Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

DNA challenge to conviction of Jodi Jones killer

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 Edinburgh Evening News 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: 31 October 2006
LAWYERS acting for teenage killer Luke Mitchell plan to use new DNA evidence in a bid to overturn his conviction for the murder of Jodi Jones, according to a report today.
It is understood mystery DNA was found on Jodi's body which belongs neither to Mitchell nor his victim.

The tiny sample has also never been matched to anyone Jodi was in contact with on the day she was killed. Mitchell's defence team is said to be using it as part of their appeal against his conviction.

Jodi was 14 when she was murdered in June 2003 in woods at Roan's Dyke path - a shortcut between her home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, and Mitchell's house in Newbattle. Her throat was slit and her body was mutilated.

Mitchell "found" her body after volunteering to help in the search for her. He was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years behind bars after a jury returned a guilty verdict. His lawyers have lodged an appeal but no date has yet been fixed for a hearing.

His defence team will argue the DNA is part of evidence that shows the conviction against him was wrong. The team, being led by Donald Findlay, QC, claim the trial was prejudiced due to mass media coverage.

They also believe the trial should not have been heard in Edinburgh, as it was too close to Dalkeith, where the murder took place. But the exact grounds on which the team will be allowed to appeal are not yet clear.

They made a submission earlier this month for the case to be heard on 14 grounds of appeal.

However, half of them were rejected by one judge, under "sifting" which only allows grounds deemed arguable to go forward to a full hearing.

Mitchell's lawyers are said to be challenging that decision, in what is the first case of its kind in a criminal trial. Grounds that were allowed included the claim that there was insufficient evidence to entitle the jury to convict him because there was no eye-witness and a "total absence of forensic evidence".

At that hearing Mr Findlay said: "Everything that could have been done was not done to ensure a fair trial." During Mitchell's trial, the jury heard that he was a regular user of cannabis who had an interest in satanism and was a fan of rock star Marilyn Manson.

Trial judge Lord Nimmo Smith later said he believed this could have influenced Mitchell in the murder.

He was convicted on a majority verdict of murdering Jodi and was sentended to detention without limit of time. He was told he would have to serve 20 years before he could apply for parole.

Mitchell's lawyer, Nigel Beaumont, said: "There are a substantial number of grounds of appeal - amongst other things DNA evidence, which was part of the original trial."

He added he hope all the grounds for appeal would be put before the appeal court.

The murder of Jodi Jones shocked the country and devastated the Midlothian community in which she lived.

Teachers at St David's RC High School decided to erect a memorial garden to the teenager and other youngsters who have died while still at the school.

Many of those who sat alongside Jodi in lessons had a hand in designing the memorial to their murdered schoolfriend.

Mitchell's trial lasted 42 days - the longest single-accused murder trial in Scottish legal history. But it took the jury just six hours to find Mitchell guilty of killing his girlfiend.

Mitchell, who is now 17, began the appeal process more than a year ago and he won the right to appeal in March.

He is already Scotland's most expensive criminal and has cost taxpayers nearly £500,000 in legal aid fees.

The appeal means those costs will rise again.

The full article contains 657 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 October 2006 12:14 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Jodi Jones murder
 
1

Paul Voltaire,

31/10/2006 12:06:15

There was a huge amount of circumstantial evidence in this case and all of it pointed to Luke Mitchell

2

,

31/10/2006 12:11:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 137824, Article id was mapped to record!
3

,

31/10/2006 12:26:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 137866, Article id was mapped to record!
4

,

31/10/2006 12:32:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 137886, Article id was mapped to record!
5

Chris,

Grangemouth 31/10/2006 13:26:15

Is the above an example of a sensible debate?
Anyway, the mass of evidence presented was, indeed, circumstantial but enough to convince a jury. The mystery DNA could have made the difference and resulted in a "not proven" rather than a "not guilty" verdict. It will be interesting to see what the Appeal Court judges make of this. Was it not mentioned in the original trail, if not why not?

6

inter alia,

the capital 31/10/2006 13:48:09

Given the ferocity of attack on Miss Jones one would have expected to have at least some DNA evidence confirming Mr. Mitchell as her killer.

