Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Drug addict linked to murder of Jodi

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 December 2006
LAWYERS for Luke Mitchell are set to apply for his temporary freedom after the emergence of dramatic new evidence suggesting a drug addict who fantasised about killing women may have murdered Jodi Jones.
The evidence, combined with the fact that the case against Mitchell was circumstantial and there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime, could provide the opportunity for the 18-year-old to clear his name for the brutal killing of his girl
friend.

The possibility of a new suspect emerged when a former student with links to Dalkeith - the scene of the murder in June 2003 - made a statement to police in August in which he revealed that he believed a friend and fellow student had killed Jodi.

Three weeks before the murder, he said, the student had produced an essay for his female tutor called Killing a Female in the Woods. On the day after the murder, he had scratches on his face and arms and claimed he did not remember how he got them. He later gave friends at least three different explanations.

Both men were recovering from addiction problems and aiming to get into further or higher education. The man who made the statement to detectives is now a student at Stirling University.

In a series of dramatic revelations about his friend, he said that although a course they were attending was supposed to be "substance free", his friend drank heavily, smoked cannabis, took valium and temazepam and was on the heroin substitute, methadone.

He also often took alcohol and cannabis into the woods, close to the site where Jodi was murdered, to avoid detection by course supervisors.

Like Mitchell, he was a devotee of rock bank Nirvana and singer Marilyn Manson, whose paintings of the infamous Black Dahlia murder victim, Elizabeth Short, appeared to have influenced the killer in mutilating Jodi's body.

The student also had a fascination with websites that displayed graphic images of violence. And

he was suspected by those running the course of carving the words 'kill' and 'die' and the Nazi swastika on doors.

The man who made the statement was sufficiently concerned to call police at their incident room in the days immediately after the murder to alert detectives to his fears. He urged his friend to go forward, as all people in the vicinity had been asked to do, for elimination from police inquiries.

Eventually, he gave his friend a lift to the police station, but was asked to drop him at the end of the road. He was never convinced he had gone in.

Mitchell was later jailed for at least 20 years after being found guilty by a jury - and the man who has made the statement temporarily put aside his concerns. However, news that Mitchell had been granted leave to appeal persuaded him to approach police again.

He made a police statement which was passed to both the Crown Office and Mitchell's lawyers. Gillian Law, a solicitor representing Mitchell, said the statement "raises very serious issues in respect of both its factual content and the Crown's duty of disclosure of all the evidence to the defence."

It is known that tiny traces from an unidentified person were found on Jodi's body. Mitchell's lawyers now want that sample to be compared with a swab from the potential suspect.



The full article contains 575 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Ubi,

Edinburgh 10/12/2006 08:03:10

Another serious disclosure issue ? Nat Fraser is already enjoying interim liberation as a result of serious concerns about the conduct of the investigating and prosecuting authorities in his case.

If this one is flawed too, it has the look of a policy - not an accident.

2

Cant use my name anymore-Alex,

Prisoner of the machine 10/12/2006 09:07:48

This does not surprise me. I know that if I had been on a Jury there is no way I could have declared either Nat Fraser or Luke Mitchell guilty. The pictures painted of them in court may not have been pretty, but I dont beleive any evidence was presented which tied either to the crimes.
If there is anything to this story the Scottish legal system starts to look pretty bad. As UBI says it starts to look like a policy.
I cant see anyone rushing to do much about this however as they have their conviction and I would guess dont really care about the rights and wrongs of it.
It would appear that it works in the following way.
Step 1. Decide who did it.
Step 2. If possible collect evidence supporting this.
Step 3. Blacken the character of the party who has been decided to be guilty by any means.
Step 4. Ignore or destroy any evidence which doesnt fit with the theory.
Step 5. Hope you get a really gullible, right wing, hang em high type of Jury. The sort of people who still have total faith in the police.

If someday soon Luke Mitchell walks free I wont be surprised. If its found that he never did it I wont be surprised. If he walks free because it is found evidence was suppressed and the police decide not to look for anyone else I wont be surprised.

3

Rubbersnap,

10/12/2006 10:01:29

I am not surprised at all. In this country, you are presumed guilty until ways can be found to fit you up with the alleged crime.

How many travesties of Justice can be traced back to the police and the court system's "need to show a successful arrest and conviction" rate.

Of course, the media has never helped. They like to get in first, by kicking the alleged party when they are down. They can and frequently do adversely colour public perceptions to match their owm myopic views.

I'd like to see reporting restictions on ALL supposed newspapers until incontrovertible EVIDENCE is available!

