Eye witness evidence against Luke Mitchell.
An in depth look at the reliability of the eye witness testimony in the case against Luke Mitchell, who was convicted of murdering school girl Jodie Jones.
Jodie Jones was a 14 year old school girl who lived in the Easthouses area of Dalkeith. She attended St David’s High School and was described as “bright” and “level headed” by her family. They have spoken of her keen interest in music, particularly the rock band Nirvana as well as her talents in painting and poetry. Jodie lived with her family and began a relationship with Luke Mitchell in March of 2003. On the 30th of June 2003, Jodi Jones was murdered in woodland off Roan’s Dyke Path near Dalkeith. She was found beyond a wall with her hands tied behind her back with severe cuts across her body. The forensic pathologist attending the scene reported extensive defensive wounds on Jodie and noted that a sharply pointed, bladed weapon was likely used to inflict the injuries.
Luke Mitchell, her 15 year old boyfriend was eventually convicted of her murder at the High Court in Edinburgh in a case reliant solely on circumstantial evidence.
In cases of this nature, each piece of circumstantial evidence must be looked at by the jury and considered as part of a bigger picture that the prosecution argues, points to the guilt of the accused person. In this case, there was no direct evidence (such as DNA evidence) linking Luke with the murder. Questions about the trial have been raised and doubts about the strength of Luke’s conviction have gathered momentum through alternative media outlets in recent years.
In 2021, a documentary called ‘Murder in a Small Town’ was aired on a UK mainstream television channel called ‘Channel Five’ and highlighted a series of concerns regarding Luke’s conviction. The documentary focussed on two retired detectives and a criminologist who raised points of concern relating to lack of (and disputed) evidence and a number of alternative suspects that were overlooked by the police. You can read more about what was raised in the documentary and other media channels such as the James English podcast ‘Anything Goes’ by clicking on the following link:
One of the key elements of the circumstantial case was the evidence of Andrina Bryson who testified for the prosecution. She reported seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of Roan’s Dyke Path at about 1650-1655 on the day in question. She initially described the male as wearing a khaki green, fishing style jacket and stated the collar was up and the pocket was bulging. She did not identify the female as Jodie but described the female as having black, shoulder length hair contained in a ponytail and wearing a navy jumper and jeans. Just 50 minutes later, two other witnesses were able to place Luke at the opposite end of the path and so the jury were directed to accept that Bryson’s sighting was of Jodie and Luke.
Luke’s defence lawyers raised questions about the reliability of Bryson’s evidence and criticised how she initially came to make her identification of Luke to the police. It was highlighted that Bryson identified Luke to police after being presented with a series of photographs depicting young males. It was argued that according to police procedure, an identity parade should have been conducted, however this was dismissed at appeal. It was said that the method of presenting photographs to the witness offered reasonable opportunity for valid identification. It was further argued that the Easthouses end of the path was a regular meeting point for Jodie and Luke and so considering the two had arranged to meet that evening, it was deemed reasonable for the identification to be correct.
Interestingly, when Bryson took to the stand at trial, she was unable to identify Luke in court as the male she saw by the path that evening. Inconsistences in her descriptions were also laid out as part of the appeal process. It was argued that the photograph of Luke presented to her by the police differed significantly from the other photographs in the presentation. Luke’s photograph was said to be easily identified as it was a recent photograph taken in custody. It was also noted to have a lighter background and so it was argued that the photograph of Luke unfairly stood out to the witness. Bryson testified that after identifying the male in the photographs, the following day she saw a named photo of Luke in the newspaper and believed they were the same person.
It should be noted that Bryson’s integrity is not being disputed but more the reliability of her evidence. Even the trial judge noted that errors in identification can occur and that it was a matter for the jury to decide on its reliability. Details of this evidence and how it was challenged at appeal can be found in the following court document relating to the case:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
The reliability of eyewitness testimony is a matter regularly addressed in the world of psychology and there are a number of studies that provide valuable insight on the issue. It is generally accepted that witnesses can be influenced by suggestion and misleading information.
Valentine and Maras (2011) investigated how eyewitness testimony may be impacted by cross examination. Cross examination was found to have a negative impact on recalling events accurately with a substantial decrease in accuracy found for young adults. These findings may be unsurprising given the known pressures of the court environment. Interestingly they also highlighted that co-witnesses can act as powerful tools of suggestion. The presence of a co-witness was found to contribute to errors in memory recollection with the idea of ‘memory conformity’ being the cause.
Cutler et al (1988, 1990) highlighted how jurors tend to have significant shortcomings in their knowledge about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Studies relating to trial judges provide varied results. On reliability alone, one study at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and found eyewitness testimony a key feature in the prosecution cases. Furthermore, it was found that 52% of the wrongful convictions were as a result of errors in the eyewitness evidence. Another study provided more worrying results. Of 349 wrongful convictions overturned as a result of DNA evidence, it was found that 70% of the cases had relied on eye witness evidence.
The counter argument is that eye witness testimony can be reliable under the correct circumstances. Factors such as stress, memory contamination, eyesight quality, witness bias and questioning techniques are said to influence reliability but for all these examples, there exists counter research questioning their impact.
The literature on the subject is extensive and findings are broad. There appears to be no definitive answer to say whether eye witness testimony can be wholly relied on. The same can also be said for DNA evidence, which now forms a key pillar of most serious prosecution cases. Now there are several examples emerging of wrongful convictions based on contaminated DNA so even the reliability of DNA evidence is now being questioned.
In consideration of this psychological information, what factors do you think were present in this case and did they have any impact on the outcome of Luke’s trial?
One thing that is certain in regards to Bryson’s evidence, the jury accepted her account and agreed that the two individuals at the end of the path were Jodie and Luke. Luke was sentenced to serve a minimum of 20 years in prison before consideration for parole. All appeal attempts have so far been unsuccessful and future routes for appeal are now limited. Luke will be considered for parole in 2025 but his chances of being released are highly unlikely. Luke insists he is innocent and claims he has suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Did you enjoy reading this article? If so, please subscribe to the blog to receive new Scottish crime cases direct to your inbox. Substack subscribers are the first to receive new cases from the Scottish True Crime blog before they are published anywhere else.
If you REALLY enjoyed the article, please consider supporting the Scottish True Crime blog at buy me a coffee. Your support is greatly appreciated!
Thanks for reading!