SCOTTISH COURTS & TRIBUNALS CONFIRM FACTS REGARDING TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

The following attachments are a copy of my recent correspondence and resulting reply.

As became evident during past 6 months, despite assertions otherwise, the Luke Mitchell case trial transcripts have always been available to everyone.

A reference to both the 1993 Order and 1995 Act is germane, as the long superceded 1993 Order is cited by Sandra Lean, author of related book, 'Innocents Betrayed' (2018) and foremost campaigner for a miscarriage of justice, in support of incessant and erroneous claims that the case trial transcripts are not available to members of the public.

Effectively, Luke Mitchell's trial was held in an open court and reported on daily by the media.

These transcripts are a verbatim account of each day's proceedings, incorporating legal arguments which the jury were not always permitted to hear and occasionally required to leave the courtroom.

The related background is comprehensively documented here:

AVAILABILITY OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS - THE RECENT TIMELINE

The following trial transcripts are now available online.

These naturally allow for an unbiased appraisal of case evidence, as presented at Luke's trial:

DC Alan Towers - Day 1
DC Alan Towers - Day 2

- Earliest documented evidence, as Luke Mitchell is interviewed at Dalkeith police station, directly following those fateful events, on the night of 30 July, 2003.


The 'search party':

Alice Walker

Janine Jones - Day 1
Janine Jones - Day 2

Steven Kelly - Day 1
Steven Kelly - Day 2

- How events unfolded, as family members met up with Luke to search for Jodi and proof that original statements confirmed Luke's alsatian, Mia, did react at the 'V-shaped' wall break, beyond which Jodi's body was discovered.


Corinne Mitchell - Day 1
Corinne Mitchell - Day 2

- Luke Mitchell's mother relates her own account of events, which incorporates controversial claims related to a knife belonging to Luke and which eluded a police search.


Shane Mitchell - Day 1
Shane Mitchell - Day 2
Shane Mitchell - Day 3

- Luke Mitchell's brother's critical evidence, regarding whether Luke's alibi of being at home making the tea, as claimed by both Luke and Corinne, plus originally Shane himself, can be validated, or evidentially challenged.


DS Craig Dobbie

- In overall charge of investigations and some debatable claims in relation to 'exemplary' crime scene management.


Alan Ovens

- Partner of Judith Jones and confirmation of Joseph Jones, Jodi's brother, remaining at home, after Jodi left to meet up with Luke.


Andrew Holburn

- Cyclist who claimed that Luke, identified by his companion bike riders, was witnessed circa 18:00 and described as wearing a type of 'army shirt' - definitely not a bomber jacket.

Other witnesses to perceived sightings of Luke at around the same time and their varying descriptions of clothing worn by Luke:

Andrina Bryson - Day 1
Andrina Bryson - Day 2

Carol Heatlie

Lorraine Fleming

Patrick Walsh

Rosemary Walsh


PC Anita Dow

- Details of discoveries made during a police search of Luke's bedroom.


David High

- A school friend;  with Jodi not having turned up, Luke arranged to meet with David High and a couple of others. Notable as David High confirms Luke was just his 'normal self' and also wearing the same clothes as at school, earlier in the day - including his green bomber jacket.


Sgt George Thomson - Day 1
Sgt George Thomson - Day 2
Sgt George Thomson - Day 3

- Insight regarding Luke and Shane's police interview, alias 'interrogation'.


DC Michele Lindsay - Day 1
DC Michele Lindsay - Day 2

- A Family Liaison Officer, assigned to  the Mitchell household and to whom Luke provided a detailed map, illustrating an alternative route Jodi might have taken, ending up in the crime scene clearing.

It is a remarkable achievement in only some six months, since a realisation that despite vehement assertions otherwise, the trial transcripts were, in fact, available to all.

The current transcripts can be accessed via:

LUKE MITCHELL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

To recap from a previous blog posting:

SANDRA LEAN'S PODCAST UPDATE ON 10 MARCH, 2024

Sandra Lean comments:

"Now one of the things that came up, was the cost and difficulty of getting these transcripts and a claim that I have lied about that.

