Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 722893 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet

  • Guest
Hi Janet  I am becoming confused with the freewilly gage and nugnug as I have got to the stage I just don,t know who thinks what about either case think only the two of them are in tune I gather freewillygage thinks luke is guilty and nugnug thinks innocent freewullygage thinks willy gage is innocent and nugnug thinks guilty.  That is what I am picking up.

I think I have worked it out Susan. FreeWillie might think gage is innocent but they don't really care either way. i think FreeWillie is just a cover. Someone might have run out of user names.   nugnug thinks both gage and mitchell are innocent. FreeWillie thinks mitchell is guilty and instead of talking about the case Freewillie posted Freewillie wants to discuss the mitchell case in a nasty way. You keeping up now?

Offline FreeWillieGage

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
I chose this username as I lurked this forum and was surprised there was no William Gage thread... I am not being nasty just realistic.

There is absolutely no proof Luke is innocent I'm afraid. That's the problem with Mitchell supporters, they don't actually know if he's innocent. Sandra Lean doesn't really know if Luke did it or not. They've just all decided their opinion is fact. No matter how many times you repeat the same things though it won't make it fact, he can't prove he's innocent.

Janet

  • Guest
I chose this username as I lurked this forum and was surprised there was no William Gage thread... I am not being nasty just realistic.

There is absolutely no proof Luke is innocent I'm afraid. That's the problem with Mitchell supporters, they don't actually know if he's innocent. Sandra Lean doesn't really know if Luke did it or not. They've just all decided their opinion is fact. No matter how many times you repeat the same things though it won't make it fact, he can't prove he's innocent.

There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell. No one needs to prove his innocence on forums it is enough to show that there is evidence that he might indeed be innocent. The court is the place to prove innocence.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 06:44:PM by Janet »

Offline FreeWillieGage

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell. No one needs to prove his innocence on forums it is enough to show that there is evidence that he might indeed be innocence. The court is the place to prove innocence.

I agree about the retrial, I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time. Luke stood out for a reason, and his alibi turned out to be an absolute shambles.

Your little brother finding his girlfriends dead body would make a night pretty memorable, yet Shane completely forgot Luke came home and burned his dinner, but he never forgot he was up in his room masturbating (which  has been confirmed with internet history logs )

my problem with Lukes supporters is that they refuse to admit there is even a slight chance he could have done it, they are all in denial. It's very possible he done it yet nugnug even in this thread states his opinion as fact that Luke is innocent.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 06:47:PM by FreeWillieGage »

Offline FreeWillieGage

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
can I ask why someone claiming to support one alleged moj is attacking another alleged moj ? something is not ringing true here

I dont believe this case to be a MOJ... So in order for me to believe Gage is innocent I too must believe Mitchell is? what kind of logic is that.

Janet

  • Guest
I dont believe this case to be a MOJ... So in order for me to believe Gage is innocent I too must believe Mitchell is? what kind of logic is that.

you dont have to believe anyone is innocent but if you are promoting a case with the belief someone may be innocent, it does not seem good form to be nasty about someone else claiming innocence.

There is not one case on this forum that anyone can say for 100 per cent that someone is innocent.
The only people to really know if they are innocent or not are the people convicted.  But people can debate all the differing evidence and make up their own minds what they think about a case. That is called an opinion and not a fact. And that is all each of us really have on here to offer.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 06:52:PM by Janet »

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Hi Janet  thanks for that I know now what is happening freewilly gage came on the forum supporting willygage who I feel is innocent and was set up.  He has got involved with nugnug over Luke Mitchell and gone off track on what he came to do.  I have not read enough about Luke,s case to consider one way or another.

Offline FreeWillieGage

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
you dont have to believe anyone is innocent but if you are promoting a case with the belief someone may be innocent, it does not seem good form to be nasty about someone else claiming innocence.

There is not one case on this forum that anyone can say for 100 per cent that someone is innocent.
The only people to really know if they are innocent or not are the people convicted.

I'm being nasty? show me any post ive made where im doing anything other than stating facts???

and I dont know gage is 100% innocent, its my opinion, nugnug claims hes convinced mitchell is 100% innocent yet he doesnt have to explain why to me.

i wouldnt attack anyone who made posts regarding willies innocence and asked questions about suspicious things in the case.


Janet

  • Guest
I'm being nasty? show me any post ive made where im doing anything other than stating facts???

and I dont know gage is 100% innocent, its my opinion, nugnug claims hes convinced mitchell is 100% innocent yet he doesnt have to explain why to me.

i wouldnt attack anyone who made posts regarding willies innocence and asked questions about suspicious things in the case.



you can read back and you will see that much of what you are posting is actually your opinion also and not fact. 
I have read through a lot of the information on here and other pages and nugnug is convinced 100 per cent that the guy is innocent. I am not convinced 100 per cent but there is enough doubt for me to wonder what the real story is.

Mitchell and his mother passed lie detector tests. I do not know the ins and outs of the test or what questions had not been asked but I would be interested in knowing the answer to that.

Perhaps you could post information about Willies case and show us why you think he is innocent.


Offline FreeWillieGage

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
yea but i make it clear im only stating my opinion, by using words such as "perhaps"


Online 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

Offline wichfinder

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.

Janet

  • Guest
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.

you could be right.

bloggs and son

  • Guest
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
Well all I can say is that your view of the case surprised me for one.

Offline wichfinder

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
well its a fact 90 out of 100 killers aer celtic supporters i know that donald findley told me.