|
Post by TheWeeMan on Jan 22, 2005 1:22:41 GMT 1
Today 21 January 2005 at the High Court in Edinburgh, Luke Mitchell (16) was found guilty of murdering Dalkeith teenager, 14 year-old Jodi Jones. www.eveningtimes.co.uk/upload/210105nluke1.jpg[/img]It has been the longest single-accused murder trials in Scottish legal history. One of the reasons for this is that there was no actual forensic proof directly linking Mitchell to the victim. The Crown in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt had to present every little piece of evidence they had, however indirect. It is a tactic known as 'causation' and is extremely difficult area in Scots Law. Hence Marilyn Manson figuring in it all, Mitchell's school jotters, essays etc. A jury say Luke Mitchell is an evil young man. However no pop star helped him do what he did. He committed the henious act, all on his own. Much has been made of him being a goth, wearing baggies, having a thing about death, exhibiiting teenage angst, being anti-authority and smoking hash. But so do most all teenagers his age. So the question remains, WHY? www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5034821.htmlEDIT: Due to the amount of interested generated by this case I have stickyed this post.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Jan 23, 2005 12:16:53 GMT 1
Silent and defiant to the end, Luke Mitchell denied the family of Jodi Jones the one answer they needed www.sundayherald.com/47275How painstaking investigation uncovered enough circumstantial evidence to convict Luke Mitchell. www.sundayherald.com/47277Sunday Herarld 23rd Jan. 2005
|
|
|
Post by AshRox on Jan 27, 2005 20:33:03 GMT 1
when in discussion about this,i just wanted to say that his doing's cannot be blamed on the gothic music (which is different from heavy metal such as Marlyn Manson) that has definitely not been an influence in my opinion although this probably will be the excuse that they will use! Gothics are just people in a trend,not a cult!(-depending how extreme you get and by then you would not be called a goth,you would be a satanic!-which is a group of people you just dont want to go near!-but these people are not right in the mind...it is a release,an expression of anger and rage that they express and reflect through their clothing,the music symbolises the rage that they feel inside due to the pain of their past experiences,these people also tend to believe in the Devil as they have lost all good religion and the feeling that anything can be good that they choose to believe in something evil,as they feel resembles them as they are hugely emotional spouting feelings of anger and aggression....or they bottle it up and usually/eventually let it out in some horrible way! But they are confused and mix up their feelings of wanting to take their agression,anger,rage out on something,someone and they believe that their evil and having evil images,not just that the emotions are getting to them and them not letting their feelings out! In a way the outfits,the music is good for these satanics...its something that is actually on their side,usually these people tend to/can be suicidal and this music actually helps them in some way realise there are other things they can do,read between the lines and in a f**ked up head they actually bring solace and comfort! Its a way also to let out the pent up aggression they have against this world that they write things down,draw-horrible drawings about people dying or the devil etc etc and even lyrics to songs that would depress the life out of anyone,but it actually ceases them from jumping off a bridge,it keeps them away from the edge of the cliff,its their barrier against this! For questions,i would actually ask Luke Mitchell would be; does he dabble or do magic? does he self-inflict? Has he/did he have a bad childhood or was hurt in anyway in the past? does he think the world has been unfair to him? Does he worship the devil? Does he carry any mythological sybols,tattoos,signs scratched in to his body of anything of a gang,group,anything satanic or something he uses as a good luck charm? Did he belong to a group and what did they get up to? Has he ever hurt or neglected an animal?-what would be interesting if asked that would be at what age did he first ever hurt an innocent animal? If the answers came back negative then there is no way possible to do with satanics,not being right in the head etc etc And then i would start looking in to the prospect that it could of been someone else! if he was in a group it could be likely that he himself never committed the crime but that one of the other members did and he is covering up for them,is a way for him to earn gain his membership if it was a sick enough satanic group! when i think abbout it,the possibility of it being another person would show why he knew where the victim is but having problems with certain parts of the evidence etc
|
|
|
Post by Iain on Jan 28, 2005 2:02:09 GMT 1
How does on deduce he's not right in the head by asking those questions?
And another thing real Satanists don't actually worship Satan, in the Christian sense of the word,” Satan" is used as a symbol and metaphor rather than as an actual, anthropomorphic deity. To actually Worship Satan would be devil worshipping two completely different concepts
"Ritual killing (of humans or animals) violates Satanic principles. Blood drawn from a victim is useless. Victims are killed symbolically, not actually"
|
|
|
Post by russell on Jan 28, 2005 14:50:57 GMT 1
AMEN to that
|
|
|
Post by bobbiedog on Jan 31, 2005 1:44:55 GMT 1
Has anyone entertained the notion that he might be innocent? Or, if not convinced of his innocence, been concerned by the nature of his prosecution?
|
|
|
Post by FairTrial on Jan 31, 2005 10:07:54 GMT 1
> Has anyone entertained the notion that he might be innocent? > Or, if not convinced of his innocence, been concerned by the nature of his prosecution?
I don't know if he's innocent or not, but I was very concerned by the flimsy and circumstantial nature of the evidence brought forward against him and by the way in which he was demonised by the police from virtually the time the murder was committed. I was also disgusted by the way in which most of the "evidence" against him seemed to be about unsavoury personal habits and "disturbing" (to adults) reading and viewing material. Demonstrating that he wasn't a model of young adolescent behaviour is not the same thing as proving him guilty of murder.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Jan 31, 2005 22:15:07 GMT 1
You make some great points here. Fair Trial.
The evidence is entirely circumstantial, hence the reason why it was the longest single-accused murder trial in Scottish legal history.
I am sure after sentence is passed, his defence team will appeal the verdict on a number of grounds, including those you make above.
|
|
thinksoutsidethe box
Guest
|
Post by thinksoutsidethe box on Jan 31, 2005 23:46:18 GMT 1
On the Verdict of this case The Police stand and congratulated themselves on a job well done. They left a murder scene uncovered during a night of rain , moved the body, allowed refuse bins to be emptied and an ajoining field to be ploughed the next day. Had one person in their sights from the first day Luke Mitchell . Even although there was a published article in the Scotsman of a person not fitting Lukes description seen to be following her on the night she was murdered with curly hair. A distant cousin with Curly Hair (Ferris) shaves his hair off himself the next day.. admits to being on the path at the time of her death Although no admission to the Police until five days later , as in his own words did not think that was so important.On the night of the murder did not meet with friends as had been planned and has now moved out of the area completely and is said to have changed personality... Jodi Jones had over 347 Mutilations how did Luke Mitchell clean all the evidance ... They took away the plumbing in his house.... not one shred of dna....took away the log burner no evidence of clothes left over or dna.. Jodi had bruises and cuts on her hands from fiercely defending herself.. not a single mark on Luke not a scratch. None of Lukes dna on her body , under her fingernails . absolutely nothin......But oh yes he did it according to the Police,, And they are never wrong .. no-one before has been sent down for something they didnt do ....He maybe likes Marylin Manson...maybe smokes a fair bit of dope ..And we all know how angry and violent that makes you..He claimed to smoke massive amounts of joints to cover up for dealing that is his crime . They are all coming out the woodwork now the girls who were threatned with knives and now probably offered cheques to talk to tabloids where were all these people during the prosecution . People who now will not be named but dont mind saying . He has killed animals and threatened people with blades. Luke Mitchell is in Polmont awaiting sentance.. Having followed this case from the beginning I cannot believe the current position and feel the Donald Findlay has put to the Court a very feeble case for this young mans defence Back to top
|
|
|
Post by bobbiedog on Feb 1, 2005 1:26:23 GMT 1
thinksoutsidethebox, I've personally spoken to Mrs Mitchell by phone, and to a professional prison worker also in contact with the family: and we have shared concerns about the case. I am mindful to remain in contact with the family, and become part of a loose network supporting Luke and his family: and to over time, and cooperatively make the whole matter of the prosecution's material something that we chew over; and, perhaps, seek a long term push to have the verdict overturned as unsafe. I think that every aspect of the "evidence", from local Dalkeith, through the police and the media, and including the expert testimony: leaves ground for grave concern. I take it to be something of a ground breaking case: perhaps legitimating new canons of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Bobbiedog as guest on Feb 2, 2005 12:24:21 GMT 1
In the prosecution case, it did seem to be, that great wieght was put on the expert testimony of an American. I'll dig out the details if anyone were interested. This expert carried out a frame byframe analysis of an interview young Mitchell had with Sky TV. This expert claimed to be able to see where Mitchell displayed great joy, at a point where he deluded his listeners: and he termed this technically. Now it seems to me that an outsider, as Luke certainly is, even before you factor in his traveller heritage: is normally working with perspective and undertanding, which is at fudamental odds with those of the orthodoxy of your social context; where when you succeed in leading out your own perspective, against the flow perhaps of that othodoxy, then you have genuine and legitimate cause for a moment of elation. It need betoken no devious intent. There are points in the social reception of Luke Mitchell: when I am reminded of the reception of the black person, in the segragationist Southern staes of America; where if anyhting goes wrong with the white girl you date, then not only are you going down, even if you did nothing, but deep prejudice that was always running is now going to be free to see in you, whatever it wants, and perhaps fears.
|
|
|
Post by AshRox on Feb 2, 2005 16:40:10 GMT 1
Im trying to defend a trend that youths have and as Luke Mitchell is portrayed as being in and a part of that trend it could possibly make the public believe that all these youths are like that which just isn't the case! As for the possibility that he could be innocent!-that may well be the very case,they do not know for sure and he's being condemned/crucified by most of the public before they even know the truth or that he is actually guilty!-The media doesn't help much either,well some of it anyway! Had a thought there also,although only a 2 year age gap it still sounds weird in my eyes thinking of a 14 year old girl going out with a 16 year old!-it is a very dodgy age though i realise!-when comes to laws etc
|
|
|
Post by Bobbiedog as guest on Feb 2, 2005 17:13:59 GMT 1
Had a thought there also,although only a 2 year age gap it still sounds weird in my eyes thinking of a 14 year old girl going out with a 16 year old!-it is a very dodgy age though i realise!-when comes to laws etc My younger son, who is 14, and young within his class: has a 16 year old ADD friend, also a boy, and toiling in the educational system; and this lad has become part of the family. The ADD boy is more intellectually agile, and street wise than Fergus: but Fergus is ahead in social relations, and having a centre in which he is content as who he is; the ADD lad is much more powerful historical than Fergus, who is permanently off planet and only has a time sense to do with the inner timing of events. This odd couple work well together. Fergus is more or less the guiding intelligence of their movement together, and the other lad provides a muscular earthed vehicle, that simply could not be put together from Fergus's candy floss. Fergus keeps them both safe and in friendship with people, avoiding escalations: and in return he gets to run with the bigger, older boys. Why Jodi and Luke came together, I don't know anyhting about yet: but I would like to know more.
|
|
|
Post by Iain on Feb 2, 2005 19:32:22 GMT 1
I Had a thought there also,although only a 2 year age gap it still sounds weird in my eyes thinking of a 14 year old girl going out with a 16 year old!-it is a very dodgy age though i realise!-when comes to laws etc Its been 2 years since the murder, he was 14 at the time
|
|
|
Post by AshRox on Feb 2, 2005 19:52:49 GMT 1
my info's really screwed!-and it aint the sun!!! ah well screwed up information for a screwed up investigation...go figure!
|
|