Scotland: 'New evidence' in Jodi murder appeal

LAWYERS for teenage killer Luke Mitchell believe there is new evidence regarding two suspects which could persuade appeal judges that he suffered a miscarriage of justice at his trial. It is alleged the two men have been put in the frame for the 2003 murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones and that the evidence against them is as compelling as the case the prosecution presented against Mitchell. One of the men is said to be a drug addict with a fascination for injuries, and the other has been linked to the murder scene by DNA.

The Crown's initial reaction to the claims was to question the significance of the evidence and whether, if it had been heard by the jury, it would have made any difference to the majority guilty verdict returned. Mitchell, 19, is serving a minimum of 20 years under a life sentence for murdering Jodi in June 2003. He was also 14, and the pair had become lovers. Her body was found in woods at Roan's Dyke path, a shortcut between her home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, Midlothian, and Mitchell's house in Newbattle.

Jodi's throat had been slit and her body mutilated. The injuries bore some resemblance to those depicted in paintings by the rock star Marilyn Manson of Elizabeth Short, known as the Black Dahlia, a Hollywood starlet murdered in 1947.

Mitchell's appeal against his conviction, and the length of his sentence, is due to be heard in February. His defence team is led by Donald Findlay, QC. A preliminary hearing took place yesterday at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh to check whether the case was ready to proceed. Mitchell sat a few feet in front of his mother, Corinne Mitchell. Jodi's relatives, including her mother, Judy, were ushered in by a different door and seated at the opposite side of the court from Mrs Mitchell. The defence counsel, Jane Farquharson, said an additional ground of appeal had been lodged, based on new information disclosed by the Crown. She added: "It is still work in progress and there are outstanding inquiries on behalf of the appellant being pursued."

Ms Farquharson submitted that the appeal hearing should begin as planned on 5 February, when formal legal issues in connection with the new ground of appeal could be addressed. John Beckett, QC, the advocate depute, agreed that the timetable should remain unchanged. He said of the new ground of appeal: "Having looked at such material as is available, it is very likely the Crown will be arguing that the new evidence... would lack the significance necessary to demonstrate that its absence from the trial occasioned a miscarriage of justice."

In the ground of appeal, it is stated the case against Mitchell was entirely circumstantial and the Crown had been unable to indicate any direct link between him and the murder scene. The new information, from witnesses who came forward at a late stage or as a result of other lines of police inquiry, related firstly to a student at Newbattle Abbey College who was "untraceable" until he attended voluntarily at Dalkeith police station in December 2006.

The second man did not come forward during the murder investigation as having been in the area. At that time, a condom was found close to the scene, but DNA could not be matched to anyone on the DNA database. However, in October this year, a sample from the man produced a match.

THE FACTORS THAT MILITATED AGAINST A FAIR TRIAL

LUKE Mitchell has put forward several grounds of appeal which, it is contended, show that he suffered a miscarriage of justice when he was found guilty in January 2005 of murdering Jodi Jones. His lawyers say there was insufficient evidence to convict him. There was no eyewitness and "a total absence of forensic evidence."

While they accept there was circumstantial evidence capable of demonstrating that he could have committed the murder, they maintain it was not enough to allow the jury to conclude his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Another reason involves the identification of Mitchell because one witness had been shown a series of photographs in which Mitchell, had a much brighter background, and the shots of 11 stand-ins did not have a reasonably sufficient resemblance to Mitchell.

It is also claimed the trial should have been moved from Edinburgh because of pre-trial publicity. The media coverage had treated him in "a vicious manner", his QC, Donald Findlay, had alleged during an earlier hearing. Mr Findlay said it had been national coverage, but would have been remembered more by people living in the area of the murder.

The trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, had refused a request to move the trial from Edinburgh, and Mr Findlay said the result had been that "everything that could have been done was not done to ensure a fair trial."

According to the grounds of appeal, all the new evidence "is as compelling a circumstantial case against the individuals as the evidence relied on by the Crown against (Mitchell] at trial. This additional evidence is of such significance, the verdict returned in ignorance of it must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)