• Guest, The HibeesBounce invites you to enter our Monthly Draw...

    Enter our Monthly Draw Here

    GGTTH

  • hibeesbounce

Luke Mitchell

As this thread shows, there is huge controversy around witnesses, and a complete lack if evidence. In the respect of the murder, its highly suspect they had no DNA
 
One big thing wrong with that mate. HE never led them straight to the body, all 4 witnesses stated his dog was sniffing like mad at the opening of the wall and he went to check and found her.
But strangely all the other 3 witnesses had changed their story to the exact same changes in court, completely leaving the dog out! They were statements made at the time to police, yet miraculously all 3 had changed stories yo the exact same changes in court.
Far too much inconsistency and massive lack of evidence.. findlay clear never done a decent job
Thank goodness he had his dog S.
The 2 wee laddies who saw mitchell at the time and they knew both stated"he was uptae nae good".

Inconsistencies? You mean like the one where the whole defence relied on him being in the kitchen cooking wi his ma... when mitchells own brother stated under oath that mitchell and his ma were not in the house at that time. Thats pretty inconsistant ! Why would innocent people make up a story of where they were at the time of the murder? Who would innocent people burn clothes in their garden on the day of them murder? (to the point where awful smells were wafting into neighbours properties, and they made complaint to the police about). Putting that intae perspective, the mother wasnae known as a burner of clothes prior to this day. A couple of his meaty prized knife collection were gone.? By all accounts he really liked his knives.

Findlay is a top QC bro. He doesnae make those types of rookie mistakes. Im as sure as a Big G 3zip that if findlay could find a way to aquittal - he would find it.

Your massive lack of evidence doesnae stack up imho. There was such a lack of evidence that he was convicted by a jury of peers, sentenced by the high court judge, then upheld by 3 separate judges over the years. At each one of these - no new evidence was put forward that would admonish him.


I stand by everything I posted about the programme. Not one thing in the programme was new. Everything in it is and was in the public eye.

Ah dinnae ken if he was innocent or guilty, I wasnae there. (and Im no defending the law in any way S, they put me through hell about 6 years ago, and completely understand your suspicision of our police. Defs.).
 
I’m going to watch the second part with my wife tomorrow as she knows very little about it and I’m keen to hear her views from that position.

if there was real evidence of a miscarriage of justice there would be some serious professionals getting involved. So far there’s been a crackpot amateur criminologist, a couple of crackpot ex policemen, a vulnerable mother and a few radge crackpot experts that no one has heard of.

there was a lawyer, but he wasn’t given any real time to develop a specific picture of what is so unsafe.

I believe there’s some crackpot podcast host got some dynamite he’s planning on releasing soon.

I think it’s really tough for the victims family to have to endure this, and I don’t think the motives of the programme makers are to right a miscarriage of justice. It sure ups their profile though.

not the police aren’t bent sometimes obviously.
 
Thank goodness he had his dog S.
The 2 wee laddies who saw mitchell at the time and they knew both stated"he was uptae nae good".

Inconsistencies? You mean like the one where the whole defence relied on him being in the kitchen cooking wi his ma... when mitchells own brother stated under oath that mitchell and his ma were not in the house at that time. Thats pretty inconsistant ! Why would innocent people make up a story of where they were at the time of the murder? Who would innocent people burn clothes in their garden on the day of them murder? (to the point where awful smells were wafting into neighbours properties, and they made complaint to the police about). Putting that intae perspective, the mother wasnae known as a burner of clothes prior to this day. A couple of his meaty prized knife collection were gone.? By all accounts he really liked his knives.

Findlay is a top QC bro. He doesnae make those types of rookie mistakes. Im as sure as a Big G 3zip that if findlay could find a way to aquittal - he would find it.

Your massive lack of evidence doesnae stack up imho. There was such a lack of evidence that he was convicted by a jury of peers, sentenced by the high court judge, then upheld by 3 separate judges over the years. At each one of these - no new evidence was put forward that would admonish him.


I stand by everything I posted about the programme. Not one thing in the programme was new. Everything in it is and was in the public eye.

Ah dinnae ken if he was innocent or guilty, I wasnae there. (and Im no defending the law in any way S, they put me through hell about 6 years ago, and completely understand your suspicision of our police. Defs.).
hmm the small part of the proramme i saw didnt seem to paint that picture , makes you wonder what the point of it was ??
 
