Luke Mitchell trial transcript/case discussion

   A comparison is made between the information in the transcripts from Luke Mitchell's trial - and information out there in the public domain - particularly books written about the case such as Innocents Betrayed, by Sandra Lean. The purpose of this is not to argue guilt or innocence but to compare information and highlight misinformation. (IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean) Luke's other girlfriend - Page 169 IB "The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl" Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264 P2263 :   Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at

Calls to the speaking clock from Luke's mobile phone as logged in court transcripts "From 1st Jan of 2003 up to and including 30th June 2003": 3rd Jan: 17:03 (Friday) 4th Jan 12:59 (Saturday) 9th Jan: 11:05 and  12:21 (Thursday) 19th Feb: 16:30 (Wednesday) 28th Feb: 08:36 and 16:23 (Friday) 4th March: 20:49 (Tuesday) 10th March: 08:07 (Monday) 14th March: 19:00 (Friday) 2nd May: 12:27  (Friday) 22nd May: 08:45 *Another call is noted at  16:45, the date is not given but it looks as if this may be the same day (Thursday) 30th June: 16:53 (Monday) Link to transcript (page 1769) https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/sergeant-thomson-30122004-day-two-of.html

This blog isn't to argue guilt or innocence - I believe that facts are important, and looking at the source of a claim, is imperative. In high profile cases, evidence can often be sensationalized and contorted - if there is any valid argument to be made for the guilt or innocence of an individual, sensationalism should not be required.  A paragraph in the book 'A long walk to justice', by Scott Forbes, claims that John Ferris, one of the 'moped boys' who was in the vicinity of the murder scene around the time Police believe Jodi was killed, cut his hair so as not to look like the 'Stocky man'.  16 days after the murder, the press released an appeal for information on a Stocky man seen following a girl who resembled Jodi Jones at around 5pm. Police believe Jodi was killed at 5.15pm - her then boyfriend Luke Mitchell later was convicted of the murder in 2005. It was never ascertained who the 'stocky man' was - but  the author of A long walk to justice

One of the claims being made by campaigners, is that the jury were not made aware of the charges of perverting the course of justice being dropped - see image below:   The jury were made aware - see below for clarification: Page numbers for clarification regarding the jury hearing of Shane Mitchell's charges being dropped; 12/01/05 page 2079 - The jury leave the courtroom In the time between the jury leaving and returning, defence QC Donald Findlay makes an argument that the proceedings against Shane Mitchell for perverting the course of justice, should be dropped. This is eventually agreed after some lengthy discussion. Page 2132 - The jury return to the courtroom https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/11/shane-mitchell-full-transcript-12012005.html 13/01/05 page 2239 - Shane agrees, in front of the jury, that he had been told that there would be no proceedings against him - pages below: https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/11/shane-mitchell-fu

  There was a time when campaigners fighting the claimed wrongful conviction of Luke Mitchell raged against the vilification of a 14 year old boy, who they shouted, had not been proven to have committed the crime. Their fight fueled by the abhorrent public denigration of an individual, by a media who cared not for facts, only sensationalism. While the campaign has evolved from the 2021 documentary, in to a petition and protests - recent online presence from campaign leaders, one in particular, seems to be well represented in the screen shots below.  This online torrent of personal attacks appears to come as a response to campaigners highlighting discrepancies between newly released transcripts, and freedom of information responses - and 'case facts' provided by the two main campaign leaders.  Some of the people asking questions are individuals who have dedicated the past few years of their lives to fighting for the truth and believing that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.