Talk:Murder of Jodi Jones

Neutrality

This article seems to focus on the fact that he, supposedly, was s satanist, listened to Marilyn Manson, was "goth", etc. It seems like those are being given as motives for the crime. I dont think it should be as skewed towards the bend as it is. Any insight?

I agree that the article is far from neutral. As currently edited, it is basically a rebuttal of the evidence against Mitchell and so reads like an appeal to him being innocent. I propose neutralifying it... --Oscar Bravo (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the changes you've made. However, it seems from the appeal judgement that there are additional claims/counterclaims without which the article will be incomplete, particularly Luke's account of going to meet the victim and meeting someone else (David High) instead when she did not appear (having been murdered either by him or "person or persons unknown") and the evidence presented against that. What about giving a chronology of the night of the murder? Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Satanist??

There is a link from this page to the page on Satanists. For goodness sake, this was a 14 year old boy who had scribbled some song lyrics and video game related phrases in his school jotter. Yes, he had written an essay at school claiming to worship the devil, but what teenage boy doesn't do that sort of thing at some stage?

I'm for removing that link, I think it's a disgrace. This person will be up for parole one day, and having served his time shouldn't be recorded as one of history's notable satanists. He may be a murderer, he may be screwed up, but technically I doubt he can be classed offically as a satanist.

I'd be interested in the views of other before I remove the link.

Not Accurate

I feel that this article is not accurate.

The article states that Mitchell may have been found guilty only because of his taste in music. The article however neglects to inform that during the search which was at night and in bad weather Mitchell managed to find the body almost straight away.

The article also fails to inform on two key elements of the trial.

1.That the crux of the case was that Mitchell and possibly another conspired to destroy evidence. That other was lucky not to be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice.

This is clearly absolute nonsense to anyone who followed the trial in any detail. The prosecutions claim that clothing was burnt by Mitchell following the murder was never actually established. The perjury allegation made above, again, is factually nonsense because no one else was ever charged with any offense relating to the trial or the murder.

Hardly absolute nonsense... The "person concerned" (I guess we all know who we're talking about) was arrested and questioned. That the police did not decide to press charges does not necessarily mean that that person was found to be entirely innocent of any wrong-doing. Being released without charge covers a wide spectrum of situations all the way from pristine innocence to the Procurator Fiscal being uncertain that the evidence would lead to a conviction. Where that person falls in this spectrum is a matter of conjecture. So to say something like it is absolute nonsense that evidence was destroyed is unjustified. The best we could conclude is that there was a suspicion that evidence had been destroyed, but this was never proven. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. That Mitchell's brother who gave evidence during the trial contradicted the alibi Mitchell gave, which was crucial to the Prosecution case.

This alleged conspiracy and destruction of evidence explains the length of time it took to get the case to Court.

Holden 27

It says something about a conviction when the crux of the case lies on the accused possibly conspired to destroy evidence. Jizz 11:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The first half of the article is great, but the last half seems like a rant. -RomeW 06:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed part of the sentence that read (hardly abnormal in a rebellious teenager) to 'hardly abnormal in a rebellious tenager'. Replacing the parentheses with quotation marks makes it look more like the original author was citing criticism than giving an opinion. The later parentheses' are fine in regards to the 'urine' imo. Could do with some more details: background on Jodi, her relationship with Mitchell, media response, actual grounds for appeal. Great article so far. - K.Smythe

Notable person?

Is this person notable in any other way? Or are we going to list everyone who has been accused of something by someone? 8-(--Light current 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't just accused but found guilty (with very limited evidence too) in the longest criminal trial in Scottish history. Notability surely isn't a problem. Jizz 11:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

this was a high profile case, for what other reason would he have to be notable? 217.42.166.79 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn manson

so he was a fan of marilyn manson.why is this important?

Please sign posts... Marilyn Manson has recorded songs on the subject of murder and it was a plank of the prosecution's case that Mitchell was a fan of the singer. The implication was that he might have been re-enacting scenes from the songs. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

Some very unreliable witnesses here. The leadng paragraph says Jodi was 13. The first line of the body of text says she was 14. Can we trust the rest of this article? Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that in October and have corrected it now. I must just have been thinking that he was older than her. Is there anything else you noticed? I was thinking of expanding the description of the murder and the evidence. Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Luke Mitchell murder

This article is quite disgraceful in the way it attempts to cast doubt on the 'guilty' verdict returned by the jury and sow seeds of doubt on Luke Mitchell's behalf. Those who know the background to this case realise full well why the police considered Mitchell their number one suspect. This rests on knowledge not directly relevant to the murder and therefore not admissible in the court proceedings. That may not be the way the Law should operate in theory. Nevertheless, it reflects real life. The police did not pursue Mitchell randomly. They had extremely good reason to believe that he was their man and the local community with its knowledge of both perpetrator and victim and their previous histories also had no doubt. Part of the problem comes from the ludicrous fact that a minor involved in crime is guaranteed anonymity and a jury is not told of previous offences committed by the accused. Thankfully, some jurors are astute enough to realise this and read between the lines of the 'evidence'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin york (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The above comments come very close to being for a foruum. Comments must realte to the article and not surrounding issues or weather jurors etc are clever or astute etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Can someone please add more references to this, there's huge sections with not a single reference. Typing "Jodi Jones" into google returns this wiki entry as the first hit and given that it's the longest and most expensive in Scottish history we should make sure it's properly referenced and verifiable. Pspeed (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)