I’m going to watch the second part with my wife tomorrow as she knows very little about it and I’m keen to hear her views from that position.

if there was real evidence of a miscarriage of justice there would be some serious professionals getting involved. So far there’s been a crackpot amateur criminologist, a couple of crackpot ex policemen, a vulnerable mother and a few radge crackpot experts that no one has heard of.

there was a lawyer, but he wasn’t given any real time to develop a specific picture of what is so unsafe.

I believe there’s some crackpot podcast host got some dynamite he’s planning on releasing soon.

I think it’s really tough for the victims family to have to endure this, and I don’t think the motives of the programme makers are to right a miscarriage of justice. It sure ups their profile though.

not the police aren’t bent sometimes obviously.
much more eloquent and to the point that my posts

(@Hattie - apologies for rambling post S)
 
hmm the small part of the proramme i saw didnt seem to paint that picture , makes you wonder what the point of it was ??
from what the authorities told the victims family before this was put on air, was that the prog was an attempt to raise the profile of those involved (and I dont mean those involved in the actual murder)..

@Purple & Green put it much better than I ...

(and im not for 1 minute saying he is guilty or innocent - its not my place, was just trying to put a one sided tv show into a bit of perspective)

Edit - the more i think about it - outwith the incident itself is the trial by media we have in our lands. Not 1 paper or tv station should have the right to plaster an accused over their headlines. A person should only be named in public, if that person was convicted and sentenced.

In this particular case, the public shouldnt have known e.g. that the accused kept bottles of his piss in jars in the room, or his infatuation with famous knife murders of the past. Thats painting a picture of mental health issues, and those sort of things, if they were relevant, should have been dealt with in the courtroom by health professionals. How can anyone really get a fair crack if our gutter media can act like this with impunity?
 
Last edited:
much more eloquent and to the point that my posts

(@Hattie - apologies for rambling post S)
I was thinking the same of your posts! They articulately put across my feelings on the matter.
 
from what the authorities told the victims family before this was put on air, was that the prog was an attempt to raise the profile of those involved (and I dont mean those involved in the actual murder)..

@Purple & Green put it much better than I ...

(and im not for 1 minute saying he is guilty or innocent - its not my place, was just trying to put a one sided tv show into a bit of perspective)
very strange
 
very strange
The whole shebang makes me uneasy.
Just nae winners.
 
Some posters have been suckered in here. How can you be so sure of his innocence after hearing one side of the story?

The programme is thought provoking, but I’ll reserve calling for his release until I’ve heard the other side.

15 pieces of circumstantial evidence were presented to the Jury. 15. That’s an awful lot of circumstantial coincidence.
 
Statements ARE facts. Changing statements in a group to all the same stuff is hugely dodgy
With respect Hattie statements are the perception of fact by an individual. As you say statements can be changed, facts can't.
 
Mitchell's very likely to be innocent.
To sell newspapers the editors and journos have convinced everyone that our police force are super-sleuths, a very average lad is all of a sudden a mad psycho because Rock Music and the defence QC is mega-brained and infallible.
With no concrete evidence against him, the prosecution have to weave a circumstantial case and with these the machinations of how this is gathered ( ie harrassing witnesses to change their statements to fit the narrative ) is always unknown to the jury. My point here is the polis are results driven as any fitba' team and they're not really that bothered if they have the right guy, they just need their case to get a conviction.
For example, they ignored the owner of the only dna match found. Didn't even interview him. His sperm was found and while this doesn't mean he was the murderer it's beyond explainable how anyone talks of a competent investigation.

TLDR Any circumstantial case is an exercise in conspiracy. It isn't dismissed airily as winged-out lunacy because it is a conspiracy theory contrived by the state.
 
Does anyone believe the murder of Suzanne Pilley seems unsafe?

 
Does anyone believe the murder of Suzanne Pilley seems unsafe?

It's a strange one,can't see how he'd be able to move a body undetected.
from what the authorities told the victims family before this was put on air, was that the prog was an attempt to raise the profile of those involved (and I dont mean those involved in the actual murder)..

@Purple & Green put it much better than I ...

(and im not for 1 minute saying he is guilty or innocent - its not my place, was just trying to put a one sided tv show into a bit of perspective)

Edit - the more i think about it - outwith the incident itself is the trial by media we have in our lands. Not 1 paper or tv station should have the right to plaster an accused over their headlines. A person should only be named in public, if that person was convicted and sentenced.