4

wayne bijlyeerheid,

10/12/2006 11:21:05

Brought up in Glasgow, I was always told if you see a crime being commited get out of the way before the police arrive because they charge whoever is nearest.

5

Nisbet,

10/12/2006 12:28:23

Will this new suspect be tried by the press too?

6

Cant use my name anymore either - Alexandrina,

NW over the Minch 10/12/2006 13:31:55

Alex, no. 2, has it right in one (or rather five points he makes).
Miscarriage of Justice, AGAIN, with questions about police methods at inquiry/investigation stage: gather suspect and flimsy (circumstantial) evidence to secure a conviction, pursue this relentlessly, at whatever cost, and by the way OK to suppress other lines of enquiry if thet don't "fit" predetermined views. Any additional help from the media, who can be drip-fed with info, all to the good. Discredit accused if at all possible. Trial by Jury?
Historic abuse allegations ("witch-hunt") presently being pursued against ex carers/teachers at Kerelaw School Ayrshire by Strathclyde police (Operation Chalk) fit this model. Presumption of guilt, rather than innocence, from day one. Two innocent guys now in prison, others reported to Fiscal, psychological pressure, ..... conviction at any cost (good for stats to S. Exec.).
Do we have any info on successful appeals against miscarriages of justice?
Time to take stock and to ask questions about the powers of our once famous and respected institutions of police and criminal justice bodies in Scotland. The dice appear to be loaded. The scales of "justice" are not equal.

7

Sid,

10/12/2006 23:58:43

Agree with all the comments so far. Trouble with this is we have seen it so many times in the past. Look at Robert Brown, Campbell & Steel etc many many years wasted behind bars before their appeals are resolved. In the meantime we see senior cops being promoted and enhanced pensions and gongs etc and the politicos spouting out their good news statistics and being rewarded with honours etc and it all stinks of corruption. I dont know if Mitchell did it or not but if evidence has been suppressed, that is criminally wrong and unfair and those involved in that should face trial.

8

Bobby Mo,

Leith 11/12/2006 14:50:00

They never had enough evidence to convict him in the first place - they just did it anyway. The media were shocking in this one too. All this stuff about how weird he was (is?) could only have swayed the jury. I'm not saying he did or did not do it, but this was a shocker. Seems to me he got done because of hearsay (all these never proven rumours about burning clothes in his garden and so on) and because he found the body. I happen to know, for a fact, that two members of the FBI were called to Edinburgh in the early weeks of the case and they said there is not a snowball's chance he could have covered his tracks so well. These guys deal with murders all the time and they were convinced a first-time killer (which you would have to assume it was if it was Mitchell) could never have covered his tracks so well. They were never asked to give their opinions in court though were they.

9

Lydia,

us 12/12/2006 15:52:54

This is more bunk by the defense team. Jodi Jones is rotting in her grave and people are more concerned about Mitchell. Shame on all of you. The police had no duty to investigate garbage when they had a duty to Jodi. Investigating innenduo is outrageously disrespectful to Jodi. Go ahead and weep for Mitchell. Jodi is the victim here. She always will be, and the police had every right to honor Jodi's memory by investigating only Mitchell.

10

Lydia,

us 12/12/2006 15:59:40

The duty is to disclose exculpatory evidence. Their is no duty to disclose rumor and innuendo. Since there is and was no definitive proof of this man's involvement there was no duty to disclose. Indeed the trial court would likely have barred this information from being presented at trial in the first place without a more direct link to Jodi.

11

Lydia,

us 12/12/2006 16:02:12

I say get the youth to submit a sample. If there's no match the whole thing goes away.

12

Amanda Jane,

Ayrshire 12/12/2006 21:38:16

When this sorry episode first hit the headlines, I thought guilty as charged. That view has now changed.
My Father, along with one of his colleagues, were set up by their employers and then the police for crimes that they did not commit.
The investigation methods that the police employed were beyond belief and to this day, if I had not experienced this first hand, I simply would not have believed it.
The police are extremely corrupt and will do what it takes to get a conviction, and 99% of the time they will get away with this, as people still believe in the police and hold them in high regard.
Whether or not Luke Mitchell is guilty, the fact remains that the police have repressed the facts, once again and have made a mockery of what should have been a fair and open hearing.
This will also open up old wounds for Jodi's family, when they should be left to grieve in peace.
As for my Father and his colleague, they are now sitting in a prison cell, thanks to the police officers who were involved in Operation Chalk and to the superiors officers and politcians at the Scottish Executive, who Ok'd the investigation in the first place.
How many more times do we need to go through this before something is done?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.