit his murder, he “repeatedly struck” Jodi Jones“on the head and body, compressed her throat and restricted her breathing and caused her to fall to the ground”.
He took his brown handled folding Jack Pyke knife, or “something of this ilk” and slashed Jodi Jones throat, “cutting the main artery in her neck seven-eights of the way through”.
Jodi Jones “jugular vein had also been cut right through and the main nerve had also been nicked”. The knife “slash” had “gone through all three structures”, and according to professor Anthony Busuttil this was “fatal almost immediately”.
Tap on the link below to read more on sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s murder TIMELINE;
Duplicitous Gaslighter & Fraud Sandra Lean Has Misrepresented The Facts Of The Case & Placed A False & Misleading Narrative Into The Public Domain
David Wilson started his Herald article with;
I’ve never needed to be convinced that miscarriages of justice happen in Scotland.
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
Jodi Jones’ murderer PR spin campaign is yet another example of the very real innocence fraud phenomenon, not the outdated “miscarriage of justice” phenomenon.
There has not been a “breach of the carriage of justice” in this case!
The PR spin campaign is one of fraud ie; “intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain”.
There are many examples in Scotland of the innocence fraud phenomenon and the sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s is up there as one of the worst examples.
The PR spin campaign has been headed up by a duplicitous gaslighter and fraud called Sandra Lean, who did not attend the 42 day trial. For around 16 years or so, Sandra Lean has misrepresented the actual facts of the case, which is something she has form for in several other cases and PR spin campaigns.
This ongoing blog series has debunked a lot of Sandra Lean’s nonsense and propaganda. The Index can be found by tapping on the link below;
What is extremely interesting about David Wilson’s article, is that he chose to omit to mention Sandra Lean’s name and instead claimed;
I have been able to: read transcripts from Luke’s trial; consult various appeals that were made on his behalf; looked at a range of newspaper commentary (some of which supported his conviction); watched Murder in a Small Town and also part of the Trials that Shocked Scotland series; listened to a podcast about the case – which also devoted most of an episode to Luke Mitchell speaking from prison (and he clearly is an intelligent man); and delved into some social media – which I can assure you is not for the faint-hearted.
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
I have been able to: read transcripts from Luke’s trial..
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
What transcripts could David Wilson have possibly been able to read, given the fact there are no transcripts available to read in the public domain, and a large volume of evidence heard during the trial has never been transcribed.
Innocence Fraud Watch are of the firm opinion David Wilson was, and is blagging.
David Wilson’s following statement was also interesting, as it appears to have been about JaneHamilton and he appears to have attempted to throw her under the bus;
…looked at a range of newspaper commentary (some of which supported his conviction)
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
Jane Hamilton wrote a few articles in 2021, calling out the two part innocence fraud propaganda TV show called Murder In A Small Town, referred to by David Wilson.
As a result, Jane Hamilton was subjected to a malicious and fabricated smear campaign orchestrated by Sandra Lean; something else she has form for.
The TV show rewrote history and the narrative told was based on the false and misleading narrative told by Sandra Lean in her second innocence fraud book, which she callously called ‘Innocent’s Betrayed’ (David Wilson published a book in 2002 called ‘Innocence Betrayed’).
The podcast David Wilson referred to, was also based on Sandra Lean’s false and misleading narrative, which Innocence Fraud Watch will be addressing in due course;
It would be interesting to learn what ‘social media’ David Wilson was referring to, as it is clear he did not carry out any due diligence. Sandra Lean is not a reliable narrator and source and has told no end of lies.
David Wilson does however appear to have noticed one lie perpetuated by Sandra Lean, and the murderer and his mother Corinne Mitchell, as he stated;
..nor is it true that his clothing was destroyed by his mother after the event
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
On page 34 of her innocence fraud book Sandra Lean stated;
..according to the prosecution..