In this particular case, the public shouldnt have known e.g. that the accused kept bottles of his piss in jars in the room, or his infatuation with famous knife murders of the past. Thats painting a picture of mental health issues, and those sort of things, if they were relevant, should have been dealt with in the courtroom by health professionals. How can anyone really get a fair crack if our gutter media can act like this with impunity?
Your edit is spot on,even if you belive the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove guilt,the trial by media had him convicted before he was charged.
Add police not following procedure for interviewing a child and the interview techniques being described as "outrageous" there's no way it's a safe conviction
 
The point I suppose I was making is that there isn't any dna evidence in this case either, but nobody seems to fighting his case for a retrial.
Does anyone believe the murder of Suzanne Pilley seems unsafe?

 
It's a strange one,can't see how he'd be able to move a body undetected.
Your edit is spot on,even if you belive the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove guilt,the trial by media had him convicted before he was charged.
Add police not following procedure for interviewing a child and the interview techniques being described as "outrageous" there's no way it's a safe conviction
I do know that at the time of the interviews, the accused and immediate family refused legal representation. Dont know if the law has changed in the last 20years, but even with the police interview disprepencies, I am sure this would have been pointed out by the defense team, and the explanation given at that time must have been acceptable to the defence team. (surely). There must be something awfy wrong if Donald Findlay cannae get ye off on a technicality!
(a jury of peers, the sentence by that judge, then 3 separate judicialappeals with 3 separate judges -without any new evidence ever being submitted- all suggests a safe conviction imo).

Nae1 on this board or any other social media platform knows for certain if hes guilty. That programme had no new evidence whatsover to show. Everything in it has been in the public domain, its was completely biased, and made by and included people who are trying to make a name for themselves...

Lets be under no illusions - if he didnt do it, I hope some evidence comes to light which frees him, and the proper corrective action taken, just like any quashed conviction.

Lastly, glad we've not got state murder in this country!
 
I don't know if any of you can remember posting on the bounce back when the murder happened - unfortunately we lost the archive, but I suppose it might be on some web archive somewhere, but I remember the mother of all arguments over this case.
 
apparantely there was dna evidence on both Jodi and Luke, but because they were boy/girlfriend , that was to be expected , so it wasnt allowed to be used as evidence.
I may be talking tom kite their , but im sure i heard that somewhere.
 
apparantely there was dna evidence on both Jodi and Luke, but because they were boy/girlfriend , that was to be expected , so it wasnt allowed to be used as evidence.
I may be talking tom kite their , but im sure i heard that somewhere.
I seem to remember that because he found the body - and I've been told that he held her when he found her - that the dna element was meaningless because it was impossible to tell if the dna was from 10pm or 5pm or earlier?

I'm no expert, I've maybe not understood how dna works, but it sounds plausible.

From the original trial:

No DNA link in Jodi Jones murder
Jodi Jones

Jodi Jones was killed in June last year

The Jodi Jones trial has heard there was no DNA evidence to link her boyfriend to her murder.
The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.
Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".
Luke Mitchell, 16, has denied murdering girlfriend Jodi and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.
So, it's not a case that there wasn't any dna or forensic evidence.....it was the case that there wasn't any dna or forensic evidence which could not be innocently explained?
 
Last edited:

apologies for posting the daily record link - shows John Sallens has an axe to grind with his former employers

edit link fixed
 
Last edited:
The point I suppose I was making is that there isn't any dna evidence in this case either, but nobody seems to fighting his case for a retrial.
No body in that case either. But the circumstantial evidence (accused wearing makeup to hide scratches during interview, buying a tonne of air freshener, randomly driving out to the back of beyond etc) was pretty compelling TBH.
 

Jones family hit back.
 
Got tae feel for them, lost their bairn and now accused of being involved in her death?
 
Scottie Forbes (who i know well) had stated to us just after Mitchell was convicted that he would do 20 years, be released then a retrial. He has now had a book released that covers every aspect of the trial.

The FBI report that Lothian and Borders polis redacted massively.

The FBI profiler report.

He's talked to the local poachers who hated Mitchell. Until shown certain things that made them change their minds.

The burned clothes (but not by who we think burned them).

Personally this is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever.

Scotty has named the names and offered any of those named, including the polis, to take him to court.


 
A book called Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean is well worth reading. Amazon price is a bit steep, it's cheaper if you shop about a bit.

