Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones

[Rolfe]

It's not simply a matter of "distrusting" Alan Turnbull, it's a matter of knowing that he blatantly lied to the court at Camp Zeist in order to avoid having the prosecution's star witness exposed as a lying fantasist. This is a man intent on getting a conviction and entirely prepared to use foul means to achieve this. His wife Dorothy Bain is also dodgy as hell.

How anyone can look at the facts of this fleeting glimpse identification of a complete stranger by Andrina Bryson as she drove past in a car and assert that that is beyond reasonable doubt simply beggars belief.

I'm reluctant to say too much about the psychiatric evaluations because the criminal psychiatrist who dealt with Luke in the earlier stages of his incarceration (also with David Gilroy) is a friend of mine. He's now retired and not involved in these cases any more, but I don't want to get anyone in trouble for telling tales out of school.

There is a feature of the Scottish criminal justice system (not unique to Scotland but for various reasons it's particularly acute here) that there is extraordinary resistance to acknowledging the possibility that a miscarriage of justice has happened. People who stand out against this entrenched groupthink are punished to the fullest extent possible. Luke Mitchell was branded a "fiend" from the very beginning of this, and that assessment has to be maintained to maintain the integrity of the system.

I just hope they take the same attitude when that bastard Gilroy comes up for parole.

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

It's not simply a matter of "distrusting" Alan Turnbull, it's a matter of knowing that he blatantly lied to the court at Camp Zeist in order to avoid having the prosecution's star witness exposed as a lying fantasist. This is a man intent on getting a conviction and entirely prepared to use foul means to achieve this. His wife Dorothy Bain is also dodgy as hell.

How anyone can look at the facts of this fleeting glimpse identification of a complete stranger by Andrina Bryson as she drove past in a car and assert that that is beyond reasonable doubt simply beggars belief.

I'm reluctant to say too much about the psychiatric evaluations because the criminal psychiatrist who dealt with Luke in the earlier stages of his incarceration (also with David Gilroy) is a friend of mine. He's now retired and not involved in these cases any more, but I don't want to get anyone in trouble for telling tales out of school.

There is a feature of the Scottish criminal justice system (not unique to Scotland but for various reasons it's particularly acute here) that there is extraordinary resistance to acknowledging the possibility that a miscarriage of justice has happened. People who stand out against this entrenched groupthink are punished to the fullest extent possible. Luke Mitchell was branded a "fiend" from the very beginning of this, and that assessment has to be maintained to maintain the integrity of the system.

I just hope they take the same attitude when that bastard Gilroy comes up for parole.

I'm not intimately acquainted with the evidence of the Lockerbie case, so there's no point at all in me getting embroiled in any discussions regarding it.

I mentioned previously that it's unwise -- futile, even -- to compare two different cases, as no two cases will ever be the exact same. From my limited knowledge of the Lockerbie case, the Maltese shopkeeper's eyewitness evidence was more complex and much more ambiguous than Andrina Bryson's eyewitness evidence. The Lockerbie case was a much longer and more complex case than Luke Mitchell's case. Interestingly -- and as I posted a few pages back (and linked a newspaper article to back up my point) -- Alan Turnbull said in the immediate aftermath of the LM case that he was categorically certain that the right person was jailed, and the salient reason for his surety was that he was involved in the case from the very beginning (ie, on 14.04.04 when a warrant was issued for LM's arrest); this wasn't his position with the Lockerbie trial as he wasn't involved with that case from the very beginning (it took 11 years until the Lockerbie case was brought to trial) -- and he never came out in the immediate aftermath of that case (January 2001) and said he was categorically certain that the right person was caught. A completely different case, with completely different circumstances -- so it can be dangerous and flawed to compare it with the Luke Mitchell case.