Luke then coolly returned home and had his mother destroy a parka jacket he wore during the attack, in a log burner in the back garden and between them, they arranged for the disposal of the murder weapon
Sandra Lean – Page 34 IB
The prosecution never told the jury that Corinne Mitchell had burned her sons parka jacket in the back garden. This was another manufactured innocence fraud narrative;
Alan Turnbull prosecuting, also told the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh that Mitchell, 16, thought he was ‘untouchable’.
He said Jodi’s injuries had been “inflicted with calm deliberation”
He added:
“Her killer had a cold, calculating presence of mind and it is not difficult to look to Luke Mitchell as her killer. He discussed these awful eventsin a TV interview with not a tear, not a quiver, not the slightest indication of upset”
He said Mitchell even had the presence of mind to plot his defence immediately after the murder by phoning Jodi’s home and burning a parka he had worn during the attack.
Excerpts from the Daily Record by Ian Dow article headed Murder jury hear of morbid interests dated January 2005
DS Craig Dobbie stated;
We know clothes were missing from Luke’s wardrobe and we know the burner was used
Was the clothing burned? It’s a distinct possibility
Statements made by DS Craig Dobbie reported by Jack Mathieson for the Daily Record dated 22nd January 2005
Another lie told by Sandra Lean is as follows;
Judith’s claim that she woke Joseph at around 10.30pm, because Jodi was missing, was clearly mistaken – it was not until 10.40pm that Judith discovered Jodi had not been with Luke
Sandra Lean – page 89 IB
Judith Jones sent a text message to killer Luke Mitchell’s phone at 10:20pm, reported by the Herald here.
Sandra Lean also stated in her book;
Something is very wrong here. Judith did not know and could not have told anyone else that Jodi had not been with Luke that evening, until after she hung up the call with Luke at 10.42:40pm
Sandra Lean – page 142 IB
Sandra Lean’s bare faced lies about Jodi Jones’ loved ones are abhorrent and they are intentional, told to mislead, deceive and gaslight anyone who doesn’t have a basic comprehension of the facts of the case.
David Wilson appears to be an egomaniac with no scruples who has jumped on the bandwagon of a lost cause and has used his waning “celebrity” status in an attempt to keep himself relevant.
David Wilson is a hypocrite who has committed an outrage to Jodi Jones memory, to Jodi Jones loved ones and he has committed an outrage to all the other innocent people caught up in this blatant innocence fraud PR spin campaign.
Firstly, Scott Forbes behave with the constant lies. –
The penknife with 40mm blade was never mentioned as the murder weapon, are you suggesting that the mans hands holding the knife were that of a baby!
There was nothing wrong with Shane Mitchell’s memory, behave with the constant nonsense, and for those soaking up such BS – have a word.
Shane Mitchell had spoken with the FLO (family liaison officer) this was NOT 72hrs after the murder, that was his first statement taken within the walls of the police station.
The Alibi Fable
Only Shane Mitchell can answer why he also stated he had arrived home at his usual time, trying to avoid being caught up in the alibi fiasco, playing it safe.
For by telling the police he arrived home at his usual time, checking that house for signs of life, he had “popped” his head around the lounge door.
There was no one home, he told the police he wouldn’t have seen Luke home as he would still be in school.
Does not alter the absolute fact that he did not see nor hear his brother home.
Luke Mitchell had told the police he had been blasting those tunes out whilst cooking dinner.
So, it was not and never that he did not see him, he did not hear him either, nor any waft of burnt pies in that house.
The alibi fable, the actual context around that story.
In the early hours of July 1st, what had clearly been concocted by two people was handed over on a plate to the police.
The perfect alibi for only the time the killer knew it was needed for, running to cover those sightings, having Luke Mitchell claim to have left home no earlier than 5:40pm, to walk out to meet with Jodi, whom he claimed was coming to his house for 6pm.
They stated that the mother had arrived home by 5:05pm, her usual time to do so. Driving down the Beeches, her usual route.