On May 23rd, 2023, the Scottish Justice Committee, which is a cross-party group, looking at issues of justice, held a meeting, a discussion, about the difficulty and the cost, of people obtaining transcripts and they quoted specifically the rules about having to have good reason and the courts having to agree that that was good reason.

I didn't have the time to put the link in and I'll put it in below, later.

So, if they were having that discussion in May, 2023, what changed and when did it change?

Because I'm not thinking the justice committee would be sitting there, believing this is all really, really difficult and really expensive, when it wasn't (indecipherable - perhaps 'needed'?).

So, there's something going on there, that we don't know about".

I can't see any added link as mentioned, however, this would appear to be an irrelevant hearing which addresses a specific issue and surrounding confusion regarding access to court transcripts, such as:

"I had no idea that I was allowed to have access to them".

Associated link.

Sandra Lean continues:

"I was always told personally, can't put out the transcripts or the statements, or anything like that, that's always been the legal advice to me.

That's the advice I've taken.

I'm not taking the advice of some random on Facebook, over the legal advice I've been given on that front".

Is Sandra Lean seriously advocating, that for some fifteen years since her involvement, she has been given legal advice which incompetently, overlooked the following, during that entire fifteen year period?:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

This Act allows anyone who is not a person convicted at Trial to apply under this section of the Act to obtain a copy of a transcript for any part of the proceedings that has been held in open court. Open court is a court or trial to which members of the public can freely attend.

(End)

Confirmation link.

Regrettably, it is necessary to revisit same, as it has resurfaced in another, more recent, podcast.

Quoting from the following:

Social Sessions

Sean Toak

Episode 39 - Dr. Sandra Lean (Luke Mitchell in Depth)

12 June, 2024

Asked, "What is this with the transcripts", Sandra Lean replies:

"I had all the case papers in Luke's case... all the defence papers... including the transcripts that the defence had.

But my advice, the legal advice in all the years I had those papers, was that I cannot make them public... just like a solicitor holding papers can not make them public. 

That's the first thing.

Secondly, the ability to get transcripts and the cost were ridiculous, so in Scotland you had to give the reasons why you wanted transcripts and they had to agree that was a valid reason.

So, when I was asked about the transcripts and whether we could raise money and everything else, that was the response I gave. That was the response I had always been told was the case, had always believed to be the case and just to back that up, in May 2023, the justice committee in Scottish Parliament, discussed the question of why transcripts were so difficult and so expensive to get.

And then some people who had at one point been part of the main support group and had broken away, claimed that they'd gone and got transcripts, with absolute ease, for pennies... and used that to claim that I'd been lying about the transcripts being expensive and the transcripts being difficult to get.

(...)

But then they twisted that to say that what I'd said in the book... the transcripts proved that the book was dishonest.

(...)

Nobody's actually pointed out where these lies are, or what these lies are, because they can't.

(...)

How did other people manage to get the transcripts!

I don't know... I don't know....

I have no idea...".

(End)

The elemental, inherent discrepancies, were, in truth, already highlighted and one source is the following:

SANDRA LEAN'S CLAIMS v TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

There was never any such entity as a 'breakaway group', merely supporters concerned with a conceivable miscarriage of justice, who remain so and endeavoured to facilitate the available evidence, resulting in a heinous backlash, as this was perceived to challenge an established status quo.

The cost for an existing trial transcript is approximately equivalent to a photocopying charge - around fifty pence per page.

Sandra Lean concludes:

"I do believe...emm... that there may have been...  'access'... through 'different routes'... I don't know what those would be, but certainly, I have no idea where they got them from....

But I do know and I did say at the time... it's almost like we're being played for fools here...".

Your judgement call, as always...

Ultimately and perhaps somewhat ironically, this entirely unnecessary distraction is peripheral and the published trial transcripts validate significant evidence apropos Luke Mitchell's defence.

This will be addressed separately.