A sexual motive? The prosecution and defence perspective?

 

Page 227&228 Innocents Betrayed

"The second was the claim that the crime was not sexual in that Jodi was not raped or sexually assaulted. It comes as something of a surprise, then, to discover that on 26th October 2004 (about a month before the trial got properly underway), a report was made by a professor of forensic medicine regarding both of these points (*Black Dahlia and sexual assault). This report stated that there were “no forensically significant similarities between the injury patterns in these two victims” (*Elizabeth Short and Jodi Jones) aside from the fact that they were “both apparently sexually motivated homicides of young women with post-mortem mutilations of the body with a sharp instrument."

Continued..."This report added another piece of significant information regarding the sexual element of the crime.

The whole police and prosecution approach was based on an understanding that proof of a sexual element would, of necessity, be what most of us would understand as straightforward or obvious evidence - the presence of semen, injuries consistent with forced sexual contact and so on.

But, what investigators were dealing with was far from obvious or straightforward. The psychological makeup of whoever did this to Jodi was far from straightforward, even if there could be such a thing as a straightforward murder and there were specific clues to that psychological makeup in the manner and detail of the attack on Jodi.

The report addressed this issue specifically, pointing out that the post-mortem injuries may have reflected “piquerism” - “that is to say, gaining sexual pleasure from cutting and stabbing.” This was obviously no ordinary means of gaining sexual pleasure, yet was completely ignored by investigators, the prosecuting team and, sadly, it seems, the defence team as well (although, if the prosecution did not suggest, in court, that the murder was sexual in nature, it would have been difficult for the defence to introduce this evidence)."

On 29/12/04, during the evidence of Sgt Thompson, the jury are asked to leave so that Donald Findlay could object to the use of Luke's section 14 interrogation, due to the fact he believed it was "manifestly unfair" (page 1557).

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/sgt-george-thomson-29122004.html

Findlay reads out a statement from the section 14 interrogation (page 1600) 

Police, 14th Aug 2003: Okay, we’ve spoken to psychologists during this inquiry and they’re telling us the circumstances surrounding Jodi’s body was probably a sexual motive. Is that that reason why you did this? Was it some sort of arousal you get for the reason you have done this?” 

Findlay continues:  

“Well my Lord, if the Police have reports from psychologists saying that there was sexual motive, I would like to see them. There is no psychologist the defence has spoken to, who has said anything of the sort, and in the absence of actually seeing reports to that effect, one has to doubt the veracity of that assertion."

It would appear that although the prosecution may not have used a sexual motive as one of their main points, they did attempt to use an interview in which a sexual motive was mentioned and whereby Luke was questioned on the basis of this - clearly, at one point, investigators did seem to believe that a sexual element may have existed. It's unclear whether this particular excerpt of the interview would even have been read out to the jury. It was however, Donald Findlay, Luke's defence QC, who who argued not only against the use of the interview, but against there being any evidence of the existence of any sexual motive.

The judge's resolution was to allow certain excerpts from the interview to be used, but that the Advocate Depute did not seek to bring out certain passages in which the Police referred to information they said they had, or in which they expressed their own views about the accused's credibility. He did not think the interview had been conducted unfairly.

During the evidence of pathologist Anthony Busuttil, the prosecution did also acknowledge and discuss the possibility of sexual motivation.

A condom was found at the murder scene, near Jodi's body. The owner of the condom was identified in 2006 after his DNA was entered in to the National database for another crime. During Luke's 2008 appeal, Donald Findlay dropped claims relating to this individual, after appeal judges were told he should have been a suspect. Findlay stopped pursuing an interest in the owner of he condom "as a result of investigation". The exact reasons have never been made public.