7

abracadabra,

Homeless 31/10/2006 14:05:20

What the media never report are the huge sums of public money Donald Findlay and his team are creaming from you and I in Legal Aid.
Defence Q.C's aren't interested in justice but are motivated by pride and greed.
Pride in being able to beat the system and get another dangerous criminal back onto the streets and greed with the multi-million empire they have created.
It reminds you of the old American films where all the gangsters had a lawyer in their pocket and Scotland isn't any better.
Roll on the revolution.

8

Humpty Dumpty,

Coming to a wall near you 31/10/2006 14:09:39

I have to agree with t82`s comments it was a vicious and sustained attack therefor suggesting that there would be some sort of DNA evidence linking Luke Mitchell to her murder, however going from what i read about the case in the papers at the time it seems that this young man is deeply disturbed and would certainly be capable of carrying out an attack such as this.
I would also like to point out however that at no time have the police put forward the names of any other suspects and was wondering if at the time did the police take DNA samples from every male or even female for that matter living in the area or outwith ?

9

just,

31/10/2006 14:16:59

Taxpayer- at least read the article before you comment on it!
>
"He is already Scotland's most expensive criminal and has cost taxpayers nearly £500,000 in legal aid fees. "

Also, circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict someone and there was DNA evidence form Luke Mitchell on the body but that could be explained by the fact that:
he was well acquainted with the victim
and i think, he hugged/touched the body after it was found- thus getting covered in blood.

the thing about DNA evidence is that just because you find someone's DNA somewhere doesn't mean someone is guilty but because it is 'scientific' people often regard it as a higher form of proof. I'd be very surprised, if for example, everyone reading this article didn't have some of someone else's DNA on some of their clothing e.g. hair, skin. Doesn't make them a killer!

With the samples from which tehy can trace DMA getting every and every finer its going to become every more difficult to distinguish the incriminating samples from terh coincidental one's.

10

,

31/10/2006 14:39:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 138235, Article id was mapped to record!
11

rangersgirl,

31/10/2006 15:22:08

na i am pretty much sure it was him all the edv points to him i hope he rots for wot he has done to that wee girl he is 1 sick guy

12

Dave,

Western Isles 31/10/2006 15:46:11

He collected his own p*ss and kept it in botles in his room. Either really shy/scared about going to the bathroom or a wee bit dranged. Or he believed in bathing/drinking his own urine for health benefits............

13

Xtine,

31/10/2006 16:05:43

This is from an earlier report on the trial also on this site:

However, Mr Dobbie did not want to detain Mitchell until the DNA test results had come back from the lab.

"When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer."

14

Reginald ,,,,

31/10/2006 17:23:36

this creature in my mind guilty , as his mother is ,

15

Repton,

edinburgh 31/10/2006 17:42:36

Where is the other so called killer then? I was told long before he came to court that the police were looking for no one else but him.The evidence all points to him and would doubt if anyone else is involved.The question is why did he do it?Was it the dope or his macabre fasination with the black dalhia killing in 1947 which is now a movie.No one will ever know but I would be surprised if he got off on some technicality.

16

Paul Voltiare,

31/10/2006 17:47:21

The police failure to preserve the murder scene, leaving it open to the rain overnight etc before forensic arrived in the morning was a major blunder & officers should have been disciplined for neglect. There were other males seen in the wood at the time of the murder, one who altered his hair style
when the police announced they were looking for these men to come forward. If unaccountable DNA has been found on the body, but such evidence kept from the jury, then this alone may render the conviction unsafe.

17

julien brellier,

31/10/2006 17:52:26

I would like to know why the crown dropped the 'perverting' charge against the mother. she is just as guilty as this little wierdo and should have got a significant sentence for her part in detroying evidence. 'pikeys'

18

Paul Voltiare,

31/10/2006 17:53:59

#15 Jimmy - eh, I think you'll find that he IS protesting his innocence & has been doing so from day one. What planet have you arrived from ?