Of the music playing, the pies being burnt and that limp yellow broccoli.
That by the time dinner was eventually ready and plated up, they sat down to eat no earlier than 5:15pm. Luke in front of the TV (what was it again he claimed to have been watching Scott Forbes?), his mother outside to enjoy the weather (it was overcast, an excuse as to why she was in the garden?).
Winging It
He was asked (that first stumbling block) if anyone else was home, Luke Mitchell turned to his mother and asked if Shane were there.
Shane Mitchell hiding from cameras in 2005
He had not been included in the alibi at this point.
This winging it, and without a doubt the heat is being turned up as outside factors come to light.
Shane Mitchell then gives his first interview in the station, he relates the same tale, this time however there are far more questions, and he is asked about dinner and so forth.
He opts for the ‘I cannot remember —‘ anything.
This is less than 72hrs from Monday dinner time.
He goes home and relates this to his mother, who without a doubt, and proved, coached and coerced him into changing his story.
You Are Being Lied To
You have heard numerous times of how the Mitchell’s could do nothing, that the police were there 24/7, you are being lied to.
Shane Mitchell, rather than pop outside, or have anyone in that house, rather than simply wait to be spoken with again, called the station to amend his statement, he had had a light bulb moment, which was:
He suddenly remembered that his mother had arrived home at her usual time, of 5:05pm, he had went downstairs to greet her, asking her how her day had been.
The saga around Luke, the tatties and so forth. Not wanting to upset him about the pies.
That dinner was not ready, he returned to his room and was shouted around 10mins later, the time no earlier than 5:15pm. Eating upstairs and leaving home just after 5:30pm.
So, by 72hrs after the murder, they are now all in harmony, all agreeing that it was just like any other day, mother had arrived home at her usual time, Luke had left around 5:40pm.
CCTV footage is checked for anyone in the vicinity and timings for the boys on the bikes and so forth.
There on CCTV is the mother, she had not drove down The Beeches but diverted in the opposite direction, she had not been in the kitchen with her two boys but picking items off a shelf.
She had actually (favourable traffic) only arrived at the estate no earlier than 5:15pm, time to park up, shopping and dog, and could not physically have been in the kitchen any earlier than 5:17pm.
Killers Phone Calls From Behind That Wall
The phone logs are obtained, Luke Mitchell claimed to have called the house from the entrance of the estate. The first call that he was unaware had connected, as he had hung up instantly upon dialling, something disturbed him.
At the exact time of that call, a noisy moped made its way back down the Roan Dykes Path.
However, it then brought his time of leaving back, he had to have left home no later than 5:30pm.
He was of course not around the entrance of that estate, his own brother when exiting that estate, saw no Luke where he claimed to be. –
So not in the house, neither hearing nor seeing his brother, and not at the entrance of that estate.
It is not rocket science.
Luke Mitchell was not home.
All Identified As Being Luke Mitchell
Five people, not just one, saw Luke Mitchell in places he claimed not to have been, and no-one saw him at those times, in the places where he did claim to be.
Three people saw a youth, he was wearing a khaki green army style coat. The same hair style, the same male.
All identified as being Luke Mitchell.
The ludicrous notion of even attempting to apply they were different people, identical to Luke Mitchell, in those quiet suburbs, some 45mins apart.
He was not home, and he was NOT around the entrance of his estate.
He is seen again after that initial clean and change into his shiny green bomber with the orange lining. This time he is seen as he tries to emerge back on to Newbattle Road, to make his was down to the entrance of his estate. This couple got every single detail of his clothing to a T, showing the difference in eyewitness testimony.
Luke Mitchell firmly denied that this was him as with the others of course. It was him, and again, there were not multiple people the same as Luke Mitchell, in those quiet suburbs.
Only one Luke Mitchell in his khaki green army style coat, the same coat he wore to a ‘gig‘ mid-June whilst with Jodi Jones.