Let me add yet another point about Andrina Bryson's evidence, which I've gleaned from the Andrina Bryson chapter in Sandra Lean's book, 'Innocents Betrayed' (pages 116/117). This piece of information was obviously in the case files, but, strangely, was never part of AB's testimony under oath: Andrina Bryson told her husband (his first name was never revealed in SL's book, IB), on the morning of 01.07.03, that she had spotted a youth with "long messy hair, wearing army clothes and big boots" at the Easthouses end of the path the previous afternoon. AB's husband then told his own brother, Mark Bill Bryson (AB's brother-in-law), about the sighting that same morning, and Mark Bill Bryson then told John Ferris in Alice Walker's house during the early afternoon that same day, but had apparently (mistakingly) said it was his brother's sighting and not AB's. SL then goes on to say there was no mention of a female (Jodi) in this account of the sighting, but that there was a general agreement it was Luke on the basis of his Army Cadet Membership (Occam's Razor?). Sandra Lean tried to muddy the waters -- as she often did throughout her two books (No Smoke & Innocents Betrayed) -- by suggesting that foul play or eye witness contamination was at play because Mark "Bill" Bryson knew John Ferris and the Walkers, and because his girlfriend had cut Judith Jones's hair a few weeks after the murder; the fact is, AB didn't know any of them prior to the murder and certainly didn't know LM or Jodi prior to the murder. Her connection to any of them was via her brother-in-law (Mark Bill Bryson) and, therefore, it was a very tenuous connection. SL didn't attend a single day of that 42-day trial, and nor was she privy to that 18-month long police investigation with its thousands of statements/interviews, and so on -- so even with access to all the case files, she's not exactly in an ideal position to comment accurately on the case. In fact, there are at least three people whom SL thought had suffered a miscarriage of justice before they eventually came clean about their guilt and confessed. Anyway, as it turned out, and this is important, it was AB who actually saw the lad wearing "army" clothing, not her husband as MBB supposedly said -- and was with a girl (there was no mention, allegedly, of a girl with LM in "army" clothing in AB's first account to her husband/brother-in-law). So, you see, Rolfe, army attire was spoken about -- not just a fisherman's type jacket; witness Jamie Bell (who worked in Costcutters in the Eskbank Trading shop; unfortunately Jamie's transcript hasn't been made public yet) spoke of LM wearing a parka with German badges on the sleeves before the murder; and likewise, pushbike boy Andrew Holburn (the boy who didn't know LM, but who did identify him on the NB Rd, and in court) spoke of a 'boardy shirt' from Flip Clothing with badges on the.sleeves. Army clothing is khaki coloured and dull -- just like those other 7 eyewitnesses said (though, they didn't say army clothing -- they said parka jacket; but, parka jackets are khaki coloured and dull just like Army clothing ... Occam's razor). 8 separate witnesses testified in court that he'd had a khaki green, dull parka before the murder. So that's a whopping 15 people in total who saw him wearing a dull green khaki parka. Occam's razor ... it was Luke Mitchell!

Fishermen's jackets and Army surplus jackets are almost identical; dull khaki green, hooded and thigh length. Luke Mitchell bought a brand new dull khaki green Army surplus jacket -- with German badges on the sleeves -- from Flip Clothing on 08.07.03. The exact same jacket 15 people had spotted him in previously. Why buy the exact same jacket?? And why buy such a jacket during the height of summer and actively wear it during the height of summer? I'll repeat: he got rid of the old parka as he knew it likely had incriminating dna on it (ie, Jodi's blood); he was going to try and pass the new parka off as the old one in an attempt to try and deceive and confuse the police.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I mentioned previously that it's unwise -- futile, even -- to compare two different cases, as no two cases will ever be the exact same...So that's a whopping 15 people in total who saw him wearing a dull green khaki parka.

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it; those who do know history are bound to watch everyone else repeat it. What you are arguing for is in essence a get-out-of jail-free-card for the prosecution and its supporters. You have not made any substantive response to one type of argument that I offered, which is that there are known wrongful convictions in which there were multiple eyewitnesses. This is not a circumstantial case; it is an eyewitness case in which there were both inherent and avoidable flaws, to make a long story short.

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it; those who do know history are bound to watch everyone else repeat it. What you are arguing for is in essence a get-out-of jail-free-card for the prosecution and its supporters. You have not made any substantive response to one type of argument that I offered, which is that there are known wrongful convictions in which there were multiple eyewitnesses. This is not a circumstantial case; it is an eyewitness case in which there were both inherent and avoidable flaws, to make a long story short.

