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)

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)

Please feel free to update and correctly source this article. examples of how it should be done are: The Murder of Amanda Dowler The Soham Murders and The Murder of Danielle Jones.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How about a rewrite of the first para?

A recent edit caused me to look at the first line: Luke Muir Mitchell (born July 1988) is a Scottish teenager... This was certainly true at the time of the murder and trial, but it is now 2010. He is 22 years old so he's not a teenager anymore. In fact, the whole first line (which is what appears in Google) is a mess.

Going further, the first para has more about the murderer protesting his innocence than about the victim or the circumstances of the case. Given that prisons are full of innocent men (in the opinions of the incarcerated), it is not very notable that a convict should protest his innocence. If people feel there is enough to raise concerns of a miscarriage of justice, this should be put in a separate section and doesn't really belong in the summary.

I propose something like (bearing in mind we don't have to enter every detail into the summary);

Jodi Jones was a teenage girl who was murdered by her boyfriend, Luke Muir Mitchell (born July 1988) in Easthouses, Scotland in June 2003. After Jodi was reported missing on the evening of 30 June 2003, a search was made by local people and Mitchell found the body. The case was the subject of widespread media coverage and was unusual in that the arrest of the suspect occurred 10 months after the murder and that the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence. Mitchell was convicted in January 2005 and sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison. In 2008, his appeal against his conviction was rejected.

--Oscar Bravo (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to re-write and please take a look at The Murder of Amanda Dowler The Soham Murders and The Murder of Danielle Jones for examples of how a lead in a murder article should be.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree the “teenager” opening should be cut; I changed it to “man” when teenager became incorrect but it’s been changed to “was a schoolboy” and back to “teenager” while in the meantime the article has changed to Murder of Jodi Jones rather than his name. I’d broadly support the proposed alternative opening, although the search was by family members and Mitchell rather than what “local people” suggests. Billwilson5060 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper sentence?

"Jones and others at the school used cannabis that Mitchell was supplying to his circle of friends; he had used cannabis on the school premises." I like using semicolons, but I'm not exactly sure how to , and I don't think you are either. In any case it would be better to have the phasing clearer. Overagainst (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

While the court transcripts are interesting, we can only use them to source the article to the degree to which they have been reported in secondary sources like newspapers and books. See WP:PRIMARY. --John (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If an edit summary says 'per talk' one would assume the specific edit has been discussed. Making a very general point about primary sources on talk does not count as discussion in my book. Anyway, I don't think your characterisation of the source as primary in the context is correct. IN APPEAL BY LUKE MUIR MITCHELL against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE, SUMMARY is not a court transcript of the trial or appeal. It is given as a source for established facts about the background to the case. Only in respect of the reasoning of the panel of judges for their decision about the appeal could it be called a primary source.

The text about his mother's intervention getting Mitchell from a non-denominational primary school into a Catholic secondary school has been removed. Mitchell's defenders say it is relevant to accusations Mitchell openly espoused Satanism that he was a non-Catholic attending a Catholic secondary school. I think it should be mentioned.Overagainst (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We should summarise the best secondary sources, and not be influenced by "Mitchell's defenders" or report material that is only available from primary sources. --John (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The above link to an official summary that is provided to aid in understanding the appeal panel's decision. The source gives an overview of the background aspects of the case by appeal judges, who are drawing on investigative reports by others. The were not participants in the events. In my opinion that makes it a secondary source. It does not contain any witness transcript or record of what was said in the trial. Please explain why you think the source is a primary source, and less reliable that press reports of court testimony. I am sorry, but the above linked document is a secondary source for what it was referenced for. In my opinion it's quite in order to use the judges' summary as a reference for the background to the case. That includes problematic behaviour in his non-denominational primary school which resulted in Mitchell being at a Catholic secondary school.Overagainst (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jodi Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908093813/http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJAC54.html to http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJAC54.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)