What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
Hi RDP,
My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case.
At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt. My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.
It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.
In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.
I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.
Accusing just about everyone within the Jones extended family of being either a murderer or complicit in murder in order to somehow exonerate Luke Mitchell is the most heinous misuse ever of a public forum.
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category. Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.
The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.
... there was an instance some time ago that a poster sent an abusive message to the victims Mother but that was dealt with and the poster was banned.
There are only two people who know the truth about this and neither of them is called Suzie.
Try Mrs Sandra Lean or Billy Middleton.
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
::)
Bleedin Nora.. I've inadvertantly started a war on this thread... and for once, i'm not involved...
::)
Yes I blame you to Rochford Dolly Peel ;)
Love the name
What's your stance on this case John? It sounds familiar, think i can remember it being in the news a lot.
Hi RDP,
My stance?...well that is an interesting question since it has changed somewhat the further I investigated this case.
At the outset I could not believe that what was being alleged could ever possibly have occurred but like most things the passage of time and the uncovering of certain inconsistencies has led me to believe that there is doubt. My stance therefore can be defined as going from believing Mitchell was innocent to now sitting on the fence with several unanswered questions.
It is not as if the questions haven't been asked of those who are closest to Mitchell, it is a matter that they choose to either ignore them or cannot answer them.
In relation to the website which the previous poster has chosen to highlight, I must warn that this is a pro Mitchell site and will not allow anti Mitchell arguments to be raised. It should not therefore be taken seriously in any way since it is not a true forum but a front for a most heinous slander campaign being conducted against the victims family.
I would also add that the poster Suzie is none other than the Wrongly Accused Person site owner who is reputed for his scamming and spamming, the above post being such an example.
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
Suzie as in Quattro? :D You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ . But it is Bamber's official site. There is a page on the prosection's case. I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
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.
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
Suzie as in Quattro? :D You can look here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/ . But it is Bamber's official site. There is a page on the prosection's case. I'm unsure as to how watered down it is.
I always liked Suzie & the banshees more ;D
Thanks for that link, dont know how I missed that.
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder. Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket. This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.
It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder. He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.
(http://i.imgur.com/EVfey.png)
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
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.
He has indeed aged in what is now nearly 8 years since the murder. Below is another picture taken a short time after the murder with Luke depicted in a Parka jacket. This picture has been the subject of much controversy since it was stated that he owned such a jacket prior to the murder when the evidence by his family was that he did not. I will come back to this later when I have decided how to fit in the various elements of the case in a single thread.
It should also be noted that a witness gave testimony that a youth fitting Mitchell's description was seen near to the murder scene some 30 minutes after the murder. He was wearing a similar black t-shirt with white writing on it. The type of jacket worn by this youth is now also the subject of some debate, I will come back to this issue soon.
Am I right in saying that Luke Mitchell wore a bomber jacket to school that day and that was what he was seen wearing later that evening when seen by passing motorists??
Still work out if you are for or against the accused.
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted. It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.
They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/
everybody involved in the case seems to have had memory lapses of some sort.
john ferris and gordon dickie.
a fair few of the victems relatives an inlaws did.
not to mention the man with the condom.
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?
The Simon Hall case, the Kate Prout disappearance and a couple of others.Ire these some private investigations you have going, or what?
Today marks the 7th anniversary in prison for Luke Mitchell for the brutal slaying of his then 14 year-old girlfriend. The savage knife attack was one of the worst they had seen according to police.
The case is currently before the SCCRC in Glasgow and is due for determination quite soon. There is every possibility that Mitchell could be freed on a technicality following the recent Cadder ruling by the UK Supreme Court.
(http://i.imgur.com/PI2f6.jpg)
Victim Jodi Jones
well the presence of other peoples sperm and blood on the body.
and other bits of DNA.
but none of his DNA.
no credible eye witnesses identifying him
plus impossibly short time frame he had to commit the crime would tend to suggest innocence.
his got more going in his defence than most people have.
oh this is a minor setback.
he will be cleared eventaully its just a matter of time.
the birghmham 6 lost a fair few appeals and many other people i could mention.
all the qustions in this case arnt going to go away.
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.
as i said people can be in the same house and not know of each others prsence
id hardly call that overwhelming evednce of guilt
the evedence of the victems family was pretty inconsistant but that dosent mean they were lying
he had no motive at all to want to kill Jodi.
his opportunity would have been very limited he had at the most 45 minutes to meet her kill he mutilate the body then clean himself up without leaving a trace of himself there.
the family's evidence is very relevant.
there many other people who certainly had the opportunity to kill her.
14 year old lads do not kill there girlfriend becouse they want to go off with another girl they just pick up the phone and say your dumped.
he had no history of violence unlike most of the other people mentioned in the case.
there is absultly no evedence he did that.
that girls did come forward till after he had been convicted.
when she didcome forward she went to a newspaper not the police.
if she wa tellig the truth why did she not go the police after the murder.
how much was she paid by the newspaper for her story.
she has always dined demanded any money for a story she has explained that several times.
we only have the word of a tabloid newspaper that any of that is true.
Just another guy with a silly wig not wanting to stand on the toes of another guy in a silly wig and not have the guts to say they were wrong!
Take away the silly wigs and the Santa suits and what have you got?......3 craws, sat upon a wa'........with no concept of real life!!!
i have know idea and i dont see what its got to do with the murder anyway.
its completly unrelated.
as far as i know there is no libel case agianst her and i havent heard that theres likely to be one.
if she was lying why all charges of lying agianst droped.
was it becouse the polce knew she was telling the truth.
thats isnt libel is it.
its got nothing to do with weather her son is incocent or guilty.
and how would you know what the sccrc are doing.
i wouldn't have a clue what the sccrc are doing.
and nor would you.
sory a man convicted of robing old ladys old ladys is in know position somone else a liar
fact they were not convicted of lying unlike yourself.
and your in no postion to call anyone a coward seeing as your hideing away in spain.
you havent even got the bollocks to be in the same country as the people your slaging off.
Hi Sandra - t'would be fab if you'd take a look at the alibi thing, since that issue underpins the whole convinction. It is such a pity that no-one saw Luke coming home or leaving to meet Jodi.
No crocodile tears on this occasion?
(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)
Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral. Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.
Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.
Transcript follows.....
Oh I have no problem with my honesty and this is backed up by every single member of my family and every person who knows me personally. I cannot help it if a certain Procurator Fiscal Depute was a lying bitch who was only out to make a name for herself.
You on the other hand are a non entity nugget, a fictional character, a charade who professes to know all about me and others when you haven't the first clue.
I pity you nugget, for all the time I have known you and your fake lingo I have come to see you as a lonely and embittered soul. When you set out upon this crusade nugget you had some good to say to most people but I have watched as your demeanour has changed. I have watched you attack posters on several forums when you thought that us regulars weren't around. I have watched you slander many people including the Jodi Jones family...shame on you nugget.
Where do you go from here nugget or should I use your real name? All those slanderous accusations in the public domain.... remember Scott Forbes isn't the only one who can sue!! ;) ;)
It seems that the nutty penguin has done a runner.... ;)
Anyway, apparently WAP are trying to get out of this one now that pussy is out of the bag. Now we know why John Ferris did a bunk to Ayr with his maw and all....extremely interesting! ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/iJaq7.jpg)
Murderer Luke Mitchell and new girlfriend attend Jodi's grave in the full glare of the Press and the police after having been told to stay away by the murdered girls family.
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder. Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.
(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
No crocodile tears on this occasion?
(http://i.imgur.com/DNbTo.jpg)
Luke Mitchell and mother Corinne with family pet Mia in tow, attend the grave of murder victim Jodi Jones just hours after her funeral. Mitchell was told to stay away from the cemetery by Judy Jones, the victim's mother, but couldn't resist making an issue of it.
Hours earlier Mitchell had given an interview to James Matthews of Sky News.
Transcript follows.....
well anyone would want to viset there girlfriends thats just called being human.
and lay a tribute.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
An excellent post Janet which clearly shows that the Mitchell family lied through their teeth prior to and during the trial. It is a sheer impossibility that two boys could be in a small house together for over half an hour with one of them making dinner and not hear each other. Corinne Mitchell bleats on about Luke being in the garden when Shane came in and that is why they did not see each other. That is quite possible but it is impossible for Luke to have prepared dinner including burning the chicken pie and Shane not noticing it especially when he was involved in an activity upstairs which he admitted he would only have done had the house been empty.
Add to this the fact that not one child ever came forward to say that they had seen Luke go home from school that afternoon, saw him go to his house around 4.40pm or saw him leave home at 5.30pm. What is ever worse is that I offered to provide a reward for any witness who would come forward and give Luke Mitchell that crucial alibi and I was shot down in flames.
It would appear that the Mitchell family would rather their son spend the next 13 years in prison than go searching for witnesses...to me that speaks volumes!
Telephone Hotline still available for any witnesses 07092 984231
Did you see Luke Mitchell between 4.00pm and 5.40pm on the day of Jodi's murder?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-12877258.html
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
Or, if you were intelligent enough, you might keep your head down, show some respect and grieve at a distance...............
The log burner situated in the Mitchell's back garden where the prosecution contend that Luke's clothing was burned on the afternoon of the murder. Several of Corinne Mitchell's neighbours spoke of an unusual wafting smell emanating from the Mitchell garden.
(http://i.imgur.com/2DKbU.jpg)
Blimey, nugnug, this is a particularly horrible and sad case. But, sadly, it doesn't take much working out. That poor young girl, and a scared boyfriend, and a "if I can't have you, then nobody can" scenario. It's all a bit Jeremy Kyle, isn't it?
i dont have myself for having a different opinion to you.
steven kelly is not denying his dna is on there nor are the police there jus disputing how it got there.
by innocent transfer or by other means.
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other people on there.
how did luke clear all his dna and all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.
but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.
so how would the rain his dna off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to comit a brutel murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty agian hardly likey.
Forensic scientist Derek Scrimger,40,said he was called at home and arrived at the path at 8am the following day.When he got there, her body had been moved from the original position and her clothing gathered together.
Mr Scrimger said there were two areas of bloodstaining on the wall near where her body was found.
Mr Scrimger said if her throat had been cut from behind, the blood would have travelled forward and there wouldn't necessarily have been any on the attacker.
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.
jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.
and clean himself up.
a lot to do in 40 minutes.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
so hardly a bedroom that's been cleaned you couldn't com it all those mutilations and not get blood on you.
Jodi fought back that would take minutes then theres all the mutilation then theres having to get back with nobody seeing him.
and clean himself up.
a lot to do in 40 minutes.
That is assuming he had much cleaning up to do isn't it? You are inferring that he would be blood stained. It is possible he was not.
Mitchell could have worn gloves.
The court was also told that Shane said in a statement on July 3, 2003, that he had returned home from work to Newbattle Abbey Crescent on June 30, 2003, at about 3.40pm.
However, four days later, he said that he had arrived back that day between 4.55pm and 5pm.
In evidence, Shane told the court: "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in the first one."
The court heard that, while being interviewed under police caution on the day his brother was arrested, Shane Mitchell was told that officers suspected him of deliberately giving false information.
So this 40 Min's could have given a longer time Luke Mitchell was unaccounted for if Shane Mitchells first statement is the correct one.
http://www.telegraph.co.UK/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....
Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.
One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.
Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.
Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.
Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
The victims family have changed there story several including the time Jodi went out.
this was one of the most brutal murders in history.
it would be impossible for the person who committed it not to have blood on them.
no all i am saying is you cant clean off your own dna and leave the dna of other peoples on there.
how did luke clear all his dna and from her all hers from him leaving no trace of himself being there.
but leave steven kellys on there plus unknown profiles of other people.
threes no proof Kimberly Thomson was his girlfriend.
even if there was 14 lad having 2 girlfriends is hardly that unusual.
i hardly think it makes them guilty of murder.
visiting the grave of someone you love is only human.
Oh yes there is and well you know it missy....
Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.
One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.
Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.
Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.
Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurdertrial/Natural-born-killer.2597278.jp
why did this girl never go to the police at the time of the murder if she had really been attacked.
why did she only come after he was convicted to talk to tabliod is possibly becouse she made the whole thing up for money.
jodi never mentioned knowing anything about kimberly thomsan kimberly thomsan lived miles away there was very little danger of jodi finding out.
so how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.
the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch
i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.
do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
so how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.
40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.
the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratch
i think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.
do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought.
Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.
He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him. Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!
a lot of probeblys here.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
There is no real proof of that either.
The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.
and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
There is no real proof of that either.
The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.
logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.
Do they not call that a conflict of interest?
Scott Forbes.
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.
But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.
POLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.
But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.
Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.
Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.
Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.
He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'
In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'
Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.
The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.
Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.
THE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'
'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.
Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'
Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.
But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'
She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.
'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.
But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'
MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'
But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.
And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.
He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'
Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.
She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'
The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.
'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'
Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.
Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't
nor as Corine.
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.
what jurys and judges believe is often not what is the truth.
That is true. But everything the Mitchells say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Don't ask us to doubt the the jury and the judge, and question everything they have done, then tell us that the Mitchells have not lied. You cannot possibly know they did not lie as fact. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382QuotePOLICE suspected Luke Mitchell's brother of deliberately giving them false information.
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.
But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.
Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.
Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.
Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.
He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'
In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'
Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'
He also tells the court that he thought he was alone in the family home the day Jodi was killed.
The trial has already heard that Luke told police he was at home when Shane got back from work.
Shane says his mother returned home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Alan Turnbull QC reads out a police statement from Luke in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother and Luke both agreed Shane was not in when Luke left the house.QuoteTHE court hears that Mitchell's mother Corinne had been interviewed in connection with attempting to pervert the course of justice during the police investigation but will not face criminal charges.
Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'
'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.
Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'
Mrs Mitchell denies lighting a log burner in her back garden the day Jodi died. The jury heard neighbour George Ramage, 37, claim the burner appeared to have been used between 6.30pm and 7.30pm and around 10pm that day.
But Mrs Mitchell says: 'I have no reason to put the burner on.'
She also admits buying her son a parka-style jacket just over a week after Jodi's death.
'Why did Luke need a parka?' Mr Turnbull asks. 'They were in fashion,' she replies.
But the lawyer tells her that several friends, neighbours and teachers had given evidence that her son owned a parka jacket before Jodi's death. Mrs Mitchell says: 'I wasn't aware he had one.'
MITCHELL'S mother Corinne tells the court: 'My son did not kill Jodi Jones.'
But Alan Turnbull QC accuses her of lying in court to protect her son. He says she had 'abandoned all effort at exercising parental control over Luke'.
And he adds that their relationship had 'changed from that of parent and child to that of accomplice'. Mrs Mitchell denies the lawyer's suggestions.
He continues: 'You lied to police by saying Luke was in the house when you got home from work.'
Mrs Mitchell answers: 'Luke was in the house.' The QC adds that she 'knew perfectly well' that items had been burned in their wood burner the day Jodi was killed and that Luke had lied to the police.
She replies: 'He was telling the truth.'
The advocate depute continues: 'You have to tell the truth whether you think it matters or whether you think it relevant.
'Isn't it nearer the truth that you'd be prepared to lie to cover up to protect him?'
Corinne replies: 'No, it's not true. I've not been lying.'
a lot of people know the truth and there starting to come forward now.
Shane has never been convicted of lying to the police now that's probably because he didn't
nor as Corine.
How can you possibly know that what you have said is true? Only Corinne and Shane will know for sure.
EDITED to add: No Shane was not convicted but he was charged with giving false statements.
people have charges dropped becouse there is no case against them.
Giving evidence at the High Court in Edinburgh today, Ms Mitchell was asked questions relating to statements given to police by both herself and Luke.
After answering "I can’t remember" to a number of questions relating to her son, advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC prosecuting, said to her: "Is it not the truth that you could see no wrong in anything Luke did?"
Ms Mitchell replied: "No, that’s not true."
Ms Mitchell told the trial that she first learned of Jodi’s death when she got into a police car on June 30, 2003, and that she asked the officer if Luke had been arrested.http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/No-Jodi-coverup-says-Mitchell.2594892.jp
Mr Turnbull then asked: "What reason would you have to ask that question?"
Ms Mitchell said: "I don’t remember asking that question."
Mr Turnbull replied: "You don’t want to commit yourself. You want to take refuge in the notion that he can’t remember. But I can tell you that the policeman concerned is in the waiting room ready to give evidence.
"If he tells the court that you asked this question is there any reason to disbelieve him?"
Ms Mitchell replied: "No".
Ms Mitchell told the court that she still maintained that she knew her son well.
Mr Turnbull then reminded her how she had previously told the court she was shocked to learn her son smoked cannabis, carried a knife on a daily basis and took cannabis to school.
He asked her: "Are you beginning to have second thoughts then about knowing your son well?"
"No," she replied.
In a statement given to a police doctor after being checked for injuries following Jodi’s death, Mitchell said his mother had "a quick temper". He said that he also had a quick temper and that he got this from his mother.
"Would this be accurate?" Mr Turnbull asked Ms Mitchell.
"Did Luke have a temper?"
She replied: "No more than most people." She then also agreed that Luke had described himself as having a quick temper with a short fuse.
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.
It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.
I edited to add more
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.
It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.
I edited to add more
thae pathologists said she put up a fight.
fought for her life thats what they said.
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?
Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty?
i think you know well who sandra you said know about everyone involved in the case now you ether do or you don't.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.
Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?
Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.
if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.
That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.
This poor family have suffered enough
no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.
How is it a statement of fact? It is not fact. It is a guess and there is no proof.
Oh so outrageous things can be said by people on Wrongly Accused Person and elsewhere in the hope that the Jones family will sue? How sick is that?
Why would they need to sue anyway? As far as they are concerned the guilty person is in prison and all that is being said is sheer speculation anyway.
so first its adopted people you dont like now its people who live in councel houses
who do you like john.
sueing isnt about money its about protecting your good name.
You never could get anything right missy could you?? ;)
I have no problem with either so stop trying to make waves again....
nugnug
you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?
nugnug
you never answered my question. Why would the Jones family need to sue people on a forum?
well that's obvious to quash once and for all scurles allegations.
well we shall she shan't we.
it wasnt his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.
well we shall she shan't we.
it wasn't his supporter who said the thing about the stabbing it was a guy on the daily record.
i don't run his campaign i just post what i think on forums
i dident even start this i just posted on it..
well ether you discuss theor you dont case that means discussing everything.
like members of the extended family being at the crime scene at the crime is supposed to have happened
but hearing nothing and seeing nothing and not being able to say what they were doing there. and lying about the time they were there.
or the sisters boyfriends sperm being on the victims bra.
only by luck i would say.
yes he was convicted as was steven kisko as was the birgmham 6 and the guilford for and simon hall
and a lot of other people need i go on.
oh as was john lamberton.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.
So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.Most of that makes no sense.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.
not all of the simon hall hasnt been.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
We are not discussing either of those cases. I know nothing of them.
So tell us who you think it is who murdered Jodi Jones if it is not Luke Mitchell as you claim?
ive got fair idea but i cant just declare someone guilty murder when they haven't had a trial.
not all of the Simon hall hasn't been.Most of that makes no sense.
and john certainly hasn't been cleared.
thats what luke mitchells supporters its up to you chose to believe or not the sight wasn't put up there just to convince you.
first you said you followed the forum fo a long time then you said you had only just looked at the sight make your mind up.
if your not convinced nothing anyone can do about that.
Why was the site put up then? It is pointless if it is to talk to the converted.
Surely a site for someone allegedly wrongly convicted is to get the doubters to look at the case?
Its failing big time because once I started reading it all I felt as if I was in the twilight zone.
I know I am not the only person to think like this.
well as said if your not convinced it wasn't put up just for you
i cant expect everyone to be convinced.
i dont think any websites ever done that.
i thought you said youve only just at it.
well first you said you had only just at it now you say you have followed it for a long time now make your mind up.
well half the country has smoked canabis at some time other it dosent make them killers.
a young lad writting and english esay to shock his teacher make him loads of kids write esays like that
not unknown for teenagers to have more than one sexual partner.
dosent make them killers.
how many important people cheat on there wives dosent make them killers,
every killer leaves a trace luke mitchell left none,
but others did.
we do think theres so many teenage pregnancy becouse some boys and girls get up to things before there legally old enough.
its not right but it happens it dont make them murders.
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.
He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
It was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
he was only doing what other boys his age would of done if they had the chance,
That's right excuse away everything Luke Mitchell ever did that was questionable to say the least.
He was not by any stretch of the imagination a normal teenage boy.
you seem to be takeing a rather unhealthy interest in young people having sex
Sounds like a really good mother. Did she not clean her house. I think I would have found ") bottles of piss in my kids room. Perhaps she was flogging it to the winoswell your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.QuoteIt was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp
IT was the strong smell of ammonia which first struck detectives when they walked into Luke Mitchell's bedroom.
If that initially puzzled them, then their next discovery would startle even the most hardened investigators.
There lying under the teenager's bed were bottle after bottle of a cloudy liquid, looking suspiciously like urine.
More bottles were hidden away in drawers, some wrapped up in socks. Soon there were 20 bottles lying in front of the bewildered detectives. Lab tests would later show they were the 15-year-old's own urine.
well your a convicted conman and your brother a convicted sex offender john what was your mum doing wrong.
storing bottles of piss is an illness some develop when they have a traumatic experience like finding there girlfriends dead body.
ive met fair few people who who have had that illness
a fair few ex soldiers have it.
tut tut nugnug resorting to insults again.QuoteIt was further disclosed that more than 20 bottles of urine were lying around in the squalor of Mitchell’s bedroom. During a previous search, nine months earlier, police had also found more than 20 bottles of urine.
This actually suggests that two sets of urine. One set in an earlier search of the house and 9 months later another 20 bottles.
If this is the case why did his mother not seek help for him when the first 20 bottles were found?
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Jodi-trial-hears-of-knife.2588863.jp
EDIT: I have re read and re read the wording of the article and it may be that there was only one set of 20 bottles of urine bottles. I am sure if that is the case someone will correct it.
SO if you dint know anyone in the case how come your getting so emotional about it.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the McCanns have been accused of exactly the same thing on this forum i don't see you jumping up in outrage about it.
why makes this family so different.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.
The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.
read the beginning of the thread it wasn't me who started all the personal stuff
I'm the one asked to justify every opinion i hold on the case.
and your the one who keeps saying facts you dont like are outrageous
the "facts" as you call the claims about members of the Jones family and others for that matter are not facts at all. That is what I find outrageous. All there is, is total speculation about who else could have, might have or maybe have murdered Jodi Jones.
The fact is that these people have not been charged and convicted. Luke Mitchell has and it is totally outrageous to blame the victims family of murder or covering a murder up, or the multitude of other things that have been said about this family. They have suffered enough.
half the stuff being said about the family was already mentioned in the trial so sorry it is fact.
yes there is a lot of speculation thats what happens on public forums.
just like its happening with the bamber case.
no they dont john ferris and gordon dickie dont david dickie dont james falconer dont joseph jones dont.
no albis whatsoever.
steven kelly has one but its starting to look shaky.
you must be a bit interested or you wouldn't bother to read it
im afraid is not going to stop anytime soon.
well we shall see shant we.
as you think hes guilty why would you care about his chances.
joseph jones was never interviewed.
james falconer john ferris gordon dickie and david dickie were at the murder scene by there own admission
falconer dident come forward for 3 years dispite appeals by the police for the owners of the condom to come forward.
ferris and dickie did not come for a week dispite appeals for them to do so none have any albi
mark kane im convinced has nothing to do with this.
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.
so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.
if he was no doubt what he said would have been mentioned.
we do you think everyone who says something you don't like has to explain themselves
what everyone else said has been mentioned.
i really dont care what you believe
believe what ever you like i believe someting else
and im going to say what believe end of
im just a poster on a forumfor christ sake im not spokes person for anybody.
im just saying what i think.
lets face it you would face it you would believe it what ever i said
i cant make people belive what i believe.
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
This is what Corinne Mitchell says about the afternoon of the murder. Remember that Corinne arrived home at 5.15pm, the exact time when Jodi was allegedly murdered.Quote from: Corinne MitchellWhen I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
so you must wonder why charges of perjury and lying to the police were not pursued then and why corine and shane mitchell have never been convicted of crime.
could it becouse if they were lukes conviction would of been undone there and then.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
Link (http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg2352/?topicseen#msg2352)
Remember, Shane told the trial that he never saw Luke that afternoon! ::)
Makes you wonder eh??
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.
is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.
makes you wonder why charges of perjury witch would have strengthened lukes conviction were not persued.
is it becouse the police knew if they were charged it would of undone luke mitchells conviction straight away.
Not in the least, I can see them being reinstated just after the SCCRC refuse to make any referral.
Joesph was not spoken to by the police that's why nothing he said has ever been mentioned because he wasn't interviewed.
so he dident say anything becouse he wasnt asked.
How do you know for 100% certainty that he was not spoken to by the police? You cannot have seen all the police statements made to know this.
by there own admission judy jones and allen oven were out at the time of the murder visting a cemetry.
so joseph jones has no albi whatsoever fact not speculation.
judy jones and alan oven were out at the time of murder so joseph jones has no albi what so ever thats not speculation its a fact.
i thought you said you had followed this case.
Did you go to the trial?
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
sorry i made a mess of that post.
what i was going to say is Judy Jones Allen oven were vi sting a cemetery by the own admission at the time of the murder so Joseph has no Albie whatsoever fact not speclation.
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?
he never made any statement and wasn't asked to that's why everyone else statements are being quoted
and not his.
How do you assert with 100% accuracy that Joseph Jones did not give a statement?
Where did you get this information from? Please provide a source or forever hold your tongue. Again it is idle speculation.
ive stated my reason for saying it so bollocks.
your going to be offended by that arnt you.
And why does it matter so much to you?
http://www.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/news/local-headlines/lengthy_ban_for_drink_driver_caught_on_holiday_park_road_1_1576028
What relevence has this got to do with the murder conviction?
its as relevant as stuff you have posted.
it relates to gordon dickie and seem to have hit a nerve there.
its in the public domain so why shouldent i post it.
Your reasons for saying Joseph Jones did not have an alibi is because his mother and her partner went to the grave yard and the police did not speak to him as you claim.
Have you any proof to show what you are saying is true?
Do you know for 100% that he had no alibi or was not spoken to by police?
What legal status would your speculation have in any court?
I asked what relevence does it have to this murder conviction?
well thats up to the reader to decide it dident post just for you the links for you.
why do you think the entire world has to justify itself to you.
now your posting the tabloid version of events witch you quoting as the gospel truth and im posting a different version of events.
from a diffrent.
why is it descredited its up to reader to decide weather its descredited or not.
something is not discredited becouse keeps saying.
deascredited discredited disredited over and over agian how ever much you might wish that was true.
you never did get over being banned from there did you.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-tattoo-evidence/the-manson-connection/
and how would you no that.
if he was spocken to by what did he say then.
it proven fact he has no albi.
but there own admission his mum and stepfather visited a cemetery at the time of the murder leaving him home alone.
so no alibi
or are saing judy and allen dident go to the cemetery are you saying there lying.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.
If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
if he was spoken someone should no what he said funny no one does.
I am sure there are people who do know. Its just you do not know.
If he was ruled out as he obviously was then why would you need to know what he said anyway?
im sure there are people who know.
now whos speculating.
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?
so where are they then.
if joey had given a statement and somone else was visting it would of all been mentioned.
becouse that someone would of come forward and said so and given joey an albi
if anyone did visit its a bit dodgy that they haven't mentioned it.
Why would he need an alibi anyway?
Why would anyone feel the need to come forward publicly anyway?
everyone needs an albi when the investigation starts you don't know the police are going to accuse someone else and not you.
yes i honestly believe they dident
because no doubt if they had spoken to joey the family would have got up and said so.
and 2 people say they have seen all the statements.
.
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.
They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.
they were speaking to the media a lot after the conviction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-328577/Jodi-mother-face-face-murder-accused.html#ixzz1MnVedeFO
quite a short article which I wouldnt say was speaking to media a lot. They had every right to speak to whomever they wanted to anyway.
that wasnt an attack.
i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.
Do you want to attack them for every single thing they say or do? Have some compassion for goodness sake. They have suffered something most will never have to suffer thankfully.
This family have been through hell with this brutal murder. They rarely speak to the media, so why would they tell anyone other than their own family and friends what happened with the police? They have no need to do so.
They need to be left in peace to grieve their terrible loss but they are not being allowed to because people like you keep bringing all the gory details of this murder onto the internet.
i dident start this thread blame john.
i know this trick don't dare question the official version of events because it might upset someone.
this is trotted out in all claims of wrongful conviction.
that wasnt an attack.
i was just pointing out that your previous post wasn't true.
i havent accused anyone of murder ive just talked about the case.
well ill let them read the threads then and decide for themselves.
please stop trying to put words in to other peoples mouths.
do you think a registered charity would publish all this stuff knowing it wasn't true knowing they could be sued out of existence at any time.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
She lives in Mayfield actually, I could Google her house if you like?
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.
the charity could be sued out of existence deregistered fo doing something like that.
whats wit all this predjuidice agianst people who dont own houses.
and how do you know what thier finances are.
Well Middleton is on disability benefit and Lean is a sponsored student.
benifet records are confidential how would you know who was on benefit or not.
if you do know that for a fact youve comited a very serious crime.
or is it just more bullshit hey.
or is it just more bullshit hey.
hey Billy boy....better watch they don't catch you out and about on that walk eh?? ;D
The way the cops tried to get evidence from Shane was outrageous. They lied to him, tried every way they could to get him to say Luke did it, twisted everything he said, and then used that in evidence to say he was lying. Judges decision - we agree, if Shane had been a suspect, this would have been totally unacceptable, and the "evidence" garnered from it would never have been allowed. But he wasn't a suspect, was he? He was a witness, so the police treatment doesn't count.
sandra lean isnt hideing behind a computer screen shes in the next village.
hardly hideing
I see a poor family who have lost a child in such a brutal manner being victimised and accused by people hiding behind computer screens.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkiethSo nugnug is your real name then? Or are you hiding?
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
my names in my profile you care to look i cant prove its my name.
can you prove yours is janet.
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
not too sure of your source...IS IT FROM DOBBIE THE DUMB COPPERS fantasy version?...Dobbie...the man that seems to think it normal for 14 year old girls to have sperm from several different males on her body and clothes and not find it highly suspicious...hmmm..well I do find it suspicious...oh and Dobbie..I know you got it wrong sunshine...cos I know who really killed Jodi....and so do a growing number of other people.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
[/quote
believe or not a lot of people have other things to do than post on forums.
i know we dont but some people have a life.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."
I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?
There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.
So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?
As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.
That did not happen in this case at all.
the mail articall contians nothing but a lot of innuendo
this was paper who spen years telling the world colin stag was guilty..
oh judges always come out with cobblers like that when there sentencing somebody its expected of them
the decedent showed no emotion as most defendants don't because there in to much shock at hearing the word guilty.
i
as for the daily mail well its the daily mail need i say more.
Most who are innocent actually do let the courts know how they feel somehow or another. They say something at the very least, especially when being sentenced.
Especially when they already know there is a big media interest in the case.
They do not usually stay totally silent. I know Luke Mitchell was young but he had no problem answering police questions and arguing with them.
Suddenly when he is found guilty he is struck dumb?
This is the same man that Lord Hamilton, said, "Mitchell was "perfectly capable of holding his own". He had made no confession and had "stuck to his guns" throughout the interview, the court heard."
I know too that a guilty verdict can be a shock to some people but they usually react in someway too. He knew the media would be listening to everything said. Yet said not one word?
There is not one word of truth in the Daily Mail articles or in any article that does not support Mitchell.
Wonder why they are still in business and not been sued out of it by now considering all they do is tell lies about innocent people like Luke Mitchell. They clearly made up every little thing about him. None of it is true of course.
So if he stuck to his guns throughout an interview, when it was quite clear he was the only suspect then why no outburst at court that they got it wrong?
As I said I do understand that perhaps someone would be shocked to be charged but once charged there is always a chance of conviction unless you know you did not do something. And if you did not you will let people know the verdict is wrong.
That did not happen in this case at all.
make react in all diffrent ways to the verdict it means nothing your clutching at straws here.
a lot of guilty do react a lot of innocent people dont.
a lot of guilty start protesting there innocence after the verdict a lot of innocent people dont it means nothing.
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
oh so were you talking about billy midellton or corine mitchell who still lives in dielkieth
do you think there names are fake then how exactly are they hideing.
Quite simply they are hiding as they post one thing under own names and other rubbish under anonymous user-names just like you do nuggy.
Sandra Lean previously admitted to using the names jigsawman and angeline when posting since this suited her purpose.
Have you ever wondered why Shane or Luke's dad don't appear to post on any forums? I should point out that the words 'don't appear' are the important ones here as they do post anonymously and quite regularly.
Well if people are admitting to using certain names you can bet they are using others too.
If Shane or the dad post why don't the post under their own names if they believe he is innocent?
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.
yeah they say that about nearly every defendant in nearly every trail its just a cliche
But it wasn't a cliche was it? People saw it for themselves in court.
how would you that if as you say you wernt in court.
i thought said you said you had nothing to do with the case so how would you know that.
i did read what you wrote.
and if your nothing to do with the case as you say.
how would you know what other people who were in court said.
and
kids write on there jotters
its perfectly normall.
there are thousnds of jotters that look just like that.
and your hideing in another country.
how many jotters have you seen then.
what does writing things on jotter have to do with murder
you will scribels like that on half the school jotters in the country.
I see the fans over at GI are asking questions about Shane and his daddy posting on the forums. I won't burst their bubbles just yet but watch this space because it will come out soon....
By the way I believe as things stand the SCCRC will not be making any referral to the High Court as Mrs Leans arguments are all sawdust. They should be receiving the provisional determination very soon now.
I have had another look at the testimony by smack-head Shane the secret poster on WAP. Half the time he couldn't remember and the other half he was repeating things that mummy had fed him earlier. What a tosser!
I can't get over Corinne being so stupid as to admit that Luke spoke to Shane that afternoon when according to her Luke had called him down for dinner. Shane denied this ever took place when he confirmed he never saw Luke any time that afternoon until he returned home after 9pm.
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
She never quite did that load of crap she refers to as the truth sorted out did she Sandra? Lets say I am not surprised she ended up with you two since you all deserve each other.
Luckily Stephanie Hall saw through them before it was too late!
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?
Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.
What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?QuoteDI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp
this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.
Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?
Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.
What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?QuoteDI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.
He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.
"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.
"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.
it proves the police wre lying when they said the dna transfered innocently as was the prosecutor.
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accidentagain I point you to the date of the article. It was also very early on in the investigation. You cannot possibly know who was tested or not.
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident
DETECTIVES investigating the murder of schoolgirl Jodi Jones are considering DNA testing up to 1400 men living near where she was killed.
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.
because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"
One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.
the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.
at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.
the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.
Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC10.html
Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it.
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.
Meanwhile, the other man had provided an innocent explanation about the condom.
"Both gentlemen gave samples to the police and DNA profiles were obtained which were compared to crime-scene samples, and there is no match whatsoever," he told the court.
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.
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."
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.
This case is very upsetting! I do remember it vaguely but was never aware of the appeals etc...
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.
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?
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.
QuoteRe: 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.Quotefishy
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?
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.
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.
then how do you know the question was loaded.
will you stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.
er that should be obvious.
here it is jools.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1
Maybe you can explain why Mrs hall was also banned and blocked from accessing the forum?
There is a big difference between fact and fantasy with the WAP forum falling into the latter category. Luke Mitchell had every opportunity to commit murder on his 14 year-old girlfriend. He had the motive, the means and the opportunity.
The sad excuse for an alibi that he was at home preparing dinner at 5.15pm on Monday 30 June 2003 while Jodi Jones had her throat cut and was thereafter mutilated just doesn't cut it as far as the evidence by his own brother has it. He was charged with perverting the course of justice as was his mother. They were also warned in court as to the consequences of perjury. Says it all really doesn't it?
And just on cue up she pops.
Lets just say that I was misled into believing that the Jones family were involved in her murder. I most certainly don't believe this to be true any longer having looked at all the facts in the case.
The continued refusal by the Mitchell's to address their memory lapses is the clincher for me. Innocent people don't suddenly develop amnesia deary.
Indeed Sandy, that has always concerned me in that people who promote themselves as advocates for the wrongly accused could act in such a way which could only do harm to any investigation.
Unless of course they didn't want me to get to the truth in the first place which is always a possibility?
There are too many unanswered questions in that case for me. Why did those very same people go out of their way to have the Jodi Jones forum closed down if they themselves had nothing to hide? Their actions speaks volumes.
nothing the charges were all dropped just after the conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
Thank you grahame.After reading Janet's post in the disclaimer I second that cliff.Am I the only one who finds this a difficult forum to follow.hello janet or is that john?
why quote one of the most discredited wafflers about in Melanie "not got a clue" Reid.
same old....john...wassupp...you not in the usa as to where you claimed to be going so use the janet user name you set up...yawn...after you dumped your sandy one..oh the iceland volcano...eh?
I am not named John. Why are you calling me John? My name is Janet. I live in Scotland not the USA. I posted the article because it was interesting.
I will be contacting the moderator of this forum because you have clearly mistaken me for someone else and are being quite abusive for no reason.
There seems to be so much in fighting that I lose the threads. can you please stick to the facts, instead of point scoring. Thank you.
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.You are quite clearly involved in this case Janet. As I am not, I will observe from a distance.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
With due respect.
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.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
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.
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.
OH YES JANET/john ...how odd that in a later post you completely contradict yourself..
by then wanting to limit discussion as per this that you posted;
This case is clearly a highly emotional one.
It is best to stick to facts that are part of the court case and not all the theories that are being tossed around.
:)
so you pointless then JANET...by your own previous words...so maybe you should go away and not come back..
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
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.
I have been having a good read about this case and all early newspaper reports have the girl leaving home at 5.30pm, then the time changes as the days pass. How odd :-\
I have also read that first statements by the mothers boyfriend state Jodi's brother wasnt at home. The sister Janine said she had visited her mother's home and also said her older brother wasnt at home. These statements then change, very strange :o Did Jodi not use her mothers phone to text Luke, did she actually make a call to Luke? From what Ive read so far they exchanged texts, that someone deleted.
The above reconstruction has Jodi, walking down the path. Why would they do this? The witness at no point said that the girl she saw walked towards or down the path. This witness who saw a girl, she claimed could have been Jodi, but I find this strange as she claimed not to have known Jodi when she gave this statement, so how could she have said it could have been Jodi, if she didnt know what she looked like. The first pictures in the media were of a young 5/6 year old child, not a 14 year old girl, therefore I wonder how she came to this conclusion. This same witness did not describe black hoody and black jeans, she said the person that she thought was Jodi had a navy hoody and blue jeans, Jodis mother said she left in a navy blue hoody and blue jeans, so why has the reconstruction got the girl dressed all in black. I believe this was the clothes that were found scattered around the crime scene, but why did the police ask for witnessess and descriptions if they werent going to listen what was said. I find this very confusing, as they have done a reconstruction to jog peoples memories, but dressed the victim in clothes that were nothing like the mother and witness described. ::)
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.
Another interesting point in this case is that there was never any reward offered for information which could see the perpetrator(s) properly convicted. It has been suggested to Mitchell's family on several occasions that they offer such a reward but they are not interested. This in itself sends out the wrong message since if they truly believed in Luke's innocence they would stop at nothing to bring the real culprits to justice.
They would rather try and sell their story to the local rag as Luke's grandmother, Ruby Guetta, attempted to do some time ago.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2007/11/25/killer-s-granny-tries-to-sell-her-story-for-10k-78057-20158055/
It is the very same with the confidential hotline that you helped to set up John, they did nothing but ridicule it instead of supporting it. They want to keep any information in the case within their own grasp and don't want to share anything of value. They keep talking about progress but from what I have seen of their efforts they will be lucky to ever get a referral from the SCCRC.
At the end of the day there is no evidence which can clear Mitchell but plenty that can condemn him.
Police reconstruction of Jodi's last movements.
(http://i.imgur.com/voLLA.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/8YILZ.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/1iVCq.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..??
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.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
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.To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
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.
in any case hes a big willie. ;Dah ..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.To bo honest smiffy, I agree with Grahame on this one, and think its a kid.
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.
Probably a big one at that.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I think its a kid.If you look at his other Grahame He says knickers. Do you think he may have a fettish.bum.bigwullie, we would appreciate it if you'd stop describing yourself in such graphic terms.
I doubt that the real user big wullie would come on and say one word just for attention. He's very vocal and likes to have his say and one word just wouldnt do it. The FAKE big wullie is a complete moron, who goes round forums using words like condoms, tits, cock etc and sends users who support certain moj victims pm's with one of these words. He only targets forums of those that he believes himself are not miscarriages of justice.
Bad hair day girls? :D
(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000POcgNMa6aJU/s/750/750/CORINNE-MITCHELL-DPPA02.JPG)
Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell arrive at the High Court in Edinburgh.
The High Court in Edinburgh has refused Mitchell permission to bring his case before the UK Supreme Court in London...now why am I not surprised?
Convicted killer Luke Mitchell's request to refer his case to the UK Supreme Court has been refused by judges at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mitchell was trying to get his conviction for killing his girlfriend Jodi Jones, 14, in Midlothian in 2003, overturned.
But judges dismissed claims that his human rights were breached when he was questioned by police without a lawyer.
The 22-year-old now plans to appeal directly to the UK Supreme Court.
Mitchell was given a life sentence in 2005 after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones in Dalkeith when he was 14.
(http://i.imgur.com/mrsEQ.jpg)
Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13672255)
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
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?
Where is all this brilliant evidence now that the SCCRC was supposed to have considered?
The last time I looked at the SCCRC website, innuendo and theories don't count! ;)
In paperwork lodged with the court, Mitchell's legal team argued that the Lord Advocate relied upon evidence identifying Mitchell which was "unfairly obtained and had the effect of rendering his trial unfair and in breach of the accused's rights".
They further argued that his interview with police, carried out when he was 15, was conducted in a way which was "oppressive and constituted an interrogation designed to break the accused and obtain an admission".
They also argued what was described in court as a "Cadder point", namely that Mitchell was interviewed as a suspect but was not given access to legal advice before being quizzed.
So where is there any evidence of his innocence? Thought not!
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.
What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??
Totally disgusted at they way Judy Jones and her family are being treated by these people.
I quite agree Janet, no wonder the Mitchell's come in for such public ridicule and to think that Corinne Mitchell and her mum tried to court the Press and get £10,000 for their trouble not so long ago.
What sort of a decent family attempt to gain financially from their own sons conviction and imprisonment??
what decent person robs there dying aunty.
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.
Everyone knows who you are nugnug so playing the dumb prick doesn't hold water any more. Imagine being excluded from your own sons life because of your sordid practices. What sort of an animal abuses his wife in such a manner that it takes her years to talk about it? Sadist beast!
Why don't you tell us about your goings on in Edinburgh when you stayed with Miss Lean? Did you ever get that psychiatric treatment for dissociative identity disorder ??
your wife gave evedence agianst you in a court of law so what did you do to her to make her do that.
Wrong nuggy, my wife never gave any evidence against me in relation to any charges, try harder and don't put so much faith in press reports provided by the Crown Office.
You of all people should know how they operate or do they have a different agenda when it comes to child murderers?
all the newspaper say she gave evdence agianst you did they all get it wrong.
this was court reporting i cant believe all the reporters saw someone in the witness box who wasn't there.
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.
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.
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.
he was found innocent.
unlike yourself.
the judge said you showed no remorse,
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.
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?
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 dont need anyone's permission.
ive chosen to do so thats it.
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.
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.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.
Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol
nugnug where do you get off attacking people who are claiming to be Miscarriage of Justices without knowing all the facts of the case? Attack the evidence but you cannot do that because you do not have all the evidence and facts in either Mr Lamberton's case or the Mitchell case.
Once again you have shown yourself to be nasty and vindictive, and also diverting from the topic which is about the Jodi Jones murder. Luke Mitchell must be very proud of you I am sure. lol
by his own arguments he cant be innocent.
and if he cant take it he shouldn't dish it out
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.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
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.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.
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.
Not proven means that the jury believe you are most probably guilty but haven't got the evidence to prove it. We all know those fires were set maliciously, your ex-wife says so, your niece says so and they were there that night too.
Best of luck to Kareen when she gets remarried later this year. How does it feel having your son call another man daddy? Happy days!! ;)
only the jury would know what they were thinking when they reached.
and a jury found you guilty.
and by your own arguments on here i cant see how they could possibly be wrong.
I am quite content for now that 7 members of the jury held that I was not guilt but then that is the pathetic Scottish system that stands for a Justice in a third world country.
we only your word it was 8/7 ive seen no evidence of this.
Nugnug or should I say Billy Middleton hasn't the first notion what stands for the truth in the Luke Mitchell case Janet. That is true for the Kate Prout case and all the others he claims to support.
He cannot even provide a single shred of evidence in support of Luke Mitchell yet he claims to be the saviour for everyone else. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.
oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.
I notice that both the Record and Sun have followed on with the story from the Sunday Post. Other papers may also have done likewise.im glad the press picked up now people will be looking to see what was said.
If these papers actually read what has been written on these forums they will find there has indeed been great disrespect towards Jodi and her family. The now defunct Fact and Myth had a lot of terrible comments.
Smiffy how do you know someone else killed Jodi and who "he is and who is shielding him"? What proof do you have?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/13/mum-of-murdered-jodi-jones-brands-luke-mitchell-a-sociopath-86908-23198262/
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3633801/Jodi-Jones-mum-Killer-had-no-emotion-as-I-cuddled-him.html
Be patient.
Judy ...oh ....best not say too much...from my posts she may brand me a paranoid schizphrenic or call me a liar when she is a person known to have difficulties in recalling the truth.
Though she may have particular experience of paranoid schizophrenics of a violent kind I find her judgements to be clouded by bias and her drink issues for her to form any valid opinion of me on forums etc.
I know things you dont know ....
:)
oh by the way "Janet"...I suggest you go read back through your posts as its clear from paying attention to them that your a blatant liar. Claims you make in some posts being shot down in other posts you make....your not doing a good job using this fantasy persona...losing track of yourself.
Smiffy is a bum Janet and we all know it to be so. You and I know all too well who the great smiffy really is and a bigger lump of lard one would never find if one tried. Yes, he knows who killed Jodi Jones but then again you and I and most of Scotland know who killed her too.
LUKE MITCHELL murdered Jodi Jones and then set about brutalising her corpse by slitting her eyelids and almost removing her throat and gouging her abdomen. What sort of a depraved animal would do such a thing to a beautiful young lass who had most of her life before her??
Yes, we all why the likes of Sandra Lean and Billy (the scammer) Middleton want to disrespect the Jones family in general and Jodi Jones in particular. Lean in particular is a snake in the grass, she says one thing in private and another in public when her discredited reputation is about to go down the toilet.
Well done to the Daily Record and The Scottish Sun for following up on the recent comments and exposing the Wrongly Accused retards for what they really are.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!I know nothing of this case John, only what I have read on here.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
They did and unsuccessfully. The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
There were numerous unidentified DNA profiles found on the victim.Thanks for that John,But I still fail to see the link to the accused.