It was a purely circumstantial case, including the eyewitness testimony; this is an unequivocal fact. When the separate components of evidence in this case are taken on their own, they mean nothing; however, when they are combined together, they form an extremely compelling case against Mitchell. It's no wonder he was convicted.

Of course eyewitness testimony won't be perfect, but all of them in this case were certain it was him. They only saw this lad fleetingly, yet did very well to recollect what they did.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It was a purely circumstantial case, including the eyewitness testimony; this is an unequivocal fact. When the separate components of evidence in this case are taken on their own, they mean nothing; however, when they are combined together, they form an extremely compelling case against Mitchell. It's no wonder he was convicted.

Of course eyewitness testimony won't be perfect, but all of them in this case were certain it was him. They only saw this lad fleetingly, yet did very well to recollect what they did.

"Direct and circumstantial evidence are two fundamental types of evidence used in legal proceedings. Direct evidence links directly to material facts, such as eyewitness testimony or recordings of a crime, meaning it does not require any inference to establish a connection to the case. For instance, if a witness sees a suspect strike a victim, that testimony is direct evidence of the act. In contrast, circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of inferences to connect it to a material issue. For example, a credit card receipt showing the purchase of a baseball bat might indicate that the suspect bought the weapon, but it does not directly prove that they used it to strike the victim." link.

Classifying evidence as direct or circumstantial does not necessarily imply anything about the weight of the evidence. "You should consider both kinds of evidence. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence." link2

I addressed comment #713 on page 36 of this thread to you. My comment was a summary of many examples of flawed eyewitness testimony, and citations were given in earlier comments. The problems of the eyewitness testimony in this case include but are not limited to shortness in time that the witness saw Luke, the fact that many of these people were strangers to Luke, and contamination of the identification process. Witness certainty is not a proxy for witness accuracy, as we have discussed several times in this thread.

 

[Elaedith]

It was a purely circumstantial case, including the eyewitness testimony; this is an unequivocal fact. When the separate components of evidence in this case are taken on their own, they mean nothing; however, when they are combined together, they form an extremely compelling case against Mitchell. It's no wonder he was convicted.

Of course eyewitness testimony won't be perfect, but all of them in this case were certain it was him. They only saw this lad fleetingly, yet did very well to recollect what they did.

When combining pieces of evidence, you have to consider whether they were obtained independently of each other. This has a substantial impact on the probability that the different pieces of evidence taken as a whole indicate guilt. My understanding is that at least two of the eyewitnesses were together and consulted with each other, and that all the eyewitness evidence was potentially contaminated by seeing photographs. On top of that you have the fact that police start with a hypothesis and only seek evidence that confirms it, making it appear that everything points in the same direction. All these issues have been discussed at length in this sub-forum.

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

"Direct and circumstantial evidence are two fundamental types of evidence used in legal proceedings. Direct evidence links directly to material facts, such as eyewitness testimony or recordings of a crime, meaning it does not require any inference to establish a connection to the case. For instance, if a witness sees a suspect strike a victim, that testimony is direct evidence of the act. In contrast, circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of inferences to connect it to a material issue. For example, a credit card receipt showing the purchase of a baseball bat might indicate that the suspect bought the weapon, but it does not directly prove that they used it to strike the victim." link.

Classifying evidence as direct or circumstantial does not necessarily imply anything about the weight of the evidence. "You should consider both kinds of evidence. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence." link2

I addressed comment #713 on page 36 of this thread to you. My comment was a summary of many examples of flawed eyewitness testimony, and citations were given in earlier comments. The problems of the eyewitness testimony in this case include but are not limited to shortness in time that the witness saw Luke, the fact that many of these people were strangers to Luke, and contamination of the identification process. Witness certainty is not a proxy for witness accuracy, as we have discussed several times in this thread.

Re paragraphs 1&2 -- you're telling me things I already know (and what most people know).

