Luke Mitchell – Polygraph Test

Luke Mitchell’s polygraph test conducted on 25th april 2012. Further details on Luke’s case can be found on his website here – caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk And the case is available for discussion on the Wrongly Accused Person charitiy’s forum – here forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk At time of publishing, his case was under review by the SCCRC.
Be Sociable, Share!
  • more Luke Mitchell   Polygraph Test

23 Responses to “Luke Mitchell – Polygraph Test”

  1. David Marr says:

    Luke and his Mother think if they keep saying he is innocent enough times it will be true. Thick as thieves. He should be locked in solitary for actual life just like Jodi and her family. Why does that spineless liar have internet acces or any luxuries like TV and Pool Table. I agree with stewartmcdonald44 below. This sort of thing undermines appeals of people who might actually be innocent

  2. Michael Smith says:

    What a JOKE, can’t believe he still thinks he’s innocent posting this pish, time to MAN UP and realise he’ll probably never get out thank god. You poor blinded people need take a thought for Jodi and her family because one day you’ll wake up and see him for what he :(

  3. wronglyaccusedperson says:

    You should research your own research better, it’s saying there’s a greater risk of a false positive! Quote from your source below -

    “Research shows that in Multiple-Issue Tests, when the subject is truthful to some questions but deceptive to others, the accuracy of ALL decisions DRAMATICALLY decreases and in particular, FALSE POSITIVE ERRORS increase.”

    ( False positives are the most awful errors, where an innocent person is found to be deceptive by the test.)

  4. annabelle rose says:

    Multiple Issue testing is FAKE…..these tests prove nothing.

    Go to forestpolyresearch.co.uk
    All the details are there on these tests…..they are a JOKE

  5. PoppyAnnify says:

    I support Jeremy Bamber imprisoned for 27 yrs and innocent, so similar to Luke’s case, no forensics, lying ‘witnesses’ Jeremy passed a polygraph test in 2007 but judiciary threw it out.There’s something intrinsically corrupt in our Criminal Justice System. Corruption and incompetence run through it like letters in a stick of rock, including CCRC, lying coppers, bent CPS, and the IPCC who allow police to retire rather than face charges plus politicians who do nothing to address this obscenity.

  6. Ralph Irvine says:

    I’ve read up on this but not to a granular level, but let me stress my opinion; My money’s on the guilty veridct, It’s not the prosecutors fault there’s a lack of evidence in this case – many killers are masters at covering their tracks as per the pre-meditation. I do believe the Court assessed and determined Luke’s guiltiness as ‘Reasonably forseeable’ and this lead to the conviction. His alibi wasnt proven, he displayed signs of having knew where the body was etc. Take the blinkers off.

  7. TheSpencerh82 says:

    do u know anything about this case? it seems not – look at the evidence and tell me if any of the evidence means it is certain he was guilty. this was the worst conviction this country has ever seen. whether he was guilty or not, the evidence is a joke.

  8. TheSpencerh82 says:

    INNOCENT

  9. TheSpencerh82 says:

    do u know anything about this case? it seems not – look at the evidence and tell me if any of the evidence means it is certain he was guilty. this was the worst conviction this country has ever seen. whether he was guilty or not, the evidence is a joke. the conviction should be quashed

  10. TheSpencerh82 says:

    do u know anything about this case? it seems not – look at the evidence and tell me if any of the evidence means it is certain he was guilty. this was the worst conviction this country has ever seen. whether he was guilty or not, the evidence is a joke.

  11. stewartmcdonald44 says:

    He should have more time added to his sentence for that cheap stunt.he is one evil scumbag the same as his lying mother.

  12. PointlessRandomTV says:

    He did NOT get a fair trial, and there was NOT enough evidence to convict him. But the media chose to make him into a monster, and people have fallen for it.

  13. mixed8martial9artist says:

    But anyways, the video.

    Dodgy questions..

    Mentioned that they’d gone over the questions..

    Clearly breathing very deeply and rythmically like meditating..

    Not sitting terrifically with me this one.

  14. mixed8martial9artist says:

    The Luke Mitchell you wouldn’t have seen would have been the boy who found an injured hedgehog and so’s that he could take it to the vet the next day, sat up all night until morning trying to keep it warm and fed it little pieces of food. The hedgehog didn’t make it however ask yourself how a young boy who could care so much about the well being of a hedgehog could slaughter his girlfriend in the horrendous way that Jodi was.

  15. mixed8martial9artist says:

    I knew both Luke and Jodi personally, i.e. in the same circle of friends that hung out every day of the week. We (including Luke) were horrified to lose Jodi in such a horrible way. Luke, as did all of us, came across to “normal people” as being shifty creepy weirdos and we freaked people out. We did it on purpose as we were but 13~14 years old and listened to music that told us to be creepy weirdos and steer from the norm. It was all false pretence looking back.

  16. SCGHTV says:

    I don’t take a position in this case but if lie detector manufactures think for one moment there product has any scientific legitimacy then they can think again. The defence is just as well flipping a coin with which ever answer he gives to determine the truth. These detectors are not a yellow brick road to truth and never will be. They should not be indulged in any court, not even as circumstance evidence. There not admissible in Scots law for a reason.

  17. biggee112 says:

    He wouldn’t have been sent down if the police didn’t have enough evidence ..

  18. thehype04 says:

    I was just about to say that lol

  19. wronglyaccusedperson says:

    I haven’t got a copy yet, and we were unable to bring it to your attention sooner since we weren’t certain enough that it would happen in advance, but the Mail on Sunday has published a follow up article in the paper version today. I’m led to believe it’s another good piece and covers to some extent the lie detector tests implications to Luke’s case itself.

    It’s not available online so if you’re keen to see what’s in it and live in Scotland it would be worthwhile nipping out to get one.

  20. David Johnston says:

    The evidence – and lack of evidence – in this case is astounding. No DNA from Luke on Jodi and vice versa. Blood and semen on Jodi from several men. Her sisters boyfriends blood on Jodi’s T-shirt. Statements changing to fit the theory that Luke knew where the body was (it was actually his dog who alerted them to the body, and they all said that in their initial statements). Luke Mitchell is in jail for something he didn’t do. FACT

  21. kenetrator says:

    Aye and, just like in the films, the emotional music will play while you give a beautiful outburst that suddenly makes people believe you’re innocent just like that and at the end you get a standing ovation all be it slow to start with. Each member of the jury taking their time to actually stand up and applaud.

    If only things were that simple.

    Lie detectors might not be perfect but he passed.

    The bottom line is you and I do not know what happened so it’s best to just withhold judgement.

  22. naepalz says:

    .. .British legal history is littered with examples of the Police corrupting, ignoring or losing evidence to bring about a particular verdict, try doing some homework before you dismiss this idea out of hand. I suggest you start with a bloke called Stefan Kiszko-it makes pretty grim reading if you believe in the inegrity of the police.

  23. naepalz says:

    Thank you for reinforcing my case and so eloquently too. The Police and apparently “everyone in Dalkeith” “knew” it was Luke Mitchell despite a total lack of evidence.How exactly did they know? He was supposed to be innocent until proved guilty. And this boy was supposed to have had a fair trial in Edinburgh??? There were no other suspects because all the time and effort went into framing Mitchell, not looking for anyone else. Other credible leads were not even followed up….

Leave a Reply


Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Rent This Page! Your Logo. Your Number. Your Customers!

Order Now