The coat never to be seen again. The same youth, only one of him, in that shiny green bomber with the orange lining.
So, no, we are not talking about a brother having a bad memory, we are talking about masses of other evidence showing that the alibi put in place had been concocted.
The only people to hand an alibi over on a plate, a sequence of lies to place Luke Mitchell home, at exactly the time only the killer knew it was needed for.
Before the police had even begun to ascertain when Jodi Jones had left her home.
As stated in Part 19a of this blog series Michael Naughton, and in turn Heather Mills from Private Eye magazine, lied in 2009 about the “fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body” and “DNA on her body”.
Photo of Heather Mills and Ian Hislop from Private Eye in 2011 here
The November 2009 Private Eye article (Referred to in Part 19here) also stated;
Eye readers will recall that Hall was only put in the frame because his mother used to care for Mrs Albert and had a key to her house.
He had a firm alibi for all but about half an hour on the night Mrs Albert was killed.
He was pubbing and clubbing with friends in Ipswich, dropping one off at his house between 05:30 and 6am, before arriving home to his mother, Lynne, at round 6.15am.
As it was, it was unlikely he could have broken in to Mrs Albert’s home, killed her and arrived back home.
But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.
Excerpts from page 29 of Heather Mills article for Private Eye magazine published on the 13th of November 2009 (Edition number 1249)
Heather Mills following statement;
But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.
was pointless and was yet another innocence fraud distraction tactic.
As already mentioned in Part 19ahere the Higham burglary “was formally linked to a series of antique thefts” and the “two crimes were notformally linked”, ie: killer Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert in Capel St Mary was not related to the antiques theft of “the old person’s” home in Higham.
Crime scene photo of broken kitchen window
The fact killer Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall had a key to Joan Albert’s home was irrelevant because Simon Hall broke Joan Albert’s kitchen window (Pictured above) to gain access to her and her home.
If Simon Hall had of had a “firm alibi” as suggested by Heather Mills for Private Eye magazine (courtesy of Michael Naughton), it’s unlikely Simon would have been “put in the frame” in the first place.
TIE (Trace/Interview/Eliminate) Suspect
There were numerous reasons why killer Simon Hall was “put in the frame” for his murder, some of which have already been highlighted throughout this blog series, which begins here.
For example, as referred to in Part 2 here due to the fact Simon Hall had previous criminal convictions for violence, and because he had in the past lived nearby and knew the area well, Simon Hall’s name was quickly flagged by the HOLMES information technology system used by police for investigations.
Simon Hall was automatically categorised as a TIE suspect (trace, interview, eliminate) in relation to Joan Albert’s murder.
Therefore Suffolk police may have known when they first began interviewing Lynne Hall on the 18th of December 2001, that her youngest adoptive sons name had already been flagged up by HOLMES.
Lynne Hall’s behaviour and statements in particular gave numerous suspicious and conflicting accounts from the very beginning of her contact with the police.
By Tuesday the 18th of December 2001, just two days after Joan Albert was discovered to have been murdered, Lynne Hall was offering up two possible suspects.
Lynne Hall told Suffolk police she had seen two youths/men in the village of Capel St Mary “on the Monday or Tuesday of the previous week the 10th and 11th December”.
Lynne Hall also stated on the same day;
I thoughtabout ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village, in fact I didn’t do that.
That roof is quite high with a flat roof.
I believe from that roof Joan’s house could be seen
It is not known what Lynne Hall thought “ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village” would have achieved exactly, but many other houses would have been “seenfrom that roof”.
If Lynne Hall had had genuine concerns about the two youths/men, including the one who she said had “a pleasantface” but who gave her “the impression they seemed guilty”, why didn’t Lynne tell someone at the time or contact the police?
It appears Lynne Hall’s choice of words were a Freudian slip or her psychological projections perhaps, or a combination of the two?