Re paragraph 3 -- you make some very valid points. However, we're not talking merely 1 or 2 witnesses who said they were certain it was LM they saw that day between 1655-1820 ... we're talking 7 (ie, Andrina Bryson; LF & RW; the 3 pushbike boys, GE, DH & AH; and the Scottish Executive employee Carol Heatlie)! All 7 of them were sure it was him and 2 of the pushbike boys knew LM personally and confirmed categorically it was him. So, Chris, you think all 7 of them were mistaken? Do you seriously think all 7 seeing him -- and all 7 certain it was him -- was coincidental? I don't think so! Let's look at it yet again: LF & RW were always consistent in saying a boy in a dull green, thigh-length parka with straggly hair was on their left hand side as they drove past him at 1740ish and was leaning against a wooden gate (subsequently replaced with a steel gate a few years after 2003), looking up to no good and looking cheesed off; these 2 women said they were sure it was LM that day after seeing his picture in the Daily Record on 15.08.03 (15.08.03 was the very first day Luke Mitchell's photo was published in the media, and it's very significant that these 2 women recognised him immediately as the boy they had seen that day; no hesitation in identifying him whatsoever, both women saying right away "oh, it's him" once they saw that newspaper photo -- just the same as Andrina Bryson said it was definitely him after seeing the same photo). LF & RW identified LM that day and in court. Forget SL's waffle about the jogger, for that is all it is -- waffle! It holds no weight; it's deflection away from the true facts to try and sow seeds of doubt into those not intimately informed about the case. We move on to the next eye witnesses, the 3 pushbike boys (2 of whom knew LM personally) who saw LM at the entrance to Barondale Cottages at 1755ish; again, these 3 saw him standing alone, and said it was weird he was just standing there by himself. Just like it struck LF & RW as being weird seeing a solitary boy on a busy semi-rural road, the road not ever really being used by pedestrians let alone a young teenage boy leaning against a wooden gate avoiding eye contact with people passing in cars! These 3 boys identified LM that day and in court -- even the boy who didn't know LM (Andrew Holburn); the next witnesses were the couple (Marion O'Sullivan & Derek Hamilton) driving home from Dalkeith who passed the NB Rd at just before 1800. They saw a male who, to them, "looked suspicious", standing at an entrance to a driveway (ie, Barondale Cottages). Now, in court, these 2 said it definitely wasn't LM, but obviously were mistaken. How do we know they were mistaken? For 2 pushbike boys who knew him personally cycled past him at the exact same time as they did and saw him at the exact same location as they did (or minutes either side of their sighting)! The reason they said it wasn't him, we can infer, was because of how much he'd changed from their sighting on 30.06.03 and their court appearance on December 2004 (18 months had elapsed and LM was still developing and going through puberty, and his hair was longer and in a ponytail in court on December 2004); the next witness was Carol Heatlie. This woman saw a lad at Barondale Cottages at 1805ish and, like the other eye witnesses, said he looked "suspicious". CH, because this lad was looking suspicious, slowed her car down to try and get a look at him. Once she did that, he retreated further back into that driveway and tilted his head to the side and looked at the ground, avoiding eye contact with her. CH said the photos in newspapers of the lad and his tv appearance in August/September 2003 looked "very, very like" the lad she had seen on 30.06.03, and when asked in court if she could identify him, she said the lad in the dock between 2 officers looked "similar". She was simply being honest, like Andrina Bryson was, with the 'similar' comment because of how much LM had changed by that point.

So, you see, as I've highlighted in the above paragraph, common sense/Occam's razor tells us that it was Luke Mitchell they all saw; out of the 9 road witnesses, 7 said they were in no doubt it was LM they saw. We know that as 2 boys knew him personally and positively id'd him twice (at the time of the original sighting at 1755ish on 30.06.03, and at their court testimony on 02.12.04). Also, not one of the aforementioned eye witnesses said there was another person on the road that day -- certainly not another lad similar in age to Luke Mitchell and certainly not someone who looked like Luke Mitchell. MO & DH, I think, said they weren't sure initially when the police visited them about their sighting. They only said in court it wasn't him because of how much he'd changed; this is common sense, for it was categorically LM they'd seen, and LM had changed a lot in the 18-month period between their initial sighting and their court appearance (their court testimony has yet to be uploaded to the public domain, so it will be interesting to read that). And then we can apply those 20 juicy adminicles of circumstantial evidence I posted upthread that were used to convict LM and it really all does tie in. Compelling circumstantial evidence that even Donald Findlay couldn't weaken. I should also mention the fact that about a quarter of the transcripts have yet to be uploaded to the public domain (transcripts that I've no doubt contain more damning evidence against LM); that's about another 25-30 court testimonies.

I've already highlighted many times why I think he's guilty. We can start off with a couple of big clues: Jodi was grounded at that point until 1800 (her grounding began in May 2003 for dogging school); Judith unexpectedly lifted her grounding when she arrived home from school on 30.06.03; Jodi texted LM at 1634 to say she was allowed out before 1800; they were going to be meeting after 1800 that night anyway, so she obviously wanted to meet him before this; is it a coincidence that on the day Jodi wanted to meet with Luke before 1800 a woman uknown to he & Jodi saw a youth she was 'as sure as she could be was him" at 1655 with a girl who fitted Jodi's description at a place they commonly met up, especially as we know for a fact from Allen Ovens's testimony that Jodi left her house in Parkhead Place in Easthouses at 1650 to go and meet him and him only ??

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

When combining pieces of evidence, you have to consider whether they were obtained independently of each other. This has a substantial impact on the probability that the different pieces of evidence taken as a whole indicate guilt. My understanding is that at least two of the eyewitnesses were together and consulted with each other, and that all the eyewitness evidence was potentially contaminated by seeing photographs. On top of that you have the fact that police start with a hypothesis and only seek evidence that confirms it, making it appear that everything points in the same direction. All these issues have been discussed at length in this sub-forum.

Some very fair points, but read my reply above (post #907).

LF & RW were two respectable, level-headed middle-aged ladies capable of making their own minds up. They probably did consult with each other to a certain extent, but so what? Most people would -- but not be so influenced by someone else's memory that they'd be swayed from their own honest recollection and go on to give an untruthful, inaccurate testimony; both ladies told their own recollections without significant influence from the other. They both saw LM, imo, and were completely honest about it (imo).

Andrina Bryson identified LM on 14.08.03 (ie, saying, 'I'm as sure as I can be", after being shown that booklet of police photos), before seeing the very first public photos of him. The 3 pushbike boys identified him without seeing pictures of him -- even the lad who didn't know him. The good thing about the other 2 pushbikes knowing him personally and identifying him immediately and in court, is that it means that all the other eyewitnesses on the NB Rd must have seen him; in other words, it was categorically LM they saw, as they all saw him about the same time -- and not one of them said anyone else was on that road at the time. Occam's razor: it was LM.

Suspicion fell on LM very early in the investigation and remained there. And for good reason. He lied from the moment the police arrived at the locus on the late evening of 30.06.03. When he called the emergency services at 2333 that night, he showed no emotion on the phone; just a dull, monosyllabic tone. Even Janine started shouting at him because he was dottering about on the phone, not getting to the point, (no doubt buying more time for himself) and giving the police the run-around with directions to the locus. Even the emergency services noted how nonchalant he was as all hell was breaking loose, casually texting away on his phone showing no emotion; he never reached out to anyone to come and comfort him during this traumatic, horrible discovery; he even blanked his own mother's phone calls. Taking it all in his stride. Psychopathic and narcissistic traits. Tellingly, before the police siezed his phone in the early morning of Tuesday 01.07.03, he wiped his phone records completely -- every text message & every call log (saying that he did it 'in case he accidentally dialled a number' ... hmm ... I think he did it because his text messages contained incriminating evidence).

I've no doubt Lothian and Borders Police were thorough, neutral and professional throughout their 18-month investigation. All the alternative suspects/persons of interest were eliminated either by dna or alibi, or both. Not one dna sample found at the locus belonged to a stranger; the dna found at the locus (steven kelly's) was innocent transfer, and sk also had a rock solid alibi in both janine jones and his dad Robert Kelly. Sandra Lean for years harped on about '5 unidentified dna profiles', but admits in her own book (IB) that they were, in fact, accounted for (including James Falconer's sperm, which was not found at the locus but several hundred yards away, and two rough sleepers' sperm samples in condoms that were found in a different part of the woodlands, well away from the locus; crucially, jodi's dna was not present in these 5 unidentified profiles).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Some very fair points, but read my reply above (post #907).