19

Paul Voltaire,

31/10/2006 18:06:14

At the original trial Mitchell was sunk when evidence from his brother contradicted his alibi for the crime.
Also, Mitchell led Jodie's family to the exact location of her body claiming that his dog had picked up her scent. The odds of anyone other than the killer knowing the exact location were so small that this became crucial in the case against him and was mentioned when the judge directed the jury.

20

Paul Voltiare,

31/10/2006 20:16:34

Paul, it was his dog that led him & the searchers to the scene. He didn't lead the dog. Why would a killer willingly go back to the scene of the crime, thereby needlessly putting themselves in the shop window as a suspect ? The odds on a killer doing this must also be so small & by your logic, these small odds should be just as crucial in any case against them. You appear to be making unsound judgements based on probability.

21

Paul Voltaire,

31/10/2006 21:42:27

Roberta #21

"it was his dog that led him & the searchers to the scene."

His dog was not trained to be a sniffer dog.
Also, killers do quite often return to the scene of the crime and Mitchell was quite an egocentric young man and would have relished the attention of 'finding' the body.
This conviction is safe.

22

epocalypse,

Mayfield 31/10/2006 21:50:27

Roberta, you appear to be the one that is making unsound judgements. the most despicable killers routinely return to their crime scenes. Reasons vary, from delight observing the activity surrounding their deed to pride in their work. Some even try to insert themselves into the investigation.

The dog did not lead him to the body,as evidenced by the other searchers present, Mitchell went straight to the only gap in the wall and claimed the dog led him. If you bothered to look at the mock up of the wall or even visit the actual murder site you will see that Jodi's body was a considerable distance from the gap in the wall. It is not even much of a gap.

There is much more evidence, circumstancial it may be but it builds up quite a picture. The disappearing Parka, the knife that friends at school saw him carry, the burning coming from the house reported by neighbours.

Donald Finlay hates losing and his pride won't let him let this one go. He defends some of the most disgusting brutal scum in this country and is no better than them. I was involved in a case where he tried to get a brutally violent rapist off by claiming the crime was committed by his evil twin brother (hence the DNA evidence).

23

Julian,

31/10/2006 22:26:29

William # 11, you said "everyone should leave him alone and leave it up to the courts to decide".
Presumably you are referring to all the speculation being banded about on this website and elsewhere?

Well mate, why don't you do the same and not make statements like "personally i don't think he did it..." and "can't help wondering if the police know he didn't do it but needed the clearup figure"

And I have to say that with your speculation that you don't think he did it because it was a bit too complicated for a 14 year old and, that the police fitted him up to improve their clear up rate on the basis that they took a year to charge, it should definitely be left to the courts.

24

Julian,

31/10/2006 22:31:41

Actually Jimmy # 15, if you had followed this story you would know that the guy is protesting his innocence.
But you should feel quite at home on this website. Making statements without any basis for their accuracy is what we specialise in here.

25

Julian,

31/10/2006 22:33:39

Jimsie # 19, spot on mate. You are the exception that proves the rule.

26

shooter,

01/11/2006 00:10:25

my dog was not trained to be a sniffer dog but it still found a dead man that was hung up in a tree dead so get it right

27

Paul Voltiare,

01/11/2006 01:19:42

David, I haven't made a judgement, sound or otherwise, but you appear to have done so with your biased, irrational thinking. Perhaps being from Mayfield you are too closely involved. You are quite right that the body was a considerable distance away from the wall & experts doubt it was carried/moved from the actual murder scene by only one person, especially a 14 year old. The much more evidence that you claim is available hardly makes someone a killer. So he carried a knive to school, burnt some rubbish in the garden,none of which was forensically linked to the case, and may have owned a parka etc WOW ! that's makes him a murderer ?. And what killers are you talking about that "routinely return to their crime scenes ?".. Name them, come on name them. Put your money where your mouth is or are you just letting your imagagination wander into fantasy land by making unsound statements?

28

Julian,

01/11/2006 01:44:14

Roberta and David, can I be arbitrer on this one. I think David is right that killers routinely return to the murder scene/body. The real question that has to be asked is how many killers have led the police to the body (or near to it if there is a dispute about distance from the wall)?
Roberta, remember that the jury do not have to prove to themselves that he is guilty, they only have to think that the evidence against him is highly suspicious and beyond reasonable doubt.

29

Paul Voltiare,

01/11/2006 02:53:42

OK, Julian what you & David theorise is not relevant. I am asking you to back up your theory with fact, not fantasy. Give me examples of killers returning to the scene of their crimes, name them. It should be easy to give incidences if, as you say, this is a routine behaviour for them. I would suggest that according to your bizarre theory, next time there is a murder, all the police have to do is wait at the crime scene & the killer will soon turn up !!!

30

Julian,

01/11/2006 03:29:18

Roberta # 30.
Ted Bundy, http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/profiling/keppe...

And according to these dedicated websites it is very common for killers to return to the scene of their crimes or victim's gravesites,

http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/serial.html
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect06.htm

31

Julian,

01/11/2006 03:30:05

Incidentally Roberta, that's how Ted Bundy was caught.

32

missy,

edinburgh/mayfield 01/11/2006 09:25:22

Luke Mitchell is an evil murdering piece of scu*. He should rot for what he has done and i cant believe people actually defend him. He has lied and lied and people actually believe him ! He bragged about wanting to kill someone, he used to "pretend" jab her in the leg with his knives whilst in the company of others, he DID own a parka jacket which his friends,teachers and other witnesses saw him wear, then this just disappeared. His mother then said he did not own one, then she bought him another! why say he didnt own one when he did? i reckon this jacket was covered in blood, and this jacket along with other stuff was burned in the back garden. His own brother lied for him, which he then admitted, because his mother told him to. Luke did it, no doubt about it. The reason there was not much DNA , does gloves come to mind??

33

MoragtheToerag,

Edinburgh 01/11/2006 10:01:40

He's obviously VERY disturbed. The thought of his EVER walking the streets one day is frightening, because if he is released I have no doubts he'll do the same or worse to some other woman.

Cases like this make me wish we had a life w/no possibility of parole sentence in the UK.

34

Jock H. the Republic of Scotland,

Denver,Colorado,USA 01/11/2006 11:45:12

is Luke Mitchell Scotlands answer to America:s OJ Simpson??? it certainly seems like it,, maybe justice will prevail when the DNA tests are complete,,,,,

35

mrp,

Somewhere out there 01/11/2006 13:06:23

Actually what I don't get is that life up here in scotland means you get a 50% reduction in your sentence. Where the justice in that.

Life should mean life.

So go on who else collects their own urine eh. I think he needs to stay where he is for a very long time

36

Paladin,

Central Belt 01/11/2006 16:43:15

I followed this case (as far as one is able through the various media reportings) and up until almost the last day, couldn't find a definitive reason to return a guilty verdict.
I held this opinion until the Sky news report, the interview between Mitchell and reporter James Matthews, when it appeared that Mitchell was giving answers to questions which Matthews was not asking. Also the admission by Mitchell's brother that the alibi being given, (that he was at home) was improbable.
Now these two points along with others made during the trial, in my opinion, still did not add up to a guilty decision.
I believe that Mitchell was convicted "on the balance of probability" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

37

Paul Voltiare,

01/11/2006 20:48:51

Julian - are there any cases in Britain that support your wild fanciful claims or are you just spouting off inane dribble ?

38

Julian,

01/11/2006 22:48:01

Roberta # 38, I ignored your first insults and was trying to keep this a reasonable and civilised argument but if you want to go down that route...
If i'm spouting inane dribble then what your saying is complete and utter incomprehensible nonsense.

You said, quote "Give me examples of killers returning to the scene of their crimes" which is exactly what I gave you. You then accuse me of spouting inane dribble on the basis that the examples you gave me were not from this country.
Well my dear, you never asked for examples from this country and, what on earth does that have to do with it. We are talking about the behavioural patterns of a killer.

Methinks you are someone who hates to admit they are wrong and resorts to abuse when faced with evidence that can't be disputed.

Don't bother responding to this unless you have something constructive and non-abusive to say.


 

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.