Luke Mitchell documentary

[IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021]

Did anyone watch tonight? I don't know much about the case originally as I was a teenager when it happened but I do remember how horrific it was and parents etc talking about it.

Was he on trial by media? The doc tonight certainly seems to be leaning that way. I think it's so coincidental it's been shown tonight when the whole Scottish institution is being questioned? I hope for Jodis family it is resolved one way or another

I didn't live there at the time, but live very close by now. I'm not sure of his guilt but I believe that the town feels that he is guilty.

C5 are piss poor, two episodes was not enough, they raised questions but didn't answer them and missed obvious things out. Why didn't we hear more about Lukes timeline? What was he doing before the alarm was raised? When Jodi didn't turn up to meet him, where did he go? Total wasted opportunity to do a proper analysis. Totally agree with a pp that it was sensationalist in tone, not much info about poor Jodi as a person.

Has part two been screened?

@speakout

Has part two been screened?

Yes last night at 9pm.

The true aspect of this documentary was to show Luke was innocent.

Indeed it was, I've not watched part 2 yet but my adult nephew is convinced he is innocent and his pals all responding the same. I'll watch part 2 later. The detectives didn't fill me with confidence. That mocked up first scene when they say, well what do we know about this case, started with luke's circumstance. It should have started with the fact a child was brutally murdered.

I feel like this was missing a lot, and I'm not sure it's because it was "sensationalised" or whatever.

I mean, Netflix How to Make a Murderer and Don't Fuck With Cats were also "sensationalised"... but still about 100 x more informative than Small Town Killer.

Why wasn't there a timeline? They kept saying it was circumstantial evidence that put Luke away, but what circumstantial evidence?

It made it look like there was none at all, and I'm just not sure how I'm supposed to believe that. There must have been some evidence other than the woman who said she saw him but took it back in court?

Apparently the mum's alibi for him was discredited by his brother, yet that wasn't touched on at all. So where was he? What did he do when she didn't show up to meet him?

I think it raised more questions than it answered to be honest.

And as for "they could offer to let me out now and I'd still maintain I didn't do it" well yeah, you're at the end of your sentence now? Would he have done it one year in?

I'm not disputing things are strange / wrong. The police treatment of him was poor, and also the other suspect who can't be named for legal reasons.

I just feel like that documentary was a total waste of an opportunity and ITV, C4 or Netflix would have done a much better job. And I don't mean "lets take the brutal murder of a child and make it entertaining", I just mean if you're going to do it - at least get to the facts.

Yes, he was supposed to be meeting Jodie so why wasn't he there? Just seems like a lot of things that could have happened rather than focusing on the evidence that convicted him and why that was wrong? Unless that's covered in part 2 that is.

Part two is worth watching as it explains why so many people think he is innocent. I must admit, as poor as the documentary was, it's hard not to conclude it was a miscarriage of justice. I wish they'd got some more credible journalists, experts etc

There's a lot of pertinent information that the documentary just didn't even bother to address. It's nothing remotely approaching an objective investigation or analysis, more a propaganda piece on the behalf of those who believe Luke Mitchell is innocent. Really disappointing.

They were also deliberately sleekit with how they chose to present some of the 'evidence' casting doubt on the verdict. You might like to google the names of the two former policemen featured, perhaps along with the term 'fraud'.

I’m from south Edinburgh and a stone throw from Dalkeith, my dad was also in L&B’s police at the time. My dad thought he was guilty from the frost day the body is discovered and like any crime I ask him about always says you only hear what is public...

He had the best representation, he was a child and there was only circumstantial (left!!!) but a full jury still without any doubt found him guilty and two appeals have been over ruled....

I think that speak volumes!!

As for the mum, I must have a heart of steel but she gave me the creeps and I thought she was guilty as hell, between holding a seance style vigil and inviting the papers in on the same day as Jodi’s funeral, burning clothes the evening of the murder, and the brother alps being a dodgy suspect known to have killed many of the family’s pets over the years they write up as quite a disturbed family!

Episode 2 seems to have disappeared? Was going to watch with my lunch.

Yes I was going to watch episode 2 later but it's not there! Do you think it's not been added to catchup yet?

I seen on Facebook that there is a part where it shows the name of the suspect they where not allowed to name so they have taken it down but will put it back up soon.

Ah thank you @IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021
I'll check it again later

I don't know what to think now I have watched it.

Is he due to be released soon?
How he behaves after release will give some clue as to whether he was innocent, I suppose.
I don't wish to watch it. The appeals process is how wrongful convictions are reversed, not the media.

I just think there must be far far more to the case that we as the public have never been made aware of.

I think his lack of remorse and emotion is strange.

Think they said 17 years he's been jailed. So still 3 years to go as he got a minimum tariff of 20 years.

I only saw Part 2 and I thought it was very badly done. So one sided, not a single word of sympathy from anyone for the young girl who was murdered.

I thought what the "interested" (obsessed?) bystanders presented as "evidence" was really unconvincing. Do people really take the word of people like this at face value? "Because I say its good evidence it is good evidence?"

As to the mother, odd woman, far far too keen on media coverage and being in the public eye.

As for the lie detector tests, don't psychopaths usually pass them anyway, because they don't feel fear? The amygdala in their brains isn't well linked to the central cortex so they don't often fail lie detector tests? The ability to pass a lie detector test is actually part of the FBI's profiling for murderers who mutilate their victims.

@GreenlandTheMovie

I only saw Part 2 and I thought it was very badly done. So one sided, not a single word of sympathy from anyone for the young girl who was murdered.

I thought what the "interested" (obsessed?) bystanders presented as "evidence" was really unconvincing. Do people really take the word of people like this at face value? "Because I say its good evidence it is good evidence?"

As to the mother, odd woman, far far too keen on media coverage and being in the public eye.

As for the lie detector tests, don't psychopaths usually pass them anyway, because they don't feel fear? The amygdala in their brains isn't well linked to the central cortex so they don't often fail lie detector tests? The ability to pass a lie detector test is actually part of the FBI's profiling for murderers who mutilate their victims.

Yes I don’t give any credit to them passing the lie detectors

Luke seemed to be ready controlling his breathing as he was doing it

The credibility of the Investigators is at best dubious. They & their 'expert witnesses' all appear to potentially have their own agenda .

He was defended by Donald Finlay. I cant imagine he'd have missed anything that would have helped a jury find Mitchell not guilty.at the time

A jury found him guilty, several appeals have been turned down - thats good enough for me quite honestly

It was completely biased reporting & seemed to totally overlook the fact a poor girl was murdered

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/luke-mitchell-wont-say-hes-23575193

^^Totally agree

Yes I was thinking that about Donald Findlay , is this the only case he has lost ? He seems quite a ruthless lawyer.

Donald Findlay is indeed ruthless. Feared in the legal community.Will not tolerate losing a case. I have met him, seen him in action. Huge intellect, brillant speaker, crushes those against him.