Luke Mitchell trial transcript/case discussion

  Where did the Manson theory come from?  This blog isn't intended to argue guilt or innocence, we will take a look at the Manson theory, possible origins and relevance to the case. IB Page 230:   "During Luke’s first interview as a Voluntary Attender on July 4th, Marilyn Manson was mentioned several times – each time the investigating officers came back to the music Luke liked, even though he’d told them his favourites were Eminem and Nirvana, he was “reminded” about Manson. The question is why? Luke did not express any particular interest in Manson, yet the investigating officers added his name to any list of preferred bands or musicians that Luke volunteered." During a discussion with Dr Campbell at some point prior to October 2004 - after his arrest, Luke explains who Elizabeth Short was and that she was portrayed by dancers in the Marylin Manson DVD. He describes the injuries sustained by Short, including chunks of skin removed from her chin and left breast and injur...

  The above statement was made Scott Forbes, author of the book 'A long walk to justice'. The book focuses on the murder of Jodi Jones and claimed wrongful conviction of Luke Mitchell.  Campaign supporters were told by Dr Sandra Lean, who previously worked on the case with Forbes, that trial transcripts weren't available. This is incorrect, they are available - but interestingly, the discussion of the transcripts online has resulted in personal attacks by campaign leaders.  Despite writing a book based on the case and regularly referring to what happened at the trial, Mr Forbes has stated that he hasn't read the transcripts:     This could explain the list of discrepancies below. These are just some. Surely books should be fact checked, and if the author is not willing to look at the available resources - where exactly are they getting the facts from? A long walk to Justice (ALWTJ) , by Scott Forbes page 919 "Records show the knife was handed in to Police by Luk...

  In November 2022, the story broke in the Scottish Sun, that Police had destroyed evidence from the Jodi Jones murder case. The claim was, that this had been done illicitly: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9846975/cops-destroyed-evidence-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/ The article states: " It then emerged that detectives had mysteriously taken it all away in September 2021 - just a few months after a shock TV documentary claimed there was major doubt on Mitchell’s guilt." According to Scott Forbes, when the documentary aired, somebody was told by a member of the Police that the productions from the case were being destroyed.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLM2jxngXc The documentary aired on Channel 5 in February 2021.  In an interview in November 2023, Mr Forbes said that the Police person had come to him " maybe 18 months ago" , which would be around May 2022 - 15 months after the documentary first aired.  If it is the case that someone was informed near the...

  To be clear, the point of this blog is not to suggest that the other samples have indeed been tested, or that there is any deceit at play. I do however, think it's completely reasonable to ask these questions after some of the information that has recently come to light.  In November 2022, the story broke that Police had been in the process of destroying the productions from Luke Mitchell's case.   https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9846975/cops-destroyed-evidence-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/ It was claimed that 300 samples remained - including untested semen samples taken from Jodi's body. https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-prisoner-luke-mitchells-lawyer-27593040 " After the show aired, Mr Forbes applied for access to evidence and material gathered by  police ahead only to learn it was in the process of being destroyed. It was halted by the Lord Advocate, but only 300 samples are said to remain. Private Eye states that these i...

  Innocents Betrayed Page 261  "on July 15th (2003) , Michelle Lindsay entered Luke’s bedroom alone with him. She asked him for videos in his possession, which he handed over and asked about liquid in bottles in his room. On opening these bottles and smelling them, she concluded that they contained urine. The “bottles of urine” evidence, used to devastating effect to suggest that Luke Mitchell was weird, was obtained by trickery – Luke was never cautioned, Michelle Lindsay was not corroborated and she was actively misleading the family, not only about her role, but about their status in the investigation as suspects. (Both Shane and Corinne were arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice). But Michelle Lindsay’s influence went further still" IB Page 231 "It is in this respect that the role of Michelle Lindsay, the Family Liaison Officer, cannot be underestimated. It was she who took bottles of urine from Luke’s bedroom and questioned Luke, with...

This blog isn't intended to argue guilt or innocence - just to highlight case facts.  A text was sent from Jodi's mum's phone to Luke's mobile at 16:35 on 30/06/2003 . A response was sent from Luke's phone back to Jodi's mum's at 16:36 , then a further reply is sent back to Luke's at 16:38 - that's the end of the text exchange. These times are taken from court transcripts.  The content of the texts could not be recovered from either phone.  What was in the texts? The following is a paragraph taken from Innocents Betrayed By Dr Sandra Lean, page 36 - 'The agreed facts': "Monday, June 30th, the 4.34pm text from Judith’s phone to Luke’s (Jodi’s phone was broken) asked, did he want to meet up with Jodi later that evening? Luke texted back saying he would be out after tea and suggested Jodi come down from her home in Easthouses to meet him near his home in Newbattle." Let's compare that to what Luke told DC Alan Towers was said ...

IB Page 159 : "A civilian employee of Lothian and Borders Police analysed the mobile phone’s call records during the investigation. He said that only one number – Corinne’s - was stored in the phone’s recently made calls list. Asked by the prosecuting QC why no more calls were listed, Mr Morris said: “Basically because the call register had been deleted,” adding that “in all probability” the register had been deleted just after half past midnight in the early hours of July 1st, 2003… when the phone was already in the possession of the police. The police officer who took Luke’s phone from him in the car park was not wearing gloves and the phone was not securely packaged in a sterile environment – instead, the officer switched the phone back on to call Luke’s mum." IB page 160 :  "But not only was the call log deleted after the police took Luke’s phone - a text was also sent while the phone was in the hands of police investigators (who were prepared to lie about Luke che...