Were Lynne Hall’s unconscious emotions about the men she had allegedly seen the week before, really all about her adoptive killer son Simon Hall and what Lynne had witnessed just two days earlier?
Questions For Lynne & Phil Hall
Was it really killer Simon Hall with his “pleasant face” who gave Lynne Hall the “impression he seemed guilty” when he arrived at her and Phil Hall’s home at 6.30am, after having committed his murder of Joan Albert?
Lynne Hall went on to state in November 2013 (Read more in Part 10 here) that she had seen the “microwave size” locker her adoptive son Simon Hall, and Jamie Barker, had stolen from the Zenith Windows burglary, allegedly in her garden on the morning of her sons murder of Joan Albert.
Why did Lynne Hall really choose to omit to tell Suffolk police about this fact at the time, and what else did Lynne Hall lie by omission to Suffolk police about?
Lynne Hall said she had apparently asked her adoptive son Simon what the stolen “microwave size” locker was and had then apparently told him to “get rid” of said stolen locker as she “did not want it in her garden”.
Photo of an example of industrial waste bins
Killer Simon Hall claimed he got “rid of” the stolen “microwave size” locker in an industrial waste bin (Along with the clothing, shoes and leather jacket he wore when he committed his murder of Joan Albert) early on the morning of Monday the 17th of December 2001.
Rather than telephone his line manager to ask for a few days off work in order to “lookafter” his adoptive mother Lynne (Which was the reason he gave for asking for a few days off work) Simon Hall used the excuse to drive to State Chemicals in Colchester to dispose of all incriminating evidence.
Suspicious Behaviour & Vanishing Clothing & Shoes
What exactly did Lynne Hall make of her adoptive son driving all the way to Colchester to ask for a couple of days off, when a quick telephone call could have been made instead?
Did Simon Hall behaviour strike Lynne Hall (or any of the Hall family members) as suspicious or unusual or was Lynne Hall actually aware of the fact Simon needed to “get rid” of incriminating evidence?
It is not known if Lynne and/or Phil Hall saw Simon Hall put the “microwave size” locker in his car, or if either of them saw Simon carrying the clothing, shoes and bulky leather jacket he had been wearing when he carried out his murder of Joan Albert, down the stairs from bedroom 3 and out of their home on that Monday morning.
It is also not known if a conversation was ever had between Simon and Lynne, and/or Phil Hall, about why Simon’s clothing, shoes and leather jacket had suddenly vanished.
Lynne & Phil Hall’s Lies & Concoctions
Simon Hall had purchased a brand new pair of mole skin type jeans/trousers from Tesco’s the day before.
He then drove straight to his adoptive parents home in Capel St Mary with his new jeans/trousers and had spent a maximum of an hour at their house, before heading out for the night.
Lynne Hall claimed to the police on the day her adoptive son was arrested;
On Saturday the 15th of December 2001 I was ill in bed all day.
I seem to think that Simon was around during the day and he put his head in to make sure I was okay.
I may have popped down to make a drink.
The Sunday we were off to Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire which is a stately home, it was a family get together.
Simon told me at some stage that Saturday that he was going out and would probably not be back that night.
I told him to be back because we were leaving early.
I wanted him home at five or six am as I wanted to make sure he was okay and dressed properly
Excerpt’s from Lynne Hall’s 25th July 2002 police witness statement
Phil Hall
Also on the day his adoptive son was arrested, Phil Hall stated;
On the 15th December 2001 my wife was upstairs unwell in bed, I don’t know when Simon left the house or even if I saw him at all that day.
I do not know what he was wearing that day at all.
I recall that Lynne had asked Simon to make sure he was back in time to leave for Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire where we had a family do
Excerpt from Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
Did Lynne and Phil Hall really not recall seeing Simon Hall wearing his ‘larey black shirt with red splashes over it’?
Nicola, who referred to her diary entries recalled seeing Simon wearing this particular shirt a week earlier.
Tap on the button below to read more about Nicola’s evidence;
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 