One profile however was identified as coming from the victim's sister's boyfriend. The profile came from a t-shirt which the victim had earlier borrowed from her sister.
I suppose the police tried to make a match of the other dna found on the victim with friends ect.
Were the police able to rule out this dna as not important.
They did and unsuccessfully. The strange thing is that Mitchell didn't have any of Jodi's DNA on his clothing nor his on her when they had been together (close contact) earlier that day.
but theres no evedence they had been in close contact.
they say each other at scholl.
now if they dident touch each other there wouldent be.
luke mitchells hair was dirty and unwashed acording to the police.
his finger nails were dirty as well so how could he have cleaned himself up.
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
How did she fight? Can't wait to hear this one!
So how did Jodi fight for her life exactly when she had no foreign DNA on her hands or nails?
We know she was bludgeoned from behind and then had her throat cut.
Jodi never touched her attacker...do keep up!
the patholigist said she fought for her life but luke mitchell dident have a mark on him.
How did she fight? Can't wait to hear this one!
she fought for her life thats a fact the patholigists said so in court.
but luke Mitchell dident have a mark on him.
Whom did she fight and what did she use because it most certainly wasn't her hands or nails according to the pathologist?
Oh he was forensically clean alright and then went up the woods to get uncontaminated dirt on him prior to any examination. Do you think the authorities are stupid nugget?
You never could answer the questions about Luke's whereabouts after leaving school and the discrepancies in the brothers evidence, neither could Corinne Mitchell.
If I recall she complained about her blood pressure the last time she was caught out...not surprised really as she was nailed to the floor.
Judy Jones referred to Mitchell as a SOCIOPATH>>>
Profile of the Sociopath
Some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioural Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behaviour Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioural and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behaviour/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.
It seems Judy was well briefed!
Information loop? How little you know really at the end of the day.
Why don't you come out and say that your brilliant theory is that Joey Jones killed his own sister in a moment of violent rage because that is what you numpties at WAP have been promoting for weeks now?
No wonder Jodi's mother is enraged at your attacks upon her and her family. No wonder the local Press have taken up this story at the expense of the Mitchell circus entourage.
How anyone could possibly promote the theory that a mother would protect her son if he murdered his sister just goes to show how far you and others will go to condemn the innocent while all the time promoting yourself as some sort of campaigner for miscarriages of justice.
(http://paimages.s3.amazonaws.com/categories/news/480x385/10922024.jpg)
In for the long haul. Corinne Mitchell (right) has a quick puff after learning that her son has lost the right to have his case referred to the UK Supreme Court. Sandra Lean looks on.
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .
i am really glad the forum is making headlines.
FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS !!
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)more viewers than ive ethere seem before.
Looks like the WAP forum has gone down the toilet! (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt014.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)more viewers than ive ethere seem before.
keep posting the links youl get them a few more.
keep at it nugnug...the demented john lamberton keeps showing himself to be the nasty dishonest individual he really is .
And you of course are all sweetness and light aren't you Smiffy? Personal attacks is what you are reduced to when you do not like what is being said.
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
John posts, "That's because she got slashed on her upper limbs while fending off the knife attack. She never made contact with her attacker since she was incapable of doing so. Jodi's fingernails contained only material from Jodi, she never touched her attacker no matter how much she struggled to get away. I wonder how far you would get if bludgeoned over the head with a large stick?"
John, where have you read that Jodis fingernails contained only material from Jodi? The findings on the right hand fingernails were never reported on, so how do we know that Jodi never touched her attacker?
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.
it dident say that it said no reportable result not the same thing.
thats correct nugnug :)
should we start a new thread on this as this thread has got a bit confusing.
are well maybe we can correct those inaccuracy's
i agrea this thread was justed by john to have a pop at certain people.
do you think i should start a thread on his case.
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.
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?
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?
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. ::)
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 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.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.
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.
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.
your very wide of the mark cliff.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 denied it.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.
no im not personally involved at all i have never met luke Mitchell.
fighting my corner just means i feel strongly about this case.
you say you have nothing to do with the case but you seem to feel strongly about it.
I do feel strongly about it because there is so much rubbish being put online and no one is allowed to have a differing opinion to the supporters. Its time you all got the veil removed from your eyes and looked at the case less passionately and objectively.
so who's dined you a voice exactly.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.
or were you there.
well i am going to tell people there wrong if i think there wrong arnt i.
thats not denying someone a voice.
Truth is you do not know who is wrong and who is right because on your own admission you were not there.
The courts so far have not said my opinion is wrong but it has said yours is. Courts look at the facts not all sorts of opinions and suppositions.
There is an element of truth in many things. That does not make it factual. It also does not mean everyone else is wrong, every witness, cop, lawyer, whoever lied either.
It does Luke Mitchells cause no good for his supporters to make him sound like some sort of angel who has never done anything wrong in his life.
'We shall see what the SCCRC make of the case because no matter how much we discuss this, at the moment its their opinion only that matters on whether it will be referred or not.
well you wernt there ethere were you but you seem sure.
or were you there.
You would love to know if I was wouldn't you? What difference would it make to you? None because you believe what you want to believe anyhow
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.
John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??
That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.
John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??
That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »
is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.
youre being impersonated on the lambo forum, unless it is you!
theyve got a fake smiffy now as well.
Those who really know the case are able to conclude who the real killer of Jodi actually is.No point in the post then Smiffy.
He is a person I have met face to face and from that viewing of him at close quarters I am satisfied that he is the killer. I cannot reveal publically or by pm as to why.
well there must have been a point to it or he wouldn't some of us may not know what the point was but there must have been one.Pardon.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/12/19/anger-as-supporters-of-killer-luke-mitchell-launch-postcard-campaign-to-proclaim-his-innocence-86908-23646465/
· Did you shoot your family on August 7th 1985? – No
· Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? No
· Were you present inside the house when they were shot with an Anshutz rifle? – No
· Did you shoot your father Neville? – No
· Did you shoot your mother June? – No
· Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? – No
· Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? – No
· Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting your family? – No
· Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? – No
· Did PC Bews radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings? – Yes
· Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? – No
i wonder who else will be willing to take one in relation to this case.
I reckon anyone that is confident in passing would speak up.
I wouldn't expect to hear from cocky Kelly, Falconer, Ferris, Dickie, or AW, JAJ.
Nunnug, what do you make of all those discarded items of clothing being found near the crime scene?
2 different hoodies and joggies. :-\
Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark. Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.
Ha Rochford, you stole his thunder. That is what I was waiting for him to spew out next. It was only a matter of time before he came out with that one as he has called Corrine everything else under the sun. She is a strong woman, something he wasnt able to handle, he likes his victims to be weaklings so that it is easier to grind them down. Sad, pathetic man. He hasnt even got his numerous usernames to keep himself company on his festered forum now it has been suspended. ;D
hes guilty guilty guilty and guilty.
Tracey Jane Well done another success from Scotland on the polygraph test I have been banging on about Joseph Steele who was cleared of murdering 6 people on the results of a polygraph test he had served 17 years. It is mentioned on Jeremy,s official web site can the non believers of the polygraph test give some impact into the two posts thank you.we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say .. x
we get the response of people saying how easy it is for a psycopath to fool the test....But the non believers are more than happy to celebrate Adrain Prout failing his ....Brainless hypocrites, although it is not admissable in a court of law they've been trialling them in English prisons to check if sex offenders are safe to be released....And also what are the odds of both Luke and his mom passing the test? Big risk to take I'd say .. x
Tracey Jayne It is so good to have somebody agree with me on the polygraph I know they use them in Scotland re. sex offenders in America they are admissible in Court as 100percent reliable but all the people on this forum who say polygraph tests are unreliable will not comment on the Joseph Steele case and now we have the Jodi Jones. I put it to the non believers to accept our views and challenge them with some positive response about the above two cases. After all if they have no credence why bother with them.Could you possibly send me a link to the Joseph Steele case Susan? I would be interested to read about it.
Tracey Jayne I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders. Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002. As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.well it's been 9 years for Luke and his mother come to that, So Id just say poppycock to all the doubters (who probably watch Jeremy Kyle every day and get quite excited by it all ) :D x
Rochford so sorry I don,t understand your post could you explain. I apologise for my ignorance.
Tracey Jayne so sorry I don,t have a thread but I just read about part of it on the Jeremy Bamber Official Web Site. Joseph Steele and another guy were involved in the Ice Cream Wars in Glasgow they were accused of setting fire to a house with 6 people inside one an 18 month old baby . He always protested his innocence and at one stage escaped from prison and chained himself to the railings of Buckingham Palace (not suggesting Jeremy do that). He had two failed appeals and after being imprisoned for 17 years he was released on the results of a polygraph test by the Secretary of State for Scotland. If you Google Joseph Steele Glasgows Ice Cream Wars you will get the story up. Hope this helps. By the way the six people died in the fire not sure if the other guy is still in prison.Thank you Susan will read up on this tomorrow when my house is quiet :o
Tracey Jayne I have had people on this forum saying how easy it is to cheat the polygraph test especially if you are a psychopath like Jeremy. Jeremy has had 27 different assessments and has not got any psychotic tendencies other people have said but you only have to answer No and it is so much easier as the test was taken so long after the murders. Jeremy has been asking for a polygraph test since shortly after he was committed finally got one I think it was 2002. As I have said he had failed the test people would have said I told you he was guilty.Susan, I reckon that should print out at the top of every thread on the forum, I have been banging on about the Psychiatric/psychological tests and you about the polyogram endlessly. I think I say it in my sleep!!
Rochford sorry I must be lacking in brain cells as I don,t know who John is and is he related to the Jodi Jones case I had not heard of this case until Tracey Jayne brought it to my attention. Please be patient with me and explain it is the only way I will learn. Many thanks.
Hi Maggie I am the same and nobody takes the slightest bit of notice of us Patti does but she has gone out on her canoe hope she gets back. I am suffering from sun burn but I have laid down a challenge to the people who just dismiss polygraph testing but as yet no takers. I take notice of you Maggie.I take.notice of you Susie.!
nugnug A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law. The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread. I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s test
nugnug A polygraph test can be accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has the power to overturn the conviction and that is what he did with Joseph Steele it was not an actual Court of Law. The Jodi Jones case I knew nothing about it till Tracey Jayne brought to my attention yesterday thanks for the thread. I see it was Terry Mullins who carried out the test the same guy who carried out Jeremy,s testSusan I am acknowledging your post about the polygraph test.
Everytime I think of those hoodies, I think of that half naked picture of GD, as it looks to me if the picture is taken outside, in the dark. Not that I'm saying it is his hoody, but there is just something about that picture that gives me the creeps.
Your post has been mod'd because the forum does not permit the potentially libelous naming of persons who members suspect to be murderers. If you have evidence of your allegation, this should be given to the police.
(http://i.imgur.com/mHSFL.jpg)
cant be taken outside, hes clearly looking in a mirror and taking a picture of his own reflection with his camera phone.
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
he fought to take the test and past that says alot to me his mum past a lie detector as well and shes his albiThat's true nugnug, unfortunately no one's listening. A lie detector test can be dismissed as not proof in this country. Psychological and psychiatric test results can be doubted and sneered at, where is the power?
it would be hard for both of them to pass it if they were lying or are they both deluded.
funny though they use they youse same lie detector tests to dicide weather there going to relase dangrous sex offenders into the community if they really think there that untrustworthy they should stop using them.Couldn't agree more nugnug.
it was the first time they were offered they jumped at the chance to take it and they both passed i wonder who else involved in the case will except the challenge to take one.
why should anyone else have to take one? they obviously all had an alibi. the police wanted to clear luke at the time but just couldnt.
she did mention it in the lie detector test witch she passed.
most of them have no credible albi the police had luke down as there only suspect from day 1.
and were not intresteded any other suspects.
like i said, do you know how polygraphs work, what kind of reactions detect dishonesty? one wouldnt experience these reactions if they were simply re-stating the same position they have for all these years.
i know the chances of 2 people taking the test idependantly telling the same lies and passing the test are virtully non existent.
well the presence other mens sperm and blood on the body for a start
the fact that the there not a single trace of fronsic evedence linking to the crime but plenty of fronsics linking other people.
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
the semen was her sisters boyfriend as she was wearing her sisters top. Blood? post your source please
how do you know that?
Wasnt Luke with her that day at school? they never hugged or made any contact? his DNA by all accounts should have been on her, and vice versa, yet it wasnt.
thats not the only semon there and theres no evedence to back up the sisters boyfriends story about the t shirt.
so how does not haveing dna prove you guilty exactly..
thats not the only semon there
so jodi's own sister is lyin to protect her boyfriend? jodis sister knew her boyfriend killed her little sister yet stayed with him and gave him an alibi? what planet are you lot on
its happened many times before
he was never positively identified by anybody the officer in charge of the investigation admitted that.
at the trail she couldent point to him even though he was standing right in the dock.
hardly postive id.
ofcourse not he looked totally different, between 14 and 16 is some of the biggest changes a boy will go through in life
time of the murder
(http://i.imgur.com/rMPNG.jpg)
trial
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/3/1249299405480/Luke-Mitchell-001.jpg)
it would have been less credible if she did say he was the same boy she saw, considering the time that had passed and change in appearance. she was just being honest, no reason to be anything other than honest why would she?
the fact is she couldn't point him
she could say positively it was him she saw.
im postive that inocent.
i dont have to justify my opionions to you ive have allready stated why im sure his innocent.
may he reffere you to this its contians the fronsic reports.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/other-suspects/suspects-and-dna/
ah so its just an opinion so i was right when i said you dont have a clue weather he did it or not
susan lukes guilty as far as im concerned
what part of im postive that his innocent do you fail to understand.
you clearly have no intrest in freeing wullie gage at all do you.
so 10 different people killed Jodi?
it put that there becouse it contians the refrences to the blood and the sperm.
the same reson wullie gage does the same reason all the cases mentioned on here do.
well thse people could take a lie detector test to prove them wrong and they could always sue.
oh thers a few questions i would love to ask maybe i could make a list
when i was the same age as luke if girlfriends dident show i thought nothing it merly thought i had been stood up hardly an unusall occurrence.
luke did phone back ounce to be told she wasn't there why would he phone when the family had told him she wasnt in it would make no sense.
no im not there abslutly nothing strange about it all he would be seeing her the next day at school anyway.
it would of been to late for them to do anything.
and that makes him guilty of murder does it becouse he forgot to phone his girlfiend who he would talk to the next day anyway by the same logic you could lock half the population up.
no they don't, no one takes those tests seriously other than chavs on the jeremy kyle show.
Don't you know that guilty killers have passed lie detectors before then been proven to have been lying?
Lukes tracker dog found the body apparently, yet luke and the dog would have had to have passed the body and the same v break in the wall on the way up the path yet he didnt alert him of anything then? only on the way back down? this is proof it was Luke who found the body and not the dog, and this means Luke wanted to lead the family to the body as he wanted to witness their distress and reaction to his 'work'. truly evil.
a dog found sarah pians body a dog finds bodys that are concealed in the woods thats what dogs do.
a dog finds the body in most murder cases you read about it the papers all the time a man walking his dog found the body
exactly so why didnt it find the body on the way up the very same path? it would have to have walked right by it, why didnt it smell the body at that point? isn't that "what dogs do"? can you explain that?
probably because he relaxed his grip on the lead the rest of the search backed up his story about the dog.
are you saying he could control his dogs sense of smell.
no killer would want the body to found or be anywhere near the body when it was found.
if hes storys not true how come the rest of search party backed it up.
h
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
im not saying his stories not true about the dog finding the body on the way back down the path
i want to know why it didnt find the body on the way up the path?
it must have walked right past the exact same spot. No one was there other than the dog and luke on the way up, its consistant with the dog smelling the body on the way down, that the dog must have alerted luke to the body on the way up also, so why didnt luke discover it on the way up?
can i ask if anyone else on here believes luke to be guilty
im not doubting the dog 'found' the body, i would expect a dog to smell a dead body/blood. What i want to know is why it didnt smell it passing it on the way up. (im guessing it probably did, why then didnt luke go over the wall then? he probably just tugged at the dog to keep coming... he didnt want to find the body at this time, he wanted to find it with the family to appear innocent)
I also find this rather misleading as it was not Luke in control of the search party,he could not have known that they would have went back down the path he had just came up, I have heard that it was Jodi's gran who suggested they go back the way he came, this idea that he could of and didn't so brilliantly carry out a plan when so many variables were outwith his control amazes me.
the mitchells pick n choose when it suits them, lie detectors arent taken seriously in law. funny when police showed their sky interview to the human lie detector in America that his opinion was completely rubbished, yet an unreliable machine is now gospel.
Hi Janet please excuse my ignorance but I am now becoming interested in this case could you just explain what you meant by your post as I said I know very little about it and cannot decide who thinks what.
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 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 innocence. The court is the place to prove innocence.
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.
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.
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
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.
If you tell everyone and convince yourself of something for almost 9 years, repeating it will have no affect on a lie detector test.
im talking about later that night after hed been out with his mates, he went home and put on a video, surely he would suspect jodi would also be home from wherever she was and this would be the perfect time to call and see what was going on? youre not willing to admit there is nothing strange about that?
judging by his recent letter published in a paper, he and Jodi were inseperable and in love, yet he had no concerns? when i had girlfriends at 14 texts were constant.
what are you talking about
i dont doubt the dog smelled the body, i just presume for it to have done this, it would have had to have smelled it also on the way up the path, why didnt luke and mia discover the body then?
luke wanted to find the body with the search party to appear innocent and perhaps for his own twisted thrills
the evidence suggests to me that hes a celtic supporter that's absolute proof of guilt as far as i am concerned.
yes but if uality newspaper like the daily record the news of the world say his guilty i mean you've got to believe them.
Once Said what I meant was is there a list of questions that Mitchell was asked and for the people who doubt the test, what questions would you have liked answered that did not get asked.
Sorry I wasnt very clear
theres no doubt in my mind luke mitchell could beat a lie detector, he's proven to be a cold person, someone who shows no emotion finding a body, shows no emotion in hours of police interrogation, and doesnt even respond emotionally to being found guilty and sent down... why would he feel anything when lying to a machine?
Are you also suggesting that Luke had a motive? If you are, could you share with me what his motive was?[/font]
Are you suggesting that his mother who also passed the test is also cold and shows no emotion?
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?
FWG I was responding to you when you stated "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".
Now that I have reread what you have written in bold, could you explain what you mean, do you mean other suspects in this case had alibis, no motive whatsever, all behaved as expected etc
Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.
Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds? ::)
the thing about Mitchells supporters is, they have absolutely no clue weather or not he's guilty or innocent, there is no proof hes innocent, there is every possibility and chance he could have done it, yet they put so much faith into it to the point they will disrespect Jodi and every member of her family with their accusations. They are a very sad little bunch indeed, thankfully there's only about 10 of them. The only miscarriage of justice on that site is that Billy Middleton got a "not proven" verdict at his trial.
If you think the correct person is in prison for the murder of Jodi Jones, why dont you leave his supporters to continue getting the facts out to a wider audience via the internet, instead of coming on to forums like this with the sole intention to mislead and disrupt.
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )
a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
Funny how mummy went first eh? almost as if she was guinea pigging before Luke was confident enough to follow suit.
Please explain why, in any circumstance, his mother would feel the need to pass one before the person in question, Luke?
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
Similar to how none of you will give an explanation why the dog didnt lead Luke to the body on the way up the path... ( or did he? )
a trained tracking dog walked past a blood soaked human body and didnt alert luke to anything, but on the way back down he did eh ok sure pal.
From the initial time of being asked, and doing it, Luke was not aware of what was going on. It was done and dusted in a few days and he was informed on the day the test was completed, by his mother.
why would i have to "get my foot in the door" of a forum? please go outside.
I could have joined here as any name and said the exact same things, I could have made up something random, like you have...
Im failing to see your problem with me choosing a supportive username for a certain individual.
You have no idea how I know Willie Gage.
Too little too late..
btw..
woops, blatant lie there =/
Are you suggesting every single killer needs a motive?
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive
If someone is going to kill someone else they do so for a reason. Surely that is motive
if that counts as a motive, then Luke had one.
well you would think that any sane person would need a motive to kill someone and luke was pronounced to be sane.
Too little too late..
btw..
woops, blatant lie there =/
What is a blatant lie? Why would I lie about anything? If you mean the number of days since being asked and taking the test, I thought it was 3 days but I will be able to double check that information tomorrow, unless another poster can confirm the timescale before then. If you are saying it is a lie, then can you tell me how many days it was then to correct my error?
I find it really odd that you would say that my information was a blatant lie, so you are either deliberately trying to goad me, or someone else has been filling your head with nonsense and you have soaked it in like a sponge.
Hi, Susan, the argument about "training" to pass the polygraph is one which has been floated several times by people who doubt the reliability of the test.A very good point Sandra. The one backs up the other so to speak.
These are the same people who use previous cases in which the perpetrator has passed a test when they actually committed the crime to negate the modern polygraph.
However, the points about Luke and Corinne both passing independently, with completely different questions, of which they had no knowledge prior to the test, are that (a) the likelihood of both passing in these circumstnaces, had they been dishonest, is virtually non-existent and (b), as nugnug says, they would have to have been totally crazy to take the tests, in these circumstnaces, had they been lying.
Hi Sandra L to be totally honest with you I am not well up on the case or polygraph testings I have read it is difficult to cheat the test but who am I to argue any different.
so it would be a completly insane thing to do if you wernt telling the truth.
well if you would have been a nervous wreck telling the truth what you be like if you were lying ten times worse i would imaginepolygraph tests are a fake science. they just dont work and the mitchells were lucky not to have come of even worse because of all this.
i mean even someone who thought they could con the test would have no way of knowing it for a fact.
i certanly think its time this test was suggested to others involved in there case if only just to see what there reaction is.
so why do the authority use them then if there fake science.what authority?
luck had nothing to do with it nobody can be that lucky.
lie detectors are used in this country when deciding weather or not to release dangerous back in to the comunity.it is a false science that is why it is never used by the criminal justice system.
something that you cant afford to get wrong to many times.
now they wouldn't be used for that if they wernt trusted as reasonably reliable.
clearly guiltyOh dear, not another numpty in the camp.
he wis pumpin the maw anaw
maybe his brother shane should take the test as well and the we will know who is really lying.
its called a junk science and the us is getting wise to it.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/05/like-most-junk-science-that-just-wont.html
Hi Grahame we certainly get um don,t we and they can,t even speak English
clearly guiltyOh dear! have you escaped the Jeremy Kyle holding pen? Taxi for D-FENS! ;D
he wis pumpin the maw anaw
Hi ngb1066 thought the silly accent was strange how ever you speak you don,t write with an accent. also it was commented before on the other forum that my grammar was awful as I did not know when to use commas and apostrophes so that rang some alarm bells and as I said don,t have apostrophes on my laptop. Hope he never applies for a job with Secret Service :) ;) ;)
We knew his identity from the outset Susan. It was just interesting to see what games he would play this time. Whatever you may read elsewhere, D-FENS was definitely our old friend John Lamberton, not Kevin Craigie.
I pity Stephanie Hall, she seem's to have been taken in hook, line and sinker by Lamberton. She seems to be quite a fragile person. I wonder if he has a genuine interest in her case, or is just using her. What do you think?
Very easily led and taken in by the man who was once a cop Neil and tossed out the force.Thanks Buster
He is using her and it just damages her cause more.
He will turn on her when she sees the light
D-FENS IP: 193.200.150.82
Since I have done the right thing I hope John Lamberton reciprocates, and openly confirms my identification of D-FENS as Tim Bennett.
It is the only time I am likely to do this, so make the most of it. I owe john Lamberton an apology. D-FENS is not John Lamberton, he is in fact Tim Bennett. For those with long memories the IP used was the same as Captain Chevasse and Ama Dablam. I misremembered the identity of Captain Chevasse. In fairness to Lamberton he does not use crude language or make sexually suggestive posts and that should have alerted me to my mistake. Bennett of course does. Apologies.
but youv nae bother readin nug nugs i bet eh cause it caters to your idealsSomeone please ban this twat. He's just a troll. I can smell 'em a mile off. Well I can smell this one at least. He comes straight from the lambo camp. Get rid of the bastard please. He's only here to cause trouble. He belongs with the numpties and the retards on lam chops forum.
D-FENS IP: 193.200.150.82Don't hold your breath.
Since I have done the right thing I hope John Lamberton reciprocates, and openly confirms my identification of D-FENS as Tim Bennett.
Someone please ban this twat. He's just a troll. I can smell 'em a mile off. Well I can smell this one at least. He comes straight from the lambo camp. Get rid of the bastard please. He's only here to cause trouble. He belongs with the numpties and the retards on lam chops forum.
Is it not possible JL and TB are one and the same?
The thought crossed my mind too.Well he does qualify to have an imaginary friend. Because all his copper mates have deserted him. ;D Instead of living with his family, who also have forsaken him he has loads of mirrors in his house so he doesn't feel alone. And if he feels like talking to someone he goes to the local mountain and shouts out his own name so he can listen to the echo.
The thought crossed my mind too.everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind.
everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind. Last Edit: Today at 01:05 AM by Dr Sandra »
Report
everyone knows that tim bennett has a canine business in luxembourg so your theory is gone with the wind.
I don't know anything of the sort.its time you caught up then and stopped talking absolute xxx.
why are you pretending to be the other Sandra?
its time you caught up then and stopped talking absolute xxx.This sandra is a troll. I get the wiff of swamp life from him. Ban the bugger. Atrouble maker thats for sure.
Maybe not on this forum, but it has been known on other forums as I have seen posters comment on it, now and again. Here is one such comment.
Recevied another few sexually offensive e-mails from the man himself this week.
What a very sad and deranged individual he really is!
He might think he's some keyboard warrior bullying people at arms length ,but as he's about to discover-he's picked the wrong one this time!!
Enjoy your xmas beast-I will!
http://glasgowinnocence.myfreeforum.org/Lambertons_latest_forum_about282.html
Is it not possible JL and TB are one and the same?
Sandra, Dr Sandra, you have not introduced yourself in the foyer. Newbies can post in the main forum only once they've introduced themselves.
sandra L Thank you for that excellent post and I see what you are meaning things get twisted and warped and I can see the angle of the photo after studying it carefully.
No, they are definitely two separate people.
its gion the eropean court there is also a sccrc review.
Hi nugnug is that the Scottish Review Board.
Hi oncesaid Thanks for the link to the SCCRC I am just about to read it, :)
only one message of condolence on Lukes forum today, that website isn't about Jodi Jones one bit.
The brother could not remember what he'd done that evening - it was a perfectly ordinary weekday evening until midnight, when Corinne found out that Jodi had been found dead, and some time after that before Shane was informed.I hadn't heard that before. I find that very odd, considering at one point a witness said the brother wasnt even there himself in the home, but yet the brother was saying that not only was he there, but Jodi was too, at a time the crown claimed she had already been killed. It was never a fair and honest investigation so there were never going to be a fair trial.
In his initial statement, he said he presumed he had come home from work as normal, at around 3.30pm. It was evidence from his phone and another witness which drew attention to the fact that this part of his statement was incorrect. No negative inference was drawn from this - it was totally accepted that he had simply forgotten that he had stopped off at a friend's house on his way home from work that evening. It is that evidence which places him as arriving home at around 4.50pm, and other phone evidence which shows his arrangement to go out later that evening.
He discussed the evening with his mother, who reminded him that the only thing that might have made the evening stand out in his memory was that that was the night his dinner had been slightly burned. He returned voluntarily to the police to add this information to his statement.
Now, the two boys on the moped, who were Jodi's cousins, and were on the path, and their bike was at the V break without them at 5.15pm, took 5 days to come forward. They did not volunteer the information that they had been on the path at any point until a police appeal on Saturday 5th July, complete with description, was broadcast. When they did contact the police, following this broadcast, they both gave a different time - they said they were on the path about an hour earlier. When asked why they had not come forward sooner, one of them said Jodi's grandmother had told him not to go to the police, because they were on the path "too early."
If it was only the bike that was seen there is only two places they could have been, one is over the v in the wall where the attack occured, or two, lying in the long grass next to the path they were on with their bike, as this is the only way witnesses would have been unable to see them.
I have always had my suspicions about these two for not going voluntarily to the police, but more so for disposing of the bike which would have had their fingerprints all over it, and placed them at the scene of the crime, and one of them cutting off his hair. They also maintained that they had been at the v in the wall at 4.15pm. The murder was supposed to have happened at 5.15pm. If they didnt know of the time when the murder occured why would they lie about the time they were on the path?
The main point about these two, however, is that they said in evidence that they had spent the 5 days "talking about everything" before "realising they might have been on the path at the time Jodi was killed." there are a few points to this:
(1) They must have known from day 2 of the investigation that they were on the path at the time in question - police were appealing for anyone who had been in the vicinity of the path between 5pm and 10pm that evening.
(2) After realising this, why did they then lie to the police, and give a different time instead? Why did one of them lie to Jodi's grandmother about the time he was on the path. Was it a lie or a mistake? Well, given that one of them had an appointment, and knew the time of that appointment, and the other picked him up after that appointment, in order for the time given to have been a "mistake," both would have had to have suffered total amnesia for these events!
(3) Why is it "suspicious" that Luke's brother made a mistake about the period around 5pm that evening, discovered his mistake when speaking to his mother (a mistake which had already been verified by other evidence, incidentally) and going straight back to the police to correct it, when it is not considered suspicious that two of Jodi's cousins were discussing "everything" for 5 days, failed to come forward until they were forced to do so, and then lied about their whereabouts and whenabouts?
IMO, it was made to look suspicious because they had to discredit Lukes brother and his mother. They had nothing else to go on, discrediting both of them was the crowns way of convincing the jury of Lukes guilt. There was no suspicion placed on the others who chopped and changed their stories, because they were handpicked witnesses for the crown.
Why is it not suspicious that they "could not remember" where they were or what they were doing while their bike was propped against the V break, behind which Jodi's body was found, at 5.15pm, the claimed time of death?
Shane may have forgotten what he had for dinner, but there was no suggestion that he was anywhere near the murder scene at the claimed time of the murder. Yet there is direct, provable evidence, (including their own admission) that these two were right at the spot, at exactly the time the police claimed Jodi was murdered, but it's not in any way suspcious that they could not account for their movements, and chose, instead, to lie about them?
And, for clarity, Shane did not say Luke was not at home, he said he could not remember. He also said, in evidence, that his treatment at the hands of the police had been so hostile and aggressive that he was no longer sure of anything relating to that evening. Having seen the various interrogations, etc, I am not at all surprised. In one "interview," the police officer says repeatedly, "I'm not accepting I don't know, I'm not accepting I can't remember, that's just not good enough. You'll give me an answer," When he protests that he can't answer definitively, and that the police officer is confusing him (by asking several questions at once without waiting for a response, then demanding an answer to somethng entirely different) he is told, "Picture this in your head... can you see this, I'm asking you to picture this..." (the officer describes a particular scene)...
Would D FENS apply the same criticisms to Jodi's brother who is attributed as having told police officers that the family, Jodi included, sat down and had dinner at the table together before Jodi left, when no such thing took place?
only one message of condolence on Lukes forum today, that website isn't about Jodi Jones one bit.
its funny you should say that becouse there were no messages of condolence on her official site ether.
and that was from people who do procliam to care about her.
What's her official website?
oh you mean the empty knife pouch that knife was found.Thanks nugs.
it was in lukes house it just wasn't in the pouch his mum had put it away.
in truth there was no missing knife.
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/campaigners-poised-for-new-bid-to-clear-jodi-jones-killer-1-2414295
i am somewhat confused as to how a review can be done on the basis of something that is not admissible evedence.
still deafining silence from the record i notice.
this should explain.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/
if you read this link it should explian
nugnug I think it is possible that the DR now realizes that Luke might just be innocent right enough, and have taken a backseat from reporting on him. Perhaps this is a good thing that they have not reported on him recently, due to the damage they have done to him and his family since 2003.
i was rather shocked by that.
And yet it seems they now have something to say. They used his proper name too.
Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/07/20/luke-mitchell-to-launch-new-appeal-over-jodi-jones-murder-claiming-lookalike-confused-eyewitnesses-86908-23910418/)
The Scotsman have today run a story quoting the statement from Luke which we handed out to the media yesterday:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-m-an-innocent-lad-condemned-by-lies-and-errors-claims-luke-mitchell-1-2424857
Pretty good story (except, of course, I'm not a lawyer!!!) Good to see the media printing facts, at last.
oh dident the record stick to it then.
It's been very frustrating over the years, since nearly all of the papers took a negative stance in this case. This last year or so has seen a slow but steady turnaround - the headlines have gradually become less strident, some of the papers have taken to reporting the facts (and calling up to check they've got it right) - all in all, it's been really encouraging.
I've said many times, it's not just the legal process we need to turn around - Luke was tried in the court of public opinion as well - getting people talking about cases of MoJ is a way of letting the wider public know exactly what goes on, and how easily it could be any one of us.
I realise, of course, that changing public opinion isn't going to get Luke or ay of the others home, but maybe, just maybe, enough people will become angry at what is being done in their names, to demand that the system be cleaned up - that way, we might just help prevent future MoJs. Got to be worth a try anyway.
well yes it proves hes guilty i mean who would take such at test if they weren't in league with Satan and he wasn't helping them.
i think its rather significant that both luke and corrine took the tests so its a double pass.Good point Nugs.
Good point Nugs.They were lucky.
They were lucky.
They were lucky.
i think it is the work of Satan.
i think it is the work of Satan.
Mat before you make anymore statements re the Mitchell case you should atleast read up on what your posting. The majority of it doesn't even resemble the case in question and it seems your very much at odds with even the most basic of details.
Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.
This is just rediculous thing to say as is the majority of what you have posted.
Im just trying to stop you making an even bigger fool of yourself.
i think this might be what your looking for mat.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/suspects-and-alibis/why-luke-is-not-the-murderer-e-and-f/
The two witnesses I talked about are mentioned on Luke's official website. ;) The website complains that it took them a while to come forward.
The two witnesses you talk of didn't see him at the exact area of the murder(your words) and didn't come forward of their own accord ever!! That had to be facilitated by a collegue of theirs. These are the same two who lied and I can say that without fear of incrimination about the time and method of their 1st sightings of Luke. They stated that It was the husband who brought home a paper which had Lukes picture init even although at the time in question the husband was working in Ireland and no picture had been published in the national press.
I think your starting to get it , but what concerns me more is your continuous attempts to state that Luke was in "the Area" of course he was he happened to live a matter of yards away.
It looked enough like Luke to convince a jury. It also looked enough like Luke for Sandra Lean to put forward a suspect because he looks just like Luke so this could have been who the two saw in the area and believed that it was Luke. :)
yes so if you live in the area you are going to be in the area arnt you.
So it was him then? :o Or it wasn't?
Do you base your beliefs from the court documents/witness statements. Or from the offical website?
I must admit mat that even I don't believe that you feel that on the evidence of F&W that some members of the jury(not all) convicted Luke. I have been reading this forum for a while now and I have seen many posts by you that I would describe as concise,articulate and of the utmost import but there has to be a different agenda here today for some reason. I don't feel your being to straight with your proffered views on this case, more so when its obvious that you know little of the case.
The added information about a look alike is not to suggest or highlight to those on the commision that someone was the killer but simply to show the commision the failings of the authorities in this case for not allowing or attempting to interview someone who was not only on their radar but part of those in the vacinity that should have been interviewed.
i said nothing of the sort pointed out a fact.
it based on all of those things.
i dont have to explain anything tou.
But, Gordo30. Is it possible to get an answer as to why the website doesn't mention the inscription?
I didn't realise the official site had not mentioned the inscription, infact Im am sure it was discussed many times before and as the forum is an integral part of the main site, it is here you should maybe direct your attentions,time and energy if indeed you are willing to atleast argue your view point with some form of semblance to the real case.
It is for me more a point of interpretation in relation to the inscriptions you mention as on the one hand having the mass hysteria,intrusion and lies accorded to the Mitchell case from the media the pouch and inscription can and will look rather sinister. It could also be interpreted as a form of endearment as I have witnessed on many occasions on other forums when someone has passed away. RIP written on anything that is not associated to the crime cannot and should not be manipulated to simply fit somerones agenda.
Thanks for the answer. I just wondered why trivial things like the Sky news comments made by the mother were mentioned on the site and not something like the inscription
The more I read..
"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder. Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.
One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."
Is it possible to enlighten me to the particular comments your mean and your reason for feeling that these should or should not be relevent to the main site as oppessed to other aspects of the case you feel are more important.
When I think of it the Sky news issue you seem to consider trivial turned out to be anything but, however you seem to feel it shouldn't be on there?
were did you get that from could you post the link please.
i dont need i can find the news artical somwhere if you will be with me.
so i take it you made that up then mat.
There you go again mat including things that become contentious as in "the gate" what gate do you mean? what gate did F&W mean? why didn't the jogger they reported to have seen also not see Luke at "this gate".
What time did all this occur? was it after 6pm when the husband who was working in Ireland usually came home and as F&W stated they left after maybe giving him his dinner, or was it at 5:40 pm before the sed occurance's normally took place? wow im getting confused just writting this and let me tell you there are more inaccuracies that could be added but they would simply just create a stramash(good scottish word with no real meaning). This of course is the testimony you seem to be hedging you belief that Luke is guilty on, so I must say I pity you because of you can get clarity from even half of F&W testimony then im sure there is a case for commital right there.
If thats the case then I would be willing to address all these lies and deceptions with you, If of course you can put forward and arguement worthy of my time.
is it wrong to have an opposite opinion to anyone? If I do am I beset with the same credentials as someone who would commit such a crime as this is this what your trying to say?
Are you saing that both Luke Mitchell and his mother wanting to take a polygraph, actually doing it and both passing with different questions was down to being lucky? Since 30th June 2003 this family was struck a major blow and it has been 9 years of bad luck ever since, but it seems out of all this devastation you are suggesting that luck was on their side the day they sat the individual polygraph tests. Did you actually think things through before you left that comment?It was a joke. Sorry.
Yeah.....of course I am................absolutely............. ::)
i dont think that was directed at you buddy.Thank god fot that.
Thank god fot that.
I don't think that mitchel is guilty. DNA points me in another direction.
I think the fact that his brother was galloping his maggot at the time was enough to deny that he had seen Luke.
The fact that there was no DNA sets alarm bells ringing.
There really is not a lot to link Luke to this murder.
The more I read..
"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder. Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.
One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."
majority and in scotland it only takes a simple majority to convictFrom my understanding that could mean it was a majority of 8 to 7. Do you know what the split was?
i heard that it was 9/6 but i canot confirm that.Thanks nugnug
It is strange that the police put more emphasis on the Bryson sighting and used it as a central point to the whole case,then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.
Its is terrible to think that not all people could be that honest, then again they never wanted to be in the position where they had to somehow corroborate their stories infront of a jury. I must admit it fails me to think why anyone who had seen something possibly as vital to such a terrible crime would not want to come forward to begin with.
well she dident say it wasnt him she stated she dident know so therefore it is not a postive id.
and flemming and walsh desecribed someone with shoulder lentgh hair any who takss a look at luke can see he did not have shoulder lenth hair at the time.
Nugnug AB was asked for a dock identification and as a result she did not identify Luke Mitchel as the person she had seen standing in the dock, It can only be taken In one way and that was that he was not the person she had seen.
This was after more than a year of Luke being pictured in the press for the most part of that year and the fact that she was at the trial of the person who was up for the murder of Jodi jones. She knew who he was no matter what but declined to identify him, how else would you interpret that?
:o
No. Not at all.
I didn't say 'gate' - the word 'gate' was in a quote. I'm pretty sure you said no formal I.D was ever though - yet...the quote says they identified Luke in court.
I don't mean to be rude, Gordo - but you must be family (or close to it) as the lies and deception you try to impound on the case seems strikingly familiar. :)
not that its any of your business anyway but gordos identy is well knbown he has never hidden it.
then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.
you lot really need to stop clinging on to that
here is luke on the night of the murder
(http://i.imgur.com/o2LRK.jpg)
here's luke in court at his trial
(http://i.imgur.com/fKfEP.jpg)
he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court
she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory, ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.
you lot really need to stop clinging on to that
here is luke on the night of the murder
(http://i.imgur.com/o2LRK.jpg)
here's luke in court at his trial
(http://i.imgur.com/fKfEP.jpg)
he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court
she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory, ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.
Don't worry, FreeWillieGage, I'm aware of the deceptive nature of the postings and the information in this case. Which is why I stopped trying to debate it here.
its not deception its different opinion.
why do you keep accusing people of being deceptive just because they dont agree with you.
by the way mat what do you think about the dna evedence.
I disagree it means 'nothing' of course it means something - I'm sure kids scribble notes all the time - but not something like that.
Didn't his alibi fall apart? He claimed to be at home but his own brother says he wasn't. Then he finds the body so easily even though it was hidden.
He was a druggie kid, obessed with death, murder and knives.
No, don't get the facts mixed up - don't allow the story that he has changed after the trial to replace the actual timing of events. He claims it was his dog, this his dog alerted him to 'something strange' through that shaped hole in the fence.
Plus - you've got two witnesses that saw him in that exact area at the time of the murder.
I suppose he was just walking past whilst his girlfriend (one he claims to have loved yet he was two timing) was being killed.
Wake up, nug nug.
she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory, ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.
Luke claimed to be at home, his brother said he didnt know if he was at home or not. There is a difference between saying he wasnt at home, and dont know if he was at home.
I'm sure many don't agree with me, especially those that have read the official website but as a rule I don't take campaign websites as anything other than opinion and would much rather read witness statements or court transcripts for information. :)
Im sorry you feel that way mat, anything on the site does come from official documents though and therefore has to be considered primary to anyone on either side of the debate. If your wanting to read the full transcript then you will have to apply for it at your own cost as its illegal to produce vast parts of it online, due to copyright I think.
The main site has everything you need about the DNA and it can be quite enlightening. If you feel that Dr Lean has somehow doctered these for her clients benefit then I don't see where else you could get hold of them as they didn't constitute any part of the trial. If they have been altered in anyway of course its a pretty dodgy road for the innocence debate.
But if it all comes from official documents - then Sandra Lean would be agreeing with the case presented by the prosecution. But she isn't - she's against the official documents - she believes them to be wrong and puts forward her version of events.
Firstly, an apology - I have very little time at the moment to read forums or post, so i won't be able to join in the debate for a number of weeks.Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.
However, there are a couple of things I can clarify from what I have read today. Firstly, the photograph of Luke which has been posted here was taken on August 14th 2003 (six weeks after the murder) in Dalkeith Police Station at 8am. It was placed in a spread of 11 other pictures that morning, and all 12 were taken to AB that day for her to "identify" Luke. Those events have been severely criticised by Roy Ramm and John Scott, John Scott commenting that they didn't have an arrow pointing to Luke Mitchell, but they might as well have done, because Luke's picture stood out so much. Having seen the other 11 pictures, I agree completely - the others were of much younger children, the hair- styles, although all similar to each other (close cropped), were very different to Luke's. All of the other backgrounds were "rooms" of some description, Luke's was a polaroid style with a white band across the top, and very little background detail.
This photograph was not, as has been claimed, taken when Luke was arrested in April 2004 - the "identification" by AB from that photograph was made on August 14th, six weeks after the murder, and the day before pictures of Luke began to appear in newspapers.. However, the picture of Luke did not match the descriptions AB gave to the police in her first two statements in July 2003, right after the murder. she was describing someone completely different - late teens, early twenties, brown, thick, messy hair, some of it sticking up at the back, wearing "fishing gear" with the same colour jacket and trousers. She said in both of those early statements that she would only recognise him again by his clothing and hair as she had not seen his face.
Fleming and Walsh's statements are so far removed from "descriptions" of Luke, it is surprising that they were ever actually used as witnesses. Both said, in their initial statements, that the youth had dark hair, both said they didn't see his face, one had him wearing jeans - definitely, categorically not baggies, because she would have noticed that, their descriptions of his jacket differed from each other, and neither could say what he was wearing under the jacket, although they weren't sure if the jacket was zipped up or open. By the time it got to court, one stated she would never forget his eyes (which, according to her statements, she had never seen), they described a black t shirt with writing on it (which neither had mentioned in their statements), and, at one point, one of them was pulled up in court for using the exact phrase the other had given in evidence the day before - a phrase which had never appeared in any of their statements (the obvious point being that they were discussing their evidence).
These witnesses were shown newspaper photographs of Luke by police investigators, apparently becuase they had claimed to recognise Luke from newspaper photographs prior to August 15th (before which there had been no newspaper pictures of Luke).
Other witnesses have since come forward to say that one of them told work colleagues that the youth she had seen was at the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College (which was the opposite side of the road to where Luke had been standing waiting for Jodi before crossing over to the Abbey) - she never mentioned to any of them, at any time, the youth being at the broken gate near to the end of Roan's Dyke path. They were unable, in their statements, to decide what time they had been on the Newbattle Road, and claimed to have seen a jogger at the same time as they saw the youth - the jogger was, they said, 200 yards ahead. Had the youth been at the broken gate, that was impossible, as the road goes into a series of sweeping bends - it would be impossible to see anyone 200 years up ahead, because of those bends.
The inscription on the knife pouch is not on the website because I had a limited amount of time to get the info for the website together, no other reason. I haven't had a chance to properly update the website, due to other commitments, but I will do so when I get the chance.
It is an offence in Scotland to make public many documents relating to a criminal case, so I am restricted in law as to what I can post from transcripts, statements, etc. I have tried to post as much as I thought I could, without crossing over any legal lines - it's sometimes a difficult judgement call.
Someone commented that they wre "not impressed" with me - that's ok, I'm not doing this to impress anyone, I do what I do because innocent people are being jailed for crimes they did not commit, and that could happen to any one of us, including me and my family. Doing something just because it's the right thing to do doesn't seem to be particularly popular - people are always looking for ulterior motives - for the record, I have none - being involved in MoJs has cost me greatly over the years, in many different ways, but I do not regret getting involved. I understand that people will believe whatever they want to believe - the way I see it, I can put the information out there, and people can do as they please with it. If it's not out there, then people don't know about it, so they can't discuss it, and - far more importantly - they are not forewarned that this could happen to them.
Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.
Thanks, Grahame, it's been over 9 years now - I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents, conversations with lawyers, experts, etc. I think the fact that so many high profile people were willing to appear in the Frontline documentary (Tim Valentine, Roy Ramm, John Scott, to name just a few), speaks volumes - it's not just "my opinion" (even though everything I post comes from the case files) - these are highly trained experts who have all expressed real misgivings about the conviction. Also, the fact that a top legal professional helped with the SCCRC application, behind the scenes, and pro bono - these people wouldn't risk their professional credibility unless they were pretty sure they had their facts right!
For almost all of those 9 years, there have been people who come wading in with "I know he's guilty because..." and then can't finish the sentence because the so called facts on which they are basing their opinions are all wrong - and I can prove them to be so.
I think it's great the case is being discussed here - it's just a pity I don't have enough time to post more often - I'll pop by when I can, and try to catch up as I go along.
