Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723089 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Oncesaid....
it may help if you addressed the question to John as he was the person posting under the username "sandy"...such is his dishonest nature.

John has no real evidence and makes many false claims.


Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.

   

Jodi left home at about 4.55pm on Monday 30 June 2003 telling her mum to keep her some of her favourite lasagne that she was cooking for tea. Also at home was Jodi's brother Joseph and her mum's partner Allen Ovens.

Jodi had been grounded of late when her mother found out that she had been smoking cannabis with her boyfriend Luke Mitchell. She did not expect to be getting out this particular evening so was pleasantly surprised when her mother told her that she could go out as long as she was back by curfew.  Jodi used her mum's mobile phone to phone Luke as her own phone wasn't working and they arranged to meet up after 5pm.

That's awful.  Her mum's gonna be desolate about not enforcing the curfew.

Oh this is so confusing, as I have read that Jodi was out all day on Sunday afternoon with Luke, helping to cut the grass at the caravan park and that she was also at Lukes on the Saturday night as his mother was out, and they had time on their own. That doesnt sound like someone who has been grounded and just had the grounding punishment lifted. 

It have also read that Jodi's brother was not at home, and this information is within the case files. :o This is very worrying, as most reports that I have read in the newspapers state that the brother was at home with the mother and her younger lover, but now we have the brother not at home, but the sister was, how can this be when she was supposed to be her fiance's alibi?  No wonder people are questioning the families account, as there seems to be a lot of chopping and changing of statements, why would this be? 

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
thev have have explianed themselves time agian its not there fault if people have chosen to ignore what they have said.

im not sure what overwhelming evedence your talking about.

and i think the comprasion with the brigmingham 6 is perfectly reasonable.

The Mitchell family have failed to explain the inconsistencies in their own evidence.

Shane Mitchell stated to the court that he did not see his brother in the house that afternoon from 4pm until 5.15pm yet his brother Luke claims that he made the dinner for them all.  Not hard to see who is lying is it?

Why don't you face it Sandra, you all thought that he would get out on the 'Cadder' ruling but you were sorely mistaken.

Hold the bus... Shane Mitchell said he "didnt know" if his brother Luke was in the house, as he was upstairs on the internet.  Statements from the Jones household claim that Joseph was not at home but the sister Janine was.  Does this mean they are lying? 

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Oncesaid....
it may help if you addressed the question to John as he was the person posting under the username "sandy"...such is his dishonest nature.

John has no real evidence and makes many false claims.

Thanks, Im just working my way through from the beginning of the thread, pointing out some errors and/or misunderstandings that I have noticed along the way.  Its confusing enough so I will just reply to whoever has made the comment.  ;D


Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
I have spent the most part of today on Luke's main site and about 50 pages of the forum and to say I'm confused is an understatement.

There can be no way these statements changed the way they did and have no one in the Police feel that there was nothing strange in it.

I understand the need for the police to get a result here but I also understand just why the Jones family have been questioned about their behavior and the statements ever since Luke's incarceration. There appear to be far more credible subjects in this case than any other I can think of and yet they go for Luke and manage(how the hell) to make that story stick!!!

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.

its a very interesting one...
The implication...of asking/demanding that Luke not attend the funeral is an issue in itself.
The person(s) making the demand ..and then publically proclaiming all about it was more or less accusing Luke in public through the press on this issue...ie decided he was the murderer ...ie they acted as judge jury and executioner... not a good state of affairs...

But as Luke was not the killer...and I know who was!!!!!!! ...
How much did such an action influence the jury and/or public perception.


hypothetically
what if the killer, or those protecting the killer from justice, were party to the decision of  banning an innocent person who was  accused of the murder...then how do people see that...how cold and calculating are such people..??



Offline bob

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1321
  • 78.6%
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............

Exactly Shonapugs. Just what I have thought for a long long time.

I actually disagree with this.  Why should they have kept away?  They were being respectful by not attending the funeral when asked by JJ's family, but it was only natural they would have wanted to go to the graveside and pay their respects to someone they cared about.

its a very interesting one...
The implication...of asking/demanding that Luke not attend the funeral is an issue in itself.
The person(s) making the demand ..and then publically proclaiming all about it was more or less accusing Luke in public through the press on this issue...ie decided he was the murderer ...ie they acted as judge jury and executioner... not a good state of affairs...

But as Luke was not the killer...and I know who was!!!!!!! ...
How much did such an action influence the jury and/or public perception.


hypothetically
what if the killer, or those protecting the killer from justice, were party to the decision of  banning an innocent person who was  accused of the murder...then how do people see that...how cold and calculating are such people..??

I'm afraid it sounds like you are one of those "protecting the killer from justice" Smiffy, since you have used the phrase "Luke was not the killer...and I know who was". Or did you furnish the authorities with your certain information at the time of the inquiry?

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Bob...
I am not naming the killer at the moment as I would not want to hinder a future  trial of this person.
No, I am not concealing any information or protecting the killer from justice...but I know some of the people who have been.

How I know etc would not likely be useable as evidence in court but does not stop me from knowing just who the killer was and how it happened and how some of it was covered up.




Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.

clifford

  • Guest
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
bum.
bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.
I think its a kid.

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.

clifford

  • Guest
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
Probably a big one at that.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
ah ..this "bigwullie" poster...the person who is using this name is not the known poster Big wullie who posts on the shirley mckie and GI forum but someone else entirely. this person has a grudge with the real big wullie it seems  and this person is believed to be John Lamberton..who is known to have a grudge with the real big wullie ....and many other people.
the fake "bigwullie" has acted the same way on a number of forums before getting banned .
While not knowing for sure if it is John Lamberton...I and others have experienced a lot of john's abuse and deception on various forums particularly in regards to this case that are of a nature that fits with him being this fake "bigwullie"

whether it is john or not.... the person is a sad case and needs help with their mental health issues.
To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
Probably a big one at that.
in any case hes a big willie.  ;D