Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723113 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

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
they were there were not i think they'd no who gave evidence.

how would they know she was listed as witness if she dident give evedence.

more than one paper reported it so that's bullshit.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 07:08:PM by nugnug »

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
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.

The press wrongly assumed that because my wife was designated a Crown Witness that she was there to give evidence against me.

I must also point out yet again that the Press agency who transmitted the story never attended my trial and were never in a position to report what transpired.  They gleamed only what the discredited Inland Revenue later told them which was what they wanted them to hear.  You will find that every newspaper who carried the story ran with the same content, there was never any independent reporting in my case.

I have previously stated that some of the content is libellous and will be dealt with in due course.

ill take my chances bring it on.

John

  • Guest
So you keep saying and has no relevance to Mitchell's supposed whereabouts.

He claims to have been home by 4.50pm and this is uncorroborated even by his big bro who was at home after 5pm.  So who is the liar nuggy, Lukey or big bro?

his bro aint a convicted liar unlike yourself.

there was a witness anyway if you look on the other forum ill post a link up later.

jodis was still alive at 5pm.

so who cooked diner if it wasnt luke the dog.

Simple really, nobody cooked the dinner as Luke wasn't there and Shane was too busy wanking off to porno clips on his computer to be bothered or was that the other way round, Shane wasn't there and it was Lukey who was on the computer?

We never did get to the bottom of that one.  Maybe the wrong brother is in prison?

« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 07:05:PM by John »

John

  • Guest
Off course she was there but she didn't give any evidence against me. In fact, she has been most helpful in my application to the SCCRC and has been able to provide information which was previously never heard.

The press wrongly assumed that because my wife was designated a Crown Witness that she was there to give evidence against me.

I must also point out yet again that the Press agency who transmitted the story never attended my trial and were never in a position to report what transpired.  They gleamed only what the discredited Inland Revenue later told them which was what they wanted them to hear.  You will find that every newspaper who carried the story ran with the same content, there was never any independent reporting in my case.

I have previously stated that some of the content is libellous and will be dealt with in due course.

ill take my chances bring it on.

I have everything I need already thank you and that includes your Plusnet account details!   ;)
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 07:06:PM by John »

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
do you worst ive also got yours.

ill while wait to hear from your solicitor.

a service provider will not give you anyone s detials to you unless a writ is issued so your talking bollocks mate.

if they were to do that it would be serious breach of data protection act.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 09:07:PM by nugnug »

John

  • Guest
Given yourself away again chump!!   ;D


You are such a bag of hot air Middleton, do you honestly think folk don't know all about you by now?

I look forward to the Forrest Gump act later this year...that is if you have the guts to face folk away from mummy's sitting-room!!

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
how have i given myself away exactly.

John

  • Guest
Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton condemned by Jodi's mother accusing them of abusing Jodi in their cyber court.



Article taken from The Sunday Post today.


Middleton's failure to take any responsibility for his behaviour and lack of any remorse is quite evident in his post today on the WAP forum. A repeat of the same cold calculated demeanour exhibited by him following the death of his daughter in a house fire when he went on to blame everyone but himself.

Strange that as he was the only adult in the house when no less than two fires took hold at the same time.  Three fire investigators including one engaged by the defence later reported that the fires were started deliberately.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg14785/#msg14785
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 09:48:PM by John »

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
he was found innocent.

unlike yourself.

the judge said you showed no remorse,
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 09:52:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
he was found innocent.

unlike yourself.

the judge said you showed no remorse,

actually that was a not proven verdict.  Mr Middleton also tried to blame his wife for the fires.

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
in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 09:59:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?

Who gave you permission to be the spokesperson for Luke Mitchell?

because he (John) seems to be one of the only people on this forum who is capable of having a conversation and asks serious questions about the case, that people like you want to avoid.

What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 10:12:PM by Janet »

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 dont need anyone's permission.

ive chosen to do so thats 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
in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?

Who gave you permission to be the spokesperson for Luke Mitchell?

because he (John) seems to be one of the only people on this forum who is capable of having a conversation and asks serious questions about the case, that people like you want to avoid.

What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?

so changing the subject from luke mitchell to billy midellton isnt a diverson.

Janet

  • Guest
in law not proven means innocent.

how come you and john keep posting at the same time.

he goes away you go away he comes back you come back.

It might mean it in law, but we all know what it really means don't we?

Who gave you permission to be the spokesperson for Luke Mitchell?

because he (John) seems to be one of the only people on this forum who is capable of having a conversation and asks serious questions about the case, that people like you want to avoid.

What exactly is it you are trying to infer by your comment? Is this yet another diversionary tactic to avoid the real subject?

so changing the subject from luke mitchell to billy midellton isnt a diverson.

I didn't bring Middletons name into this conversation. You and John did that when you, yourself started bringing Mr Lamberton's case into the so called debate.  I only commented on what had already been said.