Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Murder in a Small town.

110 replies

Thoughtsfortheday · 25/02/2021 12:08

Did anyone watch this (2nd part still to come)

Young girl Jodi Jones murdered horrifically in woods in Dalkeith, boyfriend was arrested and has been in jail for her murder for the last 18 years but always said he was innocent....

I’m from Edinburgh so was very close to home and remember the aftermath and remember Luke Mitchell’s picture on the front of every single newspaper, he never stood a fair trial from the start...

Wondered what everyone else thought about it?

OP posts:

BerylCook · 27/02/2021 12:58

That person is now out of prison living in the community

Unbelievable isn't it.

RubyWooRed · 27/02/2021 12:58

If it had been the other person ( who’s name I have seen ) then there would have links to him , especially as he must be on file with lots of DNA / details related to his other crime.

He must have been eliminated from the Jodi jones case

DrWankincense · 27/02/2021 13:03

Allegedly his mother has been re-housed since the documentary was filmed. There are some local raised eyebrows at the fact a gofundme page has been set up to help her.
I'm not sure exactly where the land is but the whole county is being developed, she could sell the land potentially? Not saying she should, just musing.
I found the documentary bizarre - all except for the unnamed suspect had been named in his appeals and discounted for whatever reason as far as I understood.
Some of the comments are mad. He was not convicted merely for the fact he was a goth etc. The media played a huge part in sensationalised those aspects.
He was found guilty by a jury. They don't always get it right but given that every appeal has been rejected that makes you think.
I knew an officer at the time and he said they knew who had done it but they had to tread very carefully because of who it was. I remember those words and it made sense when it came out.

DrWankincense · 27/02/2021 13:06

Again from what I have read the person to whom @RubyWooRed and @speakout are referring was not in the frame other than from local gossip as the two crimes were very different.

RubyWooRed · 27/02/2021 13:08

@DrWankincense

Again from what I have read the person to whom *@RubyWooRed and @speakout* are referring was not in the frame other than from local gossip as the two crimes were very different.

Yes seemed very different .

RubyWooRed · 27/02/2021 13:11

@DrWankincense

Allegedly his mother has been re-housed since the documentary was filmed. There are some local raised eyebrows at the fact a gofundme page has been set up to help her. I'm not sure exactly where the land is but the whole county is being developed, she could sell the land potentially? Not saying she should, just musing. I found the documentary bizarre - all except for the unnamed suspect had been named in his appeals and discounted for whatever reason as far as I understood. Some of the comments are mad. He was not convicted merely for the fact he was a goth etc. The media played a huge part in sensationalised those aspects. He was found guilty by a jury. They don't always get it right but given that every appeal has been rejected that makes you think. I knew an officer at the time and he said they knew who had done it but they had to tread very carefully because of who it was. I remember those words and it made sense when it came out.

There seem to be lots of people protesting his innocence on social media since the documentary has aired.

I think the documentary was very one sided.

I think they missed out loads like what exactly was the evidence he was convicted on , it wouldn’t just have been the eye witness account, which they seemed to focus on in the show.

I think his mother comes across very cold.

I think he comes across very cold and calculated on the phone call. His voice is emotionless , like a robot. Just stating that he did not do it.

It reminded me of the psychopath documentary I watched with Piers Morgan.

DrWankincense · 27/02/2021 13:22

@RubyWooRed
Absolutely.
I wondered if there is information the police did not release on purpose.

A lot of armchair detectives (I should include myself) and #freeluke.
I'm not 100% either way as I obviously don't have all the facts but I think it's morally reprehensible of C5 to make such a one-sided program and stir up such a hornet's nest. I hated the way those detectives referred to her body as it, as if the rest of the program wasn't bad enough.

Matilda2013 · 27/02/2021 13:28

@DrWankincense nevermind how they referred to her body.. The detective lying down where her body was found and pretending to be the dead body was awful.
I watched this first episode to see what all the fuss was about. I don't find it particularly convincing but I see a lot of people will have went with the no DNA aspect which is strange. Nowhere near as convincing as I thought it was going to be.

RubyWooRed · 27/02/2021 13:35

I just think that for many years prior to DNA evidence ,cases were brought and completed on other evidence.

Also , was the evidence washed away ? Was the crime scene left uncovered that night ? I thought I had read or seen that somewhere ?

I do think that he committed the crime , the only thing that I think is weird is the lack of evidence at his house. The lack at the scene I could understand , perhaps it was left uncovered etc , was there a tent put up ?

But you would think there would be microscopic blood traces on his door as they said.

The 5 hours in between is a long time though to clean v v thouroghly. ( If crime was committed at 5 ish then he found body at 10, what was Luke and his mother doing for those 5 hours ?

I would like to know - they completely missed this out.

speakout · 27/02/2021 13:52

DNA profiling was absolutely being used in Scotland in 2003. In fact Scotland had very advanced DNA technology at that time.
I know this because I worked closely with forensic laboratories in scotland a decade prior to Jodi's mirder.

