Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723084 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet

  • Guest
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
a lot of probeblys here.

Janet

  • Guest
so how would the rain  wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.

40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.

the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch

i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.

do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.

Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought.

Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.

He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him.  Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!

excellent point John.

Janet

  • Guest
a lot of probeblys here.

Yes there are a lot of probably's in this case. Most coming from you.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.

theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.

logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.

John

  • Guest
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.

Do they not call that a conflict of interest?

Janet

  • Guest
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.

and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.

There is no real proof of that either.

The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.

theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.

logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.

Not logical conclusion that the killer had blood on him at all.  As I stated previously, If he did wash his hands, he was then messing about on a swing or in woods with pals. Hands would have got grubby again. So proves nothing.

Janet

  • Guest
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.

Do they not call that a conflict of interest?

What witness is this John?

Janet

  • Guest
Scott Forbes.

 He is the one who tried to sell a story isn't he? What kind of lawyer will he make?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.

Janet

  • Guest
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.

It was said in court nugnug. I am repeating what was said in court. So why would I be sued?

Quote
Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.

But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.

Quote
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm

John

  • Guest
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.

Well you can read all about it here...

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

Janet

  • Guest
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.

The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.



what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.