Scottie worked with Sandra Lean on the case as well.
 
Definitely suspect. I watched a documentary years ago and thought something didn't add up. Might need to revisit that one
I watched one like that (might have been the same), turned out one of his mates was a bit of a bad yin, was reported to have scratches on his arms not long after the murder - the implication being he’d picked them up in a scuff wi a lassie - but was never questioned much, if at all, by the police. Unfortunately he died in the interim period so chances are we’ll never know.

Edit: didnae see the first post was over a year ago - oops.
 
I watched one like that (might have been the same), turned out one of his mates was a bit of a bad yin, was reported to have scratches on his arms not long after the murder - the implication being he’d picked them up in a scuff wi a lassie - but was never questioned much, if at all, by the police. Unfortunately he died in the interim period so chances are we’ll never know.
The laddie Kane?

In the book he puts forward potential killer(s).

I read stuff in the book I'd never heard of before. There was also graffiti sprayed at the v in the wall last week naming whom i think was responsible. (But not by me),

And that person was helped by family members.
 
Sandra Lean condemned the graffiti but also pointed out that the press done the same to Luke Mitchell right at the start. Guilty without trial.



IMG-20220819-WA0000.jpg
 
A court was previously told how “pal” Scott Forbes claimed to have evidence that could clear Mitchell but that he wanted to sell his story for £50,000.

He implicated Mark, a former drug addict, who was allegedly in the vicinity when Jodi was murdered in woodland near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

He told Kane to cooperate with his story and he would split the fee with him – but mum Norma told how her son outright refused to take the blame for something he hadn’t done.

Just for clarity: this is the same Scott Forbes we are talking about?

It’s fucking disgusting the way people are using Jodi to make money.

Scottie Forbes (who i know well) had stated to us just after Mitchell was convicted that he would do 20 years, be released then a retrial. He has now had a book released that covers every aspect of the trial.

The FBI report that Lothian and Borders polis redacted massively.

The FBI profiler report.

He's talked to the local poachers who hated Mitchell. Until shown certain things that made them change their minds.

The burned clothes (but not by who we think burned them).

Personally this is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever.

Scotty has named the names and offered any of those named, including the polis, to take him to court.


 
It is the same Scott Forbes. The £50,000 story is covered in the book.

I understand what you are saying. But that laddie has had HIS life taken from him.

Another point made in the book. Luke Mitchell has never been on protection in jail. The cons would have slaughtered him if they though he was guilty of the crime.

In my opinion the killer(s) are still at large. And THAT should be a cause for concern.
 
Scott Forbes is the guy who said his pal Mark Kane, a student, wrote a story about killing a girl in the woods and had handed it into his lecturer.
Said lecturer was thereafter contacted by the authorities who said Kane had not submitted such a story. Came out in the trial.

The murderer is in jail and his victim a 14 year old child is still dead and her family are without doubt still suffering each and every day.
I pity anyone who thinks Mitchell is innocent without having heard the case presented at court in it's entirety as the jurors did.
Almost 20 years since conviction and no credible evidence has been presented to date to challenge that verdict.
As for the two part documentary a couple of years ago, unbalanced and selective at best, exploitative at worst and did not move the defence case forward in any way.
 
Last edited:
Scott Forbes is the guy who said his pal Mark Kane, a student, wrote a story about killing a girl in the woods and had handed it into his lecturer.
Said lecturer was thereafter contacted by the authorities who said Kane had not submitted such a story. Came out in the trial.

The murderer is in jail and his victim a 14 year old child is still dead and her family are without doubt still suffering each and every day.
I pity anyone who thinks Mitchell is innocent without having heard the case presented at court in it's entirety as the jurors did.
Almost 20 years since conviction and no credible evidence has been presented to date to challenge that verdict.
As for the two part documentary a couple of years ago, unbalanced and selective at best, exploitative at worst and did not move the defence case forward in any way.
And what about the evidence that wasn't allowed in the trial?

Statements changed.

Scottie did take Kane to the polis station where the polis told Kane to go away and they would interview him later. Which they never done.

I still stand by my view that the polis fvcked up big time and there will be action eventually taken once Mitchell gets released.
 
And what about the evidence that wasn't allowed in the trial?

Statements changed.

Scottie did take Kane to the polis station where the polis told Kane to go away and they would interview him later. Which they never done.

