Jump to content

Is Luke Mitchell Innocent?


David

Recommended Posts

I'd always assumed this was an open & shut case, but I've been keeping up with recent reports with interest. Apparently he took a lie detector test and passed. Not sure how much credit this gives to his plight, as I'm fairly sure that the courts don't recognise these types of tests (I could be wrong on that though).This is a recent article by the Scottish Herald on the subject;

Luke Mitchell, who is serving life for the murder of teenager Jodi Jones, has spoken of the night he found her body as he talked publicly about his bid to clear his name for the first time.Mitchell, who was 14 when Jodi was killed, said he still gets flashbacks to the moment when he discovered the teenager's body in woodland not far from each of their homes in Midlothian in June 2003. Mitchell, who is serving a minimum of 20 years in prison for the murder, insisted he was innocent of murder and said he thinks of his former girlfriend every day, adding: "I miss her all the time."In a letter written to a campaigner working on his legal fight, Mitchell, 23, also spoke of the moment he found Jodi's body

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a tricky one, on the one hand, he could be innocent and there could be someone else responsible if you believe what h says. On the other hand, he's had a lot of time to think about what he's done and how he can try and plead innocent now because what else does he have to think about being locked up all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody who knows a bit more about the case tell me what the evidence against Mitchell was?From what I remember of the trial at the time it seemed to mostly consist of the fact he liked to smoke cannabis and was a bit gothy and he was the one to discover the body. Clearly none of these things in any way prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he murdered her so was wondering what else they had against him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody who knows a bit more about the case tell me what the evidence against Mitchell was?From what I remember of the trial at the time it seemed to mostly consist of the fact he liked to smoke cannabis and was a bit gothy and he was the one to discover the body. Clearly none of these things in any way prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he murdered her so was wondering what else they had against him?

Maybe the tabloid media was going down that route but i'm sure the court case had a bit more substance about it. Did he not lie about burning his clothes on a bonfire if I remember correctly? His Mother also lied about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can somebody who knows a bit more about the case tell me what the evidence against Mitchell was?From what I remember of the trial at the time it seemed to mostly consist of the fact he liked to smoke cannabis and was a bit gothy and he was the one to discover the body. Clearly none of these things in any way prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he murdered her so was wondering what else they had against him?

Maybe the tabloid media was going down that route but i'm sure the court case had a bit more substance about it. Did he not lie about burning his clothes on a bonfire if I remember correctly? His Mother also lied about this.
That is certainly suspicious but I would have thought a bit more might have been required to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Found an interesting story and video on the case here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stmOn the balance of probabilities I'd say it's likely he did do it than didn't but that isn't how our justice system works. You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt and I for me there's a whole load of doubt surrounding this case.Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p...m=1&bbram=1edit: Actually after watching that video I'm certain he didn't do it. Anyone interested in the case should give it a watch. I feel like I might be turning all Duane-like with this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have about a 60% accuracy rate according to sources with merit,

Jeremy Kyle begs to differ.
It always make me smile that. They claim 95% accuracy or something stupid, but how do they know that?!!I mean the whole point is you don't know if they are lying! What do they do? Ask them a question, then asked them if they were lying and hope they are being honest THIS TIME so that you can register if the lie detector was accurate?"Did you cheat on your girlfriend?""No."*BEEP*"Were you lying?""No"*No beep*"Put him down as a liar."Anyway yes.... as far as I am aware lie detector tests do not count as evidence in court cases purely because the result it gives are flawed at best. Sure they can be used to register if someone is nervous and aid in interviews, but as outright evidence? Nah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I'm only have way through the video gary linked, but right now I'm wondering how on earth this lad got convicted in the first place, nevermind failed appeals. The Police seem to have decided it was him from the start and have handled things in such a way as to point the evidence (or lack of) at him.It seems he had an alabi that fell apart because a witness saw someone vaguely fitting his description. She then picks him out of 12 photos where his was the only photo close to the description she gave but she couldn't pick him out in court, effectively suggesting he wasn't the person she saw that night. This then puts his alabi back in the picture. Combine that with the fact that they found no physical evidence to place him at the scene which is strange for such a brutal murder and this whole thing just smells funny.Having said all that, I am only half way through and it does seem to be produced to imply his innocence. Surely there must be more to this?EDIT: Got to the end of the video and it certainly paints a poor picture of the strength of his guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...