Thanks, Grahame, it's been over 9 years now - I couldn't tell you how many pages of documents, conversations with lawyers, experts, etc. I think the fact that so many high profile people were willing to appear in the Frontline documentary (Tim Valentine, Roy Ramm, John Scott, to name just a few), speaks volumes - it's not just "my opinion" (even though everything I post comes from the case files) - these are highly trained experts who have all expressed real misgivings about the conviction. Also, the fact that a top legal professional helped with the SCCRC application, behind the scenes, and pro bono - these people wouldn't risk their professional credibility unless they were pretty sure they had their facts right!
For almost all of those 9 years, there have been people who come wading in with "I know he's guilty because..." and then can't finish the sentence because the so called facts on which they are basing their opinions are all wrong - and I can prove them to be so.
I think it's great the case is being discussed here - it's just a pity I don't have enough time to post more often - I'll pop by when I can, and try to catch up as I go along.
The "original wording" of Shane's statement was not as it has been posted here. Indeed, the whole watching porn thing did not even arise until April 2004, so it couldn't possibly have been mentioned in any of the original statements.How long after the murder did Shane make his first statement?
Shane's first statement was pretty straightforward - it was just an ordinary evening until he heard Jodi was missing, and then within a couple of hours, that she was dead. He had no recollection of the earlier part of the evening - nothing unusual had happened, so nothing stood out for him. Initially, he said that Luke had "probably" been in, because Luke cooked the dinner, so Shane assumed he would have done so on the Monday evening - he just couldn't remember anything about it. He had forgotten that was the evening he had stopped of at a friend's on the way home from work - it was the police who reminded him when they were questioning various phone calls Shane had made from his mobile phone on the Monday evening. There was never, ever, any suggestion that it was "sinister" that Shane had forgotten this visit, yet when Corinne reminded him that there had been something that made Monday's dinner memorable - Luke had burned it - this was claimed to be a "change of story."
The police questioning of Shane was in the same vein as the questioning of Luke - the questioning that three appeal court judges called "outrageous and to be deplored" - I have seen the interviews, and Shane was hauled from pillar to post by officers who had no interest in his answers, they just wanted to have him on record saying certain things. One officer repeatedly tells him "I'm not accepting can't remember, that won't do, you'll have to do better than that." How can anyone "do better than that" if the honest answer is "I don't remember." Shane did not say, in any of those early interviews, that Luke was "not in." Nor did he say that he "did not see Luke." He said, over and over again, that he could not remember any specifics about that evening, including if he'd seen Luke, or where he'd seen him in the house.
The whole humiliation of having him admit to masturbating was done at trial - that had been part of any of the earlier interviews - the interrogation of April 2004 covered the fact that they had "found out" he had been "looking at porn sites" - and whether he worried whether anyone would come into his room when he was doing so. Alan Turnbull QC took it to a whole new level, to utterly humiliate the witness and destroy his credibility.
Mat, what is your motivation for posting on this case? I can understand the motives of someone arguing on a not guilty stance, which is quite obvious of course. I find it particularly perplexing, as you readily admit that you know very little about the case and have had to resort to enlisting John Lambertons assistance in forming your posts. No offence intended.
were did you get that from could you post the link please.
The more I read..
"youth matching Mitchell's description was seen by two passers-by in a car at this gate a few minutes after Jodi's murder. Mrs Walsh and Mrs Fleming were most insistent that the youth they had seen that day was indeed Mitchell.
They identified Mitchell in court as being this person.
One has to ask the question, how many other lads with shoulder-length hair wearing a green Bomber jacket with orange lining were out on this part of Newbattle road at 5.40pm that afternoon."
Thank god fot that.
I don't think that mitchel is guilty. DNA points me in another direction.
I think the fact that his brother was galloping his maggot at the time was enough to deny that he had seen Luke.
The fact that there was no DNA sets alarm bells ringing.
There really is not a lot to link Luke to this murder.
As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.
I don't have a motivation - other than express opinion, listen to opinions, seek more information. Which I think is the aim for forums - no one can join and know everything about any case. I'm sure you yourself have learned alot more about the Jeremy Bamber case since joining this forum.I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way. I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage. However, I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won. If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand.
As for enlisting John's help? I asked for his opinion on certain aspects of the case. I posting long before I asked him about the case.
This is from Lambertons forum Mat. If you are interested in the case why would you not read his official site and quote from there or question what has been said there?
I didn't mean to be confrontational although it could well have read that way. I think that having opposing views on the same forum is very healthy and something that I would encourage. However, I am genuinely interested in what motivates anyone to 'fight' for a cause that has already been won. If someone has a personal interest in the case, then that's understandable but otherwise, I just don't understand.
What do you think about John Lambertons case? Please do not feel obliged to answer this question.
I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.http://www.justice4johnlamberton.com/
No personal interest in the case for me.
What case?
Oh. It is a case I've heard one side of (from a member here) but nothing I have ever looked at before. Why do you care what I think? Just curious.It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point. I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns.
It's just that ive formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly no doubt you'll correct me, that you tend to first approach a MoJ case from a guilty stand point. I therefor thought it odd that you didn't, when it came to Johns.
im curios why someone who admits they know very little about the case would go around calling other posters liars and say they were being deceptive.
Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.
I can't remember ever commenting on JL's case before unless it was for point scoring but that is not the opinion I have on his case. Neil I do understand what your trying to say and on most case's I believe you to be correct. I do however feel that JL's case is unique as I feel he is both innocent and guilty at the same time. The goverment used him as a test case to close loop holes or set precedents on a number of issues and case's they have most probably followed through with in the past decade and it is through that that I have sympathy with Johns plight. What he did was certainly within the law but when that changes to suit then the official stand point will of course be what he went through and any defence would be futile.
There is of course another point to JL's case that may throw a spanner in the works and thats if JL had a motive whereby he was doing what he did to make sure that someone would not get their inheritance because of past indiscretions, that is if he had went out pre planned to defraud someone else and not his aunt to begin with.
Mat, you are talking here as if Adrian Prout only had one supporter, that supporter being SL, but that is so far from the truth. He had plenty of support from various groups and individuals. From what I had managed to read regarding the case I also believed that he could have been unfairly convicted as did many others. I am shocked to hear you say that you have no faith in SL, perhaps that view may change if you ever find yourself in need of her help, like the many people who have been falsely arrested and convicted who would rubbish your claim that she has a stain on her own credibility. There are many people within the moj world who have supported cases only to drop them/change their minds or come across evidence later on which throws doubt on their original findings. Many of these people and the situations have not been made public. Adrian Prout could have refused to take the test, or he could have taken it and passed (as according to many on this forum it is a junk science anyway) and no one would have been any the wiser as the evidence just wasnt there to say he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion.
SL may put herself out there, but she has a team of legal and non legal people supporting her in the work that she does and is admired and respected by each and every one of them that is why I am shocked by your comment especially when you dont know the person.
I did read the official site - I didn't know about it until nugnug pointed it out.
//
I also meant the Luke Mitchell thread and related topics. To be honest I find the threads more informative than the caseblog. It is very time consuming, but if you are at all interested in the case and getting your teeth into something, you may give it a read as some point.
Whilst you're talking about credibility......
Just an idea. But if you need more time - maybe drop some cases? Working on too many cases can lead to mistakes or lead to you promoting the wrong cases. Such as that as Adrian Prout which I believe to be a huge stain on your own credibility.
Mat saidDr. Lean you have the support on the forum of all who matter I can assure you. We appreciate the brilliant work that you do for those who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. I think that most people have so much faith in our justice system today that they blindly follow the system without question. Without really realising just how many moj's there actually are in this country and just how many people are convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
With respect, Mat, do you know how many cases I am actively involved in? Do you think I am unaware of the difficulties which would arise in trying to work on too many cases? Do you know how many cases I have declined to get involved in for a number of reasons? Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?
I don't mind what you think about my involvement in the Adrian Prout case, or, indeed, what you think of my "credibility." Adrian failed the polygraph, and then admitted he had killed his wife. Had he not done so, there would have been nothing in the evidence to prove he was a murderer. There is always that risk, when trying to help people claiming wrongful conviction - that is why I put so much effort into checking as much as possible about the cases I do get involved with. On WAP, we currently host websites for just 9 people, over a period of three years (many of them I have known for several years).
Fighting wrongful convictions is a very long, slow process, as anyone doing so will tell you. I never, ever promise anyone anything - I tell people I will look at their cases, and if I can, I will do what I can to help. End of story.
Thanks to everyone for the kind comments - I believe those of us trying to help the wrongly accused and convicted need to support each other and work together.
Dr. Lean you have the support on the forum of all you matter I can assure you. We appreciate the brilliant work that you do for those who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. I think that most people have so much faith in our justice system today that they blindly follow the system without question. Without really realising just how many moj's there actually are in this country and just how many people are convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.Well said Grahame.
I count it a priviledge that you have chosen to comment on this forum. We can do with a lot more analytical on here who "honestly" investicate these cases.
Mat said
With respect, Mat, do you know how many cases I am actively involved in? Do you think I am unaware of the difficulties which would arise in trying to work on too many cases? Do you know how many cases I have declined to get involved in for a number of reasons? Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?
Do you know what else I do with my time, apart from trying to help people who have been wrongly accused?
Dr Lean is doing the best she can, the same as everyone else who tries to help MOJ.
She puts her time and her energies into trying to help people who are suffering injustices.
yes thats all anybody can do.
No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.
Thanks for the comment on the AP case.
No, I dont?
Mat, you seem to be taking quite an aggressive stance, where Sandra Lean is concerned. Why is this? Have you had dealings with her in the past? Or are you blindly following Johns lead? The way he talks about her, you'd think that she had killed Kate Prout.By trying to destroy the credability of the supporters they weaken support for the one they support. It's called muck spreading.
Mat, you seem to be taking quite an aggressive stance, where Sandra Lean is concerned. Why is this? Have you had dealings with her in the past? Or are you blindly following Johns lead? The way he talks about her, you'd think that she had killed Kate Prout.
But for the record, I didn't intend to appear agressive towards her just..amused.Agressive was a little harsh, agreed. However, I am still struggling to fathom exactly where you are coming from. Do you regard her as charlatan, who has no place in the judicial system? I'm not sure what your profession is but I have formed the impression that it is within the legal field (having considered your tip off about the CCRC decision). Is it a case of jealousy? Again, no offence is intended.
No, I'm not aware how many cases you and your erm... team.. have under your wings at the moment. Maybe you could tell us roughly how many cases you work? You host 9 websites? Is that nine cases? So at any given time you and your team are working on 9 appeals/CCRC submissions/ investigating 9 cases.
All computers were painstakingly searched and there was no evidence that Luke Mitchell had accessed any gothic sites, Marilyn Manson, anything to do with satan, etc. All that was found was one CD which had been a freebie in a magazine which was purchased after the murder and a ripped up calender that he had been given.
Where is the obssession that the prosecution spoke of? Due to the connection of Marlyn Manson and the Black Dahlia murder the police were desperate to make a connection due to the nature of the murder, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Luke Mitchell was aware of this Black Dahlia murder at all, not being into MM as the prosection claimed him to be.
It is known that the police were given information on someone who was apparently obsessed with MM and the BD murder. In the Frontline Scotland documentary the pathologist admits that the “similarities” between the Dahlia murder and Jodi Jones murder were “superficial” and that there were far more differences than there were similarities.
Even if this other person who the police had been made aware of and his obsession with MM and the BD murder, if there was more differences than there was similarities I cant see him being the murderer of JJ either, the problem is that they could have easily have built a circumstantial case against him too.
Mat said
Please, Mat, I understand from your posts today that you have some sort of complaint about me - I think you said it was "personal" between us? I don't know you, but, by all means, PM me, or even post on the forum what it is you believe I have done which has caused your reaction to me - that way I can at least respond. (Apologies to regular posters - if Mat wants to set up a separate thread for that, rather than it hijacking posts about MoJ cases, I think that would be best.)
My ...erm... team? I work with different teams on different cases, obviously, since there are different solicitors, experts, families, etc, involved in each individual case. I said WAP hosted websites for 9 cases - you're clearly not stupid, Mat, you know what "hosted" means, and it doesn't even begin to imply working on appeals, CCRC applications, etc. Hosting websites is a way of supporting families who want the wider public to know their stories - it can't, and won't, influence how those cases progress, except perhaps in a roundabout way by bringing witnesses forward - every case we host on WAP is aware of this.
The cases we host are investigated before we agree to host sites - there would be no other sensible way to do it.
I would just like to say, though, that I don't have the time, energy or inclination to keep responding to posts which have nothing to do with MoJs. If you have a gripe with me, that's fine - there are a number of ways you can contact me directly and air your grievances without disrupting forums which are trying to discuss injustice. If you want to claim I have been involved in any wrongdoing of any description, then let's have it - preferably not on a thread discussing a MoJ, as that is not fair. Otherwise, sorry, but you're wasting everyone's time and energy.
Deliberately misquoting someone has been used by many others in the past to derail sensible discussion - it's not a new approach, and it's totally transparent. So that's my bottom line - I'm happy to discuss the cases I've commented on, I'm happy to discuss my work, provided it does not impinge on threads about other matters, and I'm happy to address any complaint you have about me - privately or publicly. Now, can we please get back to the subject of this thread, which is the murder of Jodi Jones, and the lack of justice for all concerned in the case?
As you are no doubt, acutely aware, there are a lot of troublemakers out there, attempting to undermine your sterling work. I plead with you, not to engage with these people. They are not worth the time and trouble. It only encourages them to continue with their bullshit. I'm not sure that I am with you on all your cases but I would back you 100% as a person.
i think the fact they have to use these tactics proves how week the case against luke mitchell is.
Falconer has sperm samples on the body? S.Kelly has both blood and sperm? I'm assuming he has a watertight alibi for the police not to care?
S.Kelly is the sisters boyfriend who found the body with Luke yea, did he touch the body? Can't think of any other reason his blood and sperm would be on her.
Oh he's the condom guy then, I don't see any link between the condom and the murder to be honest, Jodi wasn't raped was she. Was there any female DNA on the condom?
I meant an alibi of where he was during the murder for the police to dismiss his DNA.
She was wearing a piece of clothing that belonged to his girlfriend, right? So I think it was explained that this is why there would be sperm on it.
I'm guessing he was with the family that day considering he was part of the search then
so why would jodi be wondering around in a sperm stained t shirt i mean most tramps wouldent do it let alone a teenage girl.
I doubt the T-shirt had a large visable white stain. Forensic tests can detec the tiniest traces, I always assumed thats all that was found correct me if I'm wrong. For it to be on a T-shirt I'm guessing it was the smallest traces maybe from S.Kelly or the sisters hands when cuddling afterwards perhaps. If there was a large white stain on the shirt then that's a different story. I've never heard of blood before until now do any independent sources report that?
Both blood and semen would kind of contradict each other. For him to be bleeding it would suggest he was in a state of pain and discomfort, quite opposite from the mood he would have had to have been in to have ejaculated. Was he getting beat up while attacking Jodi or masturbating which one is it?
Just been reading that page. The minor traces of sperm tells me it has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as dirty washing or from hands as suggested. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene like you propose, wouldn't there be a far more substantial amount of semen?
That's not to rule him out though, he could have been at the scene of the crime and the traces could have come from his unclean hands or clothes I suppose. A sexual assault didn't have to take place necessarily. But then what motive would he have?
so how do to dead sperm get from the front of t shirt to the back of a bra .
You just said the shirt would have to have been clean or else Jodi would never have put it on before she left home. So she left home, went and had sex with Kelly on the way to her boyfriends?
Kelly is completely innocent in my opinion.
I think a girl her age is more likely than someone older to pull on a t-shirt that hasn't been washed. Teenagers...
You're telling me tiny traces of sperm would cause a shirt to smell? Semen itself barely has a scent. Are you male or female?
Jodi's sisters shirt had small traces of her boyfriends DNA on it, even if it was Jodi's shirt, having DNA traces of someone who spends alot of time in your household with your family wouldn't be out of the ordinary. You don't know how hygienic Kelly was, he could have arrived at the home with dirty hands or clothes himself, you don't know if he ever helped his girlfriend with chores such as folding or sorting freshly washed clothes. S.Kelly's DNA being innocent is far more likely than the other suggestions.
You're treating S.Kelly and every other male in the area or with ties to the Jones family the very same way you complain about how Luke was treated before his trial. I just hope no future imployers google the poor guys name if he's ever looking for a new job.
And again you seem to think Kelly having tiny traces of semen on his clothing would be visible to his girlfriends family or even detectable by scent. Wow.
Your language is a disgrace
You realise statistically you've probably shaken hands with someone who has traces of their semen or feces on their hand?
You ever use public toilets? the door handles alone would have your hands covered in other mens DNA/urine traces.
so how does that eplian it getting on the back of a girls bra eactly why would his hands be innocently near the back of her bra.
Unhygienic as in not showering after masturbating and having tiny traces on him that no human could ever detect. I'm not talking about a disgusting smelly person here covered in spunk. You lack basic comprehension and understanding of what exactly these traces of semen are. Can I ask your age nugnug?
Semen went from SK to shirt, from shirt to Jodi's hands/body/bra
I don't know how to make it any simpler.
Lithium, you've re-registered under a different user-name than you last had.
Just give up. I would. Either that or you have to explain the same thing over and over - tiring isn't it? :'( :-\
What was the other name then Roch ?
ask me what?1336 ::)
That you have previously had an account here - under a different name.
I hope that this actually is the case because people here aren't nice to new members as it is - nevermind now that a mod has openly accused you.
Good luck - you're going to need it!
Maybe we should ask Lithium?
I think we should take a leaf out of Dr. Lean's book and keep the thread case related. So I'll say no more regarding Lithium.
I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.
:-\ No one will do that.
Why the negativity? Even if I was someone else, you've got to be the first forum moderator i've ever seen who is against someone joining and contributing to their forum? It's not 1-0 to me because we weren't against each other as far as I knew. I'm no expert but I don't think you can join a forum with the same e-mail twice.
now all those hours the body was left out unprotected in the rain i am sure there must have been some dna that washed of.
i dont think a body could lay uncovered in the rain that long without it haveing an effect.
the sperm was actually found on jodis bra not the t shirt.Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?
now how eactly did it get from the t shirt to the bra
pluss as far as i can see very is very liitle evedence to back up the storyt that the t shirt belonged to jodis sister.
Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first?
You're telling me tiny traces of sperm would cause a shirt to smell? Semen itself barely has a scent. Are you male or female?So what are we arguing here for? Luke's guilty or Kelly's innocence? Surely our aim should be to nail the real killer?
it would smell enough for you not to want to wear if you had a clean one at hand.It would more than likely to smell of sweat. Show me a girl who doesn't smell her clothes before she puts them on. Good grief some of the men here are so ignorance of girl's habits. Perhaps they'd better go and swat up on their girl knowledge before coming here and deliberating to pontificately about what this girl would not or would do? Perhaps a little understanding of the female thought processes would help you keep your girlfriends a little longer? ::)
i would thik that you wouldent borrow a t shirt from a relative and then put it on before washing it.
now im assumeing jodi had clean t shits to wear why would she pit on the unwashed one did she like it so much she had to wear it that day.
You ever use public toilets? the door handles alone would have your hands covered in other mens DNA/urine traces.Wash your hands then. I have never heard of jumping through so many hoops in order to keep a possible innocent person in goal.
Semen went from SK to shirt, from shirt to Jodi's hands/body/braIn fact you're making it more and more unlikely.
I don't know how to make it any simpler.
I have no idea who Jeremy Bamber is lol.And yet you registered on the BAMBER forum. Do you think we were born yesterday? ::)
So in recent pages, we've got an innocent explanation for the semen traces, and an innocent explanation for the eye witness not recognizing Luke in court. What else? I'm looking for proof or a convincing argument of Luke's innocence. I don't know if he did it or not. I'd like to debate it.
the plane fact that none of lukes dna is on there how could he clean all his own dna off but leave other peoples on there.Amazing isn't it nugnug. None of lukes dna was found. But dna from this other guy was found and they arev arguing not for the innocence of Luke but for the innocence of this other guy. You will of course notice that they argue the other way round when it comes to Bamber. So inconsistent some people. ;D
well straight away you pasted the incorrect link then implied I didn't bother reading it. Then someone else chimed in saying how you shouldn't have to lead me by the hand, implying I was too stupid to find it, when infact you posted the wrong page.Well perhaps if you had introduced yourself in the foyer first? instead of blundering in here ans pontificating of on this case. I would have said that it was your yourself who has the attitude? ::)
So yeah you lot do have an attitude, straight on the defensive, it does you no favors. I never mentioned once weather I thought Luke was guilty or not.
I think we should take a leaf out of Dr. Lean's book and keep the thread case related. So I'll say no more regarding Lithium.Then if that is the case maybe you should have send lithium a pm insted?
I think I understand teenagers better that you do son. ;)
Yes.
show me the post where I said Luke should stay in jail?Show me a post that you are not trying to prove someone's innocence by making up the wildest theories possible in order to explain away why their dna was at the scene.
unlikely? it's the most obvious and probable explanation. Unless you think Kelly masturbating over a dead body but some how only left small traces of sperm.I rather think that you should be looking towards Kelly rather than Luke as the murderer simply on the dna evidence alone.
He couldnt have been doing that anyway considering no one seen him in the area at all and Jodi's own sister said she was with him. You're barking up the wrong tree in my opinion.
Grahame has the most idiotic posts in this thread so far, first he claims a freshly washed shirt would smell like sweat, then he claimed by washing your hands more often you will prevent other people spreading germs to door handles. Now he doesn't realise a thread about Luke Mitchell would appear on google when searching Luke Mitchell and other relevant names. Off to bed mate youve had one too many.see my signature it applies to you.
Grahame has the most idiotic posts in this thread so far, first he claims a freshly washed shirt would smell like sweat, then he claimed by washing your hands more often you will prevent other people spreading germs to door handles. Now he doesn't realise a thread about Luke Mitchell would appear on google when searching Luke Mitchell and other relevant names. Off to bed mate youve had one too many.Oh we have a bit of a cheeky insolent bastard here on the forum AGAIN have we? ::)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4763941002_8f79b21e0c.jpg)So you DO think that Luke is guilty then?
:o :o :o
I do find this rather disturbing, how could he even fantasize about doing that to anybody after what he'd seen, unless he was completely unphased by it. "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die."
I wonder what he put a black square over and changed to "stick"
DNA transfer from hand to clothing = a crazy wild theory? lol jog on mate youre all over the place.So you don't reckon that dna evidence warrents more investigation then? Lets get this straight. You are basing Lukes guilt on lack of dna evidence. Yet you base the presence of Kelly's dna to prove him innocent? hmm I see.
Perhaps a little understanding of the female thought processes would help you keep your girlfriends a little longer? ::)
I do find this rather disturbing, how could he even fantasize about doing that to anybody after what he'd seen, unless he was completely unphased by it. "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die."Yes it is. But then I am not trying to prove him guilty or innocent. All I have done was to question why go to such elaborate lengths in order to try and prove that dna evidence is no evidence at all and in doing so may be letting a murderer off the hook? I've just never seen that before and to my mind is approaching the case arse upwards.
I wonder what he put a black square over and changed to "stick"
You just replied to the same post twice grahame pal, get to bed.I know you. Your speech berayeth you. ;)
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.wow you certainly are a silly young man aren't you. you are the nasty one aren't you. Does that mean that I have revealed to the forum that you are no good with the girls? ;)
Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
He seems the guiltiest to me but how could I possibly say.Well you have said it in the plainest terms so far.
Ok so not only did she cover up for him but she stayed in the relationship for some time after what he'd done. Get real lol.
As for the blood, simple, I don't believe it, it's not mentioned anywhere other than on lukes website probably posted by Sandra. I'd rather see it from an unbiased source. References or it didn't happen.
Again I'll ask was he injured or masturbating... doubtful he'd be going through both at once, and did he arrive at the search wounded? Jodis sis was with him all day and never noticed he was hurt either?
and again why such an insignificant amount of blood? it's only common sense that these tiny amounts of DNA never got there at the scene of the murder.
and again why such an insignificant amount of blood?
How can you defend a convicted murderer without even having any proof that he's innocent. Just because you reckon he is?
I don't believe the sample is confirmed to be SK. Can you provide proof please? Or is Sandra putting it out there when it's just a case of it 'could be'?
such as Jodi's cousin being due a haircut that week.
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.Your name calling doesn't really have any affect upon me. I am ready to accept that I am a nasty old man, a tyro and a backseat moderator. As being moderator for quite some time does take some time to get out of. Being called those names doesn't bother me. Because it is better than being seen as the forum parrot. ::)
Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
doesn't it tell you anything when Jodi's family and sister (stevens boyfriend) aren't concerned about his DNA on there? and they obviously know more about the circumstances than us. The recurring argument is that other suspects have more evidence against them than Luke does, when its clutching at straws, such as Jodi's cousin being due a haircut that week. Luke was spotted in the right place at the right time. He had no alibi. A jacket and a knife dissapeared. This is the evidence I'm looking at.You don't have to convince me mate. I'm neutral on this one in that I haven't really read up on it. Believe it or not I don't believe that everyone in prison for murder is a moj.
Your name calling doesn't really have any affect upon me. I am ready to accept that I am a nasty old man, a tyro and a backseat moderator. As being moderator for quite some time does take some time to get out of. Being called those names doesn't bother me. Because it is better than being seen as the forum parrot. ::)Hi Grahame, I really have issues with Matt calling you the 'old' word.......totally out of order ;D :o ;D
How can you defend a convicted murderer without even having any proof that he's innocent. Just because you reckon he is?Are you referring to Dr Sandra Lean? Don't you think it would be a good thing to refer to her by the title that she has earned rather than just her Christian name? After all this would indicate that we have some respect for her achievements. Unless you are of course an expert in criminalogy?
Hi Grahame, I really have issues with Matt calling you the 'old' word.......totally out of order ;D :o ;DDon't worry about it Maggie. I am old. Well because of my illness I feel old anyway. ;D
Morning Maggie I found the way Mat used the "old" very disrespectful infact if a person is getting on in years which Grahame is not I still don't like the label OLD.I really don't mind Susan. Age brings wisdom and grey hairs buy respect. Believe me he would not call me that to my face. People become very dold when hiding behind an internet profile. ;)
Don't worry about it Maggie. I am old. Well because of my illness I feel old anyway. ;DI know Grahame, but none of us have any idea what is round the corner.
What I am concerned about is that young people today think they have some right to be young and fit. I just hope Mat doesn't suffer like my daughter has. She is near enough the same age as he but is sick and infirm. I really hope he stays young and healthy. I wouldn't wish such things as she is going through on anyone least of all Mat.
I know Grahame, but none of us know what is round the corner.I know Maggie. That is why Mat was very unwise in what he said.
now if the t shir had really belonged to jodis sister then surely jodis sisters dna would be on it but none of her dna is on it witch says to me it could not of been her t shirt.A good observation nugnug. Good detective work is to ignore NOTHING.
You really are a nasty old man that shouldn't be on the forum never mind the internet. Your hidden barbs expose you as nothing more than the tyro, trol and backseat moderator that you yourself aim to expose.
Outside your small group of friends, you're pittied, Grahame.
I will put this in here because I don't want it to become a forum issue. Of the opposition I find the following people I respect. Bridget, Hartley, Petey, Tony, Steve-uk, Andrea. And all thoseI cannot recall for the moment. ;DHey Grahame, Petey is a pro bamber! :o
Well that could answer your own question from earliler as to why none of Luke's DNA was on the body.
Hey Grahame, Petey is a pro bamber! :oWell If he was an anti I would respect him. ;D
so how could the rain wash his dna off and leave other peoples on there.Again logical and as Sherlock himself would have said but didn't for some reason. "Elementary."
Hi Grahame One thing I really admire in a person is respect it does not matter what number is attached to their name, Respect I think is something a person acquires from their parents and how they are brought up. I suspect campion maybe of more mature years but what a gentleman he is along with being humourous and clever. I have seen him spoken to on this forum in the most disgusting disrespectful way and this just tells me the nature of the person dishing out the abuse. We can all have different numbers and different views but we should always try and respect one another.Very true susie....without respect debate cannot exist.imo
Hi Grahame One thing I really admire in a person is respect it does not matter what number is attached to their name, Respect I think is something a person acquires from their parents and how they are brought up. I suspect campion maybe of more mature years but what a gentleman he is along with being humourous and clever. I have seen him spoken to on this forum in the most disgusting disrespectful way and this just tells me the nature of the person dishing out the abuse. We can all have different numbers and different views but we should always try and respect one another.Well haven't I just demonstrated that Susan? By repecting those with opposing views to myself? As the greastest man once said, "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
I will put this in here because I don't want it to become a forum issue. Of the opposition I find the following people I respect. Bridget, Hartley, Petey, Tony, Steve-uk, Andrea. And all those I cannot recall for the moment. ;D Opps I forgot Vic.
Lithium's email address is easily recognisable. However, I cant remember the other username linked to it and I'm not prepared to look through the entire membership to see if it is a current member. It may have been a banned member. At the moment it's Lithium 1 Roch 0. I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.
Morning Bridget hope you are well this sunny day and ready to go by the sound of it :)
Thank you. I may not always agree with what you say but the respect is mutual.Its because you're smart and give an intelligent debate and avoid mudslinging.
Lithium's last forum username was D-FENS. He was banned for abuse and remains banned. His posts are still visible. There have been other usernames associated with the IP address. I believe this is a John Lamberton identity.His speech berayeth him. ;)
His speech berayeth him. ;)
His speech berayeth him. ;)
Grahame you sound just like campion :) :) :)I may fly off the handle sometimes and say things I regret later. But all said and done I'm no worse than any of the other patients here at Rampton. :)
Is that a typo or do I have to Google it?No its in one of the gospels. :)
No its in one of the gospels. :)
His name of lithium is very apt then as its used to control bipolar disorders.Oh? And there's me thinking it's used to power starships. :D
I can't believe you have me googling gospels *mutter* >:(Believe it or not I mispelled it. Look up "thy speech bewrayeth thee". It means the same at betray but makes me sound intelligent by using a word that nobody else knows. ;D
Grahame difference is your rants are usually humourous. You get more and more like the delightful campion everyday :)Susan. Before you start a rumour that I'm sure you don't intend to do let me state that I am NOT campion. Campion is a genius and I find it hard to follow him sometimes. A bit like listening to Einstien. I fell asleep once at he was trying to explain the bamber case to me and when I woke up I heard him saying, "Did you understand that?" I said, "Erm....yes of course" He replied, "What did I say then?"
Beilive it or not I mispelled it. Look up "thy speech bewrayeth thee". It means the same at betray but makes me sound intelligent by using a word that nobody else knows. ;DNo it doesn't it just makes you look like you can't spell!! ??? ??? ;D ;D
No it doesn't it just makes you look like you can't spell!! ??? ??? ;D ;DYes Its a fault of mine (amongst many) that I realise what I say too late. ::) I even thought they spelt it wrong in the Bible? But apparently its supposed to be there.
Grahame I bet dear campion knows more about the Bamber Case than the rest of us put together. I suspect he is a very wise man that says very little but observes everything.Well he has a great insight into human nature and is thoroughly convinced that he is Innocent. Even more so that me.
Hi Sandra, thanks for the reply, no response to the letter Luke penned saying "i will stab with a big **** stick. watch your blood spill on the soil, i will watch as you wither and die." though, wouldn't expect someone to fantasize about such things considering what he's been through.Lithium, as far as I am concerned you can call yourself what you like. It certainy is not up to me whether you post here or not. Neither have I said anything about your posting here. All I mentioned was that perhaps people may accept you if you had entered the forum by the right door?
"Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."
Claiming you cooked your brother a burnt pie and him having no recollection of seeing you in the house that evening is a pretty big discrepency don't you think?
"Really, Lithium? Gosh, what a strange thing, then, that he cut off his own hair, knowing he was "due a haircut" at the barbers the following day?"
Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair? I doubt he already had the appointment at the barbers when he cut it, he probably made a mess of it and the appointment came as a result of that. And if he was cutting his hair to avoid being identified then why would he bother if he had the barbers the next day anyway? Ferris cutting his hair for no reason is more believable than Luke calling the speaking clock for no reason when he was supposed to be in his house.
"Why would anyone who was "due" a haircut (makes it sound like a regular arrangement, doesn't it?) suddenly chop off his own hair, and not be able to offer any explanation as to why?"
You're really asking for an explanation for him cutting his hair? Why does anyone get a haircut? I believe he said in court it was getting curly and messy and he didn't like it that way.
Grahame-
"Are you referring to Dr Sandra Lean? Don't you think it would be a good thing to refer to her by the title that she has earned rather than just her Christian name? After all this would indicate that we have some respect for her achievements. Unless you are of course an expert in criminalogy?"
I'm not taking anything away from her achievements, I'm at uni myself and I take my hat off to her, but why would I address her as Dr? Now you're just being petty,That's like me asking people to address me as Mr. *** *** in every day conversation. I'm sure you just wanted an excuse to remind everyone she's an 'expert' though, so job done.
I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave. :-\ [/co;or]
just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.What can I do I'm not a moderator and if you noted I even suggested Roch rather send you a pm.
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural? I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.
just let me discuss the case instead of admins and moderators trying to 'out' me when all I'm doing is trying to discuss the topic at hand and contribute to the site, and instead of people jumping on the defensive attack because I hold a different opinion from sandra.Well how would you refer to Dr Who then? ;D
sorry, Dr Sandra Lean.
you see how that's less natural? I'm not addressing her personally, but as a screen name, don't read into it I'm sure she wasn't offended.
lol. if he joined here as "Who". I'd refer to him as such. Back on topic, I've been accused of trying to "explain away" so-called evidence. Can anyone explain away the following suspicious actions by Luke? Phone records show he phoned the speaking clock roughly the time of the murder, at a time where he claims he was at home making dinner. He didn't phone to see why Jodi hadn't turned up or where she had been all night. Just went home and went to bed without worrying about it even though she didn't show and hadn't contacted him all night.I can't. I'm neutral and know nothing as I said.
I'm not John Lamberton or anyone else, and my username is just a song title. If you don't want me posting here just say and I'll leave. :-\
There were several areas on the T shirt which tested positive for the presence of semen. Many of these contained sperm heads. The one found on the back underside of the left sleeve was noted as a "large stain" which suggests that it was visible. I will be out all day, but will look out the DNA reports this evening and confirm the actual number of areas.
There were several white stains on the hoodie which were visible to the naked eye - what they consist of has never been ascertained. There was an "extensive" area of blood-staining around the underarm of the left sleeve of the hoodie - there is no wound on Jodi's body which corresponds to that staining.
Jodi's T shirt was not taken off "over her head" - it was cut and ripped up the sides, across one side of the back, and through the neckline. The sleeves remained attached to the front piece.
The semen on the bra was found on the outside of the right and left cups, and in the padding of the left cup. The "transfer" theory does not explain how semen and sperm heads soaked through the surface of the bra into the padding below. The rainwater transfer (which was the prosecution's contention- the rain had diluted the semen on the t shirt, soaking it through to the bra, and also to other areas of the t-shirt) does not hold when one realises that after the clothes were stripped off, they were not thrown/dropped in the same place -the bra, cut bra strap, and two t-shirt parts were all found in different places. It did not rain that evening until after Jodi was claimed to have been murdered, stripped and mutilated, so any rain water transfer could only have happened after the clothes were removed from the body.
Also, Jodi left home wearing a hoodie, but there is no corresponding "transfer" of semen from the T-shirt to the inside of the hoodie, which would have been at least as likely as transfer to the bra. In an attempt to explain this away, the police began to question people about whether Jodi wore her hoodie tied around her waist. Not one person could be found who had ever known Jodi to wear her hoodie like that, so that line of enquiry was dropped.
Several of the mixed male and female profiles returned either "no reportable result" or "Jodi Jones and unidentified male" - the manner in which the DNA results were labelled and logged was confusing, at best, and downright misleading at worst. For example, (and this is just one of many), one label logged a sample found on one of the trainers as "no semen detected." The results, however, show an unknown profile, in semen, from the same sample on the same trainer.
I cannot post copies of the DNA results online, as that would be an offence in Scotland. I have explained this many times - I have posted information from the results, as it appears in the reports, but that is as far as I can go. The labels I have posted are the exact wordings which appear on the results - I am not responsible for how those labels were worded, although some people seem quite keen to shoot the messenger!
As someone else has pointed out, the stories about the whereabouts of the sister's boyfriend changed to provide him with what appeared to be a watertight alibi - however, other statements raise doubts about where he was and who he was with. He finally claimed to be with the sister at his father's house - to date, I have never seen a statement from the father to confirm this. Initially, he said he visited the sister in the morning, stayed for a short time, and then left. By the final statement, he visited the sister in the morning, stayed all day, went with her to his father's and returned with her to the grandmother's.
Whilst I accept that people in shock may not remember important details, that should apply across the board - this discrepancy did not warrant further investigation (nor did a "mistaken" statement by the mother's boyfriend that the sister had actually been in the mother's house at the time she was claimed to be elsewhere with her boyfriend). Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."
Interestingly, other people in the grandmother's house that morning do not mention him being there. None of this, of course, tells us that the boyfriend was in any way implicated. What it does tell us (and what I have been banging on about for over 9 years) is that theinvestigationwas an absolute disgrace. If it had been done properly, we would not be having these discussions all these years later, because the questions would have been answered satisfactorily, and we could all be certain that the convicted person, whoever he had turned out to be as a result of a properly conducted, thorough and professional investigation, was the real killer.
As it stands, there are so many unanswered questions, so many inexplicable omissions, apparent errors, failures to follow through, etc, that no-one can rest easy that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is "safe" - far from it.
Lithium's attempts to provide innocent explanations for the sister's boyfriend's DNA on the T shirt Jodi was wearing demonstrate my point. Had that presence been fully investigated and properly eliminated, Lithium would have no need to argue the point (just as others would have no need to argue that the presence of his DNA raises many questions). It was not properly eliminated - the police appear to have handed them the "borrowed t shirt" explanation, the other samples on the t shirt remain unidentified, the rainwater transfer theory does not hold, and there is no proof, aside from the word of Jodi's sister, that two identical t shirts ever belonged to the sister. Six black t-shirts were recovered from Jodi's clothing - it is entirely possible that Jodi owned a black t-shirt identical to one owned by her sister.
Just to answer Lithium's question about confirmation, the sample is confirmed as a full match to SK. I have always been careful to point out that partial samples cannot be safely attributed to anyone, and would never claim that a partial "could be" any one person - the furthest I would go is to say it could be any one of several potential contributors. As a general rule, I avoid such discussion, as it is pointless, and dangerous.
As I have explained, I cannot provide the sort of proof Lithium would like, as to do so, I would have to reproduce the result from the DNA report, which I am prohibited from doing in Scotland.
Do you admit that you have previously posted here as D-FENS?
Again I'll ask was he injured or masturbating... doubtful he'd be going through both at once, and did he arrive at the search wounded? Jodis sis was with him all day and never noticed he was hurt either?the trouble is your theory of inocent transfer fails down on one thing if his sperm and blood had transfred inocently to jodi while he was jodis i would epect other males who lived with jodi to inocently have transfered thers as well.
and again why such an insignificant amount of blood? it's only common sense that these tiny amounts of DNA never got there at the scene of the murder.
Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him :-\ nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time :-\ .Mat, I read the Recent posts so can see all the posts on the forum. If I want to agree with some one I have every right to do so as you have.
His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.
So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.
Pathetic.
Mat I honestly can't remember what you and Grahame were arguing about I responded to Maggie's post and it was not having a pop at you personally maybe I need to be more sensitive with my posts if they are going to cause offence as I can assure you none was meant. Forgiven :)
Always amazed that wherever Grahame goes to cause trouble, and he was only here to cause trouble, his posts here were directed at SL to ignore me and then to take a cheap shot at my relationship status, Maggie and Susan are quickly in the topic to defend him :-\ nice of them to stumble into the topic at the right time :-\ .Give it a rest Mat. However you may long it to be, it's not ALL about you is it. ::) Go an have a coffee or something and chill out.
His posts here were just to target me, he can barely debate the Bamber case so don't think for one minute he was going to be able to add anything to the Mitchell case that wasn't an attack.
So he posts his abuse.
Gets his friends in.
Bring up his daughter.
Feels good about himself.......on the internet.
Pathetic.
I just found it strange how first Grahame comes in here to start his games, I respond to him - then you and Maggie are suddenly in here too.Well you took it off topic by insulting me Mat. Before that I was arguing on topic with Lithium. Can't you just accept the fact that I really don't consider you all that important? Please do not engage with me at all. Because it is obvious that you cannot even mention my name without being insulting.
When this is about LM case and the topic has now gone way off topic even though last night there was some good debate going on in here. :-\
he dient find the body on his own there wre 4 people there.Hardly a tracker dod Nugs, It was Lukes own dog.
a tracker dog finding a body is hardly unusual
luke wasnt known to police thats the funy thing hes about the only connected to the case that wasn't..
surely if you had kiled someone the last thing you woul want is for the body to be found.
Claiming you cooked your brother a burnt pie and him having no recollection of seeing you in the house that evening is a pretty big discrepency don't you think?
Again, do you have any proof J Ferris didn't always cut his own hair?
I doubt he already had the appointment at the barbers when he cut it, he probably made a mess of it and the appointment came as a result of that.
And if he was cutting his hair to avoid being identified then why would he bother if he had the barbers the next day anyway?
Ferris cutting his hair for no reason is more believable than Luke calling the speaking clock for no reason when he was supposed to be in his house.
You're really asking for an explanation for him cutting his hair? Why does anyone get a haircut? I believe he said in court it was getting curly and messy and he didn't like it that way.
Can anyone explain away the following suspicious actions by Luke? Phone records show he phoned the speaking clock roughly the time of the murder, at a time where he claims he was at home making dinner. He didn't phone to see why Jodi hadn't turned up or where she had been all night. Just went home and went to bed without worrying about it even though she didn't show and hadn't contacted him all night.
He also told his mom before he went out with his friends "if Jodi arrives tell her where to find us" yet told his friends "Jodi won't be coming out tonight.
What do you make of that speaking clock thing? at a time of Pay-And-Go top up phones, what teenager would waste credit on a premium rate number when they are in a house full of clocks?
witch was t trained tracker dog.No Nugs it was not a trained tracker dog. It was a mutt that Luke owned.
there is suspicious about a dog finding body anyway that is what police dogs are used for.
how many on the news do we hear a man with is dog found the body.
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.You know Buddy that was the very thing I posted and was immediately accused of attacking Mat, when my post was to Lithium. Shameful. But you can confirm that is a logical concern?
The fact that no dna links Luke to the crime makes it unreliable, coupled with the fact that the boyfriends dna was discovered at the scene makes me wonder more.. All this transfer of sperm/semen is going over my head.
I wonder if Luke was known to the police, and wanted him out of the way for a time.
I admit it is a bit fishy him finding the body of Jodi with his dog sounds a little convenient.
What will you do with your doctorate Sandra ? Your still young and now have so many opportunities available to you.
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something. 50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something. 50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.Does that mean I'm really only 50? :) Wow! if only I felt that young. ::)
I find you inspirational as you went off and done something because you believed in something. 50 is not old anymore, its the new 40. I can see you like Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs getting into Hannibal's mind to rescue the victim.Chelsea, I do agree with you apart from one fact. I have it on good authority (mine) that 50 is the new 30........no argument 8) 8)
Maggie when I get to fifty it will be the new 20 !!!Too right Chelsea...you go girl! :)
Hmm, to many user names here. I can't get it out of my head that lithium, and Mat are the same person, and are both john.
Too right Chelsea...you go girl! :)
Don't be so foolish!Interesting thought Buddy :-\
Interesting thought Buddy :-\
You never catch me with those bingo wings wearing a dowdy old cardigan or flowery dress down to my ankles !!Nor me Chelsea!! :D
Maggie are you actually foolish enough to think that me and John are one in the same? Actually - don't answer that.;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie I have always said age is just a number and you are the age I want you to be when it suits me :)Have you ever thought of taking up the pole in your evenings off great fun and good money per session.but you did say you were 5. 10 too tall your head would stick out too far above the pole. :)5' 8" Susie, is that ok or am I too tall? It is a thought, it must keep you super fit. I do use a vibration plate which keeps my muscles very strong.
Hi Chelsea don't tell maggie I told you (but she has all the things you mentioned) hush hush. If I go quickly she has not attacked me we appear to have a storm coming and last one blow my modem on the laptop. So next storm disconnect. :)
Chelsea I bet your Mum looked cool Dorothy Perkins caters for the fashion of today. I myself love Laura Ashley and French Connection my nearest Laura Ashley is 200 miles away :(Tough luck susie, serves you right...fancy sayng I have bingo wings.
Please, keep on posting Sandra. Between the bullshit meant to distract the members from the actual deabte - I am reading.Mat, I am curious, last time Dr Sandra Lean was on line you were quite up front with her and if I may say so a tad aggressive. Today you are sweetness and light. Just wondered why the change?
I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity. You just have to judge each post on it's own merits. I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John. Would it matter if they were the same person?
Thanks, Neil.I have to object,I'm really sorry but one of these days mat just for once maybe you can admit that at least half the fault was with you. I cannot understand your holier than thou attitude.
It would matter to me. I'm tired of having to prove to people who I am. Was hounded by Keira, so proved to her. Was hounded by Jackie, so proved to her, then by Stephanie Hall so I proved to John so he was able to confirm it on his forum.
Anyone who wants to think differently, well more fool them.
Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.I don't have an agenda except to stand up for my friends when they are being bullied.
If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.
I'm interested in what she has to say, Maggie. I don't believe much of it. But still she should be allowed to post,
Maggie - go away. Your agenda is obvious. It's not my fault if people don't believe who I say I am. You can object all you want.I only said that I thought you should take your share of the blame. I m willing to apologise for anything I may do. I am not perfect, the problem is you seem to think you are.
If people want to say that I'm not who I say I am, then let them - they are free to do as they wish. But each and every one of them is WRONG.
I've said this before but I will say it again! Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people with an opposing view, post on here, it makes things a lot more interesting. What I don't understand however is, what motivates someone to post and proclaim someone's guilt, when that someone has already been convicted? It's fighting for a cause that has already been won.
I don't have an agenda except to stand up for my friends when they are being bullied.
I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?
I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.
However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.
Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.
Yes, it would matter. We all know what John Lambertons aboutHello Chelsea, I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about. You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity. It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
I have an idea, Mat. Why don't you post what you do believe, and why, and then we can compare that against the various other bits and pieces, and see where it leads us?
I can't post transcripts, reports, statements, etc - that's an offence in Scotland, although I can quote bits from some of the documents. Unfortunately, I know that means you have to accept my word that that is actually what the documents say, but there's no real way around that.
However, Luke's site on WAP has been live for three years, as has the forum thread, and I haven't been taken to task by any authority regarding the information I have posted - given the hostility towards any challenges to the judicial system in Scotland, it would be surprising, if I'd said anything which was not accuate, if they didn't come down on me like a ton of bricks.
Also, I'd be risking everything I've worked for for more than 9 years, if I was found to be being dishonest about what's in the papers - why would I take such a stupid risk? I realise that you may not wish to discuss the case on that basis, and I fully understand if that's the case - unlike our friends south of the border, we supporters in Scotland are hog tied when it comes to providing data for online campaigns.
Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.
This was my first post on the subject. Was it aimed at mat? I leave you all to judge.
