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

So he would have been free to the family with no cost to them ?
Apologies I have zero knowledge of these things and just assumed Legal Aid meant completely free.

@RubyWooRed can’t say directly as to outing but along the lines of clear psychopathic personality traits.
I have no doubt that his mother covered for him.
Will be interesting to see what the parole board make of him. I’d certainly not want him near my dd.

[quote giggly]@RubyWooRed can’t say directly as to outing but along the lines of clear psychopathic personality traits.
I have no doubt that his mother covered for him.
Will be interesting to see what the parole board make of him. I’d certainly not want him near my dd.[/quote]
That’s interesting @giggly

I share your beliefs.

Yes @RubyWooRed free to them, or to Luke. Criminal legal aid does have a contribution basis but we are talking a few pounds to a few hundred pounds if the accused was in full time employment. Luke would not have had a contribution.

Likely procedure would have been the duty solicitor would have been called initially, or the family/friend criminal solicitor if they had one. Sometimes they don't and duty might keep the case, or pass it after first appearance, or the accused might transfer it after first appearance. Often if someone is remanded they meet people in prison who suggest names to them and cases move that way.

The solicitor who then began to progress the case would do the very first appearance and then have legal aid for them, or whoever took it going forward.

The solicitor then does an application for legal aid for counsel, usually starting with a junior advocate. Once that was granted the junior would do an application for senior, ie, Donald Finlay. Given the nature of the offence that would also be granted. So he would have solicitor, junior and senior. Sometimes even two juniors. Not sure what the final number was here, as I said up thread I sat in some of it but honestly cannot remember.

It will have been a huge legal aid bill for sure.

Thanks @brokengate
That’s very informative

Fallen down this hole myself now.

Defence team was Donald Finlay, senior counsel, then Jane farquharson, junior, young, junior and then solicitor was Beaumont and co. All legal aid.

Wasn't Aaron Campbell's legal aid bill extremely high too?

Absolutely @Groovee . That must have caused a massive row within the legal aid board as he denied it throughout then admitted it during the preparation of the pre sentencing reports, after the bill had been ran up.

I’ve just watched the 2nd episode. Very amateurish!

They make much of this “new suspect” and that they have to be very careful what they say but he’s very strong suspect. But they offer absolutely nothing (presumably due to an injunction.)

The mother does seem mentally unwell. Its almost seems like she’s punishing herself and living in these circumstances whilst Luke is living in harsh environment too.
I wonder why she stayed on in the area?

There were a lot of red herrings like the condom, I believe Jodi was not sexually assaulted and think it could easily be someone who had a shag in the woods.

The detectives on the programme were definitely very amateur.

I do wonder about the lack of forensic evidence though. Jodi was brutally murdered and I would have thought it would have been impossible not to have had traces of blood on the killer.

Did he actually appeal the conviction? The 2008 appeal was the sentence length, I don't know if there were any other appeals.

It is impossible to have a proper opinion after watching a completely biased TV programme though.

One issue this programme has brought up is that clearly there was reasonable doubt and media bias. If someone can be convicted on circumstantial evidence and a jury can possibly be heavily influenced by the media then that is quite worrying. Luke Mitchell may well be guilty but the next person convicted in this manner may not.

I vaguely remember this in the papers when it first happened..And just assumed he was guilty

I then watched both parts of the documentary and was totally convinced he was innocent.

Then I listened to James English podcasts, he did an interview with Luke's mother and with the lady who featured a lot in the documentary (can't remember her name) and after listening to them. Something just doesn't sit right with me, gut instinct tells me his mother is lying, alot of waffling was done by lukes mother in the podcast, and she dodged a lot of questions, didn't make much sense and just gave me the feeling that she was lying about a lot of things, so I'm now back to thinking he may be guilty again. Definately worth a listen.

I read an article on this years ago and became convinced then he wasn’t guilty.

Even if he is guilty the documentary suggests that the police didn’t follow up other significant lines of enquiry which if true is quite worrying. I was surprised that if your cousin was murdered you wouldn’t come forward straight away to say you were at the exact spot she was found and see if you could be of help. Also if true their treatment of a minor at the time was very poor. The no blood/ dna link must’ve been problematic for the police.

