Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723101 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet

  • Guest
well of course he saw the body they all saw the body when the dog found it.

it would depend  on what you consider an innocent explanation as far as the condoms concerned.
why did he not come forward for 3 years if he had an innocent explanation.

the good professor said that luke Mitchell could not have comited the murder without wearing a forensic suit.

and by all  accounts luke Mitchel did not have one.

I did not say he did not see the body. He could not have seen the bauble in the dark and the pathologist said it was not easily seen.

The explanation re the condom was accepted by the police and courts.

where is your source for this information? Frontline Scotland?  So why has this not been accepted at appeals?

I know Frontline eventually went out but it was not impartial.

Quote
But when TV bosses viewed the documentary, made by the flagship Frontline Scotland team, they were appalled and claimed interviews with his mother made Mitchell out to be "a saint". They said it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and added that the programme lacked impartiality and was unbroadcastable in its current state.

One source said: "They hit the roof. It was not impartial enough and did not given enough right of reply to those it was criticising. It made the mistake of assuming that because he has lodged an appeal that he must be innocent. The truth is that almost every convicted murderer tries to chance their arm by lodging an appeal."

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/BBC-axes-biased-Mitchell-documentary.3359191.jp


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
well thats the newspaper i suggest people watch front line seemed perfectly impartial to me.

its hard to see most things in the dark that's what torches are for.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 04:51:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
well thats the newspaper i suggest people watch front line seemed perfectly impartial to me.

its hard to see most things in the dark that's what torches are for.

just doing so again right now. I will be back with my thoughts on it

Offline joolz1975

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...

Janet

  • Guest
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.

Janet

  • Guest
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...

Yes it is a very upsetting case. It has been appealed many times. One of the things that is most upsetting is that the Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way.

Here is an example of some of their posts on their own forum. JoJ is Jospeh Jones, Jodi's brother. This is who they are accusing of the murder while saying they are not doing that. They are accusing Judith Jones of covering up this murder. This family have suffered enough and what they are doing is beyond anything I can even think of.
   
   
Quote
Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
   
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.

Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.


more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"

good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly  visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.

Quote
fishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.

I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.

I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?

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
its been appealed twice and will be agian.


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
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...

Yes it is a very upsetting case. It has been appealed many times. One of the things that is most upsetting is that the Luke Mitchell Support hint very strongly that the Jones family are involved in some way.

Here is an example of some of their posts on their own forum. JoJ is Jospeh Jones, Jodi's brother. This is who they are accusing of the murder while saying they are not doing that. They are accusing Judith Jones of covering up this murder. This family have suffered enough and what they are doing is beyond anything I can even think of.
   
   
Quote
Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder
« Reply #7578 on: May 22, 2011, 10:24:40 PM »
   
Quote from: fishy on May 22, 2011, 09:58:43 PM
Quote from: nugnug on May 22, 2011, 08:52:52 PM
i still find it strange that judy jones and allen oven were not doing the press conference.

Maybe because they'd have had to bring JoJ along.
Or leave him "Home Alone". Again.
Remember what happened last time they did that.


more like...erm...remember what happened when they "claimed" to have left him "Home Alone"

good old AO eh...leaves the kissing and holding hands with Judy at the funeral to Joey....how odd for a man who was so agreeable to supposedly  visit a cemetery and grave of the man he replaced in Judy's life.

Quote
fishy
Quote from: Mrssmith on May 22, 2011, 11:39:41 PM
... who are we to judge the behaviour of people just living their lives? before their loved one was brutally taken away? .. you can paint anyone in a bad light ... try and be respectful to all involved...innocent until proven otherwise
An extremely fair point. Just a pity the police and judiciary don't agree to play nice in that respect.
It's a crying shame that Corinne had her boy kidnapped.
And an even greater shame on all of us that we condone the constant propagation of absurd rumours and innuendos about almost any aspect of that family's life and relationships, up to and including complicity in murder.

I doubt the Important Family's supporters will yield for an instant in their slanders against the Mitchells, though.

I'll stop, if they do. Or if I'm caught out in a lie. Deal?

you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

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
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.

prof bustil was asked a qustion and he gave his honest answer.

royy ram also expressed his doubts about the conviction.

and the behavior of loathen and borders police.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 08:35:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
I have been watching this programme and taking notes from it. I have not yet finished as I have been busy with family, dinner and homework. So will continue watching now.

So far I have heard this.

Over 3000 people interviewed
He was no angel. He carried knives, sold cannabis to friends and was interested in Satanism.
Prof Busitil has clearly been asked a very loaded question regarding what state the murderer could be in afterwards.
He does not mention Luke Mitchell's name. He has been asked a "hypothetical" question about a hypothetical killer and this will only be the edited part that suits Frontlines clearly biased agenda. The fact that we do not hear the question asked is pretty conclusive proof of that.

He does mention the fact that gloves could have been worn.
He does not say "I think Luke Mitchell is innocent."
Roy Ramm says if there are fibres from the murderer and it is heavy rain that it could be washed away. It was raining that night wasn't it?
Busitil says that it is a probablity that evidence may have been lost due to the rain too.
He also says the chances of transfer from assailant to victim is not that common.

I will be back soon with more comment.

prof bustil was asked a qustion and he gave his honest answer.


royy ram also expressed his doubts about the conviction.

and the behavior of loathen and borders police.

We do not know exactly what question he was asked. He was not asked it on screen. Had he been asked it on screen they would have shown it for sure.

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
then how do you know the question was loaded.

Janet

  • Guest
you have to discuss everything and all possibiltys or theres no point discussing it.

I suppose all probabilities include accusing a grieiving mother and family of murdering Jodi or covering it up because someone else in the family may have done it according to you people.

There is no evidence whatsoever in what you are claiming.

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
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

if what is going on on another forum bothers you  so much why dont you join that forum and tell them.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 08:53:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
then how do you know the question was loaded.

Because they have asked him a question and the question was not heard. Had they asked him a specific question for that answer they would have shown it. So they did not ask a specific question.

All you heard was the guy talking, who had clearly been having a conversation with Samantha Poling while its been recorded and they use bits and pieces of what is said.

I have seen it happen before on TV. Prof Butisil did not say Luke Mitchell was innocent.


Janet

  • Guest
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

What words am I putting into someones mouth?