Mitchell faces DNA setback in appeal over Jodi murder

AN ATTEMPT by Luke Mitchell to blame two other men for the murder of his girlfriend, Jodi Jones, appeared to suffer a major setback yesterday.

Lawyers for the teenager had claimed the evidence against the pair was as compelling as the case against Mitchell at his trial.

But the Crown revealed both the new "suspects" had provided DNA samples, and neither had been linked to the murder scene.

Appeal judges agreed to give Mitchell's defence team more time before ruling whether the issue of the other men should form part of his appeal, which is to begin the week after next.

As has become customary at preliminary hearings in the case, Mitchell's mother, Corinne, and Jodi's mother, Judy, attended the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, and sat well apart in the public benches.

Mitchell, 19, is serving a minimum of 20 years under a life sentence for murdering Jodi, 14, in June 2003. He was then also 14 and the pair had become lovers.

Her body was found in woods at Roan's Dyke path, a short cut between her home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, Midlothian, and Mitchell's house in Newbattle. Her throat had been slit and the body was 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 was a fan of Marilyn Manson.

In his appeal, Mitchell has put forward a number of grounds on which he claims to have suffered a miscarriage of justice. Those include arguments that the trial should have been moved from Edinburgh, and that there had been insufficient evidence, particularly a lack of any forensic evidence linking him to the murder, to entitle the jury to return a guilty verdict.

Last month, it was announced he wanted to introduce an additional ground of appeal – permission has to be given by the court – based on fresh evidence about two men. The first was an habitual drug user who studied at Newbattle Abbey College. He was said to have had a particular fascination for gouged-out eyes – Jodi's injuries included cuts to the eyelids, and piercings and slashings around the eyes – and to have had pictures of the Black Dahlia murder. After Jodi's death, he changed his appearance and had injuries to his face.

The second man had not come forward during the murder investigation as having been in the area. At that time, a condom was found 50 metres from the scene, but DNA could not be matched to anyone on the DNA database. Last year, a sample taken from the man produced a match. He was questioned, and aspects of his statement proved false.

According to Mitchell's lawyers, the new evidence was "as compelling a circumstantial case against the individuals as the evidence relied on by the Crown against (Mitchell]".

The advocate-depute, John Beckett, QC,

said there had been "significant developments" and mentioned a police interview with a lecturer at the college who had undermined the information about the student.

Meanwhile, the other man had provided an innocent explanation about the condom.

"Both gentlemen gave samples to the police and DNA profiles were obtained which were compared to crime-scene samples, and there is no match whatsoever," he told the court.

Three judges deferred a ruling on whether to allow the extra ground for appeal until the full hearing on 5 February.

The appeal is expected to last at least two weeks.

FOCUS OF THE APPEAL

FOR all that attention has focused recently on possible new suspects and evidence not heard at Luke Mitchell's trial, it is an examination of testimony put before the jury that is likely to dominate the appeal hearing.

Transcripts of evidence from the trial, running to around 25 volumes, have been prepared for the appeal judges to study in advance of the hearing, and the defence will try to convince the court that Mitchell should never have been convicted of murdering Jodi Jones in June 2003, when both were aged 14, in woods at Roan's Dyke path in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

The simple assertion by Mitchell's lawyers in one of seven grounds of appeal submitted is that, yes, the evidence showed he could have committed the crime, but it was not enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.