Murder in a Small Town

[TheScarf]

This was a TV program on last night but it probably belongs here, it was re-examining the conviction of Luke Mitchell for the murder of Jodi Jones in 2003.  Was really fascinating, you had 2 ex-detectives turned PI looking over all the evidence, along with a forensic professor and there was lengthy interview's with Mitchell's mum about what happened that day.  I was only 17 at the time of the murder so didn't really pay much attention to the media craze surrounding it at the time, but the evidence against Mitchell was incredibly circumstantial.  There was no hard evidence against Mitchell and he could not be placed at the scene by anyone or by any DNA.

There appeared to be a handful of other suspects who could be physically placed near the scene on the day, all they had on Mitchell was an eyewitness who then couldn't identify Mitchell in court, and testimonies from the others who found her body along with Mitchell (which differed from statements given to police on the day, notably how Jodi's dog alerted Mitchell to something over the wall but then in court they said it was Mitchell himself who went to look over the wall with no help from the dog.)

The PIs concluded that Luke didn't murder Jodi and that one of the other suspects (who couldn't be named legally) possibly did.  Police Scotland gave a statement saying they were satisfied with the evidence against Mitchell and that the case will not be re-opened

Did anyone else see it?

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

What channel was it on?

[TheScarf]

5.

[Lex]

He’s guilty as hell and let’s hope he lets in prison for the rest of his life.

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

He had long hair, listened to Marlyn Manson, smoked JOINTS!!, and wore black clothes. Course he did it, and if he didn't then it was only a matter of time before he did.

[Fratelli]

This the same one that was on a year or two ago? I seem to remember it being ridiculously over sensationalised at times, and as if there was absolutely no reason for anyone to think he was responsible. It was discussed on here at the time IIRC, and a few folk who knew more about it than me seemed to suggest that loads of key points had been conveniently left out the documentary. 

[paranoid android]

There are threads on this already.

I'm from the place where this horrific murder took place, and know a few of the characters, including some that were on the show.

The evidence used to convict was circumstantial, but it's complicated.

The one thing I can say for sure is that this documentary is ridiculously one-sided in Mitchell's favour, and there is no effort at balance.

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, Fratelli said:

This the same one that was on a year or two ago? I seem to remember it being ridiculously over sensationalised at times, and as if there was absolutely no reason for anyone to think he was responsible. It was discussed on here at the time IIRC, and a few folk who knew more about it than me seemed to suggest that loads of key points had been conveniently left out the documentary. 

Not sure, possibly as Mitchell said he was 'nearly 32' which would tie in with it being a couple of years old as I'd make him 33/34 now. Re the evidence missed out, didn't they say there was 3 key pieces of evidence against Mitchell?  They mentioned the eyewitness account, which turned out to be false, and the fact that he found her body, I'm not sure if they mentioned the 3rd.

[TheScarf]

2 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

There are threads on this already.

I'm from the place where this horrific murder took place, and know a few of the characters, including some that were on the show.

The evidence used to convict was circumstantial, but it's complicated.

The one thing I can say for sure is that this documentary is ridiculously one-sided in Mitchell's favour, and there is no effort at balance.

I think that was the intention, due to the media at the time wanting him executed.  I can't decide if he did it or not, the point for me is the discovery of the body, it seems sus as fuck.

[paranoid android]

Just now, TheScarf said:

I think that was the intention, due to the media at the time wanting him executed.  I can't decide if he did it or not, the point for me is the discovery of the body, it seems sus as f**k.

The thing that most people point to is that Mitchell's brother was supposedly in a position to provide an alibi, but chose not to - you have to wonder why that is.

The media reports at the time were way over the top, but so is this documentary - the alleged active investigation was the two idiot detectives who'd been hired by the show's producers. 

It's like one of the many cheap shoddy documentaries about the Yorkshire ripper that crop up on Channel 5 all the time - appalling and shameful, imo. 

[invergowrie arab]

On one hand the grounds for conviction seem unsafe, even if he did do it.

On the other his mum seemed really weird so it's hard to know. 

[ICTChris]

He shagged his own mum.

[welshbairn]

Haven't seen the show and know nothing about the case, but is it not unusual for a 14 year old to be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years, even for murder? 

[paranoid android]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Haven't seen the show and know nothing about the case, but is it not unusual for a 14 year old to be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years, even for murder? 

Much more than a murder, imo -post mortem mutilation indicates a right wrong 'un. 

[PWL]

Polis pal who had very minor involvement in the investigation said there were a lot of things never made public about the case and Jodie herself was no angel. 

Annoyingly, they were highly professional and would never tell us any details. 

 

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

Much more than a murder, imo -post mortem mutilation indicates a right wrong 'un. 

Seems he got tried as an adult because he got caught selling dope 2 years later, which makes zero sense to me.

[Hillonearth]

38 minutes ago, PWL said:

Polis pal who had very minor involvement in the investigation said there were a lot of things never made public about the case and Jodie herself was no angel. 

Annoyingly, they were highly professional and would never tell us any details. 

 

Mate of mine's brother was involved too - very similar degree of omerta, but also said there was a lot of stuff that wasn't going to make the public domain. I don't think there was any suggestion that they were less than comfortable that they'd got the person who did it though.

[supermik]

Heard his brother sectioned himself just after the murder. The day after he came back out, Luke was arrested.
On a personal level I still find his conviction strange due to the lack of evidence tying him to the case. There must be other evidence that was withheld from the public domain that was strong enough to put him away. Also, is it still the case that you can only be considered for release if you admit to the crime? He might be in for a while if that is what happens.

[TheScarf]

He got a minimum of 20 year so he might be out in 3 if he’s kept his nose clean. There absolutely must be evidence that’s been withheld, the evidence known to the public that was used to convict him was laughable.

[Detournement]

Did he not burn a load of his clothes? The jury being shown Marilyn Manson videos was something which should never have been allowed but the Scottish legal system pretty much makes it up as it goes along. 

Another murder which got a conviction with no evidence was that of the Celtic Youth player Lawrence Haggart. A local paedo was convicted despite there being no evidence linking him to it and prior to that Central Scotland Police tried to frame the victims 12 year old brother. It's an utterly bizarre case and would be ideal for one of those true crime podcasts.