Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 722891 times)

0 Members and 9 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
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies.  I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers.  Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old.  :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.

Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.

Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.

I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.


Janet

  • Guest
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies.  I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers.  Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old.  :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.

Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said. Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.

I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

Correct.  However there is evidence in abundance to support LM's innocence and it is not contained in the posts here from JL.  This thread was not started to give a balanced view, it was started with malicious intent, end of.  Janet have you any idea how difficult it is for someone who is factually innocent to prove that innocence?  Obviously not.  ::)

You assume to presume I do not know how difficult it is to prove someone's innocence. I know very well how hard it is.

To prove innocence though there has to be both sides not just what supporters want heard. That is an unfortunate fact.
People need to know both sides of the story to form a proper opinion. Without that all the have is a biased version of the story.




Janet

  • Guest
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies.  I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers.  Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old.  :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.

Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.

Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.

I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.

I have read the thread.  Does it matter why it was started? If there is evidence of innocence post it. You must realise though that not everything looks good for Luke Mitchell and that there are two sides to the story. Both must be told because somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth.

clifford

  • Guest
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.

The thread is full of inaccuracies and blatant lies.  I believe this thread was deliberately set up to mislead readers.  Personally I think it should be deleted from the site all together. At the end of the day a young lad is fighting to prove his innocence, and he needs the truth to be told so that people can see for themselves what he has had to endure since 30th June 2003, when he was just 14 years old.  :(
Who killed JJ, it was not LM in my opinion.

Your opinion nor mine does not count as evidence Once Said.

Any thread that is not fully supportive of Luke Mitchell and looks at the whole case and the evidence against him is deemed inaccurate by supporters. Everything cannot be inaccurate.

I believe this thread was set up to redress the balance not to discredit anyone.

Whatever happened to freedom of thought and speech?

how would you know why joh started this thread.

I have read the thread.  Does it matter why it was started? If there is evidence of innocence post it. You must realise though that not everything looks good for Luke Mitchell and that there are two sides to the story. Both must be told because somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth.
I admit I know little of this case, but if there is doubt then in my opinion you should side with the guilty person, unless of course you believe the police would never fabricate anything.
I can chuck a ball a fair distance, but would not believe the cops that far.
Saying that Luke does not come across as a honest person, and the family are a disgrace.
Perhaps it would pay folks to start again.
 Perhaps you should start at his brother, and go from there.
The family are no help at all, and come across as money grabbers.
I admit I could be wide of the mark. but I say it as I see 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
your very wide of the mark cliff.

if you dont believe the tabliods in the bamber case why do belive them this case.

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.


and if you dont beilive what john said about jermy why belive him about luke mitchell.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 03:41:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
your very wide of the mark cliff.

if you dont believe the tabliods in the bamber case why do belive them this case.

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.

You don't explain why clif is off the mark nugnug.  The allegations against the Mitchells came from the police and the courts too, not just newspapers. The lies and changing stories do not look good. Neither did the fact Corinne Mitchell took Luke to the graveyard when he was told not to go to the funeral. So don't say they did not do anything wrong because they did.

There is evidence that Corinne Mitchell and her mother asked the Sunday Mail for money for a story with pictures as has been posted on here previously.

The Tabloids don't always get everything wrong.

That aside, you say there is evidence of innocence. There is also evidence of guilt.




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
theres no evedence they tried to sell the story other than the word of the sunday mail.

just like jermy bamber with the topless photos.

all charges of lying against shane and corine mitchell were dropped.

wouldn't they have persued if they had really lied.

Janet

  • Guest
theres no evedence they tried to sell the story other than the word of the sunday mail.

just like jermy bamber with the topless photos.

all charges of lying against shane and corine mitchell were dropped.

wouldn't they have persued if they had really lied.

Why would the Sunday Mail print a story like that if they did not speak to them?

Perhaps someone should email the reporter who did the story and ask her about this.

Doesn't matter that charges had been dropped. Enough was said in court to show they were not credible witnesses.

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
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.

why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 04:22:PM by nugnug »

clifford

  • Guest
your very wide of the mark cliff.

if you dont believe the tabliods in the bamber case why do belive them this case.

theirs no evidence to say lukes family did anything wrong.

only the allegations of a few newspapers.

just the same as in jermys case.


and if you dont beilive what john said about jermy why belive him about luke mitchell.
I don't want to get in a row with you Nugnug, because you have always been passionate in your beliefs, And I do not know too much about this case.
However the Mitchel family seem a tad to happy to cash in especually his granny.
What Grandmother would do that?
I know you will say this is newspaoer talk, but no one has refuted this, Why?
Why did his grandmother attempt to sell the story rather than just be open, and honest.
Looking in as an outsider it seems to me that Luke did not act alone when Jodie was abused, but his mates were involved, hence the different types of sperm.
IMO Jodie was gang raped, and some of the culprets are still at large.
Luke knows the truth about this poor girls death, but I think he is in denial.
I applaud you for your endeavers, but sadly you are wrong.
Kind regards, Cliff.

Janet

  • Guest
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.

why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t

Corinne Mitchell has never denied that she and her mother asked the Sunday for money. Nor did she deny speaking to them. You cannot just say reporters make up stories like this without proof.

Did she make a complaint about this story to the complaints commission? If not why not, maybe because you dont know for sure what went on back then.

just the same as she did not deny her son wrote a letter that was on her sons prison wall.

I dont know anything about topless photos with Jeremy Bamber but if a newspaper printed the actual pictures showing him with topless women then what can anyone say about that? Its nothing to do with his case anyway, but Corinne Mitchell and the brother are very much to do with the Luke Mitchell case.


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
there wernt his mates cliff one of them was victims sisters boyfriend who spoke agianst him in court.

i dont really want get in a row with you ether im just fighting my corner.

there isnt a trace of lukes sperm there.




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
so why were the charges droped then if they it had really been proved they wernt credible witness.
suerly that would make the case for chargeing them stronger.

and convicting them of lying would have made the conviction stronger.

why would the Sunday mail make that up because its a good story simple.

just like bamber with the topless photos.

t

Corinne Mitchell has never denied that she and her mother asked the Sunday for money. Nor did she deny speaking to them. You cannot just say reporters make up stories like this without proof.

Did she make a complaint about this story to the complaints commission? If not why not, maybe because you dont know for sure what went on back then.

just the same as she did not deny her son wrote a letter that was on her sons prison wall.

I dont know anything about topless photos with Jeremy Bamber but if a newspaper printed the actual pictures showing him with topless women then what can anyone say about that? Its nothing to do with his case anyway, but Corinne Mitchell and the brother are very much to do with the Luke Mitchell case.

she has made sevral compliants to the press compliants comission.

and has always diened it.

Janet

  • Guest
there wernt his mates cliff one of them was victims sisters boyfriend who spoke agianst him in court.

i dont really want get in a row with you ether im just fighting my corner.

there isnt a trace of lukes sperm there.

My corner? Why is this fight your corner? Sounds like you are very personally involved in this case after all.

Luke's sperm not being there sadly does not mean he was not there.