DNA casts doubt on Luke Mitchell’s guilt

Luke Mitchell is someone I didn’t want to be guilty when I heard the case on the news at the time, but after the verdict and the sentence I had to concede. However, any guilty verdict is followed by various ‘dirt’ revelations about someone, and this was no exception.

Now, DNA evidence has appeared which places two other men at the scene of the murder of Mitchell’s 14-year-old girlfriend, Jodi Jones, and there never was any DNA evidence placing him there:

In April 2004 he was charged with murder. In the absence of any DNA evidence linking Mitchell to the scene, the prosecution case was wholly circumstantial. A witness said she had seen Mitchell – although she failed to pick him out in the courtroom – near the scene of the crime. Jodi’s relatives told the court that Mitchell, who claimed he had reacted to his dog barking, had led them straight to the 14-year-old’s body during the night search.

The case also centred on Mitchell’s character, his supposedly unemotional reaction to Jodi’s death and that he carried knives, sold cannabis and was interested in satanism. After the longest trial of a single accused in Scottish legal history, a majority verdict convicted Mitchell and he was sentenced to life, with a minimum term of 20 years to be served before parole.

Mitchell has Asperger’s syndrome, and the “unemotional response” is likely to be a result.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
  • FleaStiff

    I’ve become concerned about the forensics report concerning dna findings relating to one of the two men you referred to, an art student known to have been in the area at the time and known to have had a scratched face for which he gave several contradictory explanations. My concern about the dna is that it has been reported as “not a match” and such a statement is inherently misleading. That is one reason the word ‘match’ is avoided in forensic work.

    I know the defendant was charged with a rather gory crime but had no dna of the victim on his person or clothing. I know the victim had dna from two then unidentified males on her person. The question is how many markers were derived from the blood spot on the victim that was later determined to have been sourced to the artist and why did the lawyers not raise this issue at trial?