The closing speech and directions to the jury

The closing speech of Luke Mitchell's trial, delivered by Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull on 18th January 2005, provides some insight in to the directions and instructions presented to the jury in regards to the deliberation of their verdict.

(Full transcript will be uploaded as soon as possible, along with others - please note, this just part of the closing speech and given as an example)

“I’ll explain to you what evidence the Crown say you ought to accept. I’ll explain to you why you ought to accept that evidence and I’ll explain to you why, if you do accept that evidence, it ought to be returning a verdict of guilty on the murder charge."

"Now in undertaking that evidence I’ll necessarily have to examine that evidence, I'll have to discuss it, I’ll have to analyse it, and in doing that of course, I’ll have to rely on my notes that I took at the time, on memory, my own understanding of the evidence. And when I discuss the evidence with you, my intention is to do that accurately and reasonably. And if you feel that I do undertake that exercise both accurately and sensibly, then perhaps you would feel that you would give some weight to what I have to say. 

And of course, in the context of the case we’ve been discussing, the charge about supplying cannabis is pretty small (inaudible), and for that reason and again, because the murder charge is the only important charge, I’ve decided to will it down (charge 2). What I’ve left in, is the part of the charge which flows from the discovery of the cannabis resin in the accused’s possession on 14th April 2004. And I’ve decided to do that in light of the fact that the evidence shows overwhelmingly that he must have been supplying cannabis to some extent in that period, and I’ll discuss that with you in just a minute, but also because of the really, pretty brazen way he conducted himself when he was interviewed by the Police about that.” 

 

In regard to the circumstantial evidence: 

In relation to the writing on Luke's school jotters: “Perhaps it’s just fantasy, perhaps it means absolutely nothing at all, and that might be right. On the other hand, it might demonstrate a genuine interest in morbid and unusual matters, and before you could know whether to make anything of it at all, you’d probably need to know a little bit more about the person. 

So, let’s introduce a further circumstance. The evidence tells us that Luke Mitchell was in the habit of carrying knives every day, even to school. This on its own may even mean nothing. Just because he happens to constantly be in possession of a knife doesn’t have to mean anything beyond that; although it can do. So what we’re doing in a circumstantial case, is gathering together our circumstances and seeing what they tell us." 

The Advocate Depute then goes on to provide further examples of circumstantial evidence against the accused, such as the claim he had told a girl that he could just imagine getting stoned, and going and killing somebody and how funny that would be, and the claim he’d told a male friend that he knew the way to slit someone’s throat.  

“Perhaps it’s just coincidental then, that Jodi had her throat slit, having left to meet that very same boyfriend"

The witness sightings are then brought into the mix; the clothing, style and appearance descriptions given by the witnesses are described as “at least similar”, which again might “just be coincidence” but “it may also be clear that once again, this young man is at least similar to Luke Mitchell.

“And in the end, in a circumstantial case, the combination of a group of different circumstances can mean that the truth just becomes more and more obvious. And that’s the position that I suggest you assist us with in this case”. 

“So let me do what I said I would. Let me explain what evidence the Crown ask you to accept. I ask you to accept the evidence of the family members; Janine Jones, Steven Kelly and Alice Walker. And I ask you to accept their evidence that Luke Mitchell went straight to the V as they moved down the path, and climbed over, knowing to explore further down the inside of the wall as opposed to anywhere else. And I ask you to accept their evidence, that none of the party went past the V at all until the point that Luke was climbing over it."

The jury are asked to examine at least 4 different statements from Luke describing how his dog reacted at the wall.

The 4 accounts are read out:

First account: "We walked past a V-shaped break in the wall and a few yards, not even 20 yards past that, Mia stopped and put her nose in the air and put her paws up on the wall as if trying to sniff over it. I went 'stop'. Jodi's gran and the others watched the dog. I said 'I think she's smelt something'. I handed the lead to Jodi's gran and asked her to hold on to the dog."

Second account: "She suddenly stopped, sniffed the air, put her head right up and was sniffing the air, when she turned to the right and faced the wall and started darting over to the wall and like sort of trying to jump up against the wall and sniffing over it."

Third account (14th August 2003): "When Mia stopped and air scented at the wall, then she started clawing up at the wall, we got to here, she sort of suddenly stopped, sniffed around, put her nose to the air, turned and went directly to the wall"

Fourth account (said by AT, seemingly not verbatim) "is the one given to Mr Overton in November of 2003. He seems to have said something along the lines, '25 yards after the v shape in the wall, dog was jumping over the wall"