I used to believe Luke Mitchell was innocent - now I have questions
.png)
So far, I've refrained from commenting on the matter of guilt or innocence and focused primarily on trying to highlight misinformation in the Luke Mitchell campaign - which unfortunately, there is a lot of. However, through stripping away the misinformation and lies about the victim's family, I inevitably do now have questions.
Here are some of them:
Number 1: Luke knew to turn left immediately after climbing through the V break
One of the biggest grievances for campaigners in support of Luke Mitchell's innocence, was that the other three members of the search party (Jodi's gran, sister and sister's then partner, often referred to as the search 'trio') present when Luke found the body, changed their statements. It was said that they all agreed with Luke in their first statements, that his dog had found the body, but later changed this to say that he had walked straight to the wall. We were told that the jury knew nothing of it. This can be found in various videos and interviews with Sandra Lean, as well as in her book Innocents Betrayed.
The problem is - only two of the members of the search 'trio' ever said that Luke's dog reacted at the wall. But none of them ever said that the dog reacted PAST the V break in the wall parallel to where Jodi was found. She wasn't just behind the V break, she was 16.3 metres to the left of it.
That's 17.8 yards/53 feet, 5 inches.
For comparison, a penalty area is 16.5 metres wide.
Again, Luke explained that he knew to turn left because his dog reacted around "20 yards" past the V break. At no point did the others agree with this. Evidence shows that they only ever said he went to the V break. Although Jodi's sister and her sister's boyfriend did describe in early statements, the dog pulling towards the wall and paws up on the wall - one of them said "As we approached the V in the wall, Luke's dog started pulling in to the side of the wall as it had been doing", none of them ever said that dog reacted after the V break - and furthermore, the jury did get to hear all of this.
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/08/why-did-luke-turn-left-when-he-climbed.html
If the dog did not react 20 yards past the V break - how could Luke have known to turn immediately left? Not only that, but he described walking along the path at the inside of the wall for about 6 feet, before seeing something and taking a few steps to register that it was a body and turning back to tell the others. According to statements, it took seconds for him to shout to the others. So, not only did he know which direction to look for the body and to walk 6 feet down in that direction, but he used his dog as the reason for this knowledge - something which simply cannot be backed up. And it all happened in seconds.
Number 2: Luke deleted the call register on his phone AFTER finding Jodi's body
Campaigners were outraged by the news from campaign leaders that Police had deleted the texts and call register on Luke's phone. Except, Police didn't. Luke admitted to doing that himself. This became evident after the release of court transcripts in 2023 which contained some of Luke's Police statements. Despite this, Sandra Lean carried on the claim that this had happened while the phone was in Police custody and that they had tampered with evidence (further information and links to court transcripts in the blog below).
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2023/12/luke-mitchells-mobile-call-register-and.html
According to the evidence of DC Towers, who took Luke's first Police statements, Luke told him that the phone would only have dates and times of calls after a certain point in the evening - probably about twenty five to eleven - because he had erased his previous calls in case he "accidently made an outgoing call from my phone".
But the call register wasn't deleted at twenty five to eleven (which would have been BEFORE Jodi's body was found) - the Police expert, according to a Herald article, believed the call register had been deleted after Luke's first call to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight and before the second call to his mum around 00:39. Link to article: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/.
This was AFTER Jodi's body was found.
A text was also sent at 00:27 from Luke's mobile - again, before Police took it. He denied sending it.
Some questions:
Why was deleting the call register on his phone a priority for Luke after finding his girlfriend horrifically murdered?
Why did he tell Police that he had deleted it before the murder, when it had been deleted after?
Why did Sandra Lean tell campaigners that Police were the ones who had tampered with it when she knew that Luke had actually admitted to doing this himself? She has this information - how do we know? Because it came from the court transcript of DC Towers, which had already been transcribed for his legal team. Sandra has made it clear that she has any transcripts that the legal team requested. The evidence of DC Towers was transcribed in 2013, 5 years before Sandra published her book with the tampering of evidence claim.
Question: Why did Luke deny owning a Germany army shirt when even his mum said that he had one?
Why did Sandra Lean claim he was wearing a bomber jacket with orange lining when she knew perfectly well that at least one witness had saw him wearing a green shirt?
There were another two boys with this witness, their testimony will follow soon.
Number 3: The writing on the knife pouch
Jodi Jones was brutally murdered with a knife (she also suffered other horrific methods of attack). Why would you write your murdered girlfriend's birth and death date on a knife pouch?
Some lyrics are scribbled on there too:
"The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came!"
The exclamation mark is noted
Number 4: Luke's brother didn't see him in the house at the apparent time of the murder. If he wasn't home, where was he?
Campaigners were told that Luke's brother did see Luke in the house, but that he wasn't believed by the Police or prosecution.
Luke's brother was clear in court that he didn't remember seeing his brother in the house when he got home from work and accessed porn on his computer (from around 4.55pm until just before his mum got home at 5.15pm) - and that he didn't see Luke in the house at all at tea time. He said he wouldn't have watched porn if he believed anyone was in the house. He had also said during an interview on 14th April 2004 that when asked in the context of watching porn, he didn't think Luke was in the house at this time. Police believed the murder took place at 5.15pm.
The appeal document lists 20 points of circumstantial evidence in Luke's case. Some of the questions in this blog relate to further points.
Yes, I'm well aware that they didn't find any of Jodi's DNA or blood on Luke Mitchell when that would probably be expected given the very bloody nature of the crime, that his hair was apparently unwashed and nails dirty etc. But does that mean it was impossible for him to have committed the crime? I believe there are too many points of concern here, to say no.
Number 5: He mentioned trousers she was wearing on Monday night?
"THE Jodi Jones murder trial yesterday heard a taped police interview in which the accused discussed his sexual relationship with the schoolgirl and his interest in horror films.
The jury listened to the interview with Luke Mitchell, which was recorded over several hours at a police station - days after he found Jodi's body near the woodland shortcut between their homes."
DC Quinn described the voluntary interview as "quite genial, a fairly relaxed conversation".
It goes on to say "Mr Mitchell also made reference to the cord jeans he said Jodi had been wearing "on Monday night", which he thought had been borrowed from Janine, her sister."
AT: "He did say Monday night"?
"He did, yes", Mr Quinn replied'
Comments
Post a Comment