Hello Chelsea, I'm afraid that it's a situation you can't do anything about. You are rarely certain of anyone's true identity. It's been suggested before that I am John Lamberton!
As long as the posts are within the rules of this forum, then I don't really see that it matters who is making them. I fail to see what John Lamberton has done to jepordise any MoJ case. His forum is dead with almost no serious debate. Considering his alleged shabby treatment from the authorities, I really struggle to understand his motivation. I can't see any evidence that he has influenced anyone's opinion, well....apart from one notable member!!! ;)
I've never really been able to understand why it matters if someone is lying about their identity. You just have to judge each post on it's own merits. I'm convinced that Mat is Mat and John is John. Would it matter if they were the same person?On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you? ;)
Yet another lie, Grahame.Please don't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.
You were int he topic much earlier than that when you were telling Sandra Lean to ignore trolls blah blah after I'd just been speaking to her.
On the other hand john could be marie25 or ian or any number of other members. mat may criticise me for my practical jokes on the forum but notice he never ever criticises lamberton for his miriad names. What does that tell you? ;)
[quote author=mat link=topic=551.msg .
I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work.
I don't think there's any doubt that Dr Lean is utterly convinced that Luke is innocent. I find her hugely impressive and she makes a strong argument against Lukes conviction. The Mitchells are very lucky to have her onboard.
Please dopn't call me a liar mat. Just show me the post where I said that in this thread. I have searched this thread and that as far as I can see is the first post of mine I can see. But please stop using emotive words such as lie or liar. I am not liar so please do not judge other people by your own standards of conduct.
Why would Sandra even contemplate compromising her career and credibility by being so passionate about the Luke Mitchell case if she were not entirely convinced he was as he says he is...Innocent.
All anyone need do is think for a while about it. John Lamberton spends around 20 hours a day on the internet trying to destroy peoples reputations. He ropes in the odd one or two gullible ones as his "support network" The rest of the "posters" are John Lamberton, trying and failing to give the impression he has widespread approval. His weapons are lies, lies and more lies. These people whom he is trying to discredit (Dr Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, Roch, Kevin Craigie, Tesko, Karen Torlley) are all the very people who have and are having an impact on M.O.J cases. John Lamberton attempts to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one until there is no one left. He has succeeded in his mission. Who remains to promote M.O.J in the U.K in 2012 ? The answer is nobody ( If Lamberton had not been spotted....by my Uncle Billy)So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?
So you think that Lamberton has adversely affected MoJ's?
I don't know much about his Internet campaign history but I would be surprised if anyone took any serious notice of what he says.
Matt,
Bloggs and son was a joke, most people knew it was Grahame. Why are you banging on about that, no one cared.
I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.Mat, you do tell lies, if we talk about Jackie as you so often like to, I would tell you right from the start you lied about her changing pms., it was not possible fo her to do that and why would she? She was using her new software which enabled her to take screen shots...you can't alter a screen shot. You were always screaming that she had put up posts and deleted them more quickly than the speed of sound so just admit that sometimes you tell the odd porky and then we will all be happy ;D
Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.
Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.
You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.
I think anyone that uses multiple usernames needs to stop it. I've never caught John doing it the way I caught you. John has never denied it to me. You did, you denied it to the board when you created accounts to cause trouble - I can give names of these accounts BLOGGSANDSON and GAV.Again please don't call me a liar mat. I've warned you before and have reported your post as I have this one as well. All I want is for you to show me my first post on this thread.
Can you give names of accounts that John has had? Because I have never knowingly come across them.
Not sure if I whole-heartedly agree. There has always got to be a slight piece of doubt regarding a MOJ when you're representing them - especially when the evidence isn't competely overwhelming.
You are a liar - that wasn't your first post here. I don't need to go and search because I know a day or two ago you told Sandra to beware of trolls....and I called you out on it. Knowing you you have deleted the post.
But yes, you do tell lies. Remember bloggsandson I said "You're Grahame hiding behind another name to cause trouble" you said "I am not Grahame!"........that was a lie.
I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.
Again please don't call me a liar mat. I've warned you before and have reported your post as I have this one as well. All I want is for you to show me my first post on this thread.
I believe he has. He's exposed people as frauds etc. Or dished dirt on their dirty deeds. Now I don't know about you but if I had read some of the material he has posted I would stay away from those proffesionals.Gav is real. Only thats not his reall name his reall name is Alan and he was in the army attached to a special unit.
It was only a joke afterwards, Maggie. Not when he was hiding behind it to cause trouble. How about Gav? Joke too? :o
Dr. Lean I think that you have studied this case in depth and are therefore qualified and very able to write about it. Take no notice of those little tyros who know nothing much and believe nothing but the light that somehow filters down through the chinks in their own roofs. As for me together with every other person who has at least some reasoning power in their heads I will rather trust and believe you rather than some Mr nobody whose esteem goes only as far as his own back garden.
Gav is real. Only thats not his reall name his reall name is Alan and he was in the army attached to a special unit.Mat, loosen up, it was a joke, we all knew, it wasn't hard ;D
I already have. You'll have to go back through all the spam to find it. I was asked most recently about the DNA evidence. I believe that it doesn't point anywhere - and certianly won't give you the grounds to appeall. However, I believe that the supporters of LM believe it will and this is because of the interpretation on the official website or because they don't fully understand the evidence.
I believe that maybe you do believe LM is innocent. But that even if you didn't fully believe him you would be involved in the case because you see that there is an area you can cause reasonable doubt in - I also look forward to seeing the submissions you've recently made if they are ever available, I'd enjoy looking at your work
You did lie though. :-\ You said you weren't Grahame - when REALLY you were. So you didn't tell the truth... you told a lie. :-\Just show me my first post on this thread mat. That is all I ask.
OK, the DNA evidence. You are absolutely correct - it doesn't "point" anywhere, as it currently stands, including at Luke. Grounds for appeal on the DNA, however, are another thing entirely, and that's nothing to do with interpretations on the website, or supporter's understandings. None of the DNA results have ever been checked for accuracy - they have never been verified. Luke had an absolute right to have the nature and manner of instruction, testing, reporting and interpretation checked to ensure that the forensic processes were carried out properly and fairly. That never happened, and the relevant files were "lost" when questions were asked about why legal aid funding for this was never obtained.
I'm not sure what, of the submissions made, I am allowed to make public - as soon as I have checked this out, I will post whatever I can on Luke's website.
Just show me my first post on this thread mat. That is all I ask.
Real or a joke? Maybe you should get your stories straight Grahame/Maggie. But in the meantime why do you continue to spam a topic up?It's obvious what you are up to Mat, who's the troll, me or Grahame or maybe both. Don't be rediculous.
And just to prove you as a liar AGAIN Grahame.Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?
Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?And that is the third time you have called me a liar mat. third time reported to the moderators.
It's obvious what you are up to Mat, who's the troll, me or Grahame or maybe both. Don't be rediculous.
Well I obviously made a mistake. But I was referring to the debate last night and I believe my first post was as I showed in answer to nugnug in reference to lithium's posts about dna. But I am at a lost as to where that post is referring to you.?
Thanks, this is the point I was trying to make. We're both in the same boat when it comes to that.I was referring to the debate last night when you accused me of coming in and going off at you. I believe my first post wasa as I said the first time round.
Thanks, I appreciate it. It would be good to see what your case is from a legal standpoint.
I already have!!! ::)
I was referring to the debate last night when you accused me of coming in and going off at you. I believe my first post wasa as I said the first time round.
That is a powerful collection of arguments Sandra. Luke should certainly succeed at the S.C.C.R.C, then the courts
Grahame!I am afraid that you initiated that yourself mat. I donly answered your question by saying I think I know more about teenagers than you. My other post you obviously took my "general" post as applyinmg to you. This was not me applying to you but applying it to young people in general.
I was in here trying to debate the LM case. Grahame isn't able to - he came in for insults and then lied about it and couldn't even find his first post - he lied about what his first post was and I've happily shown to people what his ACTUAL first post was and not what he CLAIMED it was. So can we just draw a line under it. It's disrespectful to be posting so much spam in a topic like this.
It's already been agreed upon Grahame that the little digs in the posts you made (including the silly attack about me being single) were aimed at me. So good luck in getting someone to believe otherwise, Grahame.
Did SF have a criminal record at the time of Jodies murder?
yes he did im not sure what for though.Thanks Nugnug.
Grahame didn't say anything that nasty, did he?
Yes. I found his digs at my relationship status not only unnecessary but also an attepmpt to be unpleasant.mat I never mentioned anything about your relationships. My post was general to all young men being able to understand women. It was you yourself who seemed to think I was referring to you especially. I don't know what your relationship status is and I don't want to know thank you. Not everything I say is about you. Read my post again and tell me in all honesty if I was referring to you and if you think I was then tell me how I know about you? Because I don't. So can you see how silly this accusation is?
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack. Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages. I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others. I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work.Well said Neil ;D
Did he say anything that bad, really?
mat I never mentioned anything about your relationships. My post was general to all young men being able to understand women. It was you yourself who seemed to think I was referring to you especially. I don't know what your relationship status is and I don't want to know thank you. Not everything I say is about you. Read my post again and tell me in all honesty if I was referring to you and if you think I was then tell me how I know about you? Because I don't. So can you see how silly this accusation is?
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack. Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages. I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others. I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work.
Did he say anything that bad, really?
2 suggestions:
1) The discussion between Mat and Grahame be taken to Roch's fight thread, and
2) The phrase 'I suggest you are mistaken' be used, since it tends to put people's backs up a little less than 'you are a liar'.
Well said Neil ;D
Mat, I think you would have to accept that by forming an association with John, you have left yourself wide open to attack. Grahame is very passionate about this forum and has obviously been here for ages. I believe that the loyalty he has demonstrated towards this site, affords him the right to post with less restraint than others. I know that this is not the official line but in the real world, that's the way things work.Well thank you for saying so Neil. But it does not however excuse me from posting abuse. I do get carried away sometimes and I should apologise to mat for any such abuse. I a really nice guy really. Well thats what the doctor at Rampton said before I released his neck. ::)
Did he say anything that bad, really?
2 suggestions:
1) The discussion between Mat and Grahame be taken to Roch's fight thread, and
2) The phrase 'I suggest you are mistaken' be used, since it tends to put people's backs up a little less than 'you are a liar'.
But would it really damage her career and credibility if she was wrong? Because if you believe that then isn't her career damaged from this happening in cases previously?
Well thank you for saying so Neil. But it does not however excuse me from posting abuse. I do get carried away sometimes and I should apologise to mat for any such abuse.
You know well enough what my relationship status is. You made a dig about it a few months ago along the same lines as your post in this topic but this time you just didn't mention my name. But feel free to deny it, Grahame. It must feel pretty shitty to post so much rubbish and then feel you have to back down when you're called upon it.Well I've been called hitler as well and a nazi. but people can and are abused in very polite terms believe it or not.
He's called me a twat, moron etc... in fact tonight he called me Hitler. I find that offensive.
Mistaken about his first post, maybe although it seems a bit convienient. But as for being bloggsandson .....that was a lie. Blatantly.
You might not think calling someone Hitler is bad, I do though.
Well I've been called hitler as well and a nazi. but people can and are abused in very polite terms believe it or not.
Mat said
We need to get a couple of things straight here, I think. Firstly, I don't have a "career" - I don't support people claiming wrongful conviction for financial gain, job promotion (I don't have a "job"), or recognition for myself - my "public" persona, as far as Luke's case is concerned, came about because of the local negative reaction to Luke's case - I had worked "behind the scenes" for four years - no-one knew who I was, or what I was doing. But someone let it be known not only who I was, but where I was - when the book was published I decided it was safer if everyone knew who I was, just in case.
The media communication with myself over the years has been at Luke and Corinne's request- they were crucified by the media, and didn't trust any of them - they began to run media enquiries by me, and that is how I ended up making statements, etc, on the Mitchell family's behalf.
Secondly, the case - singular - to which Mat refers here, is the Adrian Prout case. I am not ashamed of my involvement in that case, but it is probably as well to clarify what that involvement was and what "damage" it did.
We were approached at WAP and ased if we would host a website for Adrian. Having done all our usual checks, we set up the website, based on the evidence we had seen. As always, a forum discussion was set up to accompany the website. During that discussion, I did what I always do, and argued that, with no body, and a number of conflicting pieces of evidence, nobody could be sure that a murder had occurred. Various aspects of the evidence, as it then stood, were discussed.
Then Adrian took, and failed, a polygraph test, and confessed that he had murdered his wife. We had to wait a couple of days for confirmation that (a) the confession was genuine, and (b) the resultant search had found Kate's body. (The website and forum were suspended during this period.) Immediately we had confirmation, we opened the website and forum, with all content removed, and an apology to Kate's family was posted on each. Those were left visible for 14 days, and then the sites were taken down.
Without Adrian's confession, there was absolutely nothing in the evidence which warranted a conviction - I believe that we absolutely have to be rigid in our determination that cases must be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, or we open up the possibility of a state/justice system free for all, where anyone can be accused and convicted on nothing. That is a terrifying prospect, and I know too many people it has already happened to - I don't want to see any more, but sadly, because ordinary people really don't believe it can happen, or that it's only a very, very rare occurrence, and could never happen to them, it's not a top priority in most people's minds.
It certainly wasn't something I gave a lot of thought to in 2003 - I knew about the "famous" cases from the past, and thought they were terrible, but I had no idea how bad the problem really is.
That is why I am not ashamed of my involvement in the Adrian Prout case. I would much rather take the risk of potentially being fooled on occasion than sit back, knowing what I do, and do nothing. For what it's worth, through all of the cases I have been involved in, to a greater or lesser degree in the last 9 plus years, Adrian is the only one whose claim of innocence has been destroyed - all of the others, over the years, have produced more and more evidence supportive of their innocence. It's a track record I can handle - I don't pay much heed to the critics, since I don't see most of them even attempting to do what I do every day of the year.
Hello Bridget,
I see that you're at it now! With the morse code, I mean! :)
I'm afraid that I don't have enough time on my hands to attempt to translate it.
I actually put that in my sig a couple of weeks ago, it's a response to Hartley's code. Off the top of my head it says something like:Thanks Bridget, I did actually look it up! :)
.. or an anorak with nothing better to do.
:)
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.
Last two questions - SF had an old criminal record from his youth- he had not been in trouble for many years by the time of Jodi's murder.
The SCCRC submission - the vast bulk of the submission was made by highly qualified legal personnel - I am not a lawyer, and would not dream of trying to behave like one - I think I explained earlier that the submission included a large number of legal arguments, tied to the actual practicalities of the case as it progressed. I am not qualified to make those arguments, and was very, very grateful indeed, for the input and assistance of those who did that, pro bono, on Luke's behalf.
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.Ok keep up the good work. Enjoyed reading your book. I recommend others to read it as well.
Last two questions - SF had an old criminal record from his youth- he had not been in trouble for many years by the time of Jodi's murder.
The SCCRC submission - the vast bulk of the submission was made by highly qualified legal personnel - I am not a lawyer, and would not dream of trying to behave like one - I think I explained earlier that the submission included a large number of legal arguments, tied to the actual practicalities of the case as it progressed. I am not qualified to make those arguments, and was very, very grateful indeed, for the input and assistance of those who did that, pro bono, on Luke's behalf.
Wouldnt a CRB check show any previous convictions? My friend had an offence show on hers that she did when she was 15
You seem disappointed that Sandra has vanished Mat. Yet the whole time she was on here you were arguing with Grahame like a couple of old woman. I wanted to ask her some questions too, but darent as you two were squabbling
there will be a record of it somwhere yes but it would be much harder to find.
I am dissapointed. I had a lot more to ask her. But if you look back, when I said numerous times to get back on topic or cut the spam I was ignored.
I was very disappointed too. There was far more I wanted to ask Sandra. However, I doubt she will come back again. It was almost like you had picked your moment
we cant do a crb on him.
nugnug a criminal record shows everything from 16 and onwards.
I am always very careful in what I say. I have just finished researching the posts of Lithium, Mat and Lamberton. Some of them go away back to 2011. Lithium was confronted by Roch earlier as to his previous identity. We never were told, as he vanished until just now.
The posts by Lithium, Mat, Rhodes and John Lamberton are written by the same person. Same theme, same structure, same methods, same grammatical errors. Rather like a fingerprint.
You revealed that you used a self destruct e mail address. Why do that ?
I believe that you take on various guises to cause distrust and doubt in the M.O.J world. I think this is a disgrace. Many people are trying so hard just to get through each day knowing they have someone they love in a prison when they should not be there. Yet you leap on them, accusing them of being guilty and all those who assist them. You use lies and manipulation to achieve this
Lithium, you've re-registered under a different user-name than you last had.
You revealed that you used a self destruct e mail address. Why do that ?In that case, the only way to deal with the issue is to ignore the offending posts. To engage with these posters is to play into their hands, they crave attention and confrontation.
I believe that you take on various guises to cause distrust and doubt in the M.O.J world. I think this is a disgrace. Many people are trying so hard just to get through each day knowing they have someone they love in a prison when they should not be there. Yet you leap on them, accusing them of being guilty and all those who assist them. You use lies and manipulation to achieve this
Do keep up Chelsea.... Roch went on to say this-
"Lithium's email address is easily recognisable. However, I cant remember the other username linked to it and I'm not prepared to look through the entire membership to see if it is a current member. It may have been a banned member. At the moment it's Lithium 1 Roch 0. I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt"
then this
"Your email address does look very much like one recently used by a 'new member'. A lot of our 'new members' tend to be pests. So I put 2+2 together. Don't be so wounded."
It's pathetic that it's come to this but Mat are you up for posting a time stamped picture of yourself holding a sign and I'll do the same? Just so we can prevent Chelsea disrupting the debate at hand any further?
"We are not the fools you think we are."
You are though, you're wrong.
This is like the puppet show at the seaside. Up pops one, then vanishes. Then up pops the other one.
wait what good is posting a pic of your hand lol if i posted mines it would look the same and chelsea would say we are the same person
It's a quote by Luke Mitchell. Again related to the case I joined here to discuss. Mods please let me know if putting that in my sig is against the rules. I can provide the source.
You need hands, to show the world your handy!!!
As for Luke's motive, it's been suggested they had a falling out at school that day. An eye witness told police she saw them outside a local chinese at lunchtime smoking a joint, and they were sitting not facing each other or talking to each other. 'as if they had just been arguing'. Police tried to link this argument to a girl Luke met on holiday who he had been in contact with while seeing Jodi. The fact Lukes DNA wasnt on Jodis body also backs the suggestion they were on bad terms that day, ie no hugging or contact. Prosecution suggest their was a meeting arranged between Luke and Jodi behind the V cut in the wall, (the half way mark basically for both of them) where they were going to have it out about this other girl. This is purely speculation by me: Jodi's mobile phone was broken around the time of the murder, so her using Luke's mobile could be one possibility for her finding out about the other girl. She and Luke had been texting regularly.
Funnily enough the police only interviewed the girl who saw them arguing because Luke told them about her. Police wanted to find out if Luke and Jodi were on good terms that day and he said "go and ask ****"
Chelsea a.k.a Guest #6 currently viewing, sullied a once interesting thread. Mods please obliterate the 2-4 previous pages.I've come across that before. It is not what you think When I was admin I saw the same anomaly on my own name. I also for some reason was shown as guest as well. I asked hartley abvout it when he was in one of his more amiable moods and he said it was something to do with the software.
I'm sure you're referring to the one friend who said Jodi told her she was having a thing with S Kelly.
Can you blame them when their only suspect at the time was telling interviewing officers to go home and listen to this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcUgsvpchms
So you think it wasn't Luke because the murderer would need longer than 45 minutes? Really? This murder could have been carried out in 10. And if other people 'were witnessed' at the scene, it's safe to say they weren't witnessed covered in blood. I appreciate the sensible response and discussion though gordo thanks.
Then how was it done. The two people witnessed on the path were not witnessed after the murder as only the bike was seen propped up against the V. The idea that the murderer would not have had blood on them is only relevant if the murderer was seen, Im not saying that anyone seen without blood on them was not the murderer but as you state we can't have it both ways so that has to exclude Luke also.
This idea that you could have done this in 10 mins is a rediculous thing to say. I'm talking about everythigng here not just the murder itself. It takes slightly more than the 10 mins for Luke to get to the V.
oh yes he appears to super boy according to the police and prosecution
hes got to overpower jodi he was by the way biggir than him then strip her tie her up kill her mutliate the body then make phone calls then get back without being spotted then clean himself up in what is a very short period of time..
You seem disappointed that Sandra has vanished Mat. Yet the whole time she was on here you were arguing with Grahame like a couple of old woman. I wanted to ask her some questions too, but darent as you two were squabblingHey careful with the old.
Hey careful with the old.
That aint the one im talking about as thats to do more with the calls. Is there another?
back on topicThanks for the reply Lithium. I am still troubled by the dna though. Is it known how Jodi got on with her sister?
So you think the quote makes him look guilty then?
(the last post before Chelsea's silliness)
He was cleared of involvement on the basis of alibi. Corroborated by Jodi's sister no less. I have an easier time believing innocent DNA transfer than I do a boy murdering his girlfriends sister, confessing to said sister, then her giving him an alibi and staying in the relationship.
As for Luke's motive, it's been suggested they had a falling out at school that day. An eye witness told police she saw them outside a local chinese at lunchtime smoking a joint, and they were sitting not facing each other or talking to each other. 'as if they had just been arguing'. Police tried to link this argument to a girl Luke met on holiday who he had been in contact with while seeing Jodi. The fact Lukes DNA wasnt on Jodis body also backs the suggestion they were on bad terms that day, ie no hugging or contact. Prosecution suggest their was a meeting arranged between Luke and Jodi behind the V cut in the wall, (the half way mark basically for both of them) where they were going to have it out about this other girl. This is purely speculation by me: Jodi's mobile phone was broken around the time of the murder, so her using Luke's mobile could be one possibility for her finding out about the other girl. She and Luke had been texting regularly.
Right, I'm off now - can't keep up with all this stuff. I came here to discuss MoJs - it's virtually impossible to do so with all the other squabbles going on - I don't know who's who, or what your various gripes are with each other, but really, there's no way of having any sensible debate in the midst of this.
Thanks for the reply Lithium. I am still troubled by the dna though. Is it known how Jodi got on with her sister?
It would not be the first time a girl protected her boyfriend.
How old was her sister. I only ask because I am assuming that the sister was more developed than Jodi, and the shirt may have been a little baggy on Jodi.
Did Jodi's sister marry the boyfriend? Are they still married.
It seems this case is full of lies and deciet from all parties.
On the balance of probability, I would suggest that Luke is innocent. Nothing convinces me of guilt, just another bungled operation by the[lazy] police.
I believe Jodi and her sister were as close as any 2 sisters are, and didn't have any problems. Jodi was probably similar size to her older sister as she was quite tall for her age, you probably noticed nugnug mention she was taller than Luke, like this would somehow make her strong enough to fight him off if he were to attack her unexpectedly with a knife. Kelly and Jodi's sister never married and both went their seperate ways. Jodi's sister was a lesbian last I heard. Not that that matters, might not even be true. I'm the opposite, I think Luke probably is guilty. I do agree the investigation was a shambles but it doesn't mean Luke isn't guilty anyway, and none of the arguments from his supporters convince me enough to change my mind. Jodi's brother, her sisters boyfriend, her 2 cousins, are just some of the people they accuse and post 'evidence' against, and I find the circumstancial evidence against Luke to be more damning than any of the above. I accept he could be innocent though it's just not my opinion. Just like none of his supporters in here actually know for a fact that he's innocent. Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum. Maybe not even deliberately, just that it's been mentioned so much over a long period of time. In reality most of it is so weak that Donald Findlay didn't even think it was worth mentioning as it could be so easily picked apart.
Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum.
her sister was 17 at the time jodi was 14.So I assume more developed. Sisters tend to squabble with each other. Perhaps the boyfriend was showing an unheathy interest in Jodi!
So I assume more developed. Sisters tend to squabble with each other. Perhaps the boyfriend was showing an unheathy interest in Jodi!
Did Jodi's sister supply the alibi for her boy friend?
I am still interested if the sister, and boyfriend are still together.
The shit could still hit the fan!
I believe Jodi and her sister were as close as any 2 sisters are, and didn't have any problems. Jodi was probably similar size to her older sister as she was quite tall for her age, you probably noticed nugnug mention she was taller than Luke, like this would somehow make her strong enough to fight him off if he were to attack her unexpectedly with a knife. Kelly and Jodi's sister never married and both went their seperate ways. Jodi's sister was a lesbian last I heard. Not that that matters, might not even be true. I'm the opposite, I think Luke probably is guilty. I do agree the investigation was a shambles but it doesn't mean Luke isn't guilty anyway, and none of the arguments from his supporters convince me enough to change my mind. And I'm obviously not alone, this is a stance I share with every respected judge who rejected all of his appeals, yet people call me a trouble maker on here for maintaining this opinion? Jodi's brother, her sisters boyfriend, her 2 cousins, are just some of the people they accuse and post 'evidence' against, and I find the circumstancial evidence against Luke to be more damning than any of the above. I accept he could be innocent though it's just not my opinion. Just like none of his supporters in here actually know for a fact that he's innocent. Alot of the 'evidence' that he's innocent has been greatly exagerated by the members on Luke's forum. Maybe not even deliberately, just that it's been mentioned so much over a long period of time. In reality most of it is so weak that Donald Findlay didn't even think it was worth mentioning as it could be so easily picked apart.I don't think you are a trouble maker, but are too rigid with your views.
Well to name afew off the top of my head, Corinne posted she had "groundbreaking news" about Kelly's past. Nothing ever came of it. Jodi's brothers 'serious mental illness!' is greatly exaggerated also. Apparently he has a 'very violent history', but actually has no criminal record. And again there is the DNA that doesn't actually point anywhere. Oh and Ferris being "ostracized" by the family and chased out of the area. When really his mother just moved in with a new partner in Ayrshire.
jodis brother pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Sandra lean outside her own home so yes he has got a record.
Joe Jones is by all accounts a normal guy, a far cry from the derranged psycho and loose cannon he's been painted as on that forum. He is engaged and has a job which he wouldn't be allowed to have if he had a notable criminal record or mental illness. He delivers medication for pharmaceutical companies.
you keep makeing these pruduce nothing to back thjem up where is your evedence for any of this.
the brother has been sectioned sevral ok they does not make him abnormal
or necasrely violent.
i suspect you are just makeing all this up as you go along..
His sister was visciously murdered, you can understand him being ANGRY at the people trying to get her murderer out of jail.
Buddy, that's all very baseless and so speculative. :-\No Mat just an assumption. Wrongly or rightly.
That's nothing, her brother is the 'favourite' out of all the suspects on Luke's forum. They have no problem slinging mud at the family in every way possible. Right now the buzzing topic is weather or not the Jones family's calls to the police and times add up. How exciting, a true testament to how much evidence they really have to work with. Or maybe they really do have an easier time believing the brother killed Jodi then orchastrated a search so they could lead Luke to the body and frame him, instead of considering simply that boy she went to meet, the same boy who was known to carry knives, may actually have killed her.
Which one seems more likely to you? Most normal functioning members of society would agree the latter.
I think somethnig to keep in mind is that Sandra L is a relentless woman - and the fact that she's so public with her 'findings' that often prove to be nothing (this may be more trun in the case of LM's mother)> she puts the families of the murder victim through a lot of hell and pain.
So the families are in their rights to HATE Sandra Lean and have STRONG emotions for her - that makes sense to me.
If someone killed my sister and was convicted - then this Sandra Lean woman was in the press sprouting what I believed to be lies in order to get the killer out of jail.........God, she'd be my enemy.
I'm sure he isn't a peaceful man. It must be hard to ever find true peace again after what he's been through. Lashing out at someone who was trying to get his sisters killer out of prison doesn't seem to me like the actions of someone guilty of the actual murder.
nobody has said is on here.
Ok then here's what happened is it , Ferris witnessed Joe murder his sister. Joe threatened to batter someone who has the power to have him locked up. Instead of going to the police and having him locked up, he leaves the area and starts a new life in Ayrshire. Is that what you have an easier time believing gordo? Stop and think sometimes wha tyou're actually trying to convince yourself of, this is real life.
Ok then here's what happened is it , Ferris witnessed Joe murder his sister. Joe threatened to batter someone who has the power to have him locked up. Instead of going to the police and having him locked up, he leaves the area and starts a new life in Ayrshire. Is that what you have an easier time believing gordo? Stop and think sometimes wha tyou're actually trying to convince yourself of, this is real life
I always think it is interesting when a case stops just trying to prove that it wasn't the convicted person but it was one of these others : and then they give a list and explain why it was this person, or that person.
I always think it is interesting when a case stops just trying to prove that it wasn't the convicted person but it was one of these others : and then they give a list and explain why it was this person, or that person.
It kills most credibility.
whos doing that your the only doing that stop puting words into other peoples mouths.
What questions do you have gordo?
i have one in how many murder cases do websites get set up cliaming the convicted man is innocent i would say there were hundreds of such sites.
how many of those sight owners are threatned with death by a member of the victems family only one that i can think.
funny though the family of most victems seem to manage not to do it.
I think the basic logic og your argument is flawed. :-\
in what way all im saying is most victems relatives do not react like that.
Can nugnug or Gordo or anyone else explain how Luke managed to describe the clothes Jodi was wearing on the night of the murder in a police interview afew days after the murder, if he hadn't seen her that night, she had changed since school, and her body was naked when he found her? Thanks.
(this was a police interview played at the trial for everyone to here, before you accuse me of making it up or ask for a source)
The "no DNA" thing is another aspect that's been greatly exagerated and blown out of proportion over time. nugnug, Jodi's DNA was on Luke, her DNA was on his trousers, but 'may have occurred through an innocent transfer'. The trial also heard "there was no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained" found on her body."
It was only after Luke Mitchells appeals did people start hearing the "No DNA at all! not one shred!" thing.
Sandra why dont you edit the site and mention Jodi's DNA was found on Lukes trousers? What was she doing down there? :-\ Wasn't she on her knees when she had her throat cut?
Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
No, Jodi's full DNA match was on his trousers. Fact. Doesnt matter how long you say something, it won't make it true.
You know she changed after school though :o :o, hence the big debate about the sisters t-shirt and the sperm stains??? "why would she change into a smelly shirt" you said arguing that it was clean when she put it on. So you already know she changed after school. You're dis-honest.
So Luke saw a naked dead body but managed to have a look around and take note of the clothes sprawled everywhere in dark woods?
::)
All anyone has to do is read my last post to see that you were adamant the 'shirt she changed into' was clean, making Kelly's DNA suspicious.
Now that you've outed yourself as dishonest, I will no longer respond to you, I'm happy to debate it with Gordo though.
Excellent.
In other words you won't dig a deeper hole for yourself trying to worm you're way out of your lies.
as i said the reader can judge who the liar is.
I won't use the word liar. But who was wrong and backtracked IMO? :-\ You nugnug.
Well to confirm, do you believe she changed her shirt that day or no?
no i dont belive she did thats why i think the borrowed t shirt story is untrue.
No, Jodi's full DNA match was on his trousers. Fact. Doesnt matter how long you say something, it won't make it true.
You know she changed after school though :o :o, hence the big debate about the sisters t-shirt and the sperm stains??? "why would she change into a smelly shirt" you said arguing that it was clean when she put it on. So you already know she changed after school. You're dis-honest.
So Luke saw a naked dead body but managed to have a look around and take note of the clothes sprawled everywhere in dark woods?
Okay so she had the same clothes on that she had at school that day then, yes?
answer Mat's question nugnug. :)
The article certainly puts a slightly different slant on things when we hear that no traces of DNA were found on Luke, the problem I have is that the article stopped short of what the DNA was extacted from, what I mean is if Luke had blood on himself from Jodi then the forensic pathologist and the prosecution would have made more of this sample. It would certainly have looked far more sinister as oppossed to say a strand of hair or cellular extraction.
Is there anyway of knowing what the sample consisted of? were you at the trial lithium?
The partial DNA samples remain and have always been accepted by us as having existed but as to their use and whether they could ever have stood up in court as you have seen D.F basicly shot them down as was right.
I have missed something regarding Luke describing Jodi's clothes though as I don't see it anywhere? Jodi almost certainly had changed clothing, just how much should have been realised once the clothing had been brought together at the crime scene and was only mentioned by Judy that she had went up to change after school.
The problem is that the t-shirt was borrowed a number of days before and not simply the night before, would Jodi have worn a dirty t-shirt? well I suppose if the semen stains were microscopic or undetectable by the human eye but SL has told us that there were larger stains at the armpits of the t-shirt that were clearly visable. The t-shirt being a few days old(im sure this was stated by Janine at court that she had two of the same and one was worn lately but that she couldn't find the other for a certain number of days) then the t-shirt would have been more apparent in its state of unwash. We also have the the pathologists at the crime scene stating that the t-shirt had a strong smell of detergent on it pointing to it having been washed recently.
Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis.
We have a positive match to samples of DNA to SK then is it possible to conclude that every sample of semen on the clothes found at the murder scene were deposited by SK, or are we saying that more samples of semen were deposited during the murder? the problem with this is that there were samples of semen and or sperm heads found all over numerous items of clothing including the bra,shoes and outer garments. These samples then don't tie in with SK's sample alibi surely!
Is it reasonable to think that if semen exists and a full profile exists matched to an individual that all semen samples belong to that individual? I think its a reasonable course of thought.
If you feel its not then that would suggest that the crime was very much sexually motivated and the prosecution would have taken up that mantal, as fresh semen must have originated at the scene. This would make it harder for Luke being the murderer as well as obliterate the motive of the killing being that they had had an arguement,unless of course the sex was non concensual and by that then we have to add on vast amounts of time as well as explain again how someone can be intimate and not have DNA on themself.
In case's of rape or consensual sex their is an increased chance that DNA from the perpetraitor is deposited on the victim and when we add murder into this then how can anyone explain away the lack of DNA of Lukes anywhere where it should have been. How do we also factor this into the time scale I keep going on about also.
No problem. Nugnug's said enough. :) As does his choice to be silent all of a sudden.
Let's leave it to the guests.
Hi Gordo, Luke had Jodi's full DNA on his trousers, this is a fact that wasn't up for debate at the time, Findlay even took it upon himself to provide innocent explanations for it at the trial, as I demonstrated. So seeing things like this on the WAP page:
"Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was." is a lie. Plain and simple.
Luke did describe what Jodi was wearing that night, in a police interview held only days after the murder, this was an interview that was played in court, you can ask Sandra about that. I wonder why she wouldn't have mentioned this before to her followers. ::)
I do accept it's Kelly's semen, ( I don't accept his blood was found at the scene though this was never confirmed and I dont know why Sandra and Corinne are going around saying this, I believe the DNA "could be" blood. Although I believe it's his semen, I don't believe Kelly ejaculated at the murder scene or that he was there. His alibi is pretty much as strong as an alibi can be.
What do you make of nugnug now claiming he doesn't believe Jodi changed clothes from school? surprised?
So you're saying Kelly's DNA wouldn't get on his girlfriends shirt innocently? ::)
It's not up for debate that it was Janine's shirt, Janine would have no reason to make this up. Accept it.
Can you provide proof that none of Janines DNA was on the shirt please?
I've saw you use "not a trace" before when referring to DNA that linked Luke to Jodi and vice versa, and I've provided sources of proof that that was a lie.
No problem. Can you post proof none of Janines DNA was on the shirt please?
Have what, Anon members?
Anonymous is a shared-identity. It's a multiple-use name. Everyone and anyone can be Anonymous. You may also recognise it from the V for Vendetta movie. It's the Guy Fawkes mask.
I know who she means lol, it's the group I was referring to. Anyone wishing to take action regarding something anonymously can be Anonymous. It's not a group with membership where you join etc.
I know who she means lol, it's the group I was referring to. Anyone wishing to take action regarding something anonymously can be Anonymous. It's not a group with membership where you join etc.
Luke had Jodi's full DNA on his trousers, this is a fact that wasn't up for debate at the time, Findlay even took it upon himself to provide innocent explanations for it at the trial, as I demonstrated. So seeing things like this on the WAP page:
"Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was." is a lie. Plain and simple.
"The High Court in Edinburgh heard no genetic material from Luke Mitchell, which could not be "innocently explained", was found on her body.
Jodi's DNA was found on the accussed's trousers but this could have occurred through an "innocent transfer"
It was even raised in court by Luke's defence:
"Donald Findlay QC, defending Luke Mitchell, suggested to Ms Ure that DNA could be found in a completely "sinister place but have a wholly innocent explanation" to which she agreed.
Mr Findlay said the court had heard in some detail of Jodi and Luke's relationship and added: "Boyfriend, girlfriend, being intimate with each other.
"The girl brutally done to death and a young man sitting in court here charged with her murder.
"Looking at that picture, erin all the DNA analyses you carried out one, and only one, bit of Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers and that could be a pfectly innocent transfer."
Ms Ure replied: "Yes it could."
Forensic evidence belonging to several other people was found at the scene and on the body, although none of Luke’s ever was."
I'm not arguing that it could be innocent but my point was it's a lie for WAP to be running around saying there is absolutely no DNA evidence to link the 2. Don't you agree?
Thanks for your earlier replies which I will respond to when I get the chance to give them the thought and response that they warrant. What do you think of nugnug now claiming Jodi had the same clothes on all day btw
nugnug you're an idiot you can think what you want and I'll never care about your opinion. I'm sure gordo doesn't think I'm lying. Gordo the quote you posted maybe not but are you really saying Luke's supporters have never claimed he had none of Jodi's DNA on him? "so how did he go home and wash her dna off him and his clothes in that time?!" I believe you argued yourself. Btw there was 'partial DNA' that 'could be' Luke. Luke defenders are always mentioning how the body was left uncovered in the rain all night which could have washed DNA off. Again, can't have it both ways. There is no proof Kelly's blood is on the body, it 'could be' his blood. Kelly himself has never even heard any mention of his blood being on there by police. It's pathetic that Sandra has you all running around saying his blood was on there and it isn't anywhere near confirmed. Another example of 'evidence' being greatly exaggerated which I forgot about earlier is the "striking resemblance" between MK and Luke. They look nothing alike, trust me.
nugnug, I dedicated only the first sentence of my last post to you and it was just to tell you I don't care what you think. You've proved yet again you lack basic reading comprehension and I'd rather this was discussed in an adult manner so I'm now going to explain to you for the 3rd time I'm talking to Sandra and Gordo in this thread and I could do without your pointless posts that lack any substance or information. You have more posts than anyone on WAP yet not a single useful one, which leads me to believe you're someones alternate account.
Kelly himself has never even heard any mention of his blood being on there by police.
I didn't tell you not to post. I told you I'd rather not read them. Remember what I said about reading comprehension? I refuse to believe you're actually this dim. Drop the act, whos fake-account are you?
Congratulations on another post which contains absolutely no substance.
Oh look another post without substance by nugnug.Lithium, the way you speak to nugnug is very rude.
Can I ask why you think it's impossible? Are you basing it on the assumption that you think you know the killer would have to be covered in blood? Or that you know the time of death? He was witnessed arguing with Jodi on one end of the path, then later at the other end alone looking like he had been up to no good. He obviously had time to do it. These witnesses have no reason to lie. AB identified his picture and said she was as sure as anyone can possibly be that that was the same person she saw. I don't care if he looked different a year later and court and she was honest enough to say she couldn't recognise him by that point.
I find nugnug offensive.Why? Nugnug has posted on here for ages, what has he done to you?
missed this post. Joey Jones conducts a regular life and is a functioning member of society. He is engaged and he delivers prescriptions and medication for a pharmecutical company. This is all fact.
A job which holds a level of trust and responsibility, don't you agree?
Can't have it both ways as I keep repeating.
missed this post. Joey Jones conducts a regular life and is a functioning member of society. He is engaged and he delivers prescriptions and medication for a pharmecutical company. This is all fact.
A job which holds a level of trust and responsibility, don't you agree?
What difference is it weather she recognised his picture or saw him in a line up? Did the police take the picture in a way to make Luke like the person she saw arguing with Jodi? how could they?
it wasnt a case of "hes the only one on there who matches the description" her words were "i'm as sure as i can possibly be thats the person I saw"
she was adamant.
A year later in court Luke looked completely different, much longer hair, a year of growing and puberty. She was being honest saying she couldn't recognise him. I wouldn't use that as a supporting argument at all.
Yet Jodi had no ones DNA under her finger nails. Can't have it both ways as I keep repeating.
"I see hwoever your admittance to how he was 9 years before somehow alludes me."
The point I'm making is, if he had this horrific history of mental illness and violent crime which WAP claims, he wouldn't have got the job. I know for a fact such a role requires CRB and background checks.
Funny you say "how he is 9 years later has no relevance to how he was at the time of the murder"
yet its ok for nugnug to mention he threatened Sandra Lean 9 years later???
Can't have it both ways!!!
Funny you say "how he is 9 years later has no relevance to how he was at the time of the murder"
yet its ok for nugnug to mention he threatened Sandra Lean 9 years later???
It could be incriminating, it could be innocent. But it exists. Stephanie and others seem completely unaware of that.
She was wearing her sisters shirt, that's not debatable as far as I'm concerned.
And can I see your sources please. Just to keep it fair.
She recognised/remembered buying it/remembered Jodi borrowing it
if your wife walked into the room right now holding a shirt asking if it was yours, how would you know?
I'm not saying Janine saw her alive on the day or night of her murder. I'm saying it was common knowledge and evidence at the trial what Jodi was wearing when she was killed. It was also known to the family. Do you think the police never asked the family everything about the clothing? and what she was wearing isn't up for debate as the clothing was found at the scene. What you should be asking yourself is how Luke managed to describe the clothing she had on when she died. I'm just waiting til Sandra gets the chance to post the relevant info when she gets home.
Luke "may have seen the clothes sprawled around her when he found the body" according to nugnug afew pages ago. But now it's impossible that Janine done the same?
CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE!!!!
I'm off back out, I look forward to Sandra's information. Later.
Because I really am trying to read your posts - but I don't know if it is just me sometimes I feel lost as to what you're saying of the point you're trying to make, I'm trying though.Bit rude Mat! :)
I thought you were posting on a phone because of the language/grammar/typing you use.
Well to name afew off the top of my head, Corinne posted she had "groundbreaking news" about Kelly's past. Nothing ever came of it. Jodi's brothers 'serious mental illness!' is greatly exaggerated also. Apparently he has a 'very violent history', but actually has no criminal record. And again there is the DNA that doesn't actually point anywhere. Oh and Ferris being "ostracized" by the family and chased out of the area. When really his mother just moved in with a new partner in Ayrshire.
Joe Jones is by all accounts a normal guy, a far cry from the derranged psycho and loose cannon he's been painted as on that forum. He is engaged and has a job which he wouldn't be allowed to have if he had a notable criminal record or mental illness. He delivers medication for pharmaceutical companies.
Can you blame them when their only suspect at the time was telling interviewing officers to go home and listen to this song - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcUgsvpchms
I dont have an opinion on this case, im afraid. i havent really read anything about it.
"I will stab with a big **** stick and watch your blood spill on the soil, I will watch as you wither and die." - Luke Mitchell
Is that your motto at the bottom of your posts ?
That incident was obviously after the murder. His little sister was murdered, someone has been locked up for it, Sandra is telling the world he didn't do it, without actually knowing. It is a very normal human reaction to go to her door and confront her about the hurt she is causing his family. Keep in mind this is a family totally convinced of Luke's guilt after weighing up all options.
10G – Blood, labelled “o/s front piece of shirt (2).
I disagree, especially as you say "this is a family totally convinced of Luke's guilt after weighing up all options". As you say, "someone has been locked up for it", so why wasn't her brother laughing his head off at Dr Lean saying Luke "didn't do it", instead of going to her home threatening her.
nugnug how would you feel if you had the role of the man of your house hold and someone was causing your mother the distress Sandra has caused Jodi's mother?
Janine said so. simple as that.
Or maybe she was lying to protect her boyfriend who raped and murdered her young sister?
Do you know Steven kelly Lithium? Tell me more about the parka....
I've just found out who nugnug is. :)
He said he wasn't impressed with how I outed Chelsea so quickly for using fake pics.
He'l be impressed by this though.
Should I expose him?
Does anyone really care who he is? I don't. I'm supposed to be nugnug as well as many others, and he has been accused of being so many others too. We are who we are, just anonymous posters on an internet forum. People have outed people before claiming they are such and such, post pictures of a person etc but when all is said and done, it still isnt a proven fact they are who the outer says they are. It's all pretty pointless, as it would make no difference if nugnug is Tom Cruise, or Roch is Ricky Hatton, we are all still entitled to an opinion and will offer it and join in on debates. Nugnug has been around for years, I can't imagine the threat of being outed, or actually being outed would stop him from posting his opinions on miscarriage of justice cases.
well if she had clean clothes on in the morning she wouldn't have to have changed.
Sandra you're so transparent. :-\
The police officers words being riddled with "eh"' and "oh" to give the impression they are confused, and typing the officers parts in slang in an attempt to make them look like unprofessional idiots. I'm sure Luke has some "umm"s and pauses in there too. Little things like this are my problem with you.
Sandra why don't you upload the funeral day interview which you have a copy of and let everyone come to their own opinion? Selective reporting again.Do you mean the one Luke did with Sky?
Sandra why don't you upload the funeral day interview which you have a copy of and let everyone come to their own opinion? Selective reporting again.
Sandra you're so transparent. :-\
The police officers words being riddled with "eh"' and "oh" to give the impression they are confused, and typing the officers parts in slang in an attempt to make them look like unprofessional idiots. I'm sure Luke has some "umm"s and pauses in there too. Little things like this are my problem with you.
Thanks for the information though.
Isn't Corinne aware smoking at 14 is illegal, smoking cannabis is illegal at any age, as is dealing it
Every person changes clothes after school, she would have had her shirt and tie on under her hoodie for a start.
No, Lithium, of course I didn't. I knew you were setting me up from the start. Thank you, though, or allowing me another opportunity to get more of the TRUTH about this case out in the public domain :)
By the way, I also know why you're here, but we'll just keep that between us, ok?
defending Corinnes lies with an irrelevant dig at Jodi's family. Class act, Sandra.
Oh not you as well. :-\ Everyone seems to be playing this game on there this week. :-\
A perfect example of my last post, Lithium! It's not irrelevant, and it's not a dig! Two fourteen year old kids were "breaking the law" by smoking cigarettes and cannabis. A member of Jodi's family was known to be dealing large amounts of cannabis, Luke shared some of his with his friends! Members of Jodi's extended family were known to be dealing cannabis.
If smoking cigarettes and cannabis, or dealing cannabis, are relevant to this case, then it is relevant to all of those who were doing so.
Can't someone just believe Luke is guilty?
I must say that must be frustrating as here we have a public forum that anyone can join and it seems your on your lonesome in regards to the guilty argument.
Everyone in the area knows he did it. Everyone relevant to the case knows he did it.
I read that you had quit discussion on this topic mat.
So no one should comment when they see people posting things they disagree with? One quick example being Luke having none of Jodi's DNA on him. Do you want the thread to be one-sided or fair?