The cousin thing I though was not an issue. The boys shouldn't have been on the bike on that path and possibly not at all so if they hadn't seen anything, then why would they possibly get themselves in trouble?

Also they may not have been close and were cousins in name only rather than folk that socialised regularly and knew each other. I had a cousin in the year above me in the same school and we never spoke a word to each other and didn't meet up as a family either.

@madddddd

I vaguely remember this in the papers when it first happened..And just assumed he was guilty

I then watched both parts of the documentary and was totally convinced he was innocent.

Then I listened to James English podcasts, he did an interview with Luke's mother and with the lady who featured a lot in the documentary (can't remember her name) and after listening to them. Something just doesn't sit right with me, gut instinct tells me his mother is lying, alot of waffling was done by lukes mother in the podcast, and she dodged a lot of questions, didn't make much sense and just gave me the feeling that she was lying about a lot of things, so I'm now back to thinking he may be guilty again. Definately worth a listen.

I thought she was very implausible. When she started talking about how she had to "slop out" ie she had no modern flushing toilet in her home, I thought that was taking the victim mentality and trying to gain sympathy to the heights of ridiculousness. Obviously she would be entitled to a council house. Very, very strange mentality.

And the criminologist who wasn't a lawyer but seemed to have done a phd on the case but had little insight into it from a legal perspective and seemed more interested in empathising with the killer's family members. She's one of those types of people who become obsessed with convicted killers and the pseudo-celebrity it brings.

Obviously, the victim's family declined to take part (who can blame them) and the victim was subsequently ignored...

Would be interested to see an in depth non biased documentary on this case

I am torn between wondering how Mitchell's family managed to destroy any dna evidence and thinking that he had the best possible defence and he was still found guilty. There's no way his QC didn't ask questions about the guys on the moped or the condom or the lack of dna. So the jury must have been convinced those questions were appropriately answered.
The documentary was a load of nonsense though, I'm sorry for the Jones family that they had to deal with that.

Thank you @RubyWooRed

But yes clearly it's his mother's choice to live like that, she would have been eligible for a council or ha property or to claim help with rent costs so does seem like she wants the attention of living like that.

@LoisWilkersonslastnerve

One issue this programme has brought up is that clearly there was reasonable doubt and media bias. If someone can be convicted on circumstantial evidence and a jury can possibly be heavily influenced by the media then that is quite worrying. Luke Mitchell may well be guilty but the next person convicted in this manner may not.

I watched last night and you’ve worded this better than I was able to.

I was trying to see the location of the caravan park and stumbled across a fatal accident enquiry involving corinne Mitchell, all to do with a caravan she sold. I agree, she doesn't have to live like that. The land must surely be worth something too unless there are debts? Maybe she is living on it to prevent it being sold to pay debtors? Who knows, that's complete speculation on my part.

Those investigators on the documentary made me think of those spoof detectives you see in those light-hearted murder programmes iyswim, you know, where the detective is a bumbling idiot who nobody really takes seriously but who ends up with an answer none the less. It was entirely Impossible to take them seriously.

At the end of the day, he was found guilty, sentenced, appealed, and iirc the high court threw out a second appeal as well.

And a biased documentary created to prove innocence is always going to present a case that does just that. I would imagine that someone could create a documentary “proving” Harold shipman’s innocence as well even though it is known without any doubt that he is not.

I was a teenager at the time of the killing and I remember this case so well. What happened to Jodi was awful, how could someone do such a thing. The brutality of the murder is really quite shocking.

It was all over the papers for months. They really did go to town on this boy and his family. I was absolutely convinced based on what was written in the media. They had copies of his school jotters with 666 and strange phrases, they branded him a devil worshipper. Said he carried a knife and so on.

What I do remember though is that his mum was supposed to have been seen burning stuff in the garden.

I'm sure that she wasn't sexually assaulted so for them to go on about a used condom is pretty pointless.

I'm really in 2 minds now I'm surprised he got convicted if they only had circumstantial evidence. It must have been good, I would love to know what all the actual evidence against him was, this documentary didn't actually tell you any of it!

Yes, they only focused on bits of evidence that they thought they could refute or that potentially implicated other people and nothing about any other evidence that surely exists.

I’d definitely like to watch a more balanced documentary covering both sides however, that really is what the trial was for.