I still stand by my view that the polis fvcked up big time and there will be action eventually taken once Mitchell gets released.
And the lecturer story is included in the book
 
Having had a look through his Twitter timeline he's certainly into a wide range of causes. Anti vax, paedophile rings, lots of transgender stuff, anti Ukraine, pro Russia, Sturgeon hatred, rapists and terrorists crossing the channel etc etc.

Of course the book may be very good. My experience is that folk who go fishing in all of those ponds tend not to be great at balanced arguments but perhaps it bucks the trend.
 
Having had a look through his Twitter timeline he's certainly into a wide range of causes. Anti vax, paedophile rings, lots of transgender stuff, anti Ukraine, pro Russia, Sturgeon hatred, rapists and terrorists crossing the channel etc etc.

Of course the book may be very good. My experience is that folk who go fishing in all of those ponds tend not to be great at balanced arguments but perhaps it bucks the trend.
It will be anyone who is the FM of Scotland that he hates. Because clearly he’s in jail because of them..
That’s their usual repertoire is it not 🤷‍♂️
 
It will be anyone who is the FM of Scotland that he hates. Because clearly he’s in jail because of them..
That’s their usual repertoire is it not 🤷‍♂️
Sorry, I meant the fella who wrote the book. There could well be a case to answer for a miscarriage of justice, but there's so much noise and so little illumination around the claims that I remain unconvinced and wouldn't take the contents of any book as gospel without independent verification.
 
Scott Forbes is the guy who said his pal Mark Kane, a student, wrote a story about killing a girl in the woods and had handed it into his lecturer.
Said lecturer was thereafter contacted by the authorities who said Kane had not submitted such a story. Came out in the trial.

The murderer is in jail and his victim a 14 year old child is still dead and her family are without doubt still suffering each and every day.
I pity anyone who thinks Mitchell is innocent without having heard the case presented at court in it's entirety as the jurors did.
Almost 20 years since conviction and no credible evidence has been presented to date to challenge that verdict.
As for the two part documentary a couple of years ago, unbalanced and selective at best, exploitative at worst and did not move the defence case forward in any way.
Do you know if the the trial documents available to the public to read / view?
 
We
Having had a look through his Twitter timeline he's certainly into a wide range of causes. Anti vax, paedophile rings, lots of transgender stuff, anti Ukraine, pro Russia, Sturgeon hatred, rapists and terrorists crossing the channel etc etc.

Of course the book may be very good. My experience is that folk who go fishing in all of those ponds tend not to be great at balanced arguments but perhaps it bucks the trend.
I know his views on many things. But those are his views which he is entitled to have.

But he has also been involved in the Mitchell case for 19 years.

He sent me Sandra Leans findings on a pdf years ago.

The lack of DNA is just one aspect. Jodi Jones lost 6 litres of blood. Yet there was none on Mitchell.

When Mitchell was brought in for questioning he was described as having lank hair and dirty fingernails.

So that sort of throws out the shower after the murder theory.

James English done a couple of podcasts with Sandra Lean. She changed his mind by the end of it.

I think whoever (misspelt) the graffiti on the v in the wall has it correct. I also think more than one person was involved.

Regarding the loss of the 6 litres of blood there was nothing remotely near that amount where Jodi's body was found.

Also blood tracks on her body running upwards. Consistent of her body being carried over the shoulder.

There are too many inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

The dog trainer was never called as a witness.

Again i think the real killer(s) are still out there.
 
Do you know if the the trial documents available to the public to read / view?
There's also the things that were not allowed in the trial mate. This is where the doubt kicks in.

And his defence lawyers messed up as well. They all went to visit the site then ended up in the Justin Lees getting bladdered instead.

If i thought Mitchell was in anyway guilty I'd have wanted him to be done in when in the jail.

But cons allow him to wander the jail freely? What would they normally do to a child killer?
 
Do you know if the the trial documents available to the public to read / view?
I just found this while I was looking up the James English podcast that Jimmy referenced - thought I might give that a listen but on the face of it he doesn't sound very credible either.


That reminded me that I'd read this judgment at the time the last documentary came out as I was interested to know more about whether there is a possible miscarriage of justice. I'm still unconvinced.
 

This thread has been viewed 20697 times.

Your donation helps pay for our dedicated server and software support renewals. We really do appreciate it!
Goal
£100.00
Earned
£100.75
Back
Top