Keep in mind Ferris was one of the first to say "it was Luke" and he even handed a knife of Lukes in to police, maybe he did want to help with the investigation as much as he could nd point them in the right direction without implicating himself. He could still face charges to this day for his dishonesty which would explain his "leave me alone" comments to people tracking him down.
and of course the word of a self confesed drug dealer means everything.
I've not heard that before. Whilst he was supposedly sat at home - he was using his mobile phone to call the talking clock?Sandra said in an earlier post, that evidence was produced in court, that shows Luke often used to call the speaking clock from home.
Yea from home. so why, this time, did he use his mobile?The way I understood it was, he would often call the speaking clock, from his mobile whilst in the house. This sounded odd to me but apparently they could pinpoint the call from the mast records. I don't believe that any records could have pinpointed where calls from the mobile were made. Maybe to within a mile or so but no more accurate than that. I stand to be corrected.
So there's absolutely no proof he's ever called it from his mobile while being inside his house then ...I agree. I'm sure that Sandra suggested otherwise earlier in the thread.
i would gues someone might call the speaking clock becouse they wanted to know the right time because they clock or watch is wrong.Yes, I think it has been suggested that the kitchen clock was unreliable but when he called the speaking clock from his mobile, how can it be proved that he did so from within the house?
im not sure they could probably track the phone signal.They can decipher which mast the call went through, therefor they can trace it to a certain area but just how accurately they can pinpoint it, is the question. Did he make that call from in the house or from half a mile down the road?
When we talk about the calls from his mobile whether they occur in the house or outside the arguement is the same.Thanks Gordo, in that case I don't see the relevance of the phone call. I thought that it had been brought up in order to prove that he was at home when the call was made. On the previous occasions that he called the speaking clock, was he calling from home or outside of the house?
The fact is there are records from Lukes call logs just how many times he had done this over period of months and they were numerous, are you suggesting at these times also he was murdering someone?
The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.
Thats the thing about mobiles Neil there not designed to locate where every call was made from. Well 9 years ago anyway. If Luke had stated and I cant remember if he did that he made numerous phone calls to the speaking clock from the house there was no way to prove it. The fact that he had made a call from the mobile to the speaking clock is what some are calling suspicous and if it had been the 1st time it had happened I would have agreed.Thanks Gordo, I was being a bit thick there! Yes of course, the prosecution used the phone call to place Luke outside of the house. I must admit, on the face of it it does look a bit dodgy, him calling the speaking clock from home but like most evidence in this case, it can be explained away.
The call to the speaking clock Luke made was at a time that the landline was busy with the internet contrary to what lithium says.
His brother never saw him or heard him at home making these calls though.
I must admit if he had heard him it would make for a great defence of insanity as most people tend not to have conversations with the speaking clock.
There are always strange things people have the habit of doing, there unexplainable and I understand when there taken within the context of a murder investigation then they become serious.I quite agree. A lot is made of Shane's statement and how his account of that day changed. I think that Sandra explained this really well on here the other day. What did you do last Monday between 4 and 6?
If he did have a history of using this often, but it was always when he was away from home, then it would be safe to assume he wasnt at home when he used it at this instance. That's what we are getting at by mentioning the talking clock. Not that it's suspicious in its self.
Assuming he used his mobile to call the premium rate number because he wasn't in his house is a very reasonable conclusion to come to no matter how you try and paint it, it's the most obvious explanation, admit it.
The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.Perhaps it was his standard behaviour when he needed some kind of alibi for something? Can't see any other reason for calling the speaking clock from a phone that has a clock on it, unless you wanted to prove you were on the phone at a particular time for some reason?
Yeah I know, but it doesnt change the fact she believes she saw him on the day of the murder. She identified the 14 year old she saw when she was presented with a picture of him at 14 years old. Not recognising him at 16 years old is understandable don't you agree?
It does however bring the testimony of a certain couple into context though mat wouldn't you agree as they did identify him.
I know her identification no longer stands for anything in the court of law because she couldnt recognise him. I'm aware of that. But I still believe her original sighting was Luke and I've explained why.
If that wasn't Luke and Jodi she saw at the path, who are these people? where are they? why were they never found? why didn't they come forward?
I'm happy to accept it was Luke and Jodi.
and you're not completely right, although she couldn't identify him in the dock, her early sighting still played it's part in the evidence against him. So it did still matter.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4483217/Killer-Mitchells-600k-bid-to-clear-his-name.html
"KILLER Luke Mitchell’s bid to clear his name has cost almost £600,000, The Scottish Sun can reveal.
The 24-year-old was caged in 2005 for slaughtering 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones.
Figures show he has been granted £571,383 in legal aid for his trial and appeals — and the bill is likely to soar even further as he continues his campaign to persuade judges he is innocent.
Last month his mum Corinne handed a 300-page dossier to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which included claims a Mitchell lookalike may have confused eyewitnesses."
See this here is another example of picking and choosing and trying to have it both ways, I've saw Corinne on the WAP forum questioning witness sighting legitimacy, but now Mitchell camp are now happy to accept that they did see someone, it just may have been Mark Kane? (Who doesn't look like Luke Mitchell, by the way)
tsk tsk. That person was traced a week later!FFS! you really have to reasearch more about this crime and stop reading papers. The man did indeed go to the police and say that the man was seen during the reconstruction. The papers ran with it but were wrong(unbelievable I know) as after the police had interviewed him he was on holiday in America at the time of the murder, so no he was never identified.
And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !
And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it !
I've actually never read about him coming forward in a paper. Can you post a news link of that?
the stocky guy isn't relevant. Have WAP decided weather it was Joey or Kelly yet?
Joey wasn't stocky at time of murder, he was tall and average build. Kelly would have been described as overweight.
Stocky man was never front page news.
Here's Kelly and Joey
(http://i.imgur.com/eLRH0.png)
Why do you think your personal opinion is of any importance to me or could have any effect on proceedings lol who are you???? I'm not accusing Ferris of murder.
2 days after the murder Luke told Jodis mum he never bothered calling to see where she was as he assumed she had been grounded. But he had spoken to Judy's partner who told him "she's on her way to meet you" So can you explain this?
quote a post where I've asked you to name a murderer. I asked if the WAP forum have decided between Kelly and Joey yet being Stocky Man. No mention of murder here.
Legally it should never have been admitted.
The other couple saw him in roughly the same circumstances as AB did. In a car travelling and through the rear view mirror, incidently both described different clothes , hair ect. wonder which one was right?
You are partially wrong on this point gordo30. Both driver and passenger saw him through the front windscreen as they approached him and the driver got a second glance in the rear view mirror after they passed him.
they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.
in court they described seeing him standing by an old wooden gate just yards from the end of the footpath where jodi had her throat cut just minutes earlier.
Way out of context again, this is about the possiblity that someone like Luke exists and known to the police while he was within the perameters to have been questioned and if so iliminated. Its all about the failure of the police and not simply to say that it was MK seen at the path with Jodi.
Yeah but the description don't match that of AB.
I was just outlining the circumstances as you seem to agree with me that both sightings included the rear view mirror, I belevie they happen to see someone from the windscreen F&W that is.
he dident have shoulder lenth hair hed collour lenth hair as the pic of him shows.oh look.......mitchell with shoulder length hair just weeks after the murder.
so it couldent have been him.
mark kane was miles away at the time of the attack. this was all checked out by lothian and borders finest.
oh look.......mitchell with shoulder length hair just weeks after the murder.
(http://i.imgur.com/8lDVS.jpg)
thats not shoulder length hair.
thats not shoulder length hair.
Fleming and Walsh's statements are so far removed from "descriptions" of Luke, it is surprising that they were ever actually used as witnesses. Both said, in their initial statements, that the youth had dark hair, both said they didn't see his face, one had him wearing jeans - definitely, categorically not baggies, because she would have noticed that, their descriptions of his jacket differed from each other, and neither could say what he was wearing under the jacket, although they weren't sure if the jacket was zipped up or open. By the time it got to court, one stated she would never forget his eyes (which, according to her statements, she had never seen), they described a black t shirt with writing on it (which neither had mentioned in their statements), and, at one point, one of them was pulled up in court for using the exact phrase the other had given in evidence the day before - a phrase which had never appeared in any of their statements (the obvious point being that they were discussing their evidence).
they described him as having near shoulder length hair, a dark green bomber jacket with orange lining, a black t-shirt with white writing on it just as mitchell wore that afternoon.Why didn't they go to the police and why did they lie?
shoulder length hair covers your shoulder i thought any berk knew that.shoulder length hair is any hair which as a minimum can touch the shoulders.
Stocky man was never front page news.
Here's Kelly and Joey
(http://i.imgur.com/eLRH0.png)
sandra lean posts what she picks out to suit herself. she has been caught out on many occasions posting rubbish.
as for moj scotland they will host every tom dick and harry just to get their grubby paws on grant money.
That's a male. And no one is targeting Sandra, i wasn't even aware she had an account here when I began posting.
shoulder lengh hair.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=shoulder+length+hair&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Hff&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=I2I1UN_ZEcKk0AXclYDwBQ&ved=0CFIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=653
Your a riot nugnug. That link is all females ::)
I would describe Luke's hair at the time as being collar length but there will be men, especially shaven men or follicly challenged males who would probably describe it as shoulder length.
nugnug, shoulder length hair is any hair that reaches the shoulder. Google "Male shoulder length hair" it will give you these pics:
(http://cs1.fashionising.com/media/hair-trends/mens-shoulder-length-straight-hair.jpg)
(http://www.menshairstyles.net/d/79771-1/Men+layered+shoulder-length+haircut+with+long+bangs.PNG)
(http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes//healthandbeauty/men/201008033959/male-celebrity/hairstyles/2010/0-9-890/johnny-hair--z.jpg)
(http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a05/rj/rd/style-medium_length-hair-men-800x800.jpg)
OnceSaid I find it funny you want to know if that's a male or not, another potential suspect i take it? ::)
yes but the witness wernt men so they know perfectly well what shoulder length meant.
Yet Luke said he took 6 steps to the left and saw feet, and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body.
It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.
These people have little else to do, so they copy and paste from the DR comments page etc and pass it off as fact. They obviously have no interest on reading the information provided from official documentation. By targetting this thread, what they have done is make people question why inaccurate information and miselading information is being posted by them.
If they were convinced that the right person was in prison, why would anyone come onto fourms to try and convince people that he is guilty, when he was found guilty years ago? It makes no sense. I genuinely believe that they are not convinced that the right person is in prison, or they know for a fact that the right person is not in prison.
I understand what your saying here m8 but I do feel that there are genuine people out there who believe Luke is guilty, they use sites like this to try and understand why others feel he is innocent. But why do they come to a Jeremy Bamber forum, or quote from the Daily Record comments page? Why not go to Luke Mitchells official site, do the research then fire away with questions? There have been links continually posted linking them to the wap forum, for people to read but yet they don't seem to take any notice of them. It is very frustrating indeed. I don't expect everyone to think that Luke is innocent, but I do expect people to read up on the facts first, its the least they could do. I welcome their discussion and input as I also wonder why they feel he is guilty. I also welcome discussion from people who believe he is guilty as I too wonder why they feel this way, but on this thread firstly there was Lamberton posting just for the sake of it, as he does, then there are others who have posted as if they are experts on the case, when they haven't even done their research. I think your bang on about those who decide to argue their point based on innaccuracies as we spend a lot of time correcting them only to be accused of selectively doing so. There is a misinformation thread on the wap forum and quite frankly Sandra Lean could be in their 24/7 if she had to correct all the misinformation that is posted elsewhere on forums and the tabloids. I just cant understand for the life of me, why people cant look at the facts of the case, then make their minds up. Peoples minds seem to be closed that he could potentially be innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones.All these innacuracies that you have written in bold, I have read before. The information was being posted by a very aggressive contributer. I will try and find the link, especially what they had to say about stocky man.
The problem I also have is this reasoning about us not having a thread of evidence for his innocence, there is nothing for his guilt either, thats not me saying this its the judge. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and as the judge said that anyone piece of it could not have convicted him but together their weight gave the jury enough to decide on, that jury couldn't decide on it as some found him innocent. It is only by a stroke of luck or a stroke of genuis whichever way one looks at it, that certain other individuals are not sitting where Luke Mitchell is right now, IMO.
The innacuracies is so numerous that the case becomes unrecognisable i. we have
Chinese garden being a local take away= when it was a secluded area that the kids used.
Shane had dinner with his mother= when it has always been stated by everyone that he took his upstairs,Corrine went outside and Luke was in the living room.
Luke left the house at 5:45= Luke always said he left the house just after dinner and slightly after Shane did He put that at around 5:30.
The calls from Luke to Jodi's house were witnessed by Corrine= When Luke always maintained that he made the 1st call when he left the house and the second as he walked up Newbattle road. Corrine has never claimed that she saw him make these calls.
And he didnt go down the path he walked right past it != Im really starting to worry about this bit of info as it has always been acknowledged that stocky man was never traced and if someone is withholding info then that becomes serious. I think that because of the matter of fact way it was stated.
and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body. = He never maintained it was Jodi just that it looked like a mannequin.
Thats just a few but when people are arguing their point based on them its easy to see why they may feel he is guilty, shame really.
"the person the eye witnesses saw couldnt have been luke, their description didn't match Luke at all!"
"The person the eye witnesses saw may have been Mark Kane, he bears a striking resemblance to Luke!"
::)
Which one is it?
No one who lives in the real world thinks for a second that conviction will ever be overturned. I'll put good money on that if anyone is willing to take that bet. Luke will be lucky to walk out the gate in 10 years.
He was found guilty in a court of law based on 20 chapters of evidence.
The burden of proof isn't on us to prove him guilty any more, surely you understand the burden of proof is on his supporters who are trying to convince everyone he's innocent?
Too bad they can't, because proof doesn't exist. You don't know he's innocent, Gordo and nugnug don't have a clue weather he's innocent, Sandra Lean doesn't have the slightest clue weather he's innocent. I have read the other site and I still haven't saw any solid evidence from Mitchells supporters to change my mind or to even warrant a miscarriage of justice claim.
I've investigated all your so called evidence, I watched the frontline doc, and the big reveal was some completely irrelevant jake ball who has become caught up in this case because his crook mate was trying to sell a story for 50k. (The essay about killing a girl in the woods never existed, surprise surprise)
Even after it was confirmed he had nothing to do with it and had been cleared, you are now saying "ok then he didnt kill jodi, but he might have been the person witnesses seen instead of Luke!" after saying all this time that the eye witnesses were lying. It's ridiculous. It would be laughable if it wasnt such a serious matter. As for Sandra Lean spending 24 hours a day correcting misinformation, I believe she is one of the worst for posting misinformation, and I had to correct her words from the rough justice video "there was no DNA on luke linking him to the crime and no DNA on Jodi linking Luke to the crime", even Findlay had to explain the DNA away on Luke's trousers by saying it could be innocent. It very much existed.
The WAP forum has built circumstancial cases against every male close to Jodi and still none of it changes anything about Luke. Instead of doing that, start posting reasons why Luke is innocent, instead of trying to find ways other people are guilty. You can't.
"It is only by a stroke of luck or a stroke of genuis whichever way one looks at it, that certain other individuals are not sitting where Luke Mitchell is right now, IMO."
No, these people you are talking about all had alibis that checked out, no ones alibi dramatically fell apart like Luke's did.
nugnug, no convictions getting over turned. So many legal teams have failed, most of the reasons Lukes supporters post, his lawyers dont even find it worth while mentioning, because they live in the real world. They know there is no way to prove Luke innocent so they appeal on technicalities.
Mitchells supporters (all 5 of them that is) creep me out, they remind me of a cult.
Stop trying to be controversial and go and spend your time backing another MOJ case which actually has a leg to stand on.
Two independent witnesses, one who knew Jodi, described a stocky man following her down the main Easthouses Road just after 5pm on June 30th. Police appealed for him to come forward. A week later, at the reconstruction, one of the witnesses thought he saw the man again, hi-fiving one of his mates.
The man "identified" came forward very quickly- he had literally just returned to the area that day. He was checked out, and his whereabouts at the time of the murder verified, so he was ruled out. Which left "Stocky Man" still unaccounted for.
To this day, he has never been traced. Both witnesses described him as following "closely" behind Jodi. Nobody's saying he's a murderer - he might have seen something or someone, but, as he never came forward, we'll probably never know. And, since he's never been traced, and none of the witnesses saw where he went, no-one can possibly say "He didn't turn onto the path, he went straight past it," unless, of course, they are stocky man, or they know him!
It is absolutely impossible to keep up with this rate of misinformation correction, and, frankly, having done it before on WAP, I'm not prepared to do it again. Any readers who would like to see the alternative to what Lithium and Buffalo Bill have posted, can check out WAP. At least our inormation comes from official papers, not local gossip and tabloids.
i dont know you would have to ask the mods.
Yes he is.... ;)
Hi Patti, does that mean he can't post under Buffalo Bill either?
Hope not, as I can't be doing with all his nonsense.
My grandmother (long since dead) was picked up and held by Buffalow Bill when he came to England in the 1890's with his Wild West show. She was a little girl then about 4 or 5.Goodness Lugg, that's a claim to fame. :o :o ;D
I am very interested in this case. Do you have information as to what length of questioning Stephen Kelly underwent regarding his DNA profile and the victim. Also the other cases that You have looked into ?
because he had an alibi, from jodi's own sister no less
you really dont have anything solid to focus on at all so you cling to things like small mistakes in the familys statements and dna on her sisters shirt
says alot about your case
and is that stephanie in her picture
maybe i will call u after all
;D
because he had an alibi, from jodi's own sister no less
another pointless post with no substance from nugnug what else is new
Anyone can give someone an alibi, doesn't make it true though. As for Jodi's sister giving Kelly an alibi, only she will know whether she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I am not convinced that Kelly had an airtight alibi, but that doesn't mean that I think he murdered JJ's.
Luke didn't have a "defence team" until 7 months later - he wasn't charged with anything, and was released on August 14th after the Section 14 "interview" without charge - there's no legal aid for being a "suspect" (except initial advice and assistance) - Luke's legal team would only be paid for coming out to represent him/advise him when the police descended to interrogate him.Again unfortunately that is typical of the police. They get a suspect and concentrate entirely up on him instead of looking for anyone else. Pretty stupid really. Most of them are very lacking in the intelligence department.
The statements about the identical t shirts did not come into existence until almost 5 weeks after Luke was last interrogated - even if his legal team had been allowed into the interview (which they were not), they wouldn't have known anything about SK's DNA on the t shirt.
Why wasn't he investigated more closely? I have no idea - Luke was the prime suspect from the minute the body was found, although the police insist it was 2 days later. I guess, by the time this info got to them, all their eggs were in the one basket, gunning for Luke.
Sandra, At what stage did Luke speak to a legal representative, and as a minor was a solicitor present at his Police Interviews ? I am unclear from your earlier post.Being a minor he was entitled to an appropriate adult as well as a solicitor. The trouble is that they give the person arrested a form where you tick boxes and sign it at the end. The police will not advice the person if the person does not know what "Do you require a legal representative?" means and therefore the confused minor will often tick the "No" box. Police will try and get away with many things if they are allowed to. You will often find some of the biggest crooks in the police force, as the Jersey childrens homes scandal proves.
LOL this will poddle lithiums noddle but I also don't feel SK murdered JJ either. I just feel he doesn't really understand what our side of things is here.
Hows uni m8? I saw you on FF the other day, how strange it is that this case should turn up almost everywhere.
OH BTW didn't one of the early statements from the family (you know those statements when everything is fresh in the mind) say that Janine was in the house at some point close to Jodi coming home from school and no sign of Mr Kelly.
was it Joe or Steven, make your mind up please.
and still you saying that doesn't change anything. :)
Innocent transfer. Case closed.
lol, unless every single murder victim was wearing their sisters shirt, and the sperm conveniently happened to be her sisters boyfriends, then no.
Don't be silly.
Where do you live nugnug are you in Edinburgh?
Your point?
Ah yes so they both killed Jodi for no apparent reason, Joe stood there and watched as his sisters boyfriend murdered his youngest sister. Or was it vice versa?
It definitely had nothing to do with her knife carrying boyfriend who she had walked the path to meet, the same one who couldn't get his alibi straight and was spotted on both sides of the path by independent witnesses.
I know which one I find easier to believe.
No matter how many times you repeat that, it will never matter. Haha.
They aren't my scenarios though are they. He was spotted arguing with her at Easthouses end, then later spotted alone at Newbattle end.
What happened on the path then. Who else would she climb the wall with or what reason would she have to go over, if she was headed straight for Luke's alone like you suggest.
Janine said so herself. This will never change.
What reason has she for lying in the investigation of her sisters murder?
and still you saying that doesn't change anything. :)
Innocent transfer. Case closed.
They aren't my scenarios though are they. He was spotted arguing with her at Easthouses end, then later spotted alone at Newbattle end.
What happened on the path then. Who else would she climb the wall with or what reason would she have to go over, if she was headed straight for Luke's alone like you suggest.
lol, unless every single murder victim was wearing their sisters shirt, and the sperm conveniently happened to be her sisters boyfriends, then no.
Don't be silly.
Where do you live nugnug are you in Edinburgh?
I made nothing up.
Any explanation as to why you would be connected to images for John Braes Gardiner Lamberton?haha.........well spotted! ;D
http://www.yasni.co.uk/john+braes+gardiner+lamberton/check+people
i dont belive that lithum is john i think i know who is but i am not going to say at this time.
Wow, OnceSaid embarrassed herself. That website works by giving image results for the persons name.
John Lamberton has been typed numerous times in this thread i'm posting in, so ofcourse my avi would appear.
How else would you suggest that my avatar, which is a picture that only appears on this website, would show in search results for a term that has been typed in this thread? If you click the picture of my avatar on that site, it will direct you to this very thread as the source. Genius.
If you really want to play this game, let me know. xxxx xxxx. I can do far more than just use a website that googles keywords. :) I've told all of you this before though. Do you know what that mask symbolizes btw?
Old people really should learn how to internet better. ::)
Wow, OnceSaid embarrassed herself. That website works by giving image results for the persons name.
John Lamberton has been typed numerous times in this thread i'm posting in, so ofcourse my avi would appear.
How else would you suggest that my avatar, which is a picture that only appears on this website, would show in search results for a term that has been typed in this thread? If you click the picture of my avatar on that site, it will direct you to this very thread as the source. Genius.
If you really want to play this game, let me know. xxxx xxxx. I can do far more than just use a website that googles keywords. :) I've told all of you this before though. Do you know what that mask symbolizes btw?
Old people really should learn how to internet better. ::)
So what other logical assumption do you have???
If I were Lamberton, and the link between the name and my avatar isn't this thread (which isnt up for debate considering the website will tell you this when u click for the source of the picture, not sure why im repeating this) , then what other mysterious reason would his full name link to a picture that was taken and posted only on this website?
:-\
does FreeSimonHall even know what she's replying to right now? I'm sure even Gordo agrees your response to his message was irrelevant and unrelated to what he was trying to say, am I right Gordo
I saw you reference FF earlier, it wasn't me you saw posting, but I had a look and couldn't see any Luke thread? I'd be curious to read it if there was one?
As for how I feel about the review, I'm confident nothing will come of it. Another Luke Mitchell appeal/loophole being exhausted, what else is new?
You sure you want that mate? how about that message from Corinne in which she offers her scenario of what happened and who was involved?
You want that?
Sure you do pal. Come out with it then what are you scared of? This isn't the Luke Mitchell forum you don't have to conceal your true opinions to Private Messages.
Did everyone hear about a teenage girl being attacked and raped by a man with a local accent in woods in Dalkeith earlier this week? have the police caught anyone for it?
What I find strange about the quote in my signature is him saying he will watch his victims blood spill on the 'soil', what a strange thing to say. Just where is this fantasy taking place? Remind any one else of a certain murder scene?
Sticks too? almost as if he's describing a wooded area.
Wasn't blood found on branches and sticks near Jodi?
thanks sandra lfunny a while ago we put this question to the owner of the blood he denied it and threatned to sue but so far he has never got around to it.
he said the matter was with his solicitor but funnly enough this solicitor hasnt sent out any letters yet.
this was roughly 2 years ago.
i think ill post the conversation up in a little while.
what question you idiot. And how's any of this funny you little weirdo.
nugnug thinks I'm Steven Kelly by the way. Hilarious. Why are you so concerned about working out who I am? What does it matter? I'm text on a screen to you.
... there are no reliable sources reporting blood. You know that.I posted the Guardian article, and, in particular, this:
The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body.Lithium at first ignored this direct proof that his previous quote was mistaken, posting, instead,
was it the same convo where it was established that the person in questions footprints weren't those found at the scene and it couldn't be him unless he was having a tommy tank up a tree?
2 different people then, which one was it? plus the condom had nothing to do with the murder and you know it
no female dna on it, and reports from yourself that he'd have to have "walked over jodi's body" to leave the condom there aren't very honest.
It's reporting like this that I have an issue with.Me too, considering what Lithium comes away with next:
Jodi's body in a 6ft x 4ft space at the very most, in a wooded area behind a wall.What? You asked nugnug earlier for a source for his post – may we please have a source for this outlandish claim?
You're saying JaF couldn't have walked to the spot where the condom was found from his house without stepping over that exact area where the body was laying? That's just stupid.Nope, never said any such thing. Once behind the wall, from the big gap at the Easthouses end, if Falconer had walked the distance and direction he told police three years later he did, he could not have missed Jodi’s body – he would have to have passed it, and that’s giving the absolute benefit of the doubt. Because of the description he gave of the pathway he took, then his own statement means he would, almost literally, have had to step over the body. It’s not rocket science – this is what Falconer, himself, told police.
Just because Luke found the body and identified it so quickly in the darkness, doesn't mean it was so visable for anyone else in the area.Really? So why did AW, SK, Luke, and a minimum of 4 police officers all describe being able to see a similar thing, in the woodland, sometime around 11.30pm that evening, when it was dark? According to Falconer, he’d been there much earlier in the evening – while it was still daylight.
What have I ever done to you or any one on the bamber forum roch?
What have I ever done to you or any one on the bamber forum roch?
Patti xxxx'd out "fresh cuts/scratches" why?
Lithium, for all your bravado and IT savvy, I think you need to watch your step on here. Not that you wouldn't hack the forum if you were banned. But I think people are getting sick of your arrogance. Reign it in... or you are banned.
And who am I trying to scare? You took it there first by trying to work out who I am and accusing me of being Steven Kelly. Mods, do you not want me posting on here? I'll leave no bother if that's the case just say the word.
And who am I trying to scare? You took it there first by trying to work out who I am and accusing me of being Steven Kelly. Mods, do you not want me posting on here? I'll leave no bother if that's the case just say the word.
I don't mind you discussing the case.... :)
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.
Why do you think Luke was not at home? :-\ :-\It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them.
I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.
The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body. He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there. Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?
Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?
It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.
We may never know if there was forensic evidence linking Luke as the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night. This is an issue that Luke's supporters will use while also using the "no dna linking him" thing. Picking and choosing again.
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.
do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.
do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????
not just the condom there was sperm and blood found one her clothes that didn't belong to luke.
The person who left the condom was traced, weather his excuse true or false, the condom definitely wasn't involved in the murder.
It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.
At a time when Luke was supposed to be at home burning a chicken pie that he served to his brother and mum, his brother was upstairs viewing porn, and has no recollection of Luke making his dinner that night, or even hearing or seeing him atall. (that is until mum had a word in his ear, and he soon changed his statement)
At a time when Luke was supposed to be at home, he's making calls from his pay and go mobile, instead of using the landline, his mobile records show he was phoning the premium rate "speaking clock", what teenager would waste afew quid of his mobile credit when his house would no doubt have numerous sources of time?
His brother doesn't hear Luke making these calls. ::)
the there are many dna sampels there 2 seprate lots of sperm one of the sperm donners also managed to leave some of there blood there.
I plan to make a post highlighting all the various genuine reasons I believe Luke is guilty, as I fear I'm just coming off as a troll on here. I will post it soon. I am not some mindless sheep who just backs every conviction, I am open minded and don't come to any decision without investigating it, but I have heard nothing from his support that would make me believe differently when weighing it up against my various reasons. There was 20 pages of 'various reasons' it was Luke, weather L&B botched the investigation or not.
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?
It was minor traces of sperm which tells me iit has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as contact from dirty washing or dirty hands. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene, there would be a far more substantial amount of sperm, obviously.
One of the things nug is talking about is sperm on Jodi's shirt. This was investigated by L&B and deemed irrelevant when they discovered Jodi was actually wearing her sisters shirt, the girlfriend of who's sperm it was. The same sister who was the sperm-donor's alibi. Would you protect your kid sisters murderer?
funny she made no mention of t shirt being hers till her boyfriends sperm was found on it.
Her sister had just been murdered in the most brutal way. I can forgive her for not concentrating on things such as the t-shirt. Janine isn't allowed to forget a shirt, but it's alright when Shane completely forgets seeing and hearing a human being serve him dinner?
Besides, she would have no reason to mention the shirt was hers until the sperm was found on it. Sisters share clothes all the time, this wouldn't be relevant until the sperm discovery. Quickly explained. End of.
So was Kelly ejaculating at the murder scene or was he bleeding? the 2 would contradict each other. And Kelly was involved in the search party, ask Luke if he noticed any fresh xxxxx on Kelly's face that night. As for Falconer, you're forgetting I've seen most of your 'theories' you shared in private messages, none of you even believe he had any part in it, so why drag a mans name through the mud? I personally don't care what he was doing in the woods with the condom.
(take all the legal action you want about the PMs by the way, I welcome it, this isn't my first rodeo and I have all the proof at the ready that I broke no laws if it were to come to it, and I seem to remember gordo requesting I posted one of them)
It was minor traces of sperm which tells me iit has to have been some sort of innocent transfer such as contact from dirty washing or dirty hands. If he ejaculated there and then at the scene, there would be a far more substantial amount of sperm, obviously.
and did his blood innocently transfer as well.
Must have done. He certainly wasn't bleeding on the day or night of the muder so it must have been from a previous time if it was there. He was involved in the search party, ask Luke if he was bleedng.
Explain how he could be ejaculating and bleeding at the same time, was he raping Jodi (although there was no sign of sexual attack) or was he bleeding from a violent struggle???
All your "evidence" contradicts each other, much like when you accuse various people. Rules each other out. Can't have it all ways. All these far fetched theories but you won't consider it might have been Jodi's drug dealing, knife carrying boyfriend who she went out to meet that afternoon? Why not?
Who said he cleaned any of his own DNA off? the fact his DNA wasn't on Jodi, even though they were in contact at school that day, but Kelly's dna was present, only proves more that the source of the DNA must have been the shirt she chaned into before going to meet Luke! simple!
Luke had been out playing with mates all night, you know that, so why mention his nails being dirty to support him being innocent?
He could easily have showered. It's not debatable that he went back out and played on a tree swing in the woods with mates. Ofcourse he'd be dirty. That's the best you have? ???
On the subject of him being out with his mates, there is another issue bothering me. I'll add that to my list I'm about to compile.
It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them.
I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.
The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body. He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there. Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?
Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?
It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.
We may never know if there was forensic evidence linking Luke as the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night. This is an issue that Luke's supporters will use while also using the "no dna linking him" thing. Picking and choosing again.
It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them.
I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.
The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body. He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there. Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?
there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.
do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi????
I plan to make a post highlighting all the various genuine reasons I believe Luke is guilty, as I fear I'm just coming off as a troll on here. I will post it soon. I am not some mindless sheep who just backs every conviction, I am open minded and don't come to any decision without investigating it, but I have heard nothing from his support that would make me believe differently when weighing it up against my various reasons. There was 20 pages of 'various reasons' it was Luke, weather L&B botched the investigation or not.
Sorry for wasting your time in tinychat suzie, but me forwarding the document I received could possibly open me up to legal action.
Who's to say he shampood his hair anyway? This was a grungy 14 year old kid who kept bottles of urine stashed all over his bedroom.
The hood of his missing parka jacket would have sufficiently covered his hair during the murder.
Trust me there was nothing illegal about me receiving a zip file from an anonymous source. (that I didn't even ask for.) The person who sent me it obviously wanted me to expose the information for them. I wouldn't rule it out being one of WAP's members who sent it to me, hoping I would put certain information out there that they aren't allowed to themselves, about Joey for example.
I didn't distribute the information til the owner of said information (gordo) requested that I did. If WAP want to come after me for it that's fine, I've never touched their site. I have everything I need at the ready to confirm this.
With his alibi falling apart, along with the use of the mobile phone during the times, I am happy to accept he wasn't at home when he said he was, what reason would he have to lie? Where was he?
The sightings:
A Brysons sighting is consistent with where Jodi would have been roughly since her time of leaving house, had Luke went to meet her. This time also ties in with the pair being behind the wall, when a passing cyclist heard a "strangling" sound. Luke was also spotted on the opposite side of the path, alone, looking like he was "up to no good", at a time which would tie in with both the original sighting, and the sound heard by the cyclist.
This sighting at the other end was when Luke phoned Jodi's house asking where she was, he was putting his plan into place, Jodi's mums partner informed him that she had already left to meet him. He said "Ok cool". What reason would Bryson have to lie about her sighting? and If not Luke and Jodi, who was this young local couple who matched Luke and Jodi's description, never identified, never to come forward?
Bryson also described the male as wearing what could be the green parka jacket that Luke had been known to wear, but disappeared at the time of the murder, later replaced by his mother. Luke's own friends and school teacher confirm he owned such a parker before the murder, again, what reason would a school teacher have to lie?
Bryson identified a picture of Luke near the time of the murder as "as sure as she could be" it was who she saw, Luke had aged, grown his hair, and looked very different in court at a later date, and Bryson couldn't identify him in the dock, this does not rule out the fact she was sure the person she saw was a 14 year old Luke Mitchell.
She also said the girls hair was in a ponytail, a hair scrunchie was present when the body of Jodi was discovered.
Luke told his mum before going back out with his mates, ( his chance to get dirty again) - "if Jodi turns up, tell her where to find me" (im paraphrasing), but when asked by his mates if jodi was coming out, Luke informed them that she wouldn't be. Why was he adamant she wouldn't show, when Jodi's mums partner informed him that she was on her way to see him?
Luke went home that night and never bothered phoning Jodi to see why she never showed up earlier, not as much as a good night text. Why wasn't he worried? It was when Jodi's mum texted Luke telling her to come home that Luke phoned her saying he hadn't seen her all night. Luke decided he would head over and meet them, he took a torch, and his pet dog.
What was the torch for, surely he didn't already suspect they would be searching for a dead body?
Finding the body:
Luke claims his partly trained tracker dog lead him to the body. If this was the case, why didn't the dog alert him on the way up the path? He would have had to have passed the body when heading up to meet with Jodi's Gran, sister, and sister's bf, Steven Kelly. The dog never smelled the blood on the way up, which would make it inconsistent for the dog to suddenly decide to find it on the way back down.
Luke climbing the wall and heading directly to the left where the body was, would suggest prior knowledge. He never found it on the way up because he would look more innocent if the family were with him when he found it. He needed witnesses there. All of his actions are consistant with a plan to appear innocent.
Luke described in a calm manner to police how he found the body, and also accurately described the clothes Jodi was wearing, even though she changed clothes after school and he had apparently not seen her before the murder, and her body was stripped naked with clothes scattered around in dark woods. The description of the clothes prove to me he did see Jodi since school/before the murder, again consistent with the Bryson sighting, again undermining his alibi of being at home.
Any innocent explanation for how he managed to describe what Jodi was wearing when she had her throat cut? The court heard the police tape of him accurately doing so
The “he was using his mobile phone to phone the speaking clock, so he must have been out of the house,” explanation is only speculation, especially as there are logs showing he regularly phoned the speaking clock, from his home.Were you there Lithium, I mean in court?
Here's the thing though, the logs you're talking about show he showing he regularly used the speaking clock from the landline, this time he used his mobile. Why? Logs show he regularly used the speaking clock from his house phone, what was dfiferent this time? If anything this adds more weight to him not being at home. It's not the fact he supposedly phoned the clock from the house, I know he was in the habit of doing that, it's the fact he used his mobile credit this time, when we are supposed to believe a landline is available, and logs show he would normally use the landline.
That’s very naughty, Lithium – I sincerely hope, if you’re a family member, this is not what you were told by investigating officers. Luke did not describe any clothing at the murder scene – none of the three people who went over the wall did. Luke was asked to describe what Jodi had been wearing to school that day – he did so, to the best of his recollection, but that was a description of what she’ been wearing at school, not what clothing had been found beside the body.
oh dear
" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "
Source - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html
Jodi trial hears audio recording
The Jodi Jones murder trial has heard her boyfriend tell detectives there were four explanations as to why she had not met him on the night she died.
Luke Mitchell spoke in a relaxed manner to police during a taped interview four days after his girlfriend's murder.
Judge Lord Nimmo Smith told the jury to listen not only to what was said, but also to the way it was said.
An audio tape recording was played to the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh on Tuesday.
On the tape, Luke Mitchell explains in a calm, relaxed voice how he had arranged to meet Jodi.
Different explanations
However, when she failed to turn up he said he thought she had either been cheeky to her mum, forgotten, had to go somewhere else or something had come up at the house.
Luke did not tell detectives at the time that he knew she had left home because he had phoned her house and was told she had already left to meet him.
Earlier, the court heard how Luke liked horror films and occasionally read porn magazines.
He also described the clothes Jodi was wearing the night she was killed.
Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4116337.stm
So who's lying here, you or my 2 different sources? This was a police interviewed played in court by the way, you weren't there.
The last time I raised this question, nugnug tried to argue that Jodi never even changed clothes since school that day. :-\
I'll go over the rest of your reply soon, I'm not even half way through my list of reasons.
Would rather not say. Why did Sandra leave after being caught lying about Luke describing the clothes Jodi wore while being murdered? Didn't expect that unlike her I don't post anything without a confirmed source that confirms it as fact? a police interview played in a full court room, the voice of Luke Mitchell describing the clothes. Can't get a better source than that.
Explain how Luke Mitchell, who hadn't seen Jodi since school that day, described what she was wearing when she was killed, when she chaned clothes after school into her sisters shirt etc.
Sandra I've explained why I think he's guilty, can you explain why you think Luke is innocent?
Read the last 2 pages and tell me everything wasn't going fine until Stephanie chimed in.
oh dear
" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "
Very logical and well thought out Sandra. Lithium appears to me to be someone who was personally involved with the victim in some way. Otherwise how can we explain his vitriolic answers to you?
While I'm online, Sandra why don't you be more honest about the 'semen on the bra' claim?
I can't stay for long, so here's the truth;
The semen on found on the bra being Kelly's was nothing more than an uncorroborated suggestion by Luke's old defence team, nothing has ever indicated that this semen was Kelly's, there is absolutely no proof, tests, or anything else showing that the DNA from semen on the bra is Steven Kelly's. am I lying Sandra? Yet nugnug and so many more on Lukes site are stating it as fact, through no fault of their own, but due to selective and dishonest reporting by Lean.
I know he hasn't denied his sperm being present, but ask Sandra where the "it was Kellys semen on Jodi's bra" theory originally came from. There is nothing in the evidence stating the DNA on the bra is his at all.
I know he hasn't denied his sperm being present, but ask Sandra where the "it was Kellys semen on Jodi's bra" theory originally came from. There is nothing in the evidence stating the DNA on the bra is his at all.
Sorry once said but please do tell me how I can provide a source for nothing ? Sandra's the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on her not I. If she posts proof Kelly's sperm was on the bra, I'll be proved wrong. Can only laugh at your praise of Sandra, I've never really disrespected her. She disrespects the victims family regularly, incest jokes etc...That is a very serious accusation Lithium. Could you please provide a link to such jokes made by Sandra L please?
well it depends what he is supposed to have said.
if it was said in a private message that's fair enough.
everyone can so you did you pratt.
Doesn't matter, ask her. I'd like to see her deny it.
And I'm not denying the semen, I accept it's there and I also have an easier time accepting the more believable explanation of innocent transfer than the alternative. What I'm saying is the semen on the bra is't identified as Kelly's. Sandra doesn't even know where that information originally came from. It was actually just suggested by Luke's previous lawyers.
I don't know who Lithium is... but in the past he's been called a liar and then backed it up. So I would not jump too quickly to call him a liar again purely because I've never seen him say anything that he hasn't been prepared or capable of backing up.
If Sandra was to say that she hadn't said what he says she has - my stomach tells me he'd prove it.
why dont you prove it now
It could well possibly be but it would show his moral ineptitude should he continue to use these private messages and thoughts as a stick to beat people with. I wonder how you would feel mat should your pm's be available to all? I suppose that would depend on the type of person you were but you do seem to endorse these types action. I wonder did you take a look at the pm sent by your mentor to the person he thought was Jodi's mum!! I wonder what your view on that woud be?
its also totally illegal.Well no, it isn't.
Well no, it isn't.
It isn't illegal for Lithium though. He says he didn't hack - he was past the information from someone.
It's the same as Wikileaks, it isn't illegal for them to show what they have been sent, nugs.
im not talking about anyone's private messages, didnt even care enough about them to read them when someone sent me the zip file containing them. I'm still pretty sure it was one of your own, hoping i'd leak information for you. And who's my mentor gordo?
yes if they can prove thats how they got it.
Don't worry, I can. I've honestly never touched your website. Why are you so aggressive nugnug? Mat has a point I could have easily posted all of those messages and didn't out of decency, only did it reluctantly when Gordo goaded me, and deleted it soon after.
Just like nugnug knows im SK? youre right though, ill drop it. so... what's the latest with the SCCRC then? I heard "the box" was underwhelming...
Lugg what ever was contained in those personal messages should remain personal,theres no way to tell in just what context things were written without the relevant series of pm's or the public material they may have related to. The fact that many were jocular suggest's that things may have been said without much thought or due process a right all of us have under the circumstance's.Well in my estimation Lithium should not have posted the accusation on open forum. I shall report it to the moderators.
Not like this at all.
The SCCRC has accepted the case for review so It is a wait and see what they come up with, Its hard to know just what route they will take but were sure that they will be thorough in thier investigations.
No you don't. You were all very quick to just happily accept my explanation that someone sent me them. Great detectives you lot are! Did you know the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in the dictionary?But you still made an accusation with no proof. In my book that is termed "libel".
I'm no one's tool, and no one "sent me" to do or disrupt anything.
i mean you never know whos been reading yours ;)
I have proof, even Gordo and nugnug know I'm probably telling the truth, Gordo's even telling you to stop encouraging me to post it, and trying to defend Sandra.In that case, if you are not prepared to prove your accusation you must withdraw it, or it becomes no more than libel. If that was me that you accused I would have instructed a solicitor to investigate you and send you a letter of warning. But then that is up to Dr. Sandra Lean?
I won't withdraw it, sorry. I don't care if you, Lugg, don't believe me. Sandra knows.It isn't a matter of believing or disbelieving you. I'm just pointing out to you what the law says about libel and that you are running the risk of a summons by Dr. Lean.
Quote from: Anonymous on Today at 06:36 PM
I have proof, even Gordo and nugnug know I'm probably telling the truth, Gordo's even telling you to stop encouraging me to post it, and trying to defend Sandra.
But you still made an accusation with no proof. In my book that is termed "libel".That is indeed the problem with messing around with pm's, how do you prove whos they are in this world of computer generated options and such!! Why is he deleting his post's it kinda makes it confusing?
A final qute from the transcript of July 4th, which I find quite telling:
CM: Why was I not told at the house that the house was gonna be searched, why was it left til I was up here - that was a bit of a shock.
ADS: Well, we were provided with a warrant, do you just want to conclude this and then we'll answer
DC: aye
ADS: address any concerns Mrs Mitchell's got
DC: We'll do that, aye. Eh, we'll just, I'll switch the tapes off
ADS: So that's eh
DC: in case they stop again
ADS: 1652
DC: 1652. The time is 1652 ours on Friday the 4th of july, this is DC SQ concluding the interview with Lue Mitchell that took place in Dalkeith Police Station.
What' no answer on tape as to why they waited until they'd got Luke and Corinne out of the house and at the station bfore telling them it was going to be searched? No denial on tape that they'd done so?
Thanks, nugnug and Oncesaid. It took more than 6 months to negotiate permission to release this footage - the first time footage of a lie detector test inside a UK prison has ever been allowed to be released.
As I've said so many times, we're not claiming that passing the polygraph is what proves Luke's innocence - it merely backs up all of the other evidence that shows Luke did not commit, and could not have committed, this terrible murder.
And to all of those who say it's unreliable, and easy to beat, ask yourselves, why are probation services relying on it to decide whether sex offenders are safe to be released, or to remain at liberty after release? And why is it being trialled in poice investigations? Seems to me they want it both ways - it's "reliable" when it indicates guilt, but not when it indicates innocence.
Whether is is reliable or not isn't the question. The question is how do you expect a lie detector to help your case? Luke was convicted on evidence in court - it's that evidence you need to attack and until you do that in an open and honest way you can have a million lie detectors posted on the internet and nothing will happen.
the expert was totaly independant he was hired by nationol newspaper as we have stated many times before.
Mat said
I agree with most of what you say here, Mat - the lie detector test/result changes nothing in legal terms. But it doesn't mean nothing will happen - there are a number of factors involved in fighting wrongful convictions - just take a look at how many high profile Miscarriages of Justice took literally years to get the convictions overturned, often because the courts simply refused to allow the information, which would attack the prosecution evidence, to be heard. Maintaining a high public profile for cases claiming wrongful conviction, putting as much information as possible into the public domain, trying to build public support, etc, are all factors in the process.
I've had people contact me as a result of articles/forum discussions/documentaries, etc who have said, themselves, that had it not been for the fact of those public discussions, they would probably not have tried to do anything with the information they had. I've also had messages from fence-sitters (their own description), and even from those who have changed their opinion from guilt to innocence as a result of having had access to more information. So it's not entirely accurate to say "nothing" will happen.
Attacking the evidence in an open and honest way is what I have been trying to do, against some particularly difficult obstacles, for almost 10 years. In Scotland, it is an offence to post many of the documents I have had access to - the most I can do is quote from them (and even that can be risky). It does, of course, leave me open to accusations that people are just having to "take my word for it" - there's not a great deal I can do about that. But I have called the SIO a liar, publicly, several times, and demonstrated from his own statements exactly how and why he is a liar. I have quoted directly from statements, pointing out many, many anomalies in accounts - none of those whose statements I have quoted have ever stated that what I have quoted is untrue, etc, etc.
Luke, and others like him, are where they are because other people were dishonest. It would serve no-one if people like me tried to fight that dishonesty with further dishonesty - it would be stupid and pointless. Although some people might find it hard to believe, I do, actually, have a real life, and I wouldn't waste a minute of it (a) fighting for someone I thought might be guilty, or (b) undermining my own hard work by making public information I knew to be untrue.
Is there any evidence you believe I have not attacked in an open and honest way? I'll do my best, within the restrictions I face, to address this, if you can give me concrete examples.
why would they lie you cant lie somebody out of prison.
by we i meant me sandra and other posters on this i would of thought that was obvious.