DrWankincense · 27/02/2021 14:02

I know @Matilda2013, that just really jarred me when they said that.
I think they behaved quite disgracefully.

Covidcorvid · 27/02/2021 14:04

I totally get the documentary was very one sided.

But if it was him to leave no dna and to have no dna on him/at his house seems unbelievable. Especially when he had dirty fingernails according to the police. Surely if killed someone you’d be scrubbing your hands? But guess he could have scrubbed his hands and then dirtied them again?

I guess a total psychopath can lie and pass a lie detector test. And maybe his mum has spent so much time convincing herself he can’t have done it that she’s also able to pass a lie detector test? 🤷‍♀️

But then why not admit it now....especially as he’s coming up to a time period where he would be eligible for parole? Doesn’t he have to admit it to get parole? But maybe he thinks life in prison is better than coming out after admitting it knowing he will have no job, no friends, no relationships, no money, maybe struggle with housing, etc. I suppose people get institutionalised after so long in prison and maybe he thinks that’s a better prospect?

Phoebesgift · 01/03/2021 19:09

His guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RubyWooRed · 01/03/2021 23:03

@Phoebesgift

His guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We don’t know that We have not been made aware or informed of all of the evidence seen by the jury.

The jury must have been able to decide beyond reasonable doubt.

EdgedInBlue · 02/03/2021 02:12

@Phoebesgift

His guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If it hadn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt he wouldn't have been convicted - that's literally the standard of proof needed for conviction in criminal cases.

AlternativePerspective · 02/03/2021 04:41

The more I read about this the more I think that channel5 are in the wrong to have made this documentary.

So, a young girl is brutally murdered, a teenager is charged and convicted of her murder, to appeals have been unsuccessful, and a couple of amateurs (and yes, they behaved like amateurs out of some kind of spoof) whip up a frenzy making the murderer out to be the victim and stirring up support for a murderer on social media? How fucking dare they.

Who has commissioned this atrocity and why?

The jury found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so to the poster who says “he wasn’t found guilty beyond reasonable doubt,” yes, he was. Not once, but 3 times.

If this was a rape case where someone had been convicted beyond reasonable doubt and there was then a documentary to prove the rapist’s innocence would posters be supporting that?

I had read that the family were taking legal action against the makers of the programme and I hope they succeed.

As for Luke Mitchell, I hope he rots in hell.

Nicknacky · 02/03/2021 11:28

@AlternativePerspective And let’s not forget that Scottish jurors have the option for “not proven” and in my experience they aren’t afraid to use it.

If they had any doubt about the evidence then why didn’t they take what can sometimes be the easy option and find it not proven?

I have since read that the court documents can be found online so I’m going to have a read of them.

Oh and I read today that Luke’s dna was apparently found on her however both the prosecution and defence agree that this wasn’t evidentially relevant as they were in a relationship.

And that as she wasn’t sexually assaulted then why the emphasis on the condom on the programme? Apart from to make the viewer have doubts, of course.

The programme was a disgrace.

Original poster

Thoughtsfortheday · 02/03/2021 11:34

@Nicknacky

Where can we find the court documents, had looked before but was told they weren’t public...

OP posts:

Nicknacky · 02/03/2021 11:36

@Thoughtsfortheday I haven’t looked for them yet, I read it online today that a 42 page court document can be found online. I will have a google now and see if I can find it....l

Nicknacky · 02/03/2021 11:39

If you go onto scotcourts.gov and search judgements then the appeals are on there. I’m still looking to see if transcripts of the trial are available online.

Bloodypunkrockers · 02/03/2021 13:06

@Phoebesgift

His guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

What do you mean by that?

Of course it was.

RubyWooRed · 02/03/2021 13:16

[quote Nicknacky]@Thoughtsfortheday I haven’t looked for them yet, I read it online today that a 42 page court document can be found online. I will have a google now and see if I can find it....l[/quote]
These will be the appeal documents

Nicknacky · 02/03/2021 13:18

@RubyWooRed Yes, I followed up my post saying I had found the appeal documents on the Scot courts website. Will be an interesting read.

Marmozet3 · 06/03/2021 13:59

The documentary was very one sided and whilst I felt outraged as to why he had been found guilty; I then had to realise we hadn't heard the other side of the story.

Having read an article (as seen above in thread) going through why he was found guilty, I do lean more on the side of him committing the murder.

However, I don't feel there is enough to find him guilty by unreasonable doubt. I just can't fathom how he would have cleaned himself up after the murder. I know that they ruled DNA out but surely her blood would have been found inside his home.

Marmozet3 · 06/03/2021 14:04

Jodi Jones episode on Skinwalker: True Crime Podcast goes into the case in more detail.

From listening he seems to display the classic signs of a psychopath and his relationship with his mother was weird.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread