24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
So, no forensic evidence, no trace of blood (despite horrific injuries), no lawyer present when a 15 year old was being questioned, no apparent checks on other potential attackers, key witness can't ID defendant, both mother and son pass lie detector tests........
And yet the jury felt there was sufficient evidence to convict him !!
And yet the jury felt there was sufficient evidence to convict him !!
Something I remember from living nearby at the time was the local press describing the finding of a knife in his house inscribed with “Jodi Jones RIP” or something similar, wasn’t the murder weapon obviously but very strange behaviour nonetheless.
Missed a few minutes of tonight’s programme but I also recall hearing of his mother burning his clothes, was that mentioned at all?
Missed a few minutes of tonight’s programme but I also recall hearing of his mother burning his clothes, was that mentioned at all?
EricM said:
Something I remember from living nearby at the time was the local press describing the finding of a knife in his house inscribed with “Jodi Jones RIP” or something similar, wasn’t the murder weapon obviously but very strange behaviour nonetheless.
Missed a few minutes of tonight’s programme but I also recall hearing of his mother burning his clothes, was that mentioned at all?
The mother burning the clothes was one of the questions in the polygraph test. She said she hadn't burnt them (and also hadn't lied to give him an alibi). The polygraph test suggested she was telling the truth. He also answered various questions, that the polygraph again suggested were truthful.Missed a few minutes of tonight’s programme but I also recall hearing of his mother burning his clothes, was that mentioned at all?
I'm sure he was a strange character, with all the failings of a 15 year old, plus a liking for knives (as did some others in the area apparently), That in itself doesn't make him the murderer.
The lack of any conclusive evidence, in particular the total absence of any of her blood on him, or his DNA at the scene, seems odd when the jury then goes on to convict him.
No doubt it’s a strange case and watching tonight’s programme and seeing how one sided it was has had me googling my distant memories, I was sure he had an older brother who didn’t back up his alibi when questioned in court which was a huge thing in the trial, this didn’t get any mention.
Also there was a lot more about the mothers odd behaviour and that didn’t get a mention, this old newspaper link from the time is an eye opener
https://t.co/ww6cK10crz
I think I know who the “can’t name for legal reasons” suspect is, it’s an infamous criminal from the area that he put forward in a previous failed appeal years ago.
Also there was a lot more about the mothers odd behaviour and that didn’t get a mention, this old newspaper link from the time is an eye opener
https://t.co/ww6cK10crz
I think I know who the “can’t name for legal reasons” suspect is, it’s an infamous criminal from the area that he put forward in a previous failed appeal years ago.
Who is the "can't be named for legal reasons"?
Can't be named - why? Because he (she?) is involved in an ongoing court case? Because he/she has taken out an injunction?
Or what?
I thought the two "detectives" brought in were pathetic! "I'll get my daughter to drive round and round to see if she spots anything"? What was that about? What did that prove?.
Can't be named - why? Because he (she?) is involved in an ongoing court case? Because he/she has taken out an injunction?
Or what?
I thought the two "detectives" brought in were pathetic! "I'll get my daughter to drive round and round to see if she spots anything"? What was that about? What did that prove?.
These kinds of programs are designed to sow the seeds of doubt without having to present all of the evidence and can make unfounded accusations without fear of repercussions. The way the case was presented looks weak but is that how it was presented to a jury? I doubt it.
It would be interesting to see the actual legal documentation on his appeals as these often blow many miscarriage arguments out of the water i.e Jeremy Bamber.
It would be interesting to see the actual legal documentation on his appeals as these often blow many miscarriage arguments out of the water i.e Jeremy Bamber.
I've only watched the first episode, but it's pretty clear so far that there is a bias towards Luke Mitchell; I suppose the programme needs an "angle" to generate interest. It reminds me of a podcast series I listened to recently on an Edinburgh murder, which also questioned the verdict not least because a body has never been found. I attended that trial and the podcast conveniently missed out a mass of circumstantial evidence, which led the jury to (properly) convict. If you take both programmes at face value, you would conclude that the juries were stuffed full of imbeciles, which clearly wasn't the case. The Scottish judicial system is pretty robust, or at least it was until the SNP got involved in recent weeks but that's for another thread 
I grew up very close to this area; I went to school with the person who was in the search party that found the body, my nephew went to school with Luke Mitchell, and I remember being stopped in a police roadside check the week after the murder on the way back from visiting my mum who still lives very close. I remember it was a massive case at the time, and the media interest was off the scale. Later, I followed the case and the trial press reports and there was a staggering amount of circumstantial evidence that this programme has so far skipped over completely. There was evidence that the wood burner in the garden had been used that evening, and the parka jacket Luke wore on the day of the murder was never found, although his mum bought a replacement soon after and never provided any explantation. The analogy that prosecutors sometimes use is that each bit of circumstantial evidence represents a thin strand, but when woven together with others it forms a very strong cable on which a conviction can be hung. Also, Mitchell appealled and they have consistently concluded that the conviction is safe.
I am not sure how much the two Glaswegian detectives add to the programme; it all seems a bit half-baked. I was surprised to learn that Mitchell's mother lives on the site of her former business; I remember it being vandalised and I would definitely not sleep easy there, not least because it's adjacent to a pretty rough area. Luke Mitchell obviously has a right to make his case, but I do feel sorry for the family at this being dragged up again, particularly as it's far from balanced.
I grew up very close to this area; I went to school with the person who was in the search party that found the body, my nephew went to school with Luke Mitchell, and I remember being stopped in a police roadside check the week after the murder on the way back from visiting my mum who still lives very close. I remember it was a massive case at the time, and the media interest was off the scale. Later, I followed the case and the trial press reports and there was a staggering amount of circumstantial evidence that this programme has so far skipped over completely. There was evidence that the wood burner in the garden had been used that evening, and the parka jacket Luke wore on the day of the murder was never found, although his mum bought a replacement soon after and never provided any explantation. The analogy that prosecutors sometimes use is that each bit of circumstantial evidence represents a thin strand, but when woven together with others it forms a very strong cable on which a conviction can be hung. Also, Mitchell appealled and they have consistently concluded that the conviction is safe.
I am not sure how much the two Glaswegian detectives add to the programme; it all seems a bit half-baked. I was surprised to learn that Mitchell's mother lives on the site of her former business; I remember it being vandalised and I would definitely not sleep easy there, not least because it's adjacent to a pretty rough area. Luke Mitchell obviously has a right to make his case, but I do feel sorry for the family at this being dragged up again, particularly as it's far from balanced.
BadBull said:
eldar said:
Polygraph is hardly a reliable technology, Jeremy Kyle stuff.
The Jury had access to all the evidence and time to consider it.
Did you watch it?The Jury had access to all the evidence and time to consider it.
The jury had the benefit of prosecution and defence versions.
Heads up Tuesday at 9pm on BBC2 - The Detectives: Fighting Organised Crime
Looks to be another fly on the wall police documentary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tj14
Looks to be another fly on the wall police documentary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tj14
LordLoveLength said:
Heads up Tuesday at 9pm on BBC2 - The Detectives: Fighting Organised Crime
Looks to be another fly on the wall police documentary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tj14
Now that looks interesting. Looks to be another fly on the wall police documentary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tj14
BBC said:
In central Manchester, specialist detectives hunt a gang suspected of committing violent kidnaps and race to take them down before they can strike again.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff