All language subtitles for Murder.in.a.Small.Town.S01E02.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-NTb_track4_[eng]

REPORTER:14-year-old schoolgirl
killed in broad daylight.

Jodi Jones had everything
to live for,

but her life was cut truly
short when she was brutally
attacked.

Jodi had been beaten.

Her throat was cut between
12 and 20 times.

That is the most brutal murder
that I've came across.

Whoever committed this murder
was a total psychopath.

There's a maniac roaming among
us.

Suspicion pretty quickly
fell on her boyfriend, Luke.

He was a dope-smoking,
kind of feral youth,

scary Gothic character.

Luke Mitchell was
a devil worshipper.

This stuff was being
gobbled up insatiably

in broadsheets as well as
tabloids.

A 15-year-old boy has been
charged with the murder of
Jodi Jones.

There's something wrong with
this conviction.

There is no forensic evidence
to link him to the crime.

The person that carried out
this brutal murder would've

definitely had blood on him.

If we found something that
could exonerate Luke Mitchell

or implicate someone else,
it would be massive.

There was DNA, male DNA on the
body,

but it wasn't Luke's.

We've only been here
a short space of time.

Straight away, I spoke about
another two potential suspects.

We've got another person of
interest that absolutely
shocked me.

It was a guy by the name of
Mark Kane.

He's turned up with scratches
on his face.

If Luke Mitchell didn't kill
Jodi,

somebody else did.

I can't be more clear.

I absolutely did not kill Jodi.

I want to clear my name.

NEWSREADER:The boyfriend of
14-year-old Dalkeith schoolgirl

Jodi Jones has gone on trial
accused of her murder.

The jury are being asked to
decide if a 14-year-old girl
was murdered

by her 14-year-old boyfriend.

Luke Mitchell's trial began in
a blaze of publicity in
November 2004,

18 months after the murder
of Jodi Jones.

This was in the media across
the whole of Scotland.

This was a massive story.

This case became monstrous.

It wasn't just an issue
that obsessed the police

and the prosecution services
and, you know,

the legal world and the press.

This obsessed everybody.
Everyone was talking about
this.

And this emphasis on the evil,

on the occult, on the Satanist.

Inside, I was screaming
like a lunatic.

On the outside, I was
relatively calm because,

in my head, I thought,
"Right, OK, this has happened,

"but the lawyers knew the truth
and it'll all come right."

With no murder weapon, no
confession and no forensic
evidence,

the Crown's case against
Luke Mitchell

was entirely circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence is a
number of different
circumstances,

which, taken on the own, might
mean little or sometimes
nothing

but, when put together
in a particular way,

point the finger towards
the accused.

The prosecution case depended
on three central planks.

Firstly, that he found the
body.

And the assumption was that
since he found the body,

he must have known where it
was.

Secondly, that he was seen by
an independent witness.

A local woman had seen a young
couple just before the murder.

She later identified Luke
Mitchell as the male she saw.

The alibi that he claimed to
have was not accepted.

The final plank in the
prosecution's case against Luke
Mitchell

was that his mother gave him
a false alibi

and burned evidence to protect
him.

Luke's alibi was that he was
at home cooking dinner and
having dinner

with his mum and his brother.

Having heard all the evidence

and being cautioned
not to rush to judgment,

the jury retired on 20 January
2005.

24 hours later,
they found Luke Mitchell...

...guilty.

Lord Nimmo Smith told him,

"You can rightly be regarded
as wicked."

DIAL TONE

I have no recollection of him
being led down.

You know.

Some things, you have to blot
out.

REPORTER: Luke Mitchell was
then led away without a
flicker of emotion.

Like so many families that
I've met in the same
circumstances,

the belief it'll all come out
in court,

it is not until the foreman of
the jury stands up and says
guilty

that these people realise
that truth's not coming out.

Lord Nimmo Smith told Luke
Mitchell

he'd serve at least 20 years
in prison.

The press made a huge,
huge thing about

"Oh, the beast showed no
emotion."

When I saw him
immediately afterwards...

SHE SIGHS

That'll be etched on
my brain forever.

He was deathly white, his eyes
were like saucers

and his lips were blue.

You want emotion?

Come and see my son right now.
You'll see emotion.

If Mitchell's guilty, then
he deserves to rot in prison

for the rest of his life.

But equally, if he's not
guilty,

then society has done
something dreadful

and we need to look at
ourselves.

Former detectives John Sallens
and Mick Neill

have agreed to re-examine the
case against Luke Mitchell

for this documentary.

John and I will be looking for
something that somebody's
missed.

It may be simple as that -

somebody's maybe missed
something.

Scientists at the Forensic
Institute in Glasgow

specialise in criminal casework
in the UK and internationally.

Obviously, Michael and I have
been up at the crime scene

and we're looking for your
sort of overview on this.

First time I heard about the
case was when I was approached

by the defence to give a view
on the scientific evidence.

At that time, there was
no scientific evidence

specifically against Mr
Mitchell.

And that was quite curious,
given that it was a very
bloody event.

Normally, we would expect to
find some evidence at the
scene

or on the supposed perpetrator.

Luke's clothing was not only
seized, but it was
forensically examined

and there was no traces of
forensic evidence found on Luke

to link him to Jodi.

There was dirt found under
his fingernails

and his hair was described as
being dirty, I believe.

What lengths would you have to
go off to get rid of every
trace

of forensic evidence?

I'm basically asking,

jumping in the shower and using
standard shower gel,

would that do it?

Well, the fact that his hair
was messy and his nails still
had dirt

would suggest he hadn't
showered.

- Would suggest.
- Suggest, yeah.

If the assumption is this
person's got a lot of blood on
them...

Well, first of all, even if
you wipe your hands on your
clothes...

Well, he clearly never did
that if they've seized the
clothes early on.

And then he's got to go home,
he's got to go in the front
door,

he's got to turn on the taps
to wash.

And there's all of these
things that are potential
sources of evidence.

Finding Jodi Jones blood on
that door handle or that tap,

that begins to mean something
in the context of the case.

For Luke to have escaped, he
would have had to come up this
street.

Now, just have a look.
Look how wide open it is.

The houses loop right out onto
the road.

There's no fences.

And the idea that a killer
covered in blood would have
managed to

come up this street, unseen,
in broad daylight,

on a beautiful summer
evening...

...is ridiculous.

Police raided and searched Luke
Mitchell's home three times

before he was finally arrested
in April 2004.

No traces of Jodi Jones' blood
was ever found.

17 years after the murder
of Jodi Jones,

the quiet town of Dalkeith
remains in the public
spotlight,

as Luke Mitchell continues to
maintain his innocence.

Why do you still live in this
area?

Because we've done nothing
wrong - and it's my home.

Just...

If we were to leave, people
would think, "Hm, they're
running away."

And we're not running away.
We're not running away from
anything

because we haven't done
anything to run away from.

When he got convicted in 2005
until now,

he's had the opportunity to
plead guilty to this and he's
refused.

Part of the parole board
hearings, I think,

is "Would you accept your
guilt?"

And if people can come to terms
and accept their guilt,

it's a good mark for them
for getting parole,

but Luke's determined
not to do that.

He will never, ever say he's
guilty for something he's not
guilty of.

Why would you do that?

You would have to live with
that for the rest of your
life.

So, he wants out acquitted...

...which is what I'm fighting
for - an acquittal.

With no forensic evidence
against Luke Mitchell,

police turned their attention
to eyewitness evidence

linking him to Jodi just before
she was murdered.

Identification.

That's the crux of things.

If someone's been identified,

you can't get any better
evidence than identification.

Local woman Andrina Bryson came
forward during the
investigation.

She had driven past a young
couple at the entrance to the
path

just before the murder.

She said she was driving
through Easthouses

towards Newtongrange
and came around a sharp bend.

There was a girl standing
on the pavement and a guy

in the entrance track as she
drove around this sharp bend.

She identified Luke Mitchell as
the male from a photographic
line-up

shown to her by police.

Andrina Bryson's evidence
is probably the most critical,

in terms of the conviction.

The former detectives will now
recreate Andrina Bryson's
journey

and re-examine her
eyewitness evidence.

Right, John, so that's us.
We've confirmed the route.

And that's the same route
as Andrina Bryson drove.

It's basically a test to see
what you would actually see

driving at 30 mile per hour.

They place a young couple to
stand in the exact position on
the path

as described by Andrina Bryson
in her statement.

Put your back to the cars

and I want you to look over
your right shoulder.

We've got a young a female
member of my family who's
similar in age

to Andrina Bryson was at the
time.

Neve's totally unaware of
the whole inquiry,

the whole Jodi Jones murder.

She was too young at the time
to know anything about it.

And all she's aware of today
is that she's going to be
driving that car.

That's all she's been asked to
do.

Right, and we're off.

So you've never been to this
area of Edinburgh before,
Neve?

- No.
- No. Right.

I want you to stand with your
hands like that, OK?

The car will come down the hill
past Zoe.

And I want you to look as if
you're having a conversation
with her, OK?

We're going to drive our route
that Andrina Bryson drove.

And at the end of that, John's
going to ask Neve questions

in relation to what happened
during the drive on that route.

You're going left at
the bottom here.

Right. Neve, you've been on
that route.

Is there anything you've seen?
- Did anything stand out?
- Erm...

- Not really.
- OK, that's fine.
We're going to do it again.

- Yeah?
- Right.

She's obviously aware now that
she's got to be looking for
something,

so we'll see if she sees
anything this time.

Turn left. Next left, Neve.

- Hi, Neve.
- Hello.
That's your second run.

This time, did you see anything
out of the ordinary?

I don't think so.

That's fine.

Third time. OK? thank you.

We've sort of proven here that
there's nothing that's
particularly drawn Neve's
attention

to the couple, so we're going
to do it a third time and I'm
going to point them out to
her.

Right, so we'll do the same
again. OK.

Let's run number three, Neve.

And for this one, I'm going to
sit in the front with you. OK?
OK.

Same as before, just...

Same directions.

All right, Neve. Have a wee
chat with your pal.

That's the experiment finished.

Third time lucky.

Was there anything that stood
out for you? Erm...

Probably in the middle of the
drive, I've seen two people

looking like they had an
argument or something.

- Can you describe them?
- The girl,
I think, had blonde hair,

and she had her back to the
road, she had jeans on.

And I think she had a jacket
on.

And the male who was...
He had his arms out like this.

And he had... I think
he had a grey jumper on

and his hair was quite short.

Quite short. What colour hair?
I think it was light.

Did you get a look at
the man's face?

Slightly.

What can you remember about it?

He wasn't happy. He wasn't
happy.

Any features of his face
you can remember?

He was clean-shaven.
He didn't have a beard.

He was clean-shaven, didn't
have a beard. Describe her
again.

She had light-coloured jeans on
with kind of long brown hair,

and a dark jacket
with red bits on it.

And they were having a
discussion?

A heated one, I would say.
Heated discussion? Right, OK.

When you first described
the female... Yes.

...you said she had blonde hair
and then you said you had
brown.

So was it blonde or brown?
I don't know.

Thanks, Neve.

Having carried out
this experiment today,

I think it adds a wee bit of
doubt to Andrina Bryson's
statement

and how much she's actually
seen.

The bottom line is she's drove
by the first time

and there's nothing that's
thrown her attention to the
couple

standing up the lane.

So whatever's drawn Andrina
Bryson's attention to it,

considering there was not much
going on other than a couple
talking,

I really don't know.

The problem with eyewitness
statements is, good as they
are,

some of the best evidence
you can get,

eyewitnesses are influenced.

The moment I leaned forward and
became agitated and suggested

that the couple were having
an argument,

that coloured Neve's perception
of that version of events,

which then affects her
statement to John.

18 months after identifying
Luke Mitchell

as the male on the path,

the prosecution called Andrina
Bryson to testify at his trial.

Andrina Bryson's asked,

"Is the person you saw that
day in this courtroom? Can you
see him?"

She says... She can't identify
him.

LUKE: That was a big moment for
me.

There's been pictures of this
guy in the media

for the best part of 19 months.

And when he's standing there
in front of her,

in court, she can't identify
him.

And she was the prosecution's
star witness.

The present day re-examination
has now uncovered

another line of inquiry
and more potential suspects.

There's a great deal of irony
here that Luke was the only
suspect.

He was only ever the only
suspect.

There was nobody else treated
as a suspect

or considered as a suspect.

And yet...

...you didn't have to look very
far back then for other people

that should at least have been
persons of interest.

I think we need to take a look
at these two -

the Moped Boys.

Gordon Dickie and John Ferris?

Aye. The moped... Apparently
it's a home-made moped.

It's not got a silencer fitted.

There's numerous witnesses
speak to hearing this moped

running about the area of the
path between the two,

Newburgh and Easthouses.

Just a short time later, we've
got a witness who sees the
moped

against the wall, right at the
V in the wall in the crime
scene, right?

Sees the moped leaning against
the wall but doesn't see them
there.

What time is that at?5:15.

The exact time that Jodi
was murdered.

According to the prosecution's
case.

So we've got those two,
seen at five o'clock,

their moped seen at the V at
5.15.

They're nowhere to be seen
after Jodi's been murdered.
Yeah.

That's kind of bizarre.

Following appeals by police,

the "Moped Boys" came forward
five days after the murder.

One of the boys was Jodi's
cousin, John Ferris.

This is Jodi's cousin

and he takes five days
to come forward.

Why would he do that?

The police were appealing for
anybody that was on the path,

or roundabout, between five
and ten o'clock that night to
come forward

and just be eliminated.

And these two didn't do that.

The Moped Boys were called
as witnesses during the trial.

They were asked where they were

when the bike was propped
against the wall without them

because the witness could only
see the bike, no people -

and they said
they couldn't remember.

They couldn't remember
where they were.

They couldn't remember
what they were doing.

Most of their evidence was they
couldn't remember anything

about that day.

We then find out that one of
them, John Ferris, hacked all
his hair off

by himself, with scissors...

...the day after the murder.

In a dramatic moment
during their testimony,

the Moped Boys both denied
murdering Jodi.

Defence actually put the
questions to them directly,

"Did you kill Jodi?" Directly.

And obviously, they both said
no.

OK, this is Judge Nimmo Smith,
names them and says it was
clear

they were in the firing line
but points out that neither

was actually accused outright
of murder.

That's because they were just
asked.

Do you know the difference
with that?

They've got to say, "I put it
to you that you did murder
Jodi Jones,"

instead of saying, "Did you
murder Jodi Jones?"

When someone's convicted and
that conviction is
questionable,

and you look back and say,
"Oh, yeah,

"they questioned him and they
put that all over the papers,

"but they didn't question
these people and nobody asked
why."

I didn't meet Luke until about
eight weeks after Jodi was
murdered.

So, let's see.

In 2003, my future
was alternative health.

Never in a million years
would I have believed

that I would end up taking
a completely different route -

studying the law, learning
about wrongful convictions

and ending up doing a PhD
in criminology.

This case took me in a
completely different
direction.

Sandra Lean has continued to
legally challenge the police
treatment

of Luke Mitchell during
the murder investigation

as grounds for a miscarriage
of justice.

Luke had just turned 15 when
he was detained on August
14th, 2003.

Detained. He wasn't arrested.

But he was taken to the police
station and questioned for
hours

with no lawyer present.

He asked for his mum and they
wouldn't let him speak to her.

He asked for a lawyer and they
told him he wasn't entitled to
one.

Do you get the idea, Luke?

Everybody's speaking about you
carrying knives.

We've got all these people
talking to the fact

that you're a violent laddie,
a violent laddie, OK?

You're a violent boy, OK?

Luke Mitchell at the age of 15,
and therefore still a child,

was interviewed for a lengthy
period of time.

Some, albeit not all, of that
interview was then used

in the case to convict him.

Three years later, Lord Justice
General Lord Hamilton

described the police officer's
conduct as "outrageous".

"At times, the nature of
the questioning was such

"that the questioner did not
seem to be seriously
interested

"in a response from the
appellant,

"but rather endeavouring
to break him down

"into giving some
hoped-for confession

"by his overbearing and
hostile interrogation."

Interrogation.

"Such conduct, particularly
where the interviewee

"was a 15-year-old youth,

"can only be deplored."

The Scottish Criminal Cases
Review Commission concluded in
2014

that Luke Mitchell's human
rights had been infringed

during this interview.

Looking back now at how the
police dealt with Luke
Mitchell

when he was interviewed,
it beggars belief.

There should have been no
interview of a child

without legal advice and
support.

With their re-examination of
the case drawing to a close,

the former detectives
review the evidence so far.

During the course of
investigation,

we've uncovered what we would
regard as a number of
potential suspects

that are basically in the same
category as Luke Mitchell.

So what we intend to do today,
Mick and I,

is we're going to go through
each one at a time and we'll
apply things

like motive, ability,
identification, etc.

It's a tool that detectives
have used for a long time

and it's been very effective
in some very high-profile
murder cases.

Right, Mick.

- Steven Kelly.
- Steven Kelly -
Jodi's sister's boyfriend.

Identification. With blood
found on the T-shirt that
contained...

...Steven Kelly's DNA.

There was DNA, male DNA,
on the body.

But it wasn't Luke's.

And the DNA related to Steven
Kelly.

Janine's boyfriend.
Janine's boyfriend.

He then changed his statement,
and by the time it got to
court,

it was totally different from
the statement

he provided at the start.

In the first statement, he said
that Luke's dog, Mia,

was sniffing the air
and was alerted to something.

But then in the statement
he used at court,

the dog didn't sniff the air
and Luke went straight to the
V.

And it makes it look as if
Luke knew where the body was.

The condom man.

That condom was found to have
what was described as fresh
semen.

He would've been
as strong a suspect,

if not a stronger suspect
than Luke Mitchell.

Given that it was a young
female and there was a condom
found with semen,

I think it should have had
more significance than it
apparently did.

Next, we've got Gordon Dickie
and John Ferris,

the two that we've referred to
as the Moped Boys.

John Ferris, a relative of
Jodi's family,

puts hisself on the path at
the time of the murder.

His moped's seen at the time of
the murder,

near to the murder scene.

And he takes five days
to come forward.

Why would he do that?

He changes his appearance after
the murder. He cuts his hair.

Hacked all his hair off.

Opportunity.
Both had the opportunity.

They both know the area very
well.

They'd know how to get away
from the locus of the murder
quickly.

Most of their evidence was
they couldn't remember

anything about that day.

Mark Kane.

Stays nearby the locus.

He stays in the college, which
is not far from the locus.

He habitually carries a knife.

Next day, he turns up at
his pal's house, Scott Forbes.

So he's left the area, he's
got injuries, scratches to his
face,

redness to his eyes.

He's the closest to the locus.
It's just directly across a
field.

It's covert. You can't...
You're out of sight.

Oh, definitely.

We come to the last person
we're going to speak about
today,

and it's probably our biggest
person of interest

from the whole re-investigation
John and I have carried out.

This one...
This person features massively.

He did feature at the time of
the inquiry with the police,

but for whatever reason, it
didn't seem to go any further

and his name never came out.

For various reasons, like I've
said,

we can't name that individual
just now.

We could go further,
but we've got to be careful.

Let's put it this way - when we
started this investigation,

he was in the periphery.

But the further we went into
it, the more he came to the
fore.

And he's now sitting here as
our strongest potential
suspect.

I believe he's right up there.

I totally believe that the
police wanted a quick arrest

because they were getting
pressure from the public.

A dangerous person was at large

and they were in fear
for their lives, basically.

And what I'd say to them is,
"You still should be -

"because that person
is still at large."

Journalist Bob Smith has
sparked new interest in the
case

and convinced the Mail on
Sunday to pick up the story.

What made you get interested
in the Luke Mitchell case?

Well, I worked as a journalist
for a Sunday newspaper for
many years

and I did a lot of reporting
on crime.

And I was interested in
miscarried justice,

or alleged miscarriage of
justice,

putting information out there
into the public domain

that might change the narrative
around the Luke Mitchell case.

So I went to the Mail on
Sunday.

I said to them, "His mum is
willing to do a lie detector

"if you can help to arrange
to get a polygraph expert

"to come in and test her."

And I said, "This is going to
be a sensational story either
way."

Either she's going to fail it
and that's going to underline
what

the prosecution, the police

and some of the public
and the media thought...

...because she had given him an
alibi

for the time that Jodi
was apparently murdered...

...or if she'll pass it.

Can you imagine the eyebrows
that will be raised if that
happens?

His alibi was me, obviously,
because he was in the house
with me.

Because I was working
full-time,

obviously I had to get help
with chores. That was his
chore.

Majority of the times,
he cooked the evening meal.

It was a big gamble on the part
of Corrine

to put herself forward
to take a lie detector test.

Here's the key witness,
the key alibi witness,

and she's so determined, so
convinced that her story is
true

and her son is innocent
that she's going to put herself

through a polygraph test
in the glare of a newspaper.

We would be taking pictures
and we would publish the
result,

even if it went against her.

In February 2012,

Corrine Mitchell took
the lie detector test

and agreed for the results to
be published in the Mail on
Sunday.

I faced numerous accusations -

one of them being that
I actually did the murder,

another one being that Luke
did the murder and I helped
him clean up,

I'd burned all his bloodied
clothing in my log burner.

She's passed it...