I beleive the LM case to be crucial for you, Sandra. After the AP case I don't tihnk that you can afford another MOJ that turns out to be actually guilty so I respect that you're going to great means to prove LM's innocence, I just don't agree with your opinion
I can't help but feel that people who are criticising him feel that he and others who are protesting their innocence should just do their time and make no effort to prove their innocence, incase it rocks the boat, or offends someone. Of course it would be a much different story if it was one of their own.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21060845
i dont think he could answer i dont think he knew the answer/
i think thats what a lot of politicians are worried about if these tests catch on they might be asked to take them.
see the rent a gob politicians are at it again.
i think thats what a lot of politicians are worried about if these tests catch on they might be asked to take them.
but they cant get away from it how ever hard they try.
Here's John Lamont, MSP, Tory Chief Whip, refusing to answer the questions his own comments have raised. Strange he's become so reticent about the subject, after being so vocal, isn't it?
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/your-chance-to-shape-the-future-justice-system/politicians-and-communication/
Mr Lamont seems to think the "risk" of wrongful conviction is just one of those things we have to put up with... unfortunate, but happens in every system.
I wonder if he'd feel the same if it was him, or someone he loved, who was wrongly convicted?
Seems he can't make his mind up about polygraphs either - he's quite insistent that polygraph tsting be rolled out for "serious offenders"... but only, it seems, if it shows them to be guilty. People who pass the test are not to be taken into consideration at all, apparently
it wasn't a trained sniffer the dog i believe it was a trained tracker though i dont know weather it had been fully trained.Sorry Nugs,I had meant a tracker dog.
it was in the processes of being trianed i think i dont know how far the trianing had got.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/MGalleryItem.php?id=165
Sunday post articall.
"an absolutely striking resemblance" ?
Yes, Lithium, you can get Sandra Lean hooked up to that lie detector test. Anywhere, any time.
How can you bear an absolutely striking resemblance to someone without sharing one single physical feature?
i thought there was a definite similarity.
we chalenged you to provide proof of this and yourefused to do so why was that.
I don't want anyone to take a lie detector. I asked Sandra (who obviously believes they work) if she would take one regarding accusing Jodi's family of incest. Which she has avoided answering in the past.
No, you did.
If Sandra denies it, I'll be happy to prove her a liar.
well not everybody has time to deny allegations as quickly as you choose to make them up im afraid.
Who's "we"? only you challenged meI thought you said she accused the family of incest?
even Gordo was telling me not to expose her
there would be no point in me doing it right now as I wouldn't be proving anyone a liar, as she hasn't publicly confirmed nor denied it...
If she denies in here that she ever accused the Jones family of racism, I will expose her as a liar.
I don't want anyone to take a lie detector. I asked Sandra (who obviously believes they work) if she would take one regarding accusing Jodi's family of incest. Which she has avoided answering in the past.
"The public would have been prevented from knowing the identity of a killer such as Luke Mitchell had the plans to extend the bar on the identification of an accused from under 16 to under 18 been in place at the time of his conviction".I'm sorry but I can't agree with that at all
I don't think there was many a person in Scotland and beyond who hadn't heard of Luke Mitchell before his conviction.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be named until after the trial regardless of age. How are the powers that be going to implement this?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-proposal-to-let-young-killers-remain-anonymous.20151891
what there talking about is the law in England and wales anyway.
Hi nugs is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi nugs is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi nugs is it my eyes or is somebody throwing coconuts across the forum ;D ;D ;D ;DIt's tumbleweed. Frequently seen in ghost towns. :)
Patti on my way with me barrel of best Yorkshire Bitter. You will see coconuts after drinking that ;D ;D ;D
Patti the last barrel I sent you never got past Glasgow so start walking girl. Borrow Maggie's boots they were made for walking ;D
And the floppy rhubarb? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DOY!! I have NO rhubarb, it's Mary Ellen who has the rhubarb...if you don't mind ;D ;D ;D
Patti it is meant to be stiff not floppy ;D ;D ;D
OY!! I have NO rhubarb, it's Mary Ellen who has the rhubarb...if you don't mind ;D ;D ;D
I have much better people skills than you shut-ins.
it would highly you had.
I also heard another point raised was the confusion that the police thought Jodi left with Luke that afternoon.
Again, totally irrelevant, the police didn't find Luka guilty. The jury did, and they were well aware Jodi did not leave the house with Luke.
No point in that being in there.
Which year are you two on about. Here is the 2008 appeal document, its a long one and could take days to digest. :(
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotHC/2008/HCJAC_28.html&query=luke+and+mitchell&method=boolean
It also contains the submissions.
no they from the last appeal hes talking the current crcc submissions you confidential legal paper witch is shown to to nobody.
(http://i.imgur.com/dEZQUPL.gif)
This is a message from Dr Sandra Lean
That should have read PM's deleted.
It matters not that Mat called me senile.!!!
Hi lookout
I did not read any pots, I deleted the lot of them and not singled anyone out. The thread has been trimmed back to its debating mode. If you all wish to carry on sniping at each other be my guest, because all it is doing is lowering the tone of this forum and the name in which this thread is dedicated to. If now onf you like then tough!
Don't go Lookout!
I'll be going after 'Mat' via legal channels very soon - you don't want to miss that do you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
Pity you didn't know the truth,Patti.
I'm finished on here.!
Happy birthday Maggie!Thank you ngb. ;D ;D
Happy Birthday to Maggie I know I have said it already but I have my public duties to perform as well as my private ones ;D ;D ;DThank you susie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
Happy Birthday Maggie, enjoy your meal and evening. I don't think Lookout will leave, she's only gone to wash the pots......xxxx ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Lookout, please don't go, you're a valued member of this forum and we need you......and you can't go on my birthday pleeeeeease ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dxx
your the one who seems to geting really desperate now.
Lugg bet you thought your were going to get some free medical advice off Lithium ;D ;D ;D ;DHow did you guess Susan? I was going to ask his opinion on my athletes foot. ;D
Lithium everything you tell me from now on I will take with a bucket of salt ;D ;D ;D ;DBet that will suck your mouth in? ;D
I did graduate but still, no doctor.Congratulations Lithium. :)
up to 197 now.
thank you very much lithium it is appreciated.
Oh that's good he'll have Sandra on his side, the woman who wrote a chapter on how innocent Simon Hall is.Hi Lithium, I can't see what's so funny when the relatives of these murder victims have to live with their deaths every day.
(http://i.imgur.com/wYSJIv4.gif)
Not forgetting Adrian Prout. When will Lean stop declaring people innocent when it's just her opinion and she doesn't have a clue whether they are or aren't? I'm not offended by Corinne's campaign as at least there is a possibility she might actually know for a fact her son is innocent if she was him at the time of murder. Sandra Lean does not know. She's defended 2/2 confirmed killers now without a second thought for the victims' families. Who's next?
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting. ;D
oh he knows that very well paris in fact he knows it better than most people.
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting. ;D
I wasn't talking about this place, I meant nugnug and his cronies.
Couldn't be happier you shut-ins find me weird. Would hate for you to find me relatable. Luckily most functioning members of society would agree supporting murderers is what's really weird. They also find me funny and interesting. ;D
Pseudo doctorate needs to tell people that others find him funny and interesting ? You sound like a real twat ....;D
Pseudo doctorate
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-murder-to-be-re-examined-1-3082016
Thanks for that Jon...I know our Nugs will be happy about this. :) :) :) :)
It's a mistake in the Mail on Sunday article, Lithium, as is the wrong description of Jodi's clothing. We only have so much influence over what actually goes out - editors often alter the final story, regardless of what the original might have said.I wrote an article for the Arab News once. I made the mistake of saying to the editor, "Please make it more readable and correct any mistakes". She completely trashed my article by her editing erm "skills".
The main message of the article is correct, though; the forensics will finally be retested, which is, I believe, a very significant development.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/jodi-jones-murder-to-be-re-examined-1-3082016Wow,this is excellent news! I really do feel that someone else was responsible for Jodi's murder and hopefully the new DNA tests will prove this and bring her real killer to justice.
Indeed, Tyler - in fact, I've had a number of people commenting that this is "all the wrong way round" - Luke, his family and his supporters are all "delighted," but Jodi's family are "horrified" and "appalled."
That just doesn't make any sense. Jodi's brother came to my house som time ago, screaming at me that Luke's DNA was all over Jodi's body. I told him he had been misinformed, and offered to show him the DNA results, but he responded by threatening me!
Here's the perfect opportunity to resolve the matter once and for all. Please don't get me wrong, I understand that it must be awful for the family to have the case keep coming back to the appeal courts etc, over and over again - they can't have any closure as long as this is the case. But these tests could, potentially, give them that closure, even if, as we confidently believe, they come back identifying someone other than Luke as the perpetrator. I don't understand what's horrifying, appalling or unwelcome about that.
Where has our lovely nugnug got to? He will be able to tell us.
Ah Patti..so do I
Blimey that's terrible. Someone doesn't want the truth to come out me thinks!
hopefully some discussion will start agian soon.Yes, I look forward to that.
hopefully some discussion will start agian soon.
I just read the website links and actually I did recognise some bits of the case - but I was not aware of everything behind it. It seems against everything I learnt when studying law. That a person should only be convicted of murder if proven. This case was never proven . Again character assassination seemed to be used and with holding evidence and sloppy handling of the crime scene - and this was 2003! It is really sad that things do not seem to have changed from the times of JBs case. I really hope that todays forensics can help in this case and the right culprit is found. It is also sad that these reviews take so long.
Hello Maggie May did you study law as well.
Janus: I do believe that it's always fair to be open and honest. however, being a considerate soul, your five minutes on the naughty step are over. It would be far more productive for all concerned if people were honest. We are dealing with the British State V M.O.J v Tossers who claim to represent them and don't. So Janus, please do accept my recommendation and apply sincerity.
Janus: Did you ever watch Taggart ?
Maggie May are you having a laugh a Law Student no I am a pole dancer. The only aspect of the Law I know is to keep on the right side of it. You must be very clever to have a Masters and Scottish Law is so different than English.
Maggie May are you having a laugh a Law Student no I am a pole dancer. The only aspect of the Law I know is to keep on the right side of it. You must be very clever to have a Masters and Scottish Law is so different than English.
law and order Uk is more my bag I am afraid
They are rather quite distinct Susan. Separate Laws from very different proclamations. Why do you feel the need to pole dance Susan ? I assume you pole dance in the nude, which is most degrading to women. Surely their must be another option available to you Susan?
I'm quite relieved that Special Constable Caroline has not appeared to dictate what we can and can not say.
Jansus are you ok yah ? Ya gone awfully awfully quiet Jansus
The Scheme is a documentary about a Glasgae housing estate where u live in one of em tenenants
and according to the fellows at the University you are forced to share toiletries in the back gardens. I would lodge a complaint to my Member of Parliament if I and my husband Davies were ever in such a horrendous situation. There must surely be laws protecting you against such utter violations
They are rather quite distinct Susan. Separate Laws from very different proclamations. Why do you feel the need to pole dance Susan ? I assume you pole dance in the nude, which is most degrading to women. Surely their must be another option available to you Susan?
I'm quite relieved that Special Constable Caroline has not appeared to dictate what we can and can not say.
Idiot!Never a good idea to rise to the bait, it only encourages him!
to be honest im undecided as to why they picked luke.
though the body was left out for a long time in the rain there were still dna profiles found on the clothes there actually several different dna profiles one was linked to the victems sisters boyfriend. the others are as yet unknown but none of them match luke.
to be honest im undecided as to why they picked luke.
thank you NugNug. Seems like they had to make him appear as a "monster" to get a conviction - and say his perfectly innocent phone calls were part of the plan. Ring any bells with another case?
I haven't been able to watch the whole program yet, but Tobin was jailed in 1994, and served 9 years before coming back to Scotland - that would be... 2003, then?
Maybe due to the fact Luke and his family couldn't quite agree on where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. Did anyone elses alibi fall to pieces in such a shambolic way?
It wasn't the police who convicted him though was it, it was a jury of his peers, even after having one of the most high profile lawyers in Scotland defend him.
In an era of Pay-and-go mobile phones, it's highly unlikely a teenager would call a premium rate phone number to find out the time if he was indeed at home surrounded by clocks. I don't believe there is any 'innocent' explanation for that. Common sense dictates he was not at home was paying premium rate for the exact time as he had to get his story straight.
as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tories-call-speaking-clock-number-2957055
Maybe due to the fact Luke and his family couldn't quite agree on where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder. Did anyone elses alibi fall to pieces in such a shambolic way?
It wasn't the police who convicted him though was it, it was a jury of his peers, even after having one of the most high profile lawyers in Scotland defend him.
In an era of Pay-and-go mobile phones, it's highly unlikely a teenager would call a premium rate phone number to find out the time if he was indeed at home surrounded by clocks. I don't believe there is any 'innocent' explanation for that. Common sense dictates he was not at home was paying premium rate for the exact time as he had to get his story straight.
Nowhere in this article does it mention people phoning the speaking clock while at home, which is what was unusual about Luke's calls to it. If anything your article confirms my point, the Tories wanted to avoid paying the premium rate costs so why would a teenager with a pay and go mobile want to waste his credit on it if there were other clocks available?Nice to see you back Doctor. I wonder if there was any evidence of Luke having phoned the speaking clock on other occasions. Perhaps it was something he often did!?!
"as this artical will show theres nothing starnge about phoning the speaking clock."
If there's nothing strange about it, it wouldn't be a news article. ???
Luke phoning the speaking clock at a time he claimed to be at home is terribly damning and there's nothing you can do to make the fact go away.
Nice to see you back Doctor. I wonder if there was any evidence of Luke having phoned the speaking clock on other occasions. Perhaps it was something he often did!?!
There was a suggestion that the clothes were burnt in the Mitchell's garden. Neighbours spoke of odd burning smells. No evidence was recovered, to confirm this.
Ok - but I am assuming the police suspected him quite quickly so what do they think he did with his clothes and shoes? He would have presumably be covered in blood? As far as you know what forensics were there to link him to the attack ? Genuine questions as I admitted I am not all together familiar with the case.
There was a suggestion that the clothes were burnt in the Mitchell's garden. Neighbours spoke of odd burning smells. No evidence was recovered, to confirm this.
acording to his mum he phoned it all the time.Were they able to prove this?
well there would have been evidence to support this I would have thought - bound to be some remains. So no proof there then.There would have been plenty of time to dispose of any incriminating evidence.
There would have been plenty of time to dispose of any incriminating evidence.
On a more general note, I'm not sure that many mothers would lie, in order to get their child off of a murder charge, if they thought there was a chance that they were indeed, guilty. Well, I know that my mother wouldn't anyway!
I cant quite understand the families apparent reaction to this , if there is any doubt at all surely it is best to know the truth?
There isn't any doubt.
Yes I have just been reading up some more and it was a month before he was arrested - so in theory he could have hidden the clothes and then destroyed them - and I did not read what his answer was to the missing "parka" coat.
The case papers in Scotland are deemed to belong to the solicitor - I have no idea how on earth that is supposed to be compliant with the European Convention. One solicitor tried to explain to me that, as the Scottish Legal Aid Board paid the defence solicitors, the papers really belong to the SLAB, and the individual solicitors take care of them on the SLABs behalf.[/glow]Absolutely disgraceful Police brutality, for which they were rightfully admonished. Great to see you back here Sandra.
Here's where logic, common sense and the justice system part company - when I said this must surely create a two tier system, since those who paid for their defence privately would, by this reasoning, have ownership of their own papers, well... actually... no! They wouldn't have access to their papers either - they would still "belong" to the solicitors! The SLAB payment/ownership argument was bull, but they were obviously so used to trotting it out as an "explanation" that they'd missed the obvious flaw in their own argument!
Mind you, Scotland has been thumbing her nose at the European Convention for years (even though she signed up independently from England and Wales) - the Cadder ruling, finally forcing Scotland to take action over interrogations without legal advice or representation (even though Scotland had been warned for something like 12 years that this practice would have to stop) caused the tantrum of all tantrums amongst certain factions of the Scottish Justice System.
Incidentally, Luke was interrogated for a total of 19 hours, over three separate interviews, without legal advice or assistance - he was 14 for the first two, and just three weeks after this 15th brthday for the third.
The family search trio's account of their movements that evening, and their claimed reasons for going straight to the path to look for Jodi do not stand up to scrutiny - according to phone logs, etc, when compared to statements from the search trio and other members of Jodi's family, the search trio arrived at the start of the path before they actually set out to search, and, by their own admissions, they headed for an area they would not have expected Jodi to be that evening, having been told explicitly that she was expected to be in the opposite direction entirely, and an area which they tried to claim jodi was not allowed to use, and would not have used alone. (At the time they made these claims, they were of the opinion that Jodi had not been with Luke that night, so they had no reason to believe that, had she been on the path with someone, that someone was Luke Mitchell.
There are so many elements of "evidence" which were never used by the defence
Jansus, the police have already been condemned for their handling of Luke, but again I would ask you to keep in mind that it was not the police who found him guilty. He had his day in court with more than capable legal representation awarded to him. This is where Sandra's SCCRC submission fails also, focusing on what the police done wrong (and other 'suspects', including Jodi's own brother), rather than any evidence of any kind of unfair trial taking place.
Care to explain what exactly this paragraph is "evidence" of in your opinion?
here we are.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=album;in=4
Sorry, Lithium, nice try, but the contents of the submission to the SCCRC have never been publicly released, so you can't legitimately make this claim.
you may want to spread wild rumours about whos a suspect and who isn't but im sure sandra doesn't.
Also just read about the fact that the defence had some reports that were not presented in court because of funding the expert witnesses. So wrong on many levels.
of course the role of sky news has yet to be investigated.
The murder is currently unsolved. However, inquiries have polarised on building a circumstantial case against a prime suspect.”
so basscally they are now admiting they dident bother to investigate anything.
good ob the sccrc wont be intrested in that.
she asked to read a book so what.
at the end of the day he asked to take a lie detecter and passed all the the case are shit scared to do so.
youve never expernced it have you so you know sod all bout how it feels.
you clearly dont have a clue what that books about anyway.
If I was an innocent person who experienced something in my life as traumatic as finding my girlfriends mutilated body, I doubt I'd ever have any interest in reading about death, murder and human sacrifice.It could work the other way round of course. Perhaps he wants to try and understand why this happened to Jodi.
Time to cut the denial that he's deeply into that sort of stuff. I'm also aware of the artwork he requested not long ago.
Eee. Not looking good nuggsy is it?
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more.
Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi. He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed. He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house. This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.
Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi. Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
I'm wondering why you feel this mate?
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more.I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.
Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi. He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed. He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house. This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.
Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi. Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more.
Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi. He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed. He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house. This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.
Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi. Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
A good summing up of the case in general and those involved, good post John.
Just an educated opinion.
do you you have a cleue what that books actullly about mat.
how could you possbly have a clue what sccrc are going to do dp.
Book?? I'm talking about the SCCRC. What book are you talking about, the one Lithium mentioned Luke has?
you havent got a clur whats benn submited ti the sccrc.
I don't know what they are going to do, but I do know it's not looking good and like I said an educated opinion.
As for the book, of course I know what it's about or else I wouldn't of made a comment.
ok tell us what the books about the books about then mat.
If you mean tell you what the Satanic Bible is about - then it isn't too hard to work out for yourself, Nuggsy. Or you can simply google it.
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?
What do you think she's trying to do there?
ok tell us whats its about then.
she hasnt your just making shit up as usaul
Luke Mitchell is reverting to type, it was only a matter of time before his true interest in the dark arts reemerged once more.
Mitchell was missing at the exact time that Jodi had her throat cut and despite claiming to have walked home from school not one of the other schoolchildren could give him an alibi. He was however seen by witnesses standing by the side of the road a short distance from the murder scene just minutes after Jodi was killed. He claimed to have been at home when his older brother Shane arrived home from work but Shane testified in court that this was not the case and that he would have known if his younger brother were in the house. This effectively destroyed any possible alibi.
Mitchell supporter Sandra Lean has never been able to explain any of these inconsistencies and has always attempted to blame just about anyone else who ever had contact with Jodi. Further DNA testing is yet another attempt to implicate these other individuals at any cost.
why is the granny robber being allowed to post her again.
Think of the 10 commandments......and then reverse them.
Feel free to ask her, nugnug. :)
im asking where is your source,
or are you just making shit up as usaul.
You haven't once asked me for my source. Like I've said. An educated guess. You can choose to not believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true. You could always ask SL to come here and deny it? Or you can as her personally.
But whether you believe it or not - it's the truth. The submissions to the SCCRC name LM's brother as a potential suspect.
From now on I won't be replying to any of your posts that aren't spelt properly or at least use punctuation, it's not difficult and I'm tired of trying to work out what you're trying to say.
I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.
Was/could Shane have been certain that Luke was not in the house at the given time?
John, what are your thoughts about the lie detector tests that both Luke and his mother passed?
I, myself have always been quite sceptical about such tests, but the fact that they both passed causes me to wonder a little.
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?
What do you think she's trying to do there?
Shane was absolutely positive he wasn't in the house as he was looking at porn in his bedroom and was listening for anyone coming into the house. It wasn't a big house by any means so it would not have been very difficult to hear someone come in and start messing around in the kitchen as Luke claimed he did.
Bottom line is he has no alibi and was identified by two witnesses near the murder scene. Some minutes later he was seen again by several others further up the road. The chances of two almost identical youths wearing the exact same clothes being on the same stretch of road at almost the same time is incredibly small.
Mitchell was a troubled child by all accounts who was left to run wild and do more or less whatever he wanted. He was a heavy user of cannabis and had all the paraphernalia in his bedroom for weighing and bagging the drug for resale to other schoolchildren. The slaying of Jodi wasn't by any means the first time he had threatened a young girl with a hunting knife.
The polygraph test or lie detector is merely a gimmick fit only for daytime TV programmes. It has no relevance and no legal status.
I would take those press reports with a massive pinch of salt.I'm not even sure how relevant these tests are now in respect of the case, i do however wonder If johns reasoning regarding the DNA testing should somehow come out as a negative to Lukes innocence? do you believe in DNA testing john?
Was/could Shane have been certain that Luke was not in the house at the given time?
John, what are your thoughts about the lie detector tests that both Luke and his mother passed?
I, myself have always been quite sceptical about such tests, but the fact that they both passed causes me to wonder a little.
But back to the case, Nugnug - do you think it's strange that SL names LM's brother as a suspect in the SCCRC submission?
What do you think she's trying to do there?
I have had it confirmed that in no way was Shane named as a potential suspect in the application and in no way could anyone know what was in the application so the onus is on you to provide the source or back up your claims in anyway you can otherwise your showing yourself up a bit here.I suspect that Mat has seen the application, or at least he has been in conversation with someone that has. I don't believe he would express such views unless he was absolutely certain, it's just not his style.
That is of course unless that this info came from the same person the believed jodi was tied up by a rope!!
Neil there is no way he could have seen the application and only two people new what was in it, they are either clutching at straws or simply lying and im willing to stand by that all the way.Thanks for that Gordo, I would be very interested to read Mats response to that.
I suspect that Mat has seen the application, or at least he has been in conversation with someone that has. I don't believe he would express such views unless he was absolutely certain, it's just not his style.
When are we likely to hear any details, officially, about the application?
Neil there is no way he could have seen the application and only two people new what was in it, they are either clutching at straws or simply lying and im willing to stand by that all the way.
Is the application now complete and if so, has it been presented to the CCRC? Or does it not work quite like that?
there not publicly avialeble documents.
The application has been complete and submitted to the SCCRC a different body to the CCRC for some time, well over a year. Its at a stage where were hoping the DNA testing should be very close to completion and thats why this type of thing becomes rather frustrating. These things can take a very long time once the review is even complete to finally get the findings and reactions to fruition that people should realise the damage their doing in making these types of postsThats vey interesting, thanks Gordo. I guess it's encouraging for Luke that the SCCRC have invested in the re-examination of the DNA evidence. Who funds the DNA testing? (Sorry about all the questions!)
Thats vey interesting, thanks Gordo. I guess it's encouraging for Luke that the SCCRC have invested in the re-examination of the DNA evidence. Who funds the DNA testing? (Sorry about all the questions!)
I am wondering how this fits with your believe that Luke mitchell is guilty though mat? It can't be both Luke and shane can it?
OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.
OK the best thing for me at this stage is to put an official complaint into the sccrc that somehow they have someone willing to leak sensitive information out to the public domain. I feel that if this issue is correct about Shane then they will have to act on any complaint issued.I would guess that it's almost impossible to keep a lid on everything, when so many people are involved in the procedure. In this day and age, with the internet and all, word can literally spread in seconds.
Gordo, just asking. Are you listed as a contributer to any part of the submissions?
Why would that concern you?
well if you had really seen them you would know.
OK Mat thats why I'm suddenly less concerned as like i said it would be all about another person interpretation and thats open to manipulation.
It would be unwise for me to say that Shanes name does not come up in the application as he plays a very big part in the initial trial and so would certainly play a part in its review, so I am willing to leave it at that.
Oh yeah for sure mate thats whats been missing in this case for the last 2 years or so, mainly because of the application as its hard to know just what to say that won't compromise the review.
I must say you praised johns post a summary review in his post but there were so many inaccuracies that do not play to our side that its impossible to use that as an argument to any debate.
As far as Mitchell's DNA is concerned it should have been found on Jodi because he was with her earlier that day but forensics failed to find it. Maybe they will do better next time?
and they both got lukes appearence completly wrong.
What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.
Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question. What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?
Million to one?
(http://i.imgur.com/pJS9oyJ.jpg?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/hJzNmQT.jpg?1)(http://i.imgur.com/xl7NcmN.gif?1)
If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?
Therefor, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?
Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.
How rigorously were other suspects investigated?
i dont think they needed to find it he was wearing it when they questioned him.Thanks for that Nugnug. Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?
the that log burner was examed and no evedence was ever found the that clothes had burnt in it.
John, can I ask you for your thoughts on my post, from the other day?
I've obviously noted your posts regarding the eyewitnesses. Are you able to point me in the direction of any statements/testimony from those witnesses?
Thanks for that Nugnug. Has it been alleged that he destroyed the original coat, and was in possession of a replacement by the time the Police came calling?
Coincidentally, the location where Mitchell was seen was on Mitchell's route home across the corner of a field and a wood. A hop over the gate would have taken him home without ever having been seen on any public road until he reached his estate.
I already anwered this john as we have a witness that accompanied Luke 2/3rds of the way down Newbattle road, you can see where the youth broke from Luke to go to his house, its even on that picture.So your assumption and route that Luke took is way off.
If Luke was responsible, I would have thought it inconceivable that he wouldn't leave some trace of his DNA.
Therefore, if the tests show no DNA belonging to Luke, does that strongly suggest that he was not responsible?
Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable, as I'm sure we all agree.
How rigorously were other suspects investigated?
The forensics failed to find any forensic link between Luke and Jodi yet they were together earlier. At the very least there should have been hair from Luke on Jodi and vice versa.
That said however the crime scene was not protected overnight and Jodi's body lay out in the rain. Little wonder incriminating evidence was lost.
Jodi was attacked from behind, hit with a stick and then her throat was slit, she would have bled out towards the front while her attacker stood back until she was unconscious. Some blood was found on the nearby wall where she stumbled after the initial assault. Something which is not widely known but such was the viciousness of the assault that her throat was almost severed. Her attacker also took sadistic pleasure in cutting her eyelids.
To answer your question therefore, no, it doesn't suggest that he was responsible. A common myth which has been promoted is that Jodis attacked would have been covered in blood, there is no evidence to suggest this.
Its strange then that even if what happened was as you have listed then that blood would have sprayed in other directions and onto other things like branches and such, Jodi was moved some distance where the post mortem mutilations occurred and that as well even performing something like the eyelid cuts would leave DNA traces, for gods sake your first post about the two of them being together at school for a short time confirms this, how then could he have done what he done in that space of time and have NO DNA at all on him or on her??
Remember that other young girl Gordo, you know the one whom Mitchell threatened with a knife a matter of weeks before he did it for real to Jodi? Talk about coincidence!
and also luke was seen by 3 boys at 545 t the end of his street wich give him 30 minutes to have cleaned himself up.
I wonder if you can tell me was there ever a knife linking Luke to this murder, if so then please link me to it and if not then look again because another one appeared not so long ago, this one even had luke initials on it lol
Hew as home for just over an hour john plz can you be more specific when debating this.
Mitchell had so many of them but then you know this. You also know that no murder weapon was ever found.
It was after 9pm and the first message from Judy was at 10:35 pm and he was ready to go out not long after that so lets say 1 hr 30 mins later
I'm still waiting though John on your explanation as to why no DNA at all regarding this crime was every found on Jodi or lukes house? He could of done a million normal things that can be twisted to suit your agenda mate.
Lets face it, his big brother initially lied to give him an alibi but when threatened with a charge of perjury he soon changed his mind. Luke Mitchell was nowhere to be seen at the very moment Jodi Jones was being murdered and all the waffle in the world won't change that fact.
Best ask the fat lady at Lothian & Borders. And when you eventually work out who the youth was that Walsh and Fleming saw do get in touch!
I don't really care who the youth was that Fleming & Walsh seen!! was he part of the crime? I don't know, I do know it wasn't Luke Mitchell though.
Of course there aint mate, If anyone had did what happened to Jodi they were not in the frame of mind to just be standing at a broken old fence.
you find the trail reporting she didint give evedence at the trial you will probely find it in the daily record if you have a look.Cheers Nugnug.
2). Corinnes testimony. I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.
Very interesting reading chaps.
The two things that don't add up for me are;
1). None of Luke's DNA on Jodi
2). Corinnes testimony. I find it hard to believe that she would cover for her son, if she thought that he was responsible for such a heinous crime.
However, I'm off now to look for the testimony from the girl who alleged that Luke threatened her days before the murder.
You might be surprised what some mothers will do to protect their sons. If I recall there was a lot of talk about Luke and his mother and some might find these comments from the Herald somewhat worrying.
It is abundantly clear that things were dreadfully amiss in the Mitchell household: there appears, from the evidence in court, beneath the well maintained, affluent surface, to have been a spiritual and psychological squalor which manifested itself in violence, pornography, underage sex, drug-taking, lack of cleanliness and an unusual physical intimacy between son and mother. The trial appeared to expose them as people adrift, cut off from normal emotional and behavioural frameworks.
www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue-1.64902
1. It rained on the body overnight Neil washing off most of the evidence.
2. See above post re mother and son relationship.
the rain dident wash everything off it traces of other peoples dna on there.
James Matthews from Sky News interviewed Luke Mitchell on the day of Jodi's funeral.
This is something that doesn't sit right with me john, the interview for the sky report was done on the day of the funeral and it was that interview that was given to Prof Ekman where he delivered is points "to catch a killer" these were not done on the same day so how could the sky interveiwer put these points to the mitchells?
Mat, SL didn't accuse Shane in the application mate. Where did you hear that?
I've a copy of it.
Yeah, I know you have a copy - I thought you'd also said it previously in this thread about SL . I will PM you the details as I don't want to get my hand slapped for posting in here about it further.
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.
What Luke Mitchell looked like when he was seen by two witnesses.
Now anyone reading this will ask themselves this question. What are the chances of two teenagers who look almost identical and wearing the exact same clothes being seen at this remote spot?
Lith are you able to give an opinion on the SCCRC submissions?
in that case gordo i think you might have to make that compliant after all.
or you just we wouldent prove it even though you've admitted it on a public forum.
(http://i.imgur.com/1jERAN1.gif)
Like Mitchell has been refused by the SCCRC
Why has Sandra Lean dumped this case? Check http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/
Hi Gordo.
I don't think it's a shock that the SCCRC rejected - although I didn't think that this information was to be released until Monday 14th July, so I was shocked to read about it already - don't suppose you know who/where this was openly spoken about first?
Also - not shocked about SL's apparent actions (If what Michaela says is true) as it's not the first time she's cut all contact off with the people she's meant to be working with.
Mat.
What made you think that the information was going to be released on that specific date? let alone when the information was even going to be pasted to Luke?
Mat.
What made you think that the information was going to be released on that specific date? let alone when the information was even going to be pasted to Luke?
SL's actions are indicative to her, Luke's case will be placed in the hands of those more apt to deal with it.
judicial review of the decision ors there's the echr.
or new submission could made possbly if more evedence was found.
theres now 2 new dna profiles and they dont belong to luke sonner or later they will be matched to somebody.
nug, are you saying there are 2 new full dna profiles, they would need to be full to be matched right?
Nugs,is it possible to try to discover whose dna it is in the newly found samples? Even if Luke's team foot the bill for any tests perhaps?
Tyler I was thinking about that too. but I think that they would only be able to id the samples if the person was on the database. But there again they would have surely tested other people?
here we are lukes new webpage.
http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/fighting-for-freedom/luke-mitchell
Interesting comment.Good to see you back, Mat. Who have you quoted?
"I cannot believe the moronic attitudes on this thread! he was wrongly convicted ? apart from the evidence being stacked against him he has openly displayed psychotic behavior towards Jodie in the past! We had friends at a house party where he was poking her with a kitchen knife! Hoarded bottles of his own urine ( clear sign of severe mental health problem). THIS is NOT a case of a miscarriage of justice, he is an evil little wretch! I remember watching his false tears over the news knowing full well what he had done to that girl. He writes to Peter Tobin for god sake!! If I were an innocent person who has suffered false imprisonment I would have not had my mother lie for me, burned my clothing, nor would I be pen pals with a convicted rapist and murderer. Open your eyes! There is NO rehabilitation for someone who can inflict this on any human being and his mother is just as bad. I genuinely hope that boy is free'd and his address is given out to the parents of that poor young girl. He deserves every horrific thing coming to him and his wicked, disgusting excuse for a mother! may they suffer greatly"
Good to see you back, Mat. Who have you quoted?
Do you know why Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton pulled away from the case nugnug?http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
The only evidence I have seen against him is theories with nothing solid to back it up..the star witness wouldn't pick him out in court.
Sandra and Corrine had decided to part company while ago but obviously they dident want to jepordise the review so they stayed together for that.
that's what i can gather anyway.
The only evidence I have seen against him is theories with nothing solid to back it up..the star witness wouldn't pick him out in court.
Luke Mitchell had no alibi after leaving school. His claim to have gone straight home was shown to have been a lie by his own brother who was in the house. Consequently there is a period of almost 2 hours unaccounted for after he left school alone.Hi John, can you elaborate on the line about the neighbours dog?
He was seen by two independent witnesses standing just yards from the murder scene staring into space and just a matter of minutes after Jodi's murder. Nobody stands at that particular spot for any reason other than they are up to some mischief. Mitchell was unlucky, he was caught as he was about to clamber over a gate which led to a small wood and access to his house avoiding the main road. Remember the neighbours dogs who followed his trail home?
This wasn't the first time he had held his favourite hunting knife at a girls throat was it?
im working on somthing at the moment no news to report though.
When was Tobin imprisoned ?
no tobin was already in prison for rape when this what happened.
he wasnt released til the year after.
SCCRC application can't be challenged. It's a total bust. There's not a single part of it that supports Luke's trial being unjust. Luke should really have went with someone more qualified.
So you are aware of that then? Presumably Sandra must be too then.
Still didn't stop her from implying it could have been Tobin:
Her dishonest posts certainly won't be missed.
We might be due an update in about... a decade's time. There should be a fair bit of public outcry if Luke gets out.
Stay tuned.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153That was a terrible decision by the SCCRC. I believe as Dr. Sandra Lean does, that Mitchell is 100% innocent. Why is it so difficult to get justice in this land?
Mods why was my last post deleted?
Mods why was my last post deleted?
I'm offended by nugnug but I don't want his posts deleted.
....I dunno what you're on about Patti
does Mat still post?
and what happened to my old account?
Before this
I made this because my password didn't work on the original
and I checked the last active time, 13th October. I wasn't online then. I think someone's hacked it.
....I dunno what you're on about Patti
does Mat still post?
and what happened to my old account?
Before thisIf your password doesn't work then go to "forgot password" and click on it and it will reset it for you.
I made this because my password didn't work on the original
and I checked the last active time, 13th October. I wasn't online then. I think someone's hacked it.
Justice has been done.The law has been satisfied, but whether justice has been done is another thing entirely?
If your password doesn't work then go to "forgot password" and click on it and it will reset it for you.
The forensic tests obviously support the guilty verdict.
There's literally no other explanation.
well we will have to ask the sccrc why they have ignored the resultsd of there own investigation
scottish courts are a law unto themselves.
The SCCRC is not in a position to apportion blame on anyone else, the samples didn't match Luke mitchell and therefore they were someone elses. Luke wasn't convicted on DNA evidence and as any investigation into the new samples would mean getting the case re opened then I doubt we will hear anything else happening.
I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.
The sisters boyfriends blood was also found on the shirt as well as seamen and had been transferred through the washing machine apparently. I didn't think blood would stand up to that.
I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.
He could have changed his clothes after the murders though. Experts testified the killer had a good chance of getting her blood on his clothing and if Mitchell did then he must have thrown them out. It is believed he did so which is why the DNA on the pants wasn't played up more plus it could have come from innocent contamination. Finding blood on his clothing would have been far more damning.
Experts testified that he would have to have had some sort of coveralls,hat,goggles,gloves on for no trace to be left on him but he said it was not impossible.
Exactly nugnug, so his hair and everything else must have been covered then. So when he was seen by so called witnesses,did they see him dressed in all this gear or carrying a bag/rucksack whatever.
Mitchell had enough time to dispose of the clothing he wore. If the clothing had blood on it then surely he would have gotten rid of it.
I read it on the wap forum.it was discussed at length. There was also diagrams of the t shirt and where the various samples were found. And as far as I am aware everything on the wap forum was verified from the case papers by sandra lean. Alas, since she is not power of attorney anymore it was all taken down. I'm sure it was on Luke's website under other suspects as well. Alas, it has all been taken down also.
I'm sure nugnug would have seen that.
Pwahahahaha ;)
Are you the last one left who thinks Mitchell is innocent lol.
Luke has recently hit back at Double Standards in the use of polygraph testing as it has emerged that 60 sex offenders have been sent back to prison after FAILING the tests.
He said " that if lie detectors are reliable to jail the guilty then they are reliable to free the innocent . These are double standards ".
Thank you Neil.Many thanks Sandra. I look forward to hearing any news.
I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.
What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.
Thank you Neil.
I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.
What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.
Of all the cases I have read about. Luke Mitchell's is the one I am most convinced is a moj, and a bad one at that. It's incredible .
If you believe Juke is innocent who do you think committed the murder?
Thank you Neil.
I'm not in a position to give any updates just yet (and I have to point out that anything I say regarding Luke's case will be my own opinion, based on previous knowledge of the case, and not backed by case papers) but I hope to be able to talk about some developments I'm aware of in the not too distant future, purely as an interested member of the public.
What I can say is that work on Luke's case has not stopped, and a number of avenues are still being pursued.
Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us. Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??
What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated, why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?
Let's face it Sandra you got the boot by the Mitchells
and have no more insight into developments than any of the rest of us
Tell me, what changed your mind about Luke, did the penny drop at last??
What of the Wrongly Accused Person charity you are associated
why have you never filed accounts in 5 years?
good to see you back sandra.
Hello John,Luke is one lucky devil, to have you fighting his corner. Although, I have to admit, I'm far from convinced of his innocence.
I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.
As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.
Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.
Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.
I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.
WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.
I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.
Hello John,
I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.
As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.
Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.
Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.
I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.
WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.
I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.
Does anyone have any links to the Frontline Scotland documentary about this case? I cant find it anywhere
I think you made a very bad decision to take up this case Sandra, just as bad as your decision to support self confessed killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall. I'm quite sure you must have regrets about these cases so why keep up this pretence about Luke Mitchell? Surely by now you must realise that Mitchell did it for all the reasons previously gone into? There isn't a shred of evidence which supports his innocence.
As far as the WAP organisation is concerned, as co founder/administrator, do you not think you had and indeed have a responsibilty to have accounted for the funds obtained whilst you were in a position of authority and ensured that they were properly recorded in terms of the Scottish Charity Regulator rules?
I think you made a very bad decision to take up this case Sandra, just as bad as your decision to support self confessed killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall. I'm quite sure you must have regrets about these cases so why keep up this pretence about Luke Mitchell? Surely by now you must realise that Mitchell did it for all the reasons previously gone into? There isn't a shred of evidence which supports his innocence.
Definitely possible of course but not a fact. Maybe went to meet the cousins and they weren't there. Then someone by chance got the opportunity. I don't think the killer was from the area, don't know why .
Your not making a very compelling argument. If Luke didn't do then I would bet it would be someone from the same school or local. Ex boyfriend of Jodi? or maybe a girl that liked Luke and was Jelous of Jodi?
Your not making a very compelling argument. If Luke didn't do then I would bet it would be someone from the same school or local. Ex boyfriend of Jodi? or maybe a girl that liked Luke and was Jelous of Jodi?
i dont think its very good idea to go around throwing names about i have person i think did it but im not going to name them becouse isnt knowing.
What concrete verifiable evidence convicted luke mitchell
Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities
Did you manage to see the frontline documentary david
Hello John,
I'll take your comments in turn, so that I don't miss anything.
As you wish. There are reasons why I have not commented on my departure from the case, reasons I am not prepared to disclose at the moment, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want about this.
Ah, unfortunately, you are misinformed - my connections to the case were always wider than simply through the Mitchell family.
Nothing changed my mind about Luke. My mind has not changed about Luke. The penny dropped many years ago - this case was a farce from the outset. Nothing has changed my mind about that either.
I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.
WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.
I hope this answers your questions. I'm not here in my previous capacity as a spokesperson for Luke's case - I think I made that clear in my earlier posts - I'm just another Joe Ordinary, sharing my thoughts and opinions in forum discusssions.
You also supported Simon Hall's innocence for a long time. Which means you also made 'a bad decision' as you refer to it.
And it is my belief that Middleton is the person you should be asking about accounts relating to WAP. It is Middleton who appears allusive and not willing to admit to his wrong doings and deceitfulness.
I can't join the discussion properly at the moment as I'm having to post via my phone which is rubbish - just wanted to say, for me, the appallingly bad so-called investigation is what raises so many of the doubts in this case. What credible police force bleaches the scene before the sniffer dogs get there, offers an innocent explanation to a person whose DNA puts them in a very compromising position, falls to follow up on distinct lack of alibi for two people whose lack of alibi would have made them definite persons of interest in any normal murder investigation. And that's a tiny fraction of the anomalies in the case. Hope to have normal internet by tomorrow
Lothian and Borders Police did undertake a sloppy investigation but the facts all came together in the end. You can make all the excuses you like about what did and didn't happen but the fact is this wasn't the first time Luke had used a knife to threaten a young girl. Not a normal activity for any 14-year-old youth I would have thought.
Luke lied about being at the gate just down the road from where the path emerges onto the main road. Two witnesses in a passing car saw him there just minutes after Jodi was murdered a few hundred metres away.
Then there was the story about being at home alone when his own brother testified that that wasn't the case and that it was he who was in the house alone. A period of time for which Luke had no alibi and which coincidentally again occurred shortly after Jodi's murder. We all know about the burned pie claim which again brother Shane disputed. So which one was lying Sandra?
Then there was the disappearing act after school. Dozens of kids milling around who walked that route home every day yet not one child came forward to support Luke's claim that he went directly home. Another lost alibi opportunity?
This was but some of the evidence which saw him convicted of murder. To this day there still isn't a shred of evidence which supports his claim innocence and by the way...polygraphs don't count!
I think you are just a tad confused. I supported you in pursuit of what you claimed to be justice in your hubby (Simon Hall's) case. It soon became clear however that his story did not add up so at that point I made it clear that I no longer supported your and his cause. The rest as they say is history and for the record I was proved right yet again.
Billy Middleton's name still appears as representing the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation on the Scottish Charity Regulator's website but Sandra Lean was a co Director and so is still jointly responsible in accounting for funds obtained by that charity during her tenure.
http://www.oscr.org.uk/search-oscr/charity-details?number=SC041953#results
I have not been associated with WAP since April 2013- two and a half years ago.
WAP was awarded charity status on 17th December 2010. The first annual accounts would not have been returnable until April 2013 ( first full tax year April 2011 - 2012, not reportable until April 2013.) I was never responsible for accounts returns.
I already gave my answer regarding WAP - I have not been associated with the organisation since April 2013, I was not responsible for submission of accounts, and first accounts were not due for submission until April 2013. Anyone with any Concerns regarding my involvement/responsibilities is free to contact the charities commission - I have nothing to hide.
I don't therefore understand Stephanie's comment about me not answering the question about WAP which was specifically about the return of accounts.
I don't know and I don't know - I had no access to accounts whatsoever, and was no longer associated with WAP by the time accounts were due to be returned - how much clearer can I make this?
So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?
So within the space of minutes Luke decided he was suddenly looking for a dead body?
a dog found sarah paines body nobody in there right mind would acuse the dog walker of being involved in her murder.
For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.
By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.
Was the body not moved onto plastic sheeting
For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.
By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.
Hi Baz, the official site was taken down because I no longer had power of attorney, or access to the papers, so couldn't prove, if legally challenged that what I'd quoted was true - in Scotland there are tight restrictions on what third parties can make public. The dog had some tracker training - the training logs were given to the police and an expert put her through testing which showed she had been trained,although not to"expert"level.
The gran thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere, so Luke instructed the dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi, Jodi's hiding" which was a tracking exercise they used in training - Luke would hide, and the trainer would tell the dog Luke was "hiding" and to seek and find him - the three words the dog would recognise, therefore, were seek, find and hiding.
David, while I agree that the person finding the body needs to be checked out, their finding of the body shouldn't be the sole reason for suspicion - Jodi's sister's boyfriend, who had also been over the wall and seen the body - his first words to them were "I suppose you've been to my house already?" Just over two weeks later, his DNA from bodily fluids was found on Jodi's t shirt, and still Luke finding the body was considered "more suspicious." I'm not saying the sister's boyfriend was guilty of anything - I'm saying in those circumstances, we'd normally expect closer police attention
I wasn't far off with my dog sniffing understanding.
So the expert that tested this dog, was his/her evidence accepted at trial? It just seems quite reasonable that Luke's dog pulled him towards the body's location considering the initial statements of the search party and an expert having tested the dog. However, from what I have managed to read, Luke's finding of the body is one of the main things held against him.
The dog experts evidence was never used by the defence at court.
Only Donald Findlay knows why. Seems strange to me, surely it would have certainly challenged the prosecution's contention of how the body was found.
That seems crazy.
What was the defences case then? Just the alibi?
Well that's obviously because by that point they've decided to frame Luke to cover up the murder of Jodi by a family member.
Just say what you mean lol.
My issue isn't with a dog finding a body, it's with a dog finding a body only after passing it a second time. Like you said they can smell blood, apparently Luke's dog mysteriously never smelt it the first time he passed it. Or he did but Luke didn't want to discover the body then.
The only thing that changed dramatically was Luke's alibi.
Yes he "hacked off his hair", he didn't simply get a haircut like teenage boys regularly do. Be sure to keep using that term, it makes it sound much more frantic and desperate and guilty!
He "hacked off his hair" because he killed Jodi, even though it was also SK. Oh and it was Jodi's brother too. (Luke's mother has a hilarious theory on how all of them may be involved.) Please choose one male relative of Jodi and focus on it because blaming them all just results in contradictions.