LF & RW were two respectable, level-headed middle-aged ladies capable of making their own minds up. They probably did consult with each other to a certain extent, but so what? Most people would -- but not be so influenced by someone else's memory that they'd be swayed from their own honest recollection and go on to give an untruthful, inaccurate testimony; both ladies told their own recollections without significant influence from the other. They both saw LM, imo, and were completely honest about it (imo).

I am willing to stipulate that if LF and RW borrowed a neighbor's gardening tools, they would return them in good order and in a timely fashion. The issue is not how respectable they were, it is that both experience and experiment indicate that memory can be contaminated. In this case the route of contamination is not even in dispute. Your assertion that it does not matter carries no force. I am sorry, but that is all I have time for today.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2086552589047361808

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"The police thought there was not enough evidence 'When Mitchell was charged, nine months after the killing, they were sure they had the right man. But some admitted to fears the evidence against the teenager was too thin.'" This is the very meaning of investigatory tunnel vision.

 

[Rolfe]

As I recall, the PF initially rejected the police case and refused to prosecute. However public feeling was running high and demanding a solution to the murder. Also, thanks to the Daily Record and sundry other gutter press, public feeling was specifically demanding that Luke Mitchell be charged.

Since the police hadn't investigated anyone else, so had no hope of getting a case together against anyone else, all they could do was go back to the PF and suggest he reconsider.

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

As I recall, the PF initially rejected the police case and refused to prosecute. However public feeling was running high and demanding a solution to the murder. Also, thanks to the Daily Record and sundry other gutter press, public feeling was specifically demanding that Luke Mitchell be charged.

Since the police hadn't investigated anyone else, so had no hope of getting a case together against anyone else, all they could do was go back to the PF and suggest he reconsider.

This is a cop-out, imo. Why on earth would a police force ruin a young boy's life by shoe-horning inaccurate information to secure a dodgy, unsafe conviction. Suspicion remained with LM throughout the 18-month long investigation because of carefully ascertained facts. Imo, the circumstantial evidence used against him was steadfast & overwhelming. In March/April 2004, the police knew it was him that did it and obviously were confident at that particular time that they had enough evidence to prosecute -- and hence why he was arrested on 14.04.04. This wasn't some whim or gut feeling; the authorities had overwhelming circumstantial evidence that was carefully and meticulously ascertained over a significant amount of time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

This is a cop-out, imo. Why on earth would a police force ruin a young boy's life by shoe-horning inaccurate information to secure a dodgy, unsafe conviction. Suspicion remained with LM throughout the 18-month long investigation because of carefully ascertained facts.

This entire sub-forum is replete with examples. Often, the police fall into tunnel vision; occasionally, it is even worse.

 

[lionking]

This is a cop-out, imo. Why on earth would a police force ruin a young boy's life by shoe-horning inaccurate information to secure a dodgy, unsafe conviction. Suspicion remained with LM throughout the 18-month long investigation because of carefully ascertained facts. Imo, the circumstantial evidence used against him was steadfast & overwhelming. In March/April 2004, the police knew it was him that did it and obviously were confident at that particular time that they had enough evidence to prosecute -- and hence why he was arrested on 14.04.04. This wasn't some whim or gut feeling; the authorities had overwhelming circumstantial evidence that was carefully and meticulously ascertained over a significant amount of time.

Really, this is pathetic. Police were convinced, so case closed? Do you read your posts before pushing the button?

 

[Occam'sRazor007]

This entire sub-forum is replete with examples. Often, the police fall into tunnel vision; occasionally, it is even worse.

Yes, there are examples of that -- but this case isn't one of them (imo). Just because there was much hysteria surrounding this case at the time and a young lad was singled out early on and was pictured in newspapers regularly, does not automatically equate to tunnel vision or trying to get a conviction without looking into other potential suspects, or a miscarriage of justice. There were clear and legitimate reasons why suspicion fell on LM early on and remained there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"£33,950 raised.
£25,000 from Luke’s family.
£58,950 contributed in total."
It has been argued elsewhere that his father and/or his brother think that he is guilty. I saw the above information at a Facebook page. Taking the sums as a given, this indicates that at least one person, perhaps more, in Luke's family harbors substantial misgivings about this conviction.