...without, you know, any
hesitation,

any suggestion that her answers
were in any way vague

or not 100% truthful.

So, yeah, certainly that led me
to think...

..."Yeah, I've got to keep
pushing on with this

"and find out what other
evidence and information there
is

"in this case."

Nine weeks later,
from inside prison,

Luke Mitchell also took
the lie detector test.

Corrine Mitchell had
sensationally passed a lie
detector test.

Luke Mitchell requested that he
also be allowed to take the
test

from inside prison.

We decided, "Right, let's see
if we can get Luke to get a
polygraph,"

cos that, again, would be,
well, compared to his mother

passing a lie detector.

That would be an even more
dramatic, sensational twist in
the story

if he passed as well.

The polygraph examiner tells
Luke Mitchell to close his
eyes,

to block out distractions
from the prison floor.

As you can imagine, it caused
quite a media sensation at the
time

and people obviously
asking questions -

"Could this indeed be
a miscarriage of justice?"

You, as a professional
journalist,

you deal with people
telling you the truth

and telling you lies regularly.

As a whole, right from the
start,

what's your opinion on
Luke Mitchell?

Looking at all the different
strands of the case that cause
concern

and raise question marks, like
lack of forensic evidence...

...question marks over the
reliability of eyewitnesses...

...some of the behaviour
of the police...

...and then layer on top of
that the things I was directly
involved with,

there was reasonable doubt

and there was enough doubt
about the conviction,

enough question marks, that we
need to keep looking at this
case.

Is it possible is the real
murderer of Jodi Jones still
out there,

walking about, while an
innocent man's spent a long
time in jail?

I'm going to go down and
check on Corrine again.

I did speak with her last
night,

but her health has
deteriorated so badly over the
last few months.

Every time I go down, every
time she doesn't answer the
phone,

every time I leave,

it terrifies me that that's
going to be the last time,

and that next time...

...she's not going to be there

or I'm going to go down
and find her dead.

She's been a figure
of so much hate...

...in this area for so long.

How are you feeling?

Pretty crap, to be honest.
Right?

Are you back at the
hospital...?

Well, I was supposed to be
back yesterday,

but they cancelled.

Freezing in here, Corrine.

Absolutely freezing, it is.
Yes, it is.

It is, but one gets used to it, eventually.

You do what you have to do.

Well, not too many people
have to do that.

Even Luke's got heat and water.

That's true. That's true.

And he has a toilet!
Has a toilet, yeah.

Yes, yes, that's a wee joke we
have.

I've got to slop out
- and he doesn't.
- Yeah.

THEY LAUGH
And he's the one in prison.

I have nightmares about...

...popping my clogs before he
gets released. I really,
really do.

Because my mum, she...

She was determined to see her
grandson out where he belonged.

Unfortunately, she was taken
before her time,

and I worry that that is going
to happen to me.

SHE COUGHS

But it's not in my hands,
basically, now.

It's not my hands,
it's in the hands of fate.

This is where we started
our investigation,

and we're now at the end.

Every time you come back here,
it's a horrible feeling of
dread.

What happened here
was beyond terrible -

a 14-year-old girl murdered.

I do believe Luke Mitchell
suffered a serious miscarriage
of justice

and was let down by
the legal system.

And he was also, in my opinion,
let down by a jury.

I can't understand how they
could find him guilty

beyond reasonable doubt
at that trial.

I would take it one step
further.

27 years as a police officer,
my gut instinct has never let
me down.

I'm not based on my opinion or
my assumptions on a gut
instinct alone,

but on the investigation
we've carried out here.

In my opinion, Luke Mitchell
did not commit this crime and
he's innocent.

As a scientist, I don't take a
view on innocence or guilt.

We tend to work on the
evidence.

In my view, in this case,
there simply seemed to be

an insufficiency of evidence
for a conviction.

Until we have answers to all
the questions surrounding this
case,

this case will never go away.

Luke Mitchell's defence team
have lodged three appeals

between 2008 and 2011,

all of which have been
rejected.

So many lives were destroyed
here.

Jodi lost her life,

but so many others have lost
so much

because the truth's just never
been found.

I have a vision.

It's not a dream because I'm
not asleep, but I have a
vision.

I see Luke at the top of
these stairs, smiling.

He's got his long hair again...

...tied back in a ponytail,
wearing his sunglasses,

and he's smiling
because he's been released.

It's something I just keep in
there. I just keep it in
there.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media