Luke's alibi was the only thing that changed 'dramatically'. It completely fell apart.
Yes we are encouraged to go by this rule, unless of course it applies to Luke's brother Shane, who originally claimed Luke wasn't at home at all at the time of the murder, he was in his room watching porn and masturbating which he wouldn't do if his brother was home. After being "reminded" by his mother, he later said Luke was home and he distinctly remembers because Luke burned their dinner. But it's ok when he forgets, people get confused all the time! But any change in what Jodi's family remember about what was undoubtedly the most traumatic night of their lives, they must be covering up a murder.
Baz mate if you are new to this case please do not accept anything Sandra tells you at face value.
That's because he did it.I agree.
Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.
We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.
You can't have it both ways!t
Building a case against every male member of Jodi's family is not helpful when they conflict with one another.
She also tried to implicate Peter Tobin knowing full well it couldn't have been him. It would be laughable if not so serious.
Don't even get me started on Mark Kane.
I agree.
I don't find it too unbelievable for Shane, or anyone else for that matter, to incorrectly remember certain times and events.
The missing coat and knife trouble me greatly.
If Luke is guilty, that means that Corinne has lied to cover for him. How much do we think she knows? Would she cover for her son if she knew that he was responsible?
That's because he did it.
Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.
We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.
You can't have it both ways!
That's not the whole story though is it. He cut his own hair off after the description of the two boys on the moped who the police were looking for were released. Was one of their stories not that granny had told them to lie about the time they were on the path.Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects. They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen.
The thing that bothers me about those two moped chaps is they waited a week to come forward. They could have possibly mistook the time they were there but they knew the polis were looking for them without doubt, they still took a week.
Well that's obviously because by that point they've decided to frame Luke to cover up the murder of Jodi by a family member.
Just say what you mean lol.
I was talking about the parka that his mother replaced, the same one numerous witnesses (including school teachers) confirmed Luke owned prior to the murder. I'm willing to believe them over one person (Sandra Lean) who didn't know Luke before conviction so has no idea what items of clothing he owned.
Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects. They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen.
I don't find their initial reluctance to come forward as overly suspicious.
So what's your theory mate explain what you think this suggests.
well the police had already stated they wernt suspects so and less thought this statement was lie that dident really have any reason not to.I wasn't aware of that, to be honest.
Not sure to be honest pal, haha, just niggles me. And the fact they couldn't account for what they were doing.
I wasn't aware of that, to be honest.
Yes, Marty, it was, and in keeping with the"protocols" of this case, the ground where Jodi had originally been lying was also not protected or preserved after she was moved onto the plastic sheet.
Baz, the granny didn't tell them to lie about the time- they lied to her about the time and she told them not to go to the police because they were on the path too early. What I find strange is that at least 6 other members of the extended family knew they were on the path and not one of them said a word. When the time of Jodi leaving was changed, it meant the earlier time they gave was also important
Not sure why this is aimed at me but didn't to be rude and not reply.
Is this a different granny than that which was searching with Luke?
one of cliamed that his granny had told him not to come forward but there is only his word for that and if he lied to her about the time she couldent really give proper advice anyway.
Luke's mother and brother were both charged with perverting the course of justice, ftr.
No, all the charges were dropped....go figure
That don't make sense,Especially in a murder case.
The police also interviewed around 3000 people even though they 'never bothered to investigate because they already decided it was Luke.'
The police also interviewed around 3000 people even though they 'never bothered to investigate because they already decided it was Luke.'
What we do know is that she had no issue with breaking the law for her son and lying about it in court. She denied lying to a tattoo parlour about Luke's age so he could get some hideous flaming skull tattoo (for his 15th birthday I believe.) She denied this in the witness stand despite staff from the tattoo parlour confirming her presence and consent, and her signature and fingerprints being on the consent form.
Source: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (Section 24)
This is the same mother who was pictured sharing cigarettes with her 14 year old son at Jodi's grave which they had been asked to stay away from by the victim's family. You'll find these pictures online of her standing at Jodi's grave in high heels and shirt tied up to expose her midriff, muzzled Alsatian by her side, and sharing and flicking cigarettes on the ground while clinging to her son like a besotted school girl. She also didn't mind him smoking weed and bought him a new knife not long after the murder.
The problem here, nugug, is that 6 other family members knew they were on the path (according to various statements) and none of them thought to mention it to the police, or tell them to contact the police themselves.
For example, one of the mothers (Dickie's, from memory) saw the police appeal for the boys on the moped to come forward and said to him "the police are looking for you." She knew what time his jobcentre appointment was, and she knew the arrangement was for Ferris to pick him up on the moped afterwards (she drove him up for petrol for the bike). If Ferris's claim that he lied to the gran about the time they were on the path was true, Dickie's mother must have known it was a lie - they were all talking to each other throughout that whole week.
well i would of thought there familys would of rocognised the description of them on the moped but not necessarly.
Another relative said Ferris had told her he was on the path (at the time he was actually on the path, not the earlier, dishonest time) and that he'd said on July 1st he was going to go to the police.
How, with so many people knowing they were on the path at the very time police were claiming Jodi was murdered, did they manage to keep it from the police? Again, I'm not saying these two were involved in anything, I'm saying managing to keep this information out of a massive police investigation, when so many people so close to the victim knew about it, clearly had an impact on the direction (and claimed robustness) of the first week of the investigation.
What we do know is that she had no issue with breaking the law for her son and lying about it in court. She denied lying to a tattoo parlour about Luke's age so he could get some hideous flaming skull tattoo (for his 15th birthday I believe.) She denied this in the witness stand despite staff from the tattoo parlour confirming her presence and consent, and her signature and fingerprints being on the consent form.
Source: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (Section 24)
This is the same mother who was pictured sharing cigarettes with her 14 year old son at Jodi's grave which they had been asked to stay away from by the victim's family. You'll find these pictures online of her standing at Jodi's grave in high heels and shirt tied up to expose her midriff, muzzled Alsatian by her side, and sharing and flicking cigarettes on the ground while clinging to her son like a besotted school girl. She also didn't mind him smoking weed and bought him a new knife not long after the murder.
This is interesting. That does sound like quite a lot.
Were there other suspects investigated as thoroughly as Luke? As in were there a list of suspects that were whittled down thoroughly?
It wasn't used as evidence, someone asked if Corinne would lie and I was highlighting that she already had. I touched on the unhealthy and inappropriate behaviour because it shows that we can't judge Corinne Mitchell by 'normal mum' standards.
Who are you to say that? What are you talking about? You have no idea who was investigated and how thoroughly as you weren't there. Concrete argument though. ::)
It wasn't used as evidence, someone asked if Corinne would lie and I was highlighting that she already had. I touched on the unhealthy and inappropriate behaviour because it shows that we can't judge Corinne Mitchell by 'normal
I'm not trying anything, I'm telling you as a matter of fact that Corinne lied in the witness box about this particular incident. The discussion was originally about her perverting the course of justice. I provided an example of when she demonstrably lied in court.
they claimed to have done but there's only there word for that.
[/quote
Dobie also claimed it was the finest investigation that he had ever seen... we all know that's a lot of pish :)
They suspected him because his lack of emotion and strange behaviour, that doesn't mean they didn't investigate anybody else. As I previously mentioned, over 3000 people were witnessed by L&B. While they couldn't link him forensically (murder weapon and jacket vanishing off the face of the Earth, and DNA having an innocent explanation due to them being a couple*) in the end the circumstantial evidence was just too damning. To think he almost got away with it, scary thought.
*yes Luke's DNA were found on Jodi, and her's on his trousers. Findlay had to provide an innocent explaination for this at the trial. If you've read the Wrongly Accused site you've probably saw them saying there wasn't a shred of DNA linking Luke to the scene - simply untrue and dishonest.
I'd like to know how Luke could describe to police what Jodi was wearing at the time of the murder if he hadn't seen her since school and she had changed. He even described a hair 'scrunchie' which was covered by Jodi's hair at the murder scene.
Yeah findlays a rubbish wee lawyer, doesn't know what he's doing. If only Sandra was there.
If the trousers were so irrelevant why did Findlay feel he had to explain it away at the trial?
I think to be fair sandra, df must take his share of the blame for a lot the jury never heard.
Would be funnier if not for the fact you require 0 evidence (of which there's none) to convince you he's not guilty.
Is this not after conviction at appeal. I only looked at the first one to be honest.
I meant evidence that convicted in the first place.
DNA
Positive I'd
Forensics
Recovery of clothes
Murder weapon
Right to a fair trial.
Believable motive
A time line not manipulated by 40 minutes suit by police
Failure to follow up other possibilities
I've been reading about the trial. is it usual for the judge to basically say there's enough evidence to find him guilty if you believe the evidence?
Sandra's not telling me anything I don't already know. She still has no evidence or clue if Luke's innocent.
Can I ask what first got you interested in this case?
Right about who it was? You think you figured who really killed Jodi or you just mean right about him being innocent?
I've been reading about the trial. is it usual for the judge to basically say there's enough evidence to find him guilty if you believe the evidence?
Why is it so inconceivable that perhaps the person who stabbed Jodi was indeed the person she had arranged to meet who was also known to carry knives? You and Sandra don't know that it wasn't. Don't post your personal opinion as facts please, you could be campaigning to free a murderer for all you know. I wouldn't risk that unless I had some evidence he was innocent
Sorry to go all technical here, but it's perfectly normal for the judge to say "there is a sufficiency of evidence to convict... if the jury believes the "evidence."
For example, did you know the actual legal position is that it's not for jurors to decide which witnesses they understand, they are simly asked to decided which witnesses they believe - that's why the evidnce from the forensics expert is so important - even if the jury did not understand the intricacies of DNA evidence, if they believed this witness, that's all that's needed to convict, even though she was taking utter rubbish in what could be seen as a cynical attempt to get the jury to believe that an unconnected DNA sample was, in fact, important.
Is this Mahasweta Roy? And is this relating to the trousers mentioned in an earlier post that were removed from Luke's room? Did she present this as significant?
From memory, yes, she was the "professional" who tried to claim that there was DNA from Jodi "connected to" a pair of trousers belonging to Luke - thankfully Findlay pointed out that those trousers, were not connected to the murder, therefore the "link" was non existent.
How was this ever accepted as "evidence?" Even the judge, by making the above claim, demonstrated that he, himself, had been influenced by the hype, because there was no evidence produced in his court, during a trial over which he presided, to support his claim. So there you have it - the prosecution only has to make an accusation, no evidence required to back it up, and the judge will accept it as proven - that is one of the reasons this case worries me so much.
Luke was never questioned about a Parka, missing or otherwise, until April 2004, 8 months later, yet police claimed their "suspicions were raised" when they searched his house and found the parka "missing."
Thanks for the refresher, it's amazing what you start to remember again about this vast case. I read the 1000 page thread but it's hard to remember everything.
It was years ago that I was first interested and I forgot it all but the broad strokes in that time. I'm slowly piecing it back together.
Yes, I believe they are still perusing areas, avenues.
Mojo have taken over the case from sandra and there is a fair bit still going on. I'm sure sandra said she hopes to be able to discuss some of it in the not to distant.
It must have been hard for everyone to pick themselves back up after the last submission.
Thanks for the refresher, it's amazing what you start to remember again about this vast case. I read the 1000 page thread but it's hard to remember everything.
Can you explain how the parka has been proven false? Sandra doesn't know. The several witnesses who testified that he did own a parka prior to the murder actually knew Luke. It's far from proven false please don't post such misinformation.
Falconer's DNA has absolutely no connection to the murder scene and you know it, so I suggest you stop typing the poor guy's name on forums. And while we're on the subject - do you honestly believe if SK ejaculated at the scene there wouldn't be far more DNA than 'traces' of semen on a shirt? This is why it can safely be considered an innocent transfer, i.e. obviously not transferred at the scene - not relevant to the murder.
This is why it can safely be considered an innocent transfer, i.e. obviously not transferred at the scene - not relevant to the murder.Sorry, Lithium, but the prosecution's argument, that semen and sperm heads may have been transfered from one item of Jodi's clothing to another by rainwater diffusion at the scene would have to stand for any semen, sperm heads, or any other bodily fluid containing identifiable DNA profiles, regardless of how those fluids got there. Or it's dismissed as total nonsense, and the "innocent explanation" for the DNA on the shirt evaporates with the rainwater!
Lithium's argument here about Kelly's DNA is, of course Lithium's own opinion posted as fact. I have never, ever suggested that Kelly ejaculated at the scene, or have I ever seen anyone else make such a claim. However, it is not certain that, even if he had, there would have been "far more DNA than traces on a shirt." That's a whole other discussion which I don't have time to go into in detail this morning - I can come back to it later tomorrow if anyone wants to go through it.
JF probably is lying. I think it's safe to assume he was more than likely having sex in the woods with someone whose name he doesn't want to disclose (could be many reasons for this - cheating on a partner? a male? an underage girl? or for the same reason loads of people prefer to keep their sex life private.) If it was anything to do with Jodi, her DNA would surely be on the outside of the condom, but we already know she wasn't raped. Unless he randomly decided to murder a stranger and masturbate over what he had done. (While being cautious enough to use a condom to avoid leaving DNA - then daft enough to dump the condom nearby.)
Prosecution Timeline:Previously 5.30 and 5.05 respectively. The police reconstruction exactly a week later had the Jodi lookalike leaving her mother's house at "a few minutes after 5" to place her on the Easthouses road at 5.05 to coincide with the "stocky man" sighting.
4:50 Jodi leaves the house to meet Luke.
4:49 - 4:54 Adrina Bryson witnesses a couple at Jodi's end of the path.
5:00 John Farris and Gordon Dickie are on and around the path and the gap in the wall. They do not see Luke or Jodi.
5:40 Luke phones Jodi's home and discovers she has left.
5:40 - 5:55 Lorraine Fleming and Rosmary Walsh witness Luke hanging around near the path.
5:55 - 6pm A group of teenagers (Holbourn, Houston, Elliot) witness Luke on a road near the path entrance.
6:05 Carol Heattie witnesses Luke hanging around near a driveway.
6:32 Luke phones David High to meet up.
6:30 - 7:30 Mrs Frankland smells a fire.
7:05 Luke meets David High in the woods.
9:00 Franklands both smell a fire.
10:00 George Ramage smells a fire.
10:00 The Frankland neighbours see Luke.
10:40 Judith Jones texts Luke's phone.
11:00 Jodi's sister, her fiancé and grandmother set out searching for Jodi.
So the path that this all centres around runs between where Luke and Jodi lived. How long a walk is it from Jodi's to the path and Luke's to the path? And roughly how long would it take one to walk the length of the path; I've seen statements of between 15-30 minutes.
What are the areas at each end called? I have Jodi's end as Newbattle in my head?
JF probably is lying. I think it's safe to assume he was more than likely having sex in the woods with someone whose name he doesn't want to disclose (could be many reasons for this - cheating on a partner? a male? an underage girl? or for the same reason loads of people prefer to keep their sex life private.) If it was anything to do with Jodi, her DNA would surely be on the outside of the condom, but we already know she wasn't raped. Unless he randomly decided to murder a stranger and masturbate over what he had done. (While being cautious enough to use a condom to avoid leaving DNA - then daft enough to dump the condom nearby.)
It means that even though they paraded all the nonsense about Luke, Manson, the Dahlia, the dvd, etc before the jury, they did not then "rely" upon it for the conviction - it was, in the prosecution's opinion, unnecessary for the jury to believe that stuff, because there was sufficient other evidence for the jury to convict.
It would clearly show an unhealthy obsession,nugs beyond the norm, that is.
I do not understand this opinion at all. And it's this kind of thinking I worry was in the jury's head.
That was exactly the point mate.
But the opinion itself, that liking Manson clearly shows an unhealthy obsession, doesn't make sense to me in either lookout or the jury's minds.
Exactly, nugnug - if the "evidence" about the Manson/Dahlia claimed connection wasn't needed, and since it was completely unfounded (no proof that Luke had ever seen the Dahlia paintings, no proof of an "obsession" etc) why on earth was it before the jury at all?
There is supposed to be a rule about the probative value of evidence having to outweigh its prejudicial potential - what happened to that rule in this case? Bottles of urine, stored after the murder (and an innocent explanation for that), a tattoo obtained months after the murder, a cd bought after the murder... none of that could prove anything about the murder itself, so was automatically bound to be more prejudicial than probative, yet all of it went before the jury in a grotesque display of character asassination. It wasn't even needed - the character assassination had already been completed by the media long before the case came to trial.
You have a very short memory Sandra.Interesting claim, since I'm doing all of this from memory.
The evidence in relation to events which played out in the family home was introduced to show that Luke was a boy out of control.
A one parent household with an absent father
where the youngest son dictated to his mother rather than the other way round.
A 14-year-old child who was allowed to set up a cannabis factory in his bedroom
and was allowed freedoms above and beyond his age.
A child who was effectively left to do anything he wanted with little or no parental intervention. A child who did not understand right from wrong and was seldom disciplined, this was an important part of the evidence against Luke and the jury accepted it.
Your innocent explanation excuse just doesn't cut any ice. You are still making excuses for Luke Mitchell, apparently you haven't yet learned a lesson from the Prout and Hall cases?
Luke Mitchell has no alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered. His own brother disputed his claim that he was at home
He was seen by two independent witnesses who described his clothing exactly while he was lurking a matter of yards from the murder scene just minutes after it occurred.
Now you tell me Sandra, on a section of main road with few pedestrians, what are the chances of two male youths wearing exactly the same clothes being in the same quiet spot at exactly the same time?No idea, but it's irrelevant, because their descriptions (one from a fleeting glance in a rearview mirror) were originally nothing like Luke on the evening in question, the timings were changed, the location of the sighting was changed - what are the chances this "evidence" was shoehorned (badly, as it turned out) to fit a particular agenda? And, for the record, in the summer, it's not an area with "few pedestrians" - granted, it's not a busy town street, but neither is it a deserted pathway.
And if the sightings weren't of Luke/Luke & Jodi, who were they of? Where are these mystery people who vanished off the face of the Earth?
Your innocent explanation excuse just doesn't cut any ice. You are still making excuses for Luke Mitchell, apparently you haven't yet learned a lesson from the Prout and Hall cases?
Stop doing this.
Jodi isn't accused of anything.
These things didn't get Mitchell convicted.
Stop doing this.
Jodi isn't accused of anything.
These things didn't get Mitchell convicted.
Were photographs taken before the body and items were moved?
I suspect I know the answer.
John, is that what he calls himself now. Personally I wouldn't give him the steam off ma piss never mind the time of day. His name is about the closest to the truth about anything you will get.
And if the sightings weren't of Luke/Luke & Jodi, who were they of? Where are these mystery people who vanished off the face of the Earth?
Hi John, nice to meet you.
I've been reading about this case on lots of old forums and you were at one point very passionate in your defence of Luke, to the point of a lot of your posts being moderated even. So I was wondering what the evidence was that came out that changed your mind so dramatically?
Hi John, nice to meet you.
I understand that both Prout and Hall eventually ended up confessing to their crimes despite having allowed people to campaign for their innocence for years. This must have been so hard for their families and their supporters. But isn't not having the fight knocked out of you or to not be so jaded by experience that you give up something, to be admired? I think it is.
And? Anyay, Luke's father wasn't "absent" - Luke spent every weekend with him. You may have forgotten that Jodi, too, was part of a one parent family - best be careful what inferences you imply about one parent families, I think.
Not according to Jodi and Judith. The evidence shows that Judith had threatened to tell Luke's mother about something he and Jodi had done that they houldn't have, and Jodi begged her not to because of how strict Luke's mum was. Judith told the police that Jodi and Luke didn't normally meet until around 6pm because Luke "had to" cook the dinner because his mother and brother worked.[/b]
Now you're just being silly.
Careful again - Jodi was allowed to smoke cannabis, and have underage sex - her mother knew about both. Are you suggesting Jodi was also "out of control?" What's being described here are a couple of ordinary teenagers, doing things that ordinary teenagers do - you might not approve, I might not approve, but it won't change the fact that that's what teenagers do, and it certainly doesn't suggest they're all "out of control." Remember, Luke was doing well in school, getting good marks in all of his classes - not really "out of control" at all, was he?
For the record, I was never "involved" in the Adrian Prout case - I discussed it, on the basis of available information, online with others, that was the extent of my "involvement." I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case.
Neither do Joseph Jones, or Steven Kelly, or Ferris and Dickie, on the same basis you make this claim. Someone made a phone call from Luke's home landline to Scotts caravans during this period - we know where his mother, brother, grandmother and father were, so who do you suppose made that call? His brother did not "dispute" Luke's whereabouts initially, as I've explained elsewhere. Mother and brother both ate dinner when mother came in from work - who do you suppose cooked the dinner they ate, or did it somehow make itself?
That'll be the dark haired, tall/ medium height youth wearing jeans and trainers with a jacket they couldn't say whether or not it was zipped up but could later read the writing on the t shirt underneath. Oh, yes, that'll be the description given after Luke's pictures appeared in the papers, and the whole area was awash with rumour that Luke was the killer. Those will be the "independent" witnesses who originally claimed to have seen the youth nearer to 6pm close to the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College, and not "near the entrance to the path," the independent witnesses whose statements begin "I have been shown a newspaper article (by police)... and asked..."
No idea, but it's irrelevant, because their descriptions (one from a fleeting glance in a rearview mirror) were originally nothing like Luke on the evening in question, the timings were changed, the location of the sighting was changed - what are the chances this "evidence" was shoehorned (badly, as it turned out) to fit a particular agenda? And, for the record, in the summer, it's not an area with "few pedestrians" - granted, it's not a busy town street, but neither is it a deserted pathway.
I spent a lot of time on the Prout and Hall cases, I even considered Hall innocent initially but the case unravelled as time went on.
The Hall case was a different kettle of fish. I spent many hours conversing with Halls wife, helping her with correspondence and trawling through the evidence looking for that glimmer of light which could open up the case. We thought we had it at one stage but it was a coincidence and nothing more. The moment of truth however came when it was discovered that Hall had in fact burgled premises in Ipswich the night of Joan Albert's murder. It was then revealed that his family and other close associates knew about this burglary yet failed to inform police. Alibis then began to look shady, people who had once been reliable began to crumble under the threat of further police intervention. A fresh look at the timings revealed that Hall had indeed been in Ipswich but had time to have burgled Mrs Albert's home and stabbed her before returning to his parents house.
this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.
well simon hall and adrian prout both have there on threads im happy discuss ethere case in its pproper place but this thread was sort of suposed to be about luke.
So you are denying the claim that Luke was out of parental control and effectively did whatever he wanted?Yes, see previous posts
Again you are denying that Luke Mitchell had bulk cannabis stashed in his bedroom along with plastic bags and a set of scales for weighing it before being packaged ready for sale? Do you condone such behaviour Sandra?Ten months of intense police scrutiny, his every move watched and documented, but they allowed him to not only stash "bulk" cannabis, but to sell it right under their noses? The "scales" and "bags" were trinket style objects, freely available from a well known shop in Edinburgh - real dealers advertise what they're up to by helpfully putting their wares in little bags conveniently displaying a cannabis leaf on the outside, don't they? The amount of cannabis taken from Luke's house on April 14th 2004 was reported to be much higher than the actual amount in police statemnts. Whether I condone or not is irrelevant. I do not believe that smoking cannabis predisposes teenagers to becoming brutal murderers.
As already pointed out, what Jodi did in her spare time is sort of irrelevant to her killers dispositionMissed the point - see previous posts.
For the record you are/were co director of the Wrongly Accused Person organsation/forum which supported strangler Adrian Prout so let's stop pussy footing around Sandra. You also made several posts supporting Prout on the WAP forum. No doubt you would like this event to be assigned to history but it won't happen.Was co director. Discussed the case online with others. You have no idea what I would or would not like.
As for the Hall case, you say you do not regret your involvement so effectively you are saying you don't regret supporting a cold blooded killer who murdered a defenceless old lady in her own home before molesting her? Really Sandra, do you really want to be associated with Hall?Goodness, a number of quantum leaps of assumption there. I'm not "effectively" saying anything - I'm stating, as a fact, I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case - I learned many difficult and painful lessons from it.
So you don't believe Shane then? One of them was lying for some very good reason! Interesting??not even worth a response. See previous posts.
You can twist all you like but the two women didn't imagine it all. It happened, Mitchell admitted being in that area, they saw him, get over it!Now now, John, no need to get personal and aggressive. The evidence strongly suggests they did not see what they claimed in court. See previous posts.
this all irlvant to the case we are talking about.
I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....
However, as time went on Corinne's replies began to worry me, there were things which did not add up, there were gaps in her knowledge and the case began to unravel. Excuses were being made which again were not consistent with the facts and Mitchell supporters were becoming abusive and dishonest.
The final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned was one day when Corinne refused point blank to answer questions, the excuses had run out, the deception and the charade was laid bare.
That was the turning point for me, Luke had no alibi despite Corinne's protestations, his brother refuted his claims that he was at home the afternoon Jodi was murdered. The Mitchell family home was not that big, there was no way Luke could have returned home without his brother being aware of it. The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.See previous posts.
The facts are as follows. Corinne Mitchell was at work at her caravan business some distance away from the family home but the internet records showed that someone was in the house surfing the internet. Luke's brother Shane claimed it was he, that he was surfing porn sites from his bedroom with the door ajar so that he could hear anyone come into the house. His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.These are not even the facts as presented by the prosecution, but never mind, John says they're the facts, so he must be right.
In his evidence Luke makes no reference to Shane being in the house before 5.30pm. He claims to have phoned Jodi from the house, to have prepared dinner in the house yet Shane's evidence disputed these events in their entirety. Bottom line was that one of the brothers was telling lies in order to establish an alibi.Please! Luke did not claim to have "phoned Jodi from the house." Shane's evidence was that he ate a dinner he did not prepare, and his mother did not prepare, so who prepared it - the dog? And who made the call to Scotts Caravans from the Mitchell landline that afternoon? Oh, let's not forget the witnesses who saw Luke making his way home from school, shall we?
Question is...why?
this witness claimed she had never met jodi at the time no photogrphs had been published show how the hell she thought she had seen jodi is beyond me.
t. The claims about Luke making dinner were not borne out by his brothers evidence.
His evidence was that nobody did until his mother arrived home at around 5.30pm.
When did he say this?
The problem with relying so heavily on Shane's evidence, from either point of view, seems to be that at some point he has made statements that support both guilt and innocence. And then when you also factor in his treatment by police, it all just seems too muddled to reach any solid conclusions.
What about the suggestion that Shane was home alone in his bedroom, with his door ajar, whilst viewing porn on the internet? What has police treatment got to do with this?
The over zealous police questioning left him unsure about everything. Memory's such a complicated thing and, for me, none of Shane's evidence seems solid enough to build an opinion on, guilty or innocent.
Were you there when he was questioned?
Where is he? Why hasn't he ever publicly supported his brother?
No, obviously not. But, I may be wrong, the transcripts of his interviews were part of one of his appeals and it was agreed that their methods were unacceptable.
I don't know anything about Shane's life or choices.
The over zealous police questioning left him unsure about everything. Memory's such a complicated thing and, for me, none of Shane's evidence seems solid enough to build an opinion on, guilty or innocent.
Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?
Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.
"I don't know".... I get that it looks bad, and it is one of the few things that stops me from saying I definitely think he's innocent but he doesn't say Luke wasn't in. It just feels undefinitive and doesn't answer all the other questions about his guilt.
Also, why does nobody seem to place as much importance in the changing statements of everyone else... Only Shane.
Also, why does nobody seem to place as much importance in the changing statements of everyone else... Only Shane.
Again, I don't know him.
Why doesn't he publicly support Luke?
I must say in relation to the Mitchell case, with hindsight, the absence of support (Public) by brother Shane leaves big questions for me... There are also other factors, that I was made aware of last year by Sandra L that concern me greatly....
Is it because he believes Luke to be guilty?
Yes, there has always been a big question mark over Shanes intiial statements to the police. He initially told police that he was home alone but his mother sent him back to the police station to claim Luke was at home backed up by the burned pie story. In the witness box however he was warned of the consequences of committing perjury so reverted to the home alone version. Speaks volumes!
Sandra likes to promote the stuff which suports her own beliefs whilst conveniently ignoring the damning evidence.
Ten months of intense police scrutiny, his every move watched and documented, but they allowed him to not only stash "bulk" cannabis, but to sell it right under their noses? The "scales" and "bags" were trinket style objects, freely available from a well known shop in Edinburgh - real dealers advertise what they're up to by helpfully putting their wares in little bags conveniently displaying a cannabis leaf on the outside, don't they? The amount of cannabis taken from Luke's house on April 14th 2004 was reported to be much higher than the actual amount in police statemnts. Whether I condone or not is irrelevant. I do not believe that smoking cannabis predisposes teenagers to becoming brutal murderers.
Who for? Luke or Jodie?
That's conjecture.
Could it be that Shane was Luke's alibi?
For Shane, in this instance.
Thanks. Yes that was the thing I was referring to. Overbearing and hostile... Deplored.... Poor kid, must have been horrible.
"The appellant was on 14 August 2003 interviewed under caution by police officers. In the course of the trial the Crown sought to lead before the jury evidence of some but only a few of the questions and answers put and given in the course of that interview. Objection was taken on behalf of the appellant to that course of action but the objection was repelled by the trial judge. The challenge was renewed on appeal, it being maintained that the interview was conducted in circumstances which were wholly and manifestly unfair to the appellant. Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/luke-mitchell-official-summary-of-appeal-court-decision-1-1259417
Who for? Luke or Jodie?
You're right, I should have worded it better.
I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.
Was co director. Discussed the case online with others. You have no idea what I would or would not like.
Goodness, a number of quantum leaps of assumption there. I'm not "effectively" saying anything - I'm stating, as a fact, I do not regret my involvement in the Simon Hall case - I learned many difficult and painful lessons from it.
Are you making this up as you go?
You said;
In response to;
I asked;
Please explain yourself.....
Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....
Happy to explain.
We were discussing the treatment of Shane by the police during questioning. I was expressing empathy for a 15 year old boy being handled in an overbearing and hostile manner by the police. I was also questioning the affect this might have on whatever information is gathered during such deplorable questioning.
Never happened! Corinne would answer the same questions over and over again - because people didn't like the answers, they would come back and ask the same questions in a different way. To these people, whom Corinne had answered repeatedly, she stated that she would not continue to answer questions she had already answered several times - not quite the same thing as "refusing point blank to answer questions" is it?
You're right, I should have worded it better.
I'm not saying it's not important I just never see any explanation for why everyone else's testimony seems to differ from their statements.
Everyone else wasn't on trial for murder....
No they were witnesses in a murder trial, just like Shane..... I don't see your point here.
You play down your involvement with the discredited WAP Organisation as if it never happened Sandra. You were a co director so every bit responsible for the way in which it was run. You do realise that you are still jointly responsible for the funds which the organisation accrued and which by the way have never been declared in any filings with the Scottish Charity Regulator?
Are you now distancing yourself from Middleton and the allegation that he posted on the WAP forum in Corinne Mitchell's name after she had left?
Is there no moderation on this site?
Thanks for the explanation.
I take it your stance now is that LM is innocent?
So you disagree with the appeal judges then?
Where was LM if he wasn't in the house with Shane? Who is telling the truth, Shane or Luke?
Why hasn't Shane spoken out about this since the conviction of Luke?
Why? Is it getting too close to the truth?
Is there no moderation on this site?
No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.
No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.
No, because it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. Because you're more interested in tearing people down and causing/having arguements that civilised discussion.
What is there to moderate? Please point out exactly what you believe should be moderated and why?
It's simple;
He's either -
A) Guilty
Or
B) Innocent
No. My stance, which is not set in stone and I'm still hoping one day it will change, is that the investigation was awful and because of the failings in it I will never KNOW who killed Jodi. There are big unanswered questions for me in how Luke could have committed the crime in the way and time frame that the prosecution claimed.
C) Not proven
C) Not proven
The investiagation was 'awful' as you put it but that doesn't render Luke Mitchell innocent. I agree he was treated inproperly by police when interviewed but again that does not make him innocent.
Mitchell's supporters including Sandra Lean had hoped that Mitchell would be freed not because he was innocent but because his rights to a fair trial had been impinged. What is your view Baz?
What like the Middleton case?
Knew you would say 'not proven,' predictable.
So better to have a 'not proven' verdict in a murder case like this in your opinion? You think the people of Scotland would have been okay with that?
That's a good question. Not one that I really have a formed opinion on, and without legal expertise I'm not sure I'm that qualified to say. But if the basis of a fair trial is innocent until proven guilty then I think the media attention would have made that a lot more difficult, if not impossible. I also think a fair trial is dependent on the strength of the evidence presented and this is dependent on the people collecting that evidence.
However, I also think Luke had a top-notch lawyer and has had his case revisited with appeals. I know that people question the defence's performance, and there are things that seem lacklustre about it to me, but there are entire day's lost to legal wrangling as well so he can't have been that weak.
As I say, And wasn't at the trial, so it's hard to say.
Jodie and her family didn't deserve justice, is that what you are suggesting?
More irrelevance.
I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.
It's Jodi.
And I won't dignify that with a response.
It's Jodi what?
You mean you won't answer because to do so leaves your theory of a not proven verdict wide open for critism... ::)
C) Not proven
I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at the end. Easy mistake.
And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.
And these circles we are going round in are pointless.
Night.
Good morning.
Nugnug, Andrina Bryson was asked on the stand if she knew any of the Jones family. She said she didn't. Janine was asked if she knew Mark "Bill" Bryson - she said she did, but played down the relationship between him and her family. Mark "Bill" Bryson wasn't called to give evidence, neither was his brother (Andrina's husband.) Nobody was ever asked how MBB came to be in Alice Walker's house by 9am on the morning of July 1st, and how he had come by AB's story of a "sighting" so quickly. The formal identification of Jodi's body was not made public until around 3pm on July 1st.
For the record, the description he is reported to have given is different again from the one given by AB in court- it was of someone wearing "army clothes" and "army style boots."
More irrelevance.
I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.
C) Not proven
what i cant grasp is why they denied it i mean that wouldent of made mrs brysons testomany any less valid.
Donald Findlay may have been a "top notch" lawyer, but when a lawyer, any lawyer, takes a tactical decision not to be "too hard" on members of the victim's family, for fear of putting the jury "offside" (curious, given the months of negative publicity) then how robust can that defence really be?
I'd heard many years ago that this decision had been made, but never had anything solid to back it up - things the solicitor had said certainly seemed to point that way. I have now seen documentation which confirms that such a decision was, indeed, taken.
More irrelevance.
I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.
It's Jodi.
And I won't dignify that with a response.
I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at the end. Easy mistake.
And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.
And these circles we are going round in are pointless.
Night.
I'm merely trying to point out that if you believe LM to be innocent then you need to have another suspect in mind, one with the means, motive and opportunity in order to establish their guilt.
You cannot have a suspect like LM and then think 'oh he could be guilty but all the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to settle my mind into believing he did it, I need to see a DNA match or photograph to prove to my mind he didn't do it.' Not in a case like this.
If this mentality was allowed to stand then there would be numerous unsolved cases and more worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets
14th April 2014
JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.
Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.
The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.
The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.
A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.
In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”
Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.
Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.
Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.
It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.
At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.
Mitchell’s school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.
Criminologist Elizabeth Rudman said: “This is extreme material and it is very interesting that he has asked for these items halfway through his sentence. I am taken aback that he is asking for these Satanic materials at this point.”
The SPS said: “Any request by a prisoner for materials on the grounds of religious practice would be considered carefully and risk-assessed by our chaplaincy team.”
Mitchell would not be given any materials that could incite violence or antisocial behaviour."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463
"Mitchell’s Satanic links were highlighted during his trial, where he was described as “truly wicked” by judge Lord Nimmo Smith. However, he still protests his innocence.
One source said: “Mitchell’s supporters have always downplayed his links to Satanism but it’s clear he has a
serious interest in the subject.
“Some people think he is playing a game and is trying to cause mischief. He’s still fighting his conviction. How can surrounding yourself with Satanic materials make a good impression?
It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.
At his trial, prosecutors highlighted that he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. It also emerged he had a demonic tattoo done while under investigation for Jodi’s murder.
Prosecutors revealed his school essays included lines such as “People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance” and “Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn’t mean I need psychiatric help”.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
Why? Isn't it enough to look at the evidence, investigation and prosecution tactics etc, and come to the conclusion that none of it actually supports the contention that he is the killer?
Believing someone to be innocent on this basis is entirely separate from "having another suspect in mind."
There were a number of people in this case who were not properly investigated, so cannot be said to have been safely eliminated from the enquiry. Does that make them "suspects" or does it just leave, 12 years later, a mountain of unanswered questions, all of which undermine the safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell.
I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?
You said earlier
Why not? Our justice system is supposed to demand two fundamental premises - that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was Luke afforded the presumption of innocence? Not according to the SCCRC, not according to John Scott QC, Roy Ramm, Keith Ashcroft... I could go on, but you get the picture. Not even according to SIO Craig Dobbie himself! It's not the case of circumstantial evidence "settling" anyone's mind - the evidence has to piece logically together to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the killer, and a number of professionals do not believe that happened. Far too many of the normal rules of justice were broken - events which happened after the murder, for example, cannot have influenced the murder itself - that is basic logic. Yet they were allowed to be used to support claims (nothing more than that) about behaviours, propensities etc, prior to the murder.
Does that mean it's ok to get someone - anyone, rather than have an "unsolved case?" And what if they get the wrong person - doesn't that leave "worryingly dangerous individuals walking the streets?"
Not for you
Good post. I think that it shows LM's state of mind - and that is important in a case like this.State of mind more than a decade later.
Some people have a financial incentive in MOJ cases, I think that needs to be kept in mind.The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.
I think LM is guilty as sin. When a suspect can't keep their stroy straight, and those around him don't either, then there is usually a reason for that. If it was my brother inside for a crime I didn't believe he committed I would be SCREAMING from the rooft tops.
State of mind more than a decade later.
The people named in my last post had zero financial motive/gain from their comments and opinions. I personally have never made a penny from my involvement in MoJ work.
Luke's story was the only one that stayed straight throughout all of the statements. Unless you've been in a situation where a relative has been wrongly convicted, I don't think you're in a positon to say what you'd do. I know of several families where some members are able to campaign tirelessly and others simply cannot cope.
For the record, I personally believe the request for this material was ill conceived - it doesn't, however, change my view of the facts of the case or the so-called investigation
I don't believe Baz said he thought Luke should have had a Not Proven verdict - I thought he said Not Proven was another verdict open to the jury, without expressing an opinion on whether that should have been the outcome in this case?
Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.
The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.
I do not take you seriously anymore Sandra L nor do I think you are credible (My opinion of course) and therefore see no point in responding to everything you have written. ...
However if you stand so strongly behind your arguments;
Who killed Jodi Jones if you believe LM didn't?
I don't think Mat was suggesting you had made any money from your involvement in MOJ work - I believe he was referring to the person maintaining innocence and them having a financial motive...
Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
I'll-conceived? How and why?Let's not pllay silly games. It was ill conceived because the reaction, when the news was leaked to the media, was predictable, and did nothing to further his cause.
What did he want with the books? Research material? If LM has nothing to hide then he would not need to careful plan when or how he would ask for copies of the books imo. However if this is the case, why no explanation? What is your explanation?
Nothing wrong in believing the investigation was flawed and outlining those flaws but doesn't mean a person is innocent because of them; as my experience proves.
I see, so you'll ignore my questions and comments, but still feel perfectly justified in demanding answers from me that you've already said you're going to ignore. Not sure how that's going to work!
You did make me smile, though... "If you stand so strongly behind your arguments...." Really??? More than 12 years down the line, and you use "if." And, just for clarity, your opinion of me is none of my business - I came here to discuss Luke's case with people who seemed to be interested in discussing it - if that's not you, no worries!
I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
Let's not pllay silly games. It was ill conceived because the reaction, when the news was leaked to the media, was predictable, and did nothing to further his cause.
Doesn't matter, remember? Credibility etc!
But it may mean he's innocent because the circumstances may be different. Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?
Thanks, that was exactly what I was getting at. I truly wish I could just come down on one side and that's why I ask so many questions, hoping to sure up my opinion.
The conviction is troubling though. I'll happily say that.
So Luke asked for books on Satan because he is suffering from PTSD is that what you are suggesting?
This is why I do what I do, Baz (although not to the extent I once did - I simply don't have the time or energy any more). For me, there's a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect, and what we think we know about them, and I think it's important that more people are made aware of that, because wrongful accusation and conviction could so easily happen to any one of us.
No. Please read your own posts, and my responses to them. The PTSD reference was in response to your questions about what Shane does or doesn't do, and why. Interesting series of "non responses" to my posts though.
So you were suggesting Shane suffers with PTSD?
Neither irony or sarcasm is argument
You make me smile too ;D The word cockaloram springs to mind. ::)
Btw; you didn't stand behind the stance of innocence last year. Even pointing out some of your concerns regarding this 'waver.'
I would have been a fool to have accepted, without question, everything that has come my way over the years - I had to question everything, doubt everything, re-think everything over and over again - there have been many times I have had to re-examine everything I thought I knew in light of new developments - that is the nature of this work, and always will be. I'd have thought, given your experiences, you, too, would understand that. Just as a reminder, your opinion of me is none of my business.
Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes in my opinion. Why doesn't he write a statement, in his own words, supporting what you and others say about him? What is he worried about?
I don't know, and it's none of my business. Why presume he is "worried" about anything? Do you know how many people end up suffering PTSD following events such as these?
So you were suggesting Shane suffers with PTSD?
No. Please read your own posts, and my responses to them. The PTSD reference was in response to your questions about what Shane does or doesn't do, and why
No, I was offering that as a possible explanation for Shane not commenting/campaigning publicly.
Having a clearer idea of what really went on in both cases would help people come to informed conclusions - that can surely only be a positive step?
This is why I do what I do, Baz (although not to the extent I once did - I simply don't have the time or energy any more). For me, there's a pile of information about how police investigations and prosecution procedures deviate from what we expect, and what we think we know about them, and I think it's important that more people are made aware of that, because wrongful accusation and conviction could so easily happen to any one of us.
It's a terrifying prospect. Especially with the Marilyn Manson CDs stored unde my bed (unplayed for a decade probably) and notes about Luke Mitchell on my iPad. All damning evidence.
It has character, I like it.
I just like the name Suzie. ;D
This site is huge, is there somewhere you can read the main points of the JB case ? Been reading through the threads and I am a little confused!
(apologies, off topic )
Edited for clarity
This statement intrigues me.
Yet Shane has a different take on things.
Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
Source: Evening News - Scotland
Date: 1/13/2005
THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family's house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".
The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane's statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother's car being in the driveway and the front door being open.
His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.
"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.
"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.
Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell's statement given on the previous day to Shane's. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."
Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."
Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.
"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."
Mr Turnbull said: "Who".
Mitchell replied: "My mother."
Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.
"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.
Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: 'You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.'"
Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.
Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
Here's a recap re Shane's evidence.
Maybe this is why he doesn't speak out publicly anymore?
I was quite shocked the first time I read this when going through this forum because my immediate reaction was that he had just admitted to setting up an alibi with his Mum. But, it can surely just as easily have been him saying that he couldn't have given the evidence without his Mum reminding him. He'd already shown that his memory of the evening wasn't exactly reliable when he said he got home at 3:30 (if memory serves) but the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.
It just isn't the definitive piece of evidence that I would have been willing to convict on.
Edit: I'm terrible at this quoting business. Sorry.
Or it surely just as easily have been both Shane and his Mum were lying?
the police showed with evidence that he went to a friends house first. So if it hadn't been for the police working that out and reminding him then his evidence would probably have still been that he got in at 3:30.
But I guess, if we're open to the possibility that they were lying (rather than simply trying to remember details of what was, until the discovery of Jodi's body, a perfectly mundane weekday) then we'd have to give that same consideration to others whose stories changed as a result of information given to them by other people.
Findlay made that point in court - Janine's story about not knowing about the path and Jodi "not being allowed to use it alone" was, she admitted, given to her in the early hours of July 1st. Was that true (that Jodi wasn't allowed to use the path alone) , or was it inserted into the narrative very early on? (Clue, Janine admitted her mother knew "perfectly well" that Jodi used the path alone).
Or what about Joseph, who told police the whole family, including Jodi, had eaten dinner at the table on the evening of June 30th? Was he lying then, or when he changed his statement to say he'd eaten dinner from a plate on his lap in the sitting room? Did the discussion with his mother remind him that the family hadn't eaten together?
What about Alice, who forgot to mention that John Ferris was staying with her at the time of the murder, and took nearly two weeks to mention it? Was she lying by ommission or did she genuinely forget?
I'm not saying any of these people did anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that the existence of suspicion in the first place allows a sinister slant to be put on behaviours by one group, but not on others for exactly the same behaviours.
Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.
The second was:(approached from the front, diagonally opposite, on foot) Teenage girl, possibly late teens, "scrufffy" wearing dark, baggy clothing. Baggy top with hands in pouch style front pockets (exactly as depicted on the later reconstruction) zipped up at the front to about breast level with some sort of collar lying down about the shoulders. Dark hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tucked behind the ears or tied back, pale complexion.
I would make it your business to find out why Shane hasn't publicly supported Luke and why he hasn't made a statement in relation to his factual evidence.....
And Stephanie, please xxxx.
Interestingly, it was never, ever suggested that Shane was lying about the time he got home - it was accepted, totally, that he had forgotten about stopping at a friend's on the way home. I always wondered why they made such a song and dance about the dinner reminder, but not about the stopping at a friend's reminder - they seem like pretty much the same thing to me.
I have often wondered why you perservered with this case Sandra, returning to it even now after being effectively sidelined by the Mitchell family? Has history not taught you that the Scottish Justice System is one of the most incestuous and corrupt legal systems in the world? Even if some hard evidence of Mitchell's innocence were ever to be uncovered do you really think for a moment that such an institution could even admit to failure?
Where and what time was this sighting?
What are you implying by "Really?" What's your alternative explanation? A totally innocent woman and her brother with no reason to lie fake a sighting and lie to police in order to frame a teenage boy and help cover up a murder for a random family they barely know? Yes, that's much easier to believe Sandra.
Agreed. I obviously have no idea if the police thoroughly investigated the lies and changes in story from the non-Mitchells.
It is suspicious, to me, that both Luke and Shane are in the house together but aren't sure if the other is also in, but not impossible. And this gets a lot of attention and is possibly the main thing that got Luke convicted. But isn't it more suspicious that at the police's presumed time of death John Ferris's moped is seen unattended at the gap in the wall. His explanation is that he doesn't remember why, I think. And they're fine with that.
I've seen you say this about every single person (whose surname isn't Mitchell) that gave evidence or provided a statement. You also make the same assumption that the jury was influenced by the media. This is pure speculation on your part. You assume all of these people are weak minded and easily influenced. Do you not think those involved understood the seriousness of the situation and knew it wasn't something to be taken lightly? Do you really think the high school teacher who testified that Luke Mitchell definitely owned a parka before the murder (staff said he resembled a hooded monk) was too naive to understand the seriousness of a murder trial and give it his utmost consideration?Excellent post.
You're too quick to dismiss all of these people with nothing to support your theory that every last one of them are simply being dim-witted. Isn't it you who's being naive to make such assumptions and write off so many statements? Is it not far more likely that respectively they are all more or less giving accurate accounts (you've yet to come out and declare any reason they had for lying) which combined amount to evidence?
source?
You assume all of these people are weak minded and easily influenced...You're too quick to dismiss all of these people with nothing to support your theory that every last one of them are simply being dim-witted
Is it not far more likely that respectively they are all more or less giving accurate accounts
She knew it was Luke from the police photo/ Doesn't matter, she knew what the person she seen looked like, and recognized him in the paper (which had his name printed along with it.)
around 50 minutes before he was seen alone at the opposite side of the path by Lorraine Fleming who described him as looking like he was "up to no good?"
Sandra makes a good case for the defence but the jury heard ALL the evidence, first hand. They would have been warned repeatedly about being influenced by media coverage.
She said the female "could be" Jodi.
She's on record as being unable to identify the female
It was Luke she identified. She's on record as being unable to identify the female, so not sure what you're talking about or what Sandra's filled your head with.
So if not Jodi, who was the mystery female Luke Mitchell was arguing with not far from Jodi's house at a time which he lied about being at home, the same time Jodi would be in that very area on her way to meet him, around 50 minutes before he was seen alone at the opposite side of the path by Lorraine Fleming who described him as looking like he was "up to no good?"
So many coincidences eh nug.
No, the jury didn't hear all of the evidence - far from it. They didn't hear Ferris's claim that it was Alice Walker who told him not to come forward. They didn't hear that at least 6 members of the Jones/Walker and Dickie families knew they were on the path, and kept schtum for nearly a week. They didn't hear anything at all about Falconer or Kane (including the witness who would have been able to tell them that Kane wore a Parka jacket in the weeks prior to the murder, and how she could be sure of that).
They didn't hear about Joseph and a 9 bar (or anything else about Joseph, in fact). They didn't hear about the forensic report that stated the possibility that a number of semen/sperm samples may have come from one person (further testing required) and that person was not Luke Mitchell. Or the education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience, or that the claimed "satanic" slogans were lines from a computer game.
They didn't hear that, rather than the finely detailed story about Jodi coming in from school, sitting listening to a song with her mother and brother, then kissing her mother before leaving to meet Luke, Judith had no idea what time Jodi came in or left, where she was going, or what she was planning to do. She hadn't a clue what Jodi was wearing, and told police she remembered Jodi sitting on the settee trying to talk to her (Judith) and Judith was telling Jodi to "be quiet, shoo and go out."
And that's only a fraction of what the jury didn't get to hear.
Even if the jury was warned to ignore the media coverage (experts have since pointed out that this would have been impossible because, after so long, it would not be possible for people to identify, far less erase information which had been absorbed over that length of time) it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis) and that he believed Luke had carried the Dahlia images in his mind (to commit a "copycat" murder), yet there was no evidence whatsoever at trial that Luke had ever seen those pictures - it was purely conjecture by the prosecution. How did Nimmo Smith come to those "conclusions" - it was certainly not on the basis of evidence at trial?
His friends confirmed he owned a parka. The only person saying he didn't have one is Corinne. Sandra, of course, hasn't got a clue what clothing Luke owned. I'll take the word of Luke's friends and teachers over Sandra's speculation.
Sandra would have us believe all these coincidences were real. A coincidence that a young couple matching Luke and Jodi
just happened to have been seen arguing at the Easthouses end of the path a short time before the murder
and a coincidence that a male youth identified as matching Luke Mitchell was seen standing at a gate on the main road at the opposite end of the path a matter of minutes after the murder. I'm afraid it really doesn't cut much ice.
The parka story has always been a bit of a mystery, surely if he
owned a parka jacket all his friends would have known about it too? Poor police work again
Sandra I cringe every time you bring up Mark Kane. He's completely irrelevant to this case.
Fifty witnesses if I remember correctly said he was wearing a green army shirt were they all wrong then
Not to mention the "absolutely striking resemblance" you keep talking about is non existent. Did anybody witness a lanky college student with a bowl cut and blonde highlights?What are you talking about a mod deleting this picture, when was that? I cannot believe anyone removed the link, unless the message with it was removed for a reason. :-\
(http://i.imgur.com/a89Pbmi.png)
Can you tell me why you had a mod delete this picture when I posted it before?
A while back when I first posted Mark Kane the picture was edited out at Sandra's request. I've asked her a few times why she asked for this to be removed and she hasn't answered. Mark Kane's identity wasn't any secret in regards to the case, and even if it was - not Sandra's "property", and it's a screenshot from a public YouTube video. I would like her to justify this. Surely if she believed the resemblance was so absolutely striking, she'd want everyone to see it.I don't know anything about this, I would guess it was a while ago but there must have been a good reason.
We're talking about different things. I was talking about the witnesses who confirmed Luke had a parka that mysteriously vanished off the face of the Earth.
There's no evidence it was MK.... Continually bringing him up speaks volumes about your case
A while back when I first posted Mark Kane the picture was edited out at Sandra's request. I've asked her a few times why she asked for this to be removed and she hasn't answered. Mark Kane's identity wasn't any secret in regards to the case, and even if it was - not Sandra's "property", and it's a screenshot from a public YouTube video. I would like her to justify this. Surely if she believed the resemblance was so absolutely striking, she'd want everyone to see it.
We're talking about different things. I was talking about the witnesses who confirmed Luke had a parka that mysteriously vanished off the face of the Earth.
There was! And there was partials for him on the body!
It must be very frustrating when your paying attention to the minute details in order to make a valid assessment, and others attempt to discredit, based on what is, under closer examination mere fiction based on mere speculation which promotes their particular stance. I often wonder to myself, why such people do this, knowing the consequences are so damaging.
When confronted with this during his police interview Luke responded with something smug along the lines of "well if it's a partial match, it's not me, is it?" (if it was me when I was 14 I would have said "well she's my girlfriend!!!" but I wasn't as calculated as Luke
What about if Sandras wrong? She has no way of actually knowing if Luke is actually innocent, but still would happily have had him released based on her own opinion and theories.
There was!
And there was partials for him on the body!
"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell.
The prosecution and defence were both in agreement that it existed.
So marty, you were saying?
Please don't call me a liar based on your own misinformation (it's not your fault though)
This is my problem with people using Sandra as their only source of information.
- Prediction: Sandra will magic this away again with a long winded reply that doesn't prove it isn't Luke's, accuse Findlay and the Tayside Police expert of incompetence, subtly implicate a few others by flipping it around on them, and all will be right again in your mind won't it.
And what are you basing this on? Are you saying teenage killers don't exist?
I assume you wouldn't believe Jamie Bulgar was killed by 2 kids if the case was unsolved?
It's totally inconceivable that Luke stood and waited for Jodi at the gate for so long without getting impatient and just walking along for her. It gets even more ridiculous when he suddenly just forgets about the person he was so willing to wait for and goes and meets his mates to muck about in the woods to get good and dirty. Then it just becomes utterly laughable when he goes home that night, sticks a video on, and still doesn't wonder why his girlfriend never turned up. This was a girl he told the papers recently that he loved, who we're told was spotted acting suspciously at a gate because he was waiting on her.
Oh wait it wasnt a story for the papers he was just randomly telling Sandra these detailed things she already knew in a letter which she then asked his permission to send to the paper. ::) (despite corinne later describing the letter as an opportunity for Luke to have his own say. In a letter that was only meant for Sandra's eyes? ::) get your stories straight girls)
"No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene that cannot be innocently explained" has somehow transformed into "No DNA linking Luke to the murder scene" over time. At the trial is was certainly still a case of "that cannot be innocently explained". Ask Donald Findlay if you don't believe me, he's the one who attempted to "innocently explain" it when Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure testified that a stain on a Jodi's bra showed DNA traces which matched Luke Mitchell
Yes I'm targeting poor Sandra because I'm a bully I thought she was alone. When I joined here she had far more support. Big Gordo already ducked my offer of a square go. I don't care how many suspicious new accounts crawl out the woodwork you're still in the minority.
Awwwwww!! And we were just starting to get along!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DSorry to spoil your fun ;D Pity he's so obnoxious. :'(
Sorry to spoil your fun ;D Pity he's so obnoxious. :'(
For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.
Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's. He's always very easy to spot. However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.
He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.
He is a utterly pathetic individual. R.I.H.
Sorry to have to say goodbye to curly surly but have banned him forever. 8)
Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username ;D ;D ;D ;D l
Yes he will! Judas!
Maggie very well done he needed to be banned he will be back with another silly username ;D ;D ;D ;D lThanks Susie, just trying to unravel his posts.
how does he get internet access?He is no longer incarcerated.
for clarification Sandra's "heads up" was because they have a theory I'm Steven Kelly and should be worried
For the record, Kevin Craigie was convicted, along with Mark Fuller, for the murder of Kenneth Rothwell.
Craigie has 'appeared' on a few forums over the years, using various alias's. He's always very easy to spot. However hard he tries to disguise his true identity, he seems unable to surpress his truly vile personality.
He has shown no remorse for his crimes, choosing instead to bleat, whine and generally feel sorry for himself.
He is a utterly pathetic individual. R.I.H.
I thought this was a discussion about the Luke Mitchell case? I'd no idea who Curly Wurly was (or any of the others posting, with the exceptions of nugnug, John and Stephanie). Does someone being banned really warrant that much attention?Apparently yes, it does. You obviously felt the need to make comment yourself, just as four or five other posters very briefly have.
What? I have no such theory, and who are they “they” to whom you refer? I’m here, posting in my own right- there is no “they.”
I meant, if you’re basing your absolute conviction that Luke is guilty on the stain on the bra, you’ve chosen a weak rock to cling to, that’s all.
well we were to discuss the luke mitchell how the bloody hell did we get onto kevin cragie.
There has been a longstanding campaign of misinformation surrounding the case, Curly Wurly, and this claim of "partials" has been repeated more times than I can count. Every single time, I correct it, and try to give a reasonaby simple explanation of why those "partials" cannot be claimed to have originated from Luke (or anyone else, for that matter) - there is simply not enough information contained within them to make such a claim.
But where partials were recovered that had markers which were not in Luke's profile, we can safely and categorically state that Luke was not a contributor to those samples. This also explains why so many samples recovered from the scene were labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male."
dident criag dobbie himself state that there was no dna evedence agianst luke
One mixed sample in the DNA reports was labelled "Jodi Jones, Luke Mitchell and unknown male." That labelling has been utterly discredited by renowned DNA experts who have pointed out (a) there was no full DNA sample for any male recovered, (b) the markers which were recovered could have, in fact, been attributed to a number of males known to the investigation, and therefore could not, in any way, be claimed to be "Luke Mitchell" and (3) an assumption had been made that some of the markers attributed to Luke's profile, could, in fact, have belonged to the "unknown male." The reason they had to include the unknown male reference was because there were markers in this sample which were not in Luke's profile.
I know it get's very complicated, but, similar to my last post, the markers recovered in this sample which were claimed to be Luke's (3 from memory) could, in fact, have belonged to any other person with the same numbers at those marker points. One report suggested that this sample should, in reality, have been labelled "Jodi Jones and unknown male" because of the high possibility that the male markers recovered had all originated from one person and not, as the report had tried to dishonestly suggest, from two different males.
Sandra, can I ask you something. Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe? TY
Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later
Dobbie was quoted in a media article after the conviction as saying it was a particuary difficult case because there was no direct evidence, no DNA etc - I'll see if I can find the exact quote later
Like I said. "No 'unexplainable' DNA" has been transformed into "no DNA" over time.
"lacks critical DNA" is not "no DNA"
From the Edinburgh Evening News...
23 January 2005
Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death. He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
Either the media horribly misrepresented what Dobbie said on a number of occasions, or Dobbie is a liar. According to press reports, Dobbie claimed there was no DNA from an "unidentified person" and that all DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry, including Luke.
We know, for certain, that there were DNA samples listed in the results and "unidentified male one, unidentified male 2, etc, all the way to unidentified male 5." Then there were result mixed with Jodi's own DNA which were labelled "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." So, it is simply not true that there was no "unidentified DNA", nor is it true that all of the DNA had been attributed to persons known to the enquiry.
He must have had a moment when the DNA of James Falconer was identified three years later - his officers had been in Falconer's house two days after the murder!!
As for the DNA "including Luke" this is true, but very misleading. Dobbie is, in fact, talking about Luke's DNA found on.... Luke's clothing. Seriously! There was a t shirt lited in the productions as "Blood - T shirt - Luke Mitchell." I thought, hang about, where did that come from? A little digging showed it wasa spot of Luke's own blood on his own t shirt (which had never been claimed to have any connection whatsoever to the murder.)
Sandra, can I ask you something. Do you honestly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent or is it simply that you feel the verdict was unsafe? TY
As Jodi and Luke were together earlier the day of the murder there should have been traces of her DNA on Luke and vice versa but the Scottish police forensics failed to find it. That in itself doesn't surprise me in the least given they couldn't even find a crashed car which had come off the M9 motorway.
I notice you are avoiding answering my earlier question Sandra, should I infer from that you don't believe Luke Mitchell innocent any more?
Could have been, not necessarily should have been - it would have been dependent on the amount of physical contact, if any, between them. There are no witness accounts of Jodi and Luke being in physical contact with each other that lunchtime, and they were in differrent classes throughout the day.
No John, I was not avoiding it, I was completely ignoring it. I really shouldn't encourage your games, but you'll start talking about your "inference" as if it's fact, so here you are, an answer to your question.
No John, you should not infer that I don't believe Luke is innocent any more, because you would be wrong. Your original question asked whether I believed Luke to be factually innocent, or it was simply that I felt that the verdict was unsafe.
I believe Luke to be factually innocent on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen. I believe the verdict to be unsafe on the basis of all of the evidence I have seen.
From the technical approach, the law states that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - an unsafe verdict means a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But let's get absolutely real. If you've read any of my previous posts, you'll know I've pointed out that I have two daughters around Luke's age - I still have two daughters - do you really believe that I would be proclaiming Luke's innocence if even a tiny part of me doubted it? Because that would still mean, 12 years down the line, that I'd be calling for the release of someone I suspected was guilty of a brutal murder into the community where my own daughters live.
Please don't ask the next question (which I can already see galloping over the horizon) - I am not prepared to discuss my deprture from Luke's campaign.
The time of death is based on Luke being guilty, so might not be the time of death, and his brother doesn't exactly "dispute" the alibi. Even on the stand he didn't say Luke wasn't in the house. Is there more evidence you're basing your certainty of his guilt on?
On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury. Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived. He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.
Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home. I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.
On the stand Shane was reminded by Mr Turnbull prosecuting of the consequences of perjury. Shane told the court that he did not see or hear Luke in the house from the moment he arrived. He agreed with the prosecution that it would have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing about it.
Shane also admitted to the court that it was his mother who sent him back to the police station to change his statement after initially stating in his first statement that Luke was not at home. I hasten to add, it is not the sort of thing you forget about when your younger brother is accused of murdering his girlfriend.
And speaking of evidence, as Luke Mitchell does not have an independently corroborated alibi for the period of time when Jodi was murdered
Another example of the prosecution wanting to eat its cake and have it, too, and John mixing fact and fiction to suit his own ends - after it was discovered Shane did not come straight home, but had, in fact, stopped off at a friend's, it was obvious that Luke was already home when Shane came in and went straight upstairs to his room - whether Shane agreed or not that it would have been "difficult for Luke to enter the house without him knowing it" is utterly irrelevant - the prosecution's suggestion is based on Shane arriving at an earlier time, which it already knew was wrong.
It clearly would not have been difficult for Luke to enter the house without Shane knowing about it if Shane was not there when Luke entered the house. Who made the call from the house landline to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm? Clue - Shane wasn't home yet, Corinne was at work.
Ignored my question John... Fair's fair.
Shane admitted that he and his mother had discussed what they ate for dinner that night - he did not admit his mother had "sent him" back to the police station. (Seriously, there was a liaison officer in the house from the afternoon of July 1st!) Shane did not say in his first statement that Luke was not at home - in his first statement he simply said he had no idea what he did on the afternoon of June 30th - and that, on a normal day he'd come home from work between 3.30 and 4pm, go to his room until his tea was ready, and maybe go out after tea. And Luke was not formally accused of murdering Jodi until nearly 10 months later - he certainly wasn't accused by July 3rd. The nature of police interrogation tactics in this case was designed to create as much confusion as possible, and the prosecution, as I've just demonstrated, used inaccurate information to make assertions which, although apparently logical, were, in fact, irrelevant.
Maybe now you will answer some questions Sandra, specifically, what evidence is there to support Mitchell's innocence?
And while we are on the subject of peddling rubbish, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously given your past participation in the Prout and Hall cases?
Or is it a case of going for the treble??
as somone who has not pruduced the slightist bit of evedence to support there own innocence im suprised you have the cheek to say that.
You're a fine one to talk about mixing fact from fiction. Luke Mitchell making a short telephone call to Scotts Caravans at 4.17pm does not represent an alibi of any sort and most certainly has no relevance to Luke Mitchell being in the family home at the time of the murder.
Shane was adamant that Luke was not at home when he got home and that he could not have got into the house without him knowing
Shows how little you know but then thats no surprise.
Maybe Sandra will answer for herself instead of her pet poodle.
(http://www.zwergpudel.com/pudel.gif)
Here's why I won't be wasting any more time on John:
So the telephone dialled itself, in a empty house, because that's more believable than a real human being dialling it! And that telephone dialling itself supports your theory that Luke didn't go home from school that afternoon (so the witnesses who saw him were seeing an apparition), but skulked around in the woods waiting for a grounded Jodi to show up, so that he could kill her at an unspecified time.
John's favourite game - ask a question-ignore the answer if it doesn't suit- ask the same question again as if it hasn't been answered. If you don't even bother to read my posts, don't bother asking me questions, cos I won't be answering them from you, John.
Your offensive references to nugnug are the perfect example of your level of reasoning and argument - if you can't make your fiction work, you personally attack posters instead - transparent and very boring.
Sorry I don't know how to do the individual quote by quote thing
actions in the hours following the murder
the absence of an alibi
the conflicting statements
the eyewitness sightings
Mitchell's past conduct with a knife
he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do it
Oh dear Baz doesn't know about Luke's previous threats and assaults with a knife.
Oh dear Baz doesn't know about Luke's previous threats and assaults with a knife.
he had no prvios convictions for or chardges for atacking anybody with a knife a few people after he was convicted who had never any previos compliants before the conviction.
i have qustion the word of somone who only with a story after somones been convicted these allegations were never tested in a court
so no way of knoeing weather they are true or not.
that could of possbly been heard as evedence.
but then agian the people concerned never went to the police they went to the tabloids.
I imagine they did speak to the police but maybe it couldn't be heard during the trial? You'd be surprised what the police do uncover..... Evidence of which is often 'played down,' distorted/twisted etc....
thats a diffrent altogether.
the fact luke was never chardged with these says they never went near a police station.
he could of been chardged with threateng bacior with knives on topp of murder and tat would of strenthrnrf the proscution case.
a bit funny he hasnt.
the fact luke was never chardged with these says they never went near a police station.
he could of been chardged with threateng bacior with knives on topp of murder and tat would of strenthrnrf the proscution case.
a bit funny he hasnt.
he was charged with possen of canbis as well as murder.
now its rather they would add on a fhardge of possen but not a chardge of making threats with a knife.
if your chardged you can be chardged with other things at the same time meaning the evdence can be heard like it was with the canabis.
with such a weak hand the proscution would of jumped at the chance of geting such evdence into court.
so the only reason i can think this dident happen is it was never reported to the police and you have to ask yourself why it wasnt.
thats a quate from somwhere the proscution trying to make somthing out of nothing like proscuters do.
its nothing of the kind its an english esay.
some witing a shocking english esay is not evdence there guilty of murder.
by the dame logic half the script writers in the country are muderers.
its nothing of the kind its an english esay.
some witing a shocking english esay is not evdence there guilty of murder.
by the dame logic half the script writers in the country are muderers.
Half the script writers in the country don't end up on trial for murdering their girlfriends...
Explain this http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-3407242
its the daily record no explication is really needed.
its not taken seriosly as a newspaper anymore than the sun or the news of the world is.
a lurid tabliod headline does not make a case for murder.
But I have a letter from Luke Mitchell with satanic writings on it?
Despite Sandra Lean's wild claims to the Press about the DNA samples the SCCRC found no reason whatsoever to the refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
In essence they found that "...he was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice and that there were no grounds to challenge his guilty verdict."
The 200-page report stated: "The Commission has decided not to refer Mr Mitchell's case to the High Court."
At least you are consistent Sandra. Three fails in a row!
Failures?
Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)
And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?
I don't think anyone disputes that his school book had satanic symbols on them and that Luke had an interest in these things but the relevance of this interest then or in letters to you after is what is questionable. Were there satanic symbols at the scene?
I'm not sure why Nathan Matthews is brought up either?!
It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.
However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.
I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this, especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell..
I don't think anyone disputes that his school book had satanic symbols on them and that Luke had an interest in these things but the relevance of this interest then or in letters to you after is what is questionable. Were there satanic symbols at the scene?
I'm not sure why Nathan Matthews is brought up either?!
Furthermore, with regards the 'secrecy' you use to explain why you no longer hold power of attorney in order to represent Luke Mitchell sets off alarm bells for people like myself. What are you hiding? What are you not telling the public?
In my humble opinion you should be transparent with regards these issues as there may be apparent reasons that you may not see, that others could - which may well support Lukes guilt.
Also, the reason why you are no longer associated with the WronglyAccusedPerson/Billy Middleton 'charity' should be made public imo as there are many unsuspecting individuals who could be affected by the truth of the matter.
seeing as you have so much to hide in your own husbands im suprised you have the cheek to say that.
heres wht a reputable newspaper has to say about the case.
https://t.co/9hJwF2YJs1
and about the dna evedence.
bump
seeing as you have so much to hide in your own husbands im suprised you have the cheek to say that.
Well she testified in court that she was his girlfriend. Luke Mitchell never stood up in court and said she wasn't his girlfriend did he?
Having two girlfriends could be a motive for murder.
Visiting the grave of a child, whose mother had insisted he was not to go there was a total lack of respect.
They should have abided by the Jones family decision but no they knew better.
There is no excuse whatsoever for them being at the grave against the mothers wishes. They had no rights to be there plain and simples.
if love someone you visit there grave weather you are told to stay away or or not.
It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.
However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.
I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this,
especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell
On it's own i guess it's not extraordinary but given that his 14 year old girlfriend was murdered and her body grossly mutilated then 'laid out' I'd have thought it was of significance.
Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.It appears your manipulation tactics and power for persuasion knows no bounds. ::)
Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.
The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)
My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.
And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.
Of the claimed "satanic influences" you said
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.
Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?" How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation? And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"
I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.
Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?" How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation? And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"
I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.
Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?" How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation? And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"
I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
But I have a letter from Luke Mitchell with satanic writings on it?
I have nothing to hide Nugnug. If there is something you wish to know just ask me.
SH was guilty. End of.
I am not asking these questions out of 'cheek' I am asking these questions as I do not believe Sandra L.
There are many unanswered questions and questions Sandra L is clearly not prepared to answer, which leaves me to believe she is hiding something that could show the Mitchell's in a bad light. Same applies to the WAP charity and Billy Middleton. My opinion of course.
Failures?
Left the body uncovered in the rain for 8 hours
Trampled all over the murder scene
Moved and gathered up items before forensics got there
Concentrated on one "suspect" from the off, allowing all other possibilities to slip through the net
Didn't take body temperature to estimate time of death
Ignored accurate and reliable statements and used inaccurate, vastly altered statements instead
Bleached the scene before sniffer dogs arrived
Accepted some information at face value, then quietly let it drop when it was found to be dishonest
Withheld evidence from the defence
Attempted entrapment via two different sources (including the victim's family)
Messed up the labelling of mobile phones for which already misleading and inaccurate claims had been made
Messed up the labelling and reporting of DNA results
Misrepresented DNA results
Engaged in behaviour which was "outrageous and to be deplored"
Told locals, from the day after the murder, that a 14 year old kid was the murderer
Accepted "alibis" on the say so of single individuals for anyone but their chosen suspect
Leaked lurid (and dishonest) details to the media to dehumanise their chosen suspect and his family
Tried to claim that a sniffer dog, trained to scent dead bodies and blood, which failed to alert its handler to a living, breathing, unbloodied person was proof that Mia ould not have reacted at the V
Took 12 days to find a purse, complete with uncancelled cards, at the foot of the V point on the path side (or worse, allowed someone to drop one there within the first 12 days of the so-called investigation)
And that's only a fraction of it. Failures on every level. It's beyond me how anyone can look at a list like that and not think, wait a minute, how can anyone be sure of anything the police claimed in this case?
Nobody is disagreeing with you on the fact that Lothian & Borders Police made a complete dogs dinner of the investigation, by the way you forgot to add the fat forensics woman who couldn't be bothered to visit the crime scene because she couldn't climb over a six foot wall.
This doesn't change anything
This is a true story exposing abuse of power and malfeasance within the Scottish Justice System. It is a story of lies, of collusion and ultimately of a conspiracy by Crown officials in Edinburgh to pervert the course of justice. A story of how an ordinary respectable law-abiding individual could be deprived of his liberty and arrested abroad on what can only be considered as fabricated, malicious and trumped-up allegations against him.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
"[13] The deceased's body was found naked apart from some socks on the front part of her feet. Other items of clothing were strewn around the area. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse. There was no sign of a struggle except in the area around the body. She had a number of injuries, including cuts to the throat, the right cheek, the left breast, numerous cuts to the stomach and cuts round both eyes. Some of these injuries appeared to have been inflicted post-mortem. Defensive injuries suggested that the deceased had struggled with her assailant. The cut to the neck had severed the deceased's windpipe and jugular vein, as well as the carotid artery on the left side. This would have caused death within a couple of minutes. According to the pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, the implement which caused the injuries to the throat was a stout, sharp-pointed, bladed weapon. Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it."
Grossly mutilated - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BN0Kb9rgPksC&pg=PA242&lpg=PA242&dq=grossly+mutilated+definition&source=bl&ots=xana9oDA-0&sig=kD-ULfs9PBokAjKNjah2yCrF1ME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwCGoVChMIzdCy8MuLyQIVAewUCh3-PwSZ#v=onepage&q=grossly%20mutilated%20definition&f=false
It is now generally recognised that there were five Ripper victims; all had their throats cut from ear to ear, suffered multiple cuts and wounds, most were disembowelled, some had organs removed, and the last victim was grossly mutilated in her room – her throat was cut to the spinal column, her nose, ears and breasts were cut off and her organs taken out and placed on a nearby table.
...you wouldn't be so willing to implicate others such as SK and MK publicly. Also if it were truly the case, why were you happy to provide circumstantial cases against other so-called suspects in your SCRCC application using the same methods you've so strongly condemned? (interest in Marilyn Manson, Parka jackets, local hearsay, owning knives, etc)
And why don't you realise that the crime scene being poorly preserved supports Luke's guilt more than it does his innocence? (We're never done hearing how nothing links him to the scene, but then you contradict yourself by arguing that the scene wasn't preserved. What was that about John wanting to have his cake and eat it too?)
Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?
yes that's about right.
I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.
Hello everyone discussing this case.
I took an interest some years ago in this case and it has occasionally popped back into my head since. I was then recently discussing MOJs in general and having forgotten so many of the details of Luke's case I decided to remind myself. However, I can't find a site that actually presents the evidence. I have been through all 190 pages of this forum (I'm ready for my medal now, or maybe therapy!) and to be honest there isn't a great deal of content regarding the facts. There has been some really helpful and informative posts but I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any accessible sites that still present the evidence? Also if anyone knows where I can watch the BBC doc "Devils own" I'd be grateful.
For the record I'm not totally convinced of Luke's innocence but I am convinced he didn't get a fair investigation which would obviously ruin any chances of a fair trial. I couldn't have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt from what I have read so far but I want to read more. Help.
I think the truth is that some people are more interested in having a fight than discussing the case. I have no idea what they get out of it but if you don't feed the trolls they do eventually starve to death.
So, where does it say the body was "laid out"? It doesn't, does it? BUt you use that in part to claim a "satanic" link. From your link above:
Thank you, a differentiation between mutilation and "gross mutilation." The most "gross" of these mutilations did not occur in this case, though, did they? Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."
Yet you also use that, in part, to claim a "satanic link."
And 'Baz' you only registered here in October this year - now you are suggesting you know us all on a personal level? ???
What are your thoughts and beliefs on the following?
And why do you think LM had requested these books?
"Mitchell, 25, also wants a copy of The Satanic Bible, which calls for followers to create a lawless world where there is no right or wrong and where human sacrifice and murder is not only tolerated but encouraged.
He made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison where he is serving life for the murder of Jodi in June 2003.
It is officially under consideration by the Scottish Prison Service, who can ban prisoners from receiving books that don’t come from an approved list of suppliers.
Three of the requested texts are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the American founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.
In The Satanic Bible, he promotes human sacrifice and discusses the conditions in which someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice.
LaVey states: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”
One of the other titles, Satan Speaks!, has a foreword by goth rocker Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of Jodi."
Lord Nimmo Smith said Jodi’s injuries were the worst he had ever seen.
A blade was drawn backwards and forwards across her throat at least 20 times. Her eyelids were slit by a hand steady enough not to touch her eyeballs. And her clothes were cut from her body before deep gashes were made to a cheek, breast and her abdomen. The knife was also jabbed hard into her mouth.
Jodi’s arms were then bound with her trousers and her naked body dumped behind a tree near a woodland path. Within minutes of murdering his girlfriend in June 2003, Mitchell phoned her home to ask where she was.
Article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/101719/Boy-fiend-who-killed-Jodi.html#ixzz1MADTTLys)
(http://i.imgur.com/T54nl.jpg)
Victim... Jodi Jones' throat was cut 20 times
Nope. Just from my experience here.
This statement intrigues me.
Yet Shane has a different take on things.
Luke's brother admits mum aided evidence
Source: Evening News - Scotland
Date: 1/13/2005
THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family's house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".
The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane's statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother's car being in the driveway and the front door being open.
His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.
"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.
"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.
Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell's statement given on the previous day to Shane's. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."
Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."
Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.
"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."
Mr Turnbull said: "Who".
Mitchell replied: "My mother."
Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.
"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.
Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: 'You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.'"
Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.
Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
You are claiming to have been told alarming things about this case and the Mitchell's which changed your mind Stephanie. So what are they, please tell.
Shane did not initially state he was "home alone" that afternoon - he said he had no idea whether or not he came straight home from work, and gave the time/route he would normally take/arrive home, with the proviso that he might not have come straight home.
Police checks showed he had stopped off to help a friend with a car problem (which Shane instantly agreed was corrrect, he had simply forgotten about it on what must have been, by the Tuesday afternoon/evening, the most shocking and surreal experience.) That meant Luke would have been home before Shane, and not the other way around. He said he usually came in from work and went straight upstairs to his room, and believed he did so that afternoon. If Luke was in the kitchen, Shane would not have seen him, and, unless they called out to each other, may not even have known Luke was there.
I knocked at Corinne's front door and let myself in one day - Mia was lying on the settee in the living room and didn't bark (because she knew me), I said hello to Mia, then walked through to the kitchen (there were heavy curtains on the door between the kitchen and the dining room) and almost gave Corinne a heart attack because she hadn't heard me come in.
None of the questions about Shane which have been posed here take account of the phone call made from Corinne's landline to Scotts Caravans, or the fact that Shane and Corinne ate a cooked dinner which they did not prepare themselves.
The treatment of Shane by police was outrageous - one officer kept telling him "I'm ot accepting "I don't know" or "I don't remember" - that's not good enough" before aggressively telling Shane to picture crtain scenarios in his head. If that isn't a blatant attempt to interfere with witness recall, I don't know what is.
Sandra L should be the one to answer this, not me. Ask her.
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?
And your a saint?
Surprise surprise. You claim in earlier posts that sandra had lost all credibility. You also claim she is not answering all the questions you pose. Then the first question you are asked about information you claim to possess, you pass the buck onto someone else and won't answer. Who has just lost all credibility? Bitter and twisted is what comes to mind
Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?
And your a saint?
Never claimed to be impersonal
No I don't represent the wap forum. As it happens, I have much the same feelings about the admin their as you do.
Answer the question I posed you then please, or are you just leading people like me a dance also.
I cannot speak for John but this has nothing to do with me 'falling out' with anyone, nor is it personal.
But for clarity, regarding Billy Middleton and the WAP forum. I did not trust him. I learned things about him I didn't like and I believe he is guilty of starting the fire. It is Middleton who has issues with me, as can be seen with his libellous blog about SH's confession. He even admits in the blog he doesn't like SH.
He also took money from people and spent it on himself it appears. He was meant to do a sponsored walk from Shetland to the UK, stopping off en route to visit people. I believe someone donated a treadmill in preparation for the so called walk and I know he was asking for trainer donations.
Where did the money go? Where does it go?
With regards Luke Mitchell, Sandra L and I last spoke on the telephone last year. During that time Sandra told me some things about the Mitchell's that changed my belief in the case (baring in mind By this time I knew SH was guilty). So you see nothing to do with WAP, Middleton, Sandra or John. I made up my own mind.
It is you all who are trolls, people without the courage and conviction to post using your own name. Hiding behind a screen name.
There is nothing personal in my posts, but I do see personal comments being made by you all.
[/quote
You told us yourself
Not sure what you are attempting to allude to here but FYI I don't drink.
Give it a try
'People like you' - who are you?
Why would I be leading anyone on a dance?
The same insults you are making about Corrine drinking alcohol. You are doing exactly the same. And still avoiding my question.
Ask Sandra L these questions as it was her who told me what I have since learned.Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.
Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.
Why? You know! You have appear to have no loyalties to the Mitchell's or anyone else.
Your veil is slipping (again) Marty ;D
What makes you think it has anything to do with loyalties?
At age 14:
Luke Mitchell was having sex with different partners.
He was smoking cannabis and selling it.
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.
"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.
"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.
The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.
The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"
It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance" and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-334963/Killer-Mitchell-ordinary-teenager.html#ixzz1MjIStCSu
There are many articles on this link
http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/mitchell_luke
Pahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Bump
No, I said on the wap forum, there new thread on the luke Mitchell case was a nonsense.
And? I'm not getting what your point is.
Oh sorry your right, I'm not into vulgarity. I have just slapped my own hand sorry.
The reason you aren't getting the point is because you have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case. It appears you are merely here to have some fun.
Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.
Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.
The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)
My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.
And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.
Sandra you say here (above) you don't know who killed JJ and you would never argue it was X - so can you explain your contradictions.
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/
And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.
“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”
Another poster said: “Jodi wore a T-shirt which had DNA on it from X yet no other was found.
You can really only take one conclusion from that.”
Sandra Lean – who publically supports Mrs Mitchell is her quest to clear her son’s name – denied she was accusing the man of murder.
She said: “No-one is accusing anyone.
“There’s a danger in pointing the finger but in many ways he’s pointing the finger at himself
“Any line of enquiry that might establish who killed Jodi is worth pursuing.”
And Sandra, can you see how you have used a double negative in your statement? Why do you do that?
An example = "The downward-pointing pentacle is often used to represent Satanists."
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".
The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom
But, it seems, this is a common misunderstanding:
Point up, or Point Down?
A “point down” pentacle is nothing new- nor is it necessarily Satanic when it appears as such. Historical depictions of the pentagram were as likely to be points down as point up. A distinction between one or the other was rarely made by the ancients. Even today, one must not assume a point down pentagram is Satanic, as it is just likely to be Masonic, Wiccan, or simply upside-down. Some inexperienced Wiccans will occasionally claim that a point down pentacle is Satanic, but such a symbol has at times represented the Wiccan horned God, and is still today an emblem of the Second Degree initiation in Gardnerian Wicca.
The Satanic Pentagram
In the minds of many, the pentagram is inextricably linked with black magick and Satan worship. The Satanic pentagram is a difficult symbol- it is the newest and least used, but at the same time the best known and most controversial. The Satanic pentacle is almost always presented upside down, or inverted, with a single point facing downward, and it is this pentacle that is presented incorrectly as ‘evil.
http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1893
Also, I know from experience that Luke often drew symbols over the seal on envelopes, so it would be easy for the recipient to see if the seal had been tampered with. His most often used symbol was the hand-written style anarch symbol, which could be literally any way up - upright, upside down, sideways, at a diagonal in comparitson to the top of the envelope.
But all of that means diddly squat - there was no evidence of satanic or ritualistic elements in Jodi's murder - only the claims of the police and prosecution that it was so. It would be a bit too far to claim that an argument over another girlfriend (another police fantasy) somehow turned into a satanic ritualistic murder.
Note the dates. April 14th was 10 months after the murder, Shane was arrested and interrogated under the same "outrageous and to be deplored" conditions as Luke had been in the August. If there were concerns that Shane's account of dinner was wrong, why on earth was nothing said or done about it prior to April 14th? Did they honestly believe, 10 months later, in the circumstances he and his family found themselves, he was still going to be thinking about what he had for his tea? Or was it a case of, once we've done the dawn raids, arrested them all, separated them all from any form of support, they'll be really easy to manipulate with our well rehearsed interrogation tactics to get them to say (or to appear to be saying) whatever it is we need them to say?
I've seen the transcripts of the police interrogation - I'd go with the latter.
Out of interest, could it be that Corrine Mitchell didn't hear you because she may have had one or two alcoholic drinks?
Also - you mention Mia didn't bark because she knew you? Do you then think it's plausible for Mia to not have been led to the V in the wall because she also knew Jodi and it was in fact Luke who knew where he was going after all?
No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.
I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.
Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!
His English book, shown to the court, had the numbers 666 and "Satan lives" on the cover.From a computer game
"I have tasted the devil's green blood" was also scrawled on the back.
Several other jotters were shown which contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way", "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f*** off and stay out my mind" and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from late Nirvana singer Cobain.All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.
The handwritten essay, questioning the existence of God, had been submitted in January 2003 in place of a short story, which had been requested.I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.
The essay contained passages such as: "If you ask me, god is just a futile excuse at most for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with him. "Are these people insane?"- in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!
It also read "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance"
and "Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life"computer game.
How can you know that for sure, that she hadn't had a drink? Did you ask her? I thought she was lying on the couch when you went in? It's not always possible to tell if someone has had a drink. She may have had one with her meal? Or one whilst she was preparing it?
Here's the truth: you weren't there so you don't know what Luke or Mia did. You only have the word of others.
From a computer game
All quotes from other sources (i.e. t shirts, posters, song lyrics). The Cobain quote was one of Jodi's favourites - she had it written in large letters on her bedroom wall.
I hadn't noticed this before. The kids were given a number of topics from which to choose - the existence of god was one of them, so this sentence is misleading.
- in an essay questioning the existence of god, in response to an essay topic "The existence of god"!
computer game.
Shame the teachers who stated that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" compared to others they'd seen over the years, and was "typical" of teenage jotter scribblings, were not invited to give evidence, though.
Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)
And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?
People do drink and drive, it has been known. She could have had a drink at work? - just saying.
Here you go again putting your spin on things
Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.
Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.
I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.
No, it couldn't, because she had just come in from work and gone into the kitchen to start cooking her dinner. Therefore, she had had no alcoholic drinks.
I'll try to give this a serious answer. Mia knew Jodi. Correct. Mia knew Jodi alive, not lying dead in a blood soaked murder scene. In my opinion, it's utterly implausible that "knowing Jodi" would have been a credible explanation for Mia not reacting to the smell of blood. Also, all of the search trio agreed Mia was being instructed to "Seek Jodi, find Jodi," they all initially agreed that Mia suddenly darted over to the wall and started air sniffing, scrabbling at the wall with her front paws.
Why would there have been any "reason" for her to do that at precisely the place she did, if Luke already "knew where he was going?" Or is the suggestion that Luke somehow gave Mia some sort of secret "command" to react at precisely that point? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Mia "knew" Jodi, so wouldn't have reacted at all, so all this reacting that's going on is just... well... let's just ignore it, shall we? In fact, let's get the search trio to tell a completely different story in court - one that says the dog didn't react at all. That way we can claim Luke knew where the body lay, and have people 12 years later trying to fit together the pieces to try to make that claim make sense!
Indeed they do. But Corinne would have had to be either insane or suicidal to have risked drinking at work and driving home back in 2003-2008, when the police were watching her every move.
Now, if you don't mind, to return to the point being made at the beginning, it would have been entirely possible for Shane to have entered the house without knowing Luke was there and vice versa because of the layout of the house, the heavy curtains at the kitchen door etc. BUT, the question posed by the prosecution (and others on here) was how did Luke get home without Shane noticing Luke coming in, and the answer, of course, is that Luke was home before Shane.
I see, so sticking to the actual facts is "putting [my] spin on things." OK, as you wish - other posters will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions.
She was caught last year without MOT allegedly on her car so I don't see what point you are making?
I also stuck to the facts of the case In the SH case Sandra, mainly going by the case papers, court documents, and police evidence etc but I was wrong (As were the police with some of their theories and many many professional individuals who had seen all the case files). You could be too.
Oh, good grief. Mia, the dog, was lying on the couch. Corinne was in the kitchen where she had just started cooking her dinner - she hadn't eaten it yet because it wasn't cooked yet. She would have had approximately two minutes or so to have a drink because I had followed her down the road in my car (unbeknown to her.)
And yes, I only have the word of others - Jodi's own family members! Are you suggesting they lied in the first month of the investigation? That they mistook Mia doing things they could describe in detail for things she never did?
yes it comes from the computer game max pain.
Thanks nugnug - for the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of the computer game!!!
And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.
Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html
I don't know why you are bothering, talk about banging your head against a brick wall.
And computer games can be the source of problems with pathology.
Have you seen the movie Gamechangers? Worth a watch imo. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Daniel-Radcliffe-Making-Movie-About-Grand-Theft-Auto-Creator-70809.html
This much-publicized conflict over the claimed effects of video game violence seems to be what serves as the crux of the film’s drama
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:
Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.
Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.
Rather than be insolently proud, can't you just answer the question. Have you seen the movie yes or no.
no I haven't seen the movie
It's based on a true story and shows the effects games like this can have on the mind.
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:
Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????
Hilarious - see my response at 6.49, when I said, quite clearly,
Insolently proud? Really?
As I said, fiction, "based on" being the operative phrase. The blockbuster Braveheart was "based on" a true story, and we all know how that panned out.
My apologies, I didn't see your reply where you have said you haven't seen the movie. Worth a watch imo.
Also worth reading through Hares Psychopathy checklist and educating yourself with regards personality disorders and the likes.
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.
Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just saw you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just watched you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)
Some more perfectly normal writings by Luke that he stuck to his cell wall in HMP Shotts.
Didn't say it made him guilty but Sandra's attempts at painting Luke as a normal 14 year old lad are ridiculous.
I guess he was still trying to shock his catholic school teachers last year when he requested Satanic books in prison. Believe that, or believe he has an interest in Satanism. I know which one I find easier to believe.
Really? This is really your argument? Tell me, was there any wrongdoing, unexpected behaviours or failings in your own case? Here's a clue, from your own online story:
But it's ok, John, it doesn't change anything, does it? The courts still found you guilty, so you must have been, even if the conviction was "unsafe." Remind me, did the SCCRC find grounds to refer your case back to the court of appeal? Ah well, there you are then.
"Even if you were innocent you could still express empathy for the victim - although you weren't responsible, you would feel something, so there is absolutely no sense of empathy there.
"You are looking at a very narcissistic, grandiose ego with no sense of empathy and a great deal of aggression and resentment towards people he thinks as have wronged him."
Is Sandra seriously trying to claim "you need satanic people like me" is normal in an essay about the existence of god? (post your source for this essay requirement please as I've just watched you blatantly lie about other Luke quotes being from songs/games)
I find this psychologist's interpretation of a poem slightly odd. He takes the lack of empathy for Jodi in the poem as proof of narcissism but it's one poem and it's not about that. If you read from the point of view that he is innocent instead then surely it would make sense that it would be full of anger for those he believes have unjustly locked him up.
This is one of the reasons the Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.
From memory, which is the best I can do, as I don't have notes, all of the quotes I commented on were confirmed as having come from song lyrics, computer games or t shirts.
From memory, which is the best I can do, there were a number of topics which students could choose from, of which "The existence of God" was one. It is going to get very wearing if I have to add "from memory, which is the best I can do" to everything that I no longer have paperwork for.
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...
And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...
And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc..
From 'memory' what did the professionals who spoke with Luke before his trial say about him? I'm presuming a pre trial report of his mental state was carried out?
Was any diagnosis suggested?
I imagine the professional psychologist also used their knowledge of the case and the injuries inflicted on his victim
Isn't this your explanation for why Mia didn't care/notice the body when she passed it on the way up? Because Luke hadn't put her in "tracking mode"? ::)If you knew anything about dogs you would know that's entirely possible. But it's only one of a few possibilities imo
If you knew anything about dogs you would know that's entirely possible. But it's only one of a few possibilities imo
Utter drivel
Rubbish - we only have Luke's word that Mia didn't didn't anything along the path on the way to meet the 3 others.
Plus, if you knew anything about dogs, they don't need to be told by a human to be in any kind of mode in order to smell blood.
Oh and Marty - Sandra's here - you can ask her directly about some of the things she said last year about the Mitchell's and of some of the behaviours that gave her cause for concern. Or are you going to miss the opportunity, so that you can harass me when she's gone?
If you believe it to be utter drivel - pray tell how you know for certain Mia didn't react at the V in the wall on the way to meet the Jones family members?I never said I knew for sure. I meant it was possible.
Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from you no one would believe you?. ;D
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?
They were hunting dogs trained in their own right.Different people have different training methods, could be to do with that. If there was a breeze, wrong direction. That sort of thing.
If Mia was a tracker why would she ignore the body the first time she passed it?
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)Was this not when he was with her family, so what was he going to say.
So why did none of Dickie's hunting dogs discover the body?
Well I would have been calling out for her, I wouldn't already be thinking she may be dead and instructing my tracker dog to find her.
I'd maybe also be calling round mutual friends. Then again he didn't even bother calling Jodi that night to see why she never showed, despite caring enough to hang around waiting on her for so long.
His actions just aren't realistic, IMO.
Why did he leave home with a torch? Was he told on the phone the gran suspected Jodi was lying hurt somewhere?maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)
Far more feasible than a perfectly innocent man finding a body and not reporting it, yes.
Well I would have been calling out for her, I wouldn't already be thinking she may be dead and instructing my tracker dog to find her.he was fourteen on a dark secluded woodland path. What were her family members doing at this time their actions are more questionable than anyone else's. And for the record, no, I don't think they had anything to do with it. I'm also not accusing them of anything
I'd maybe also be calling round mutual friends. Then again he didn't even bother calling Jodi that night to see why she never showed, despite caring enough to hang around waiting on her for so long.
His actions just aren't realistic, IMO.
maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)
Yes the local drug dealer known to always carry a knife who was sent to the school psychiatrist for violent behaviour was scared to walk through a path he used regularly. Did he always take a torch to walk his Alsatian?
I wouldn't bring a torch if I thought I was looking for a living person and not a body on the ground.
Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from xxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxx. ;D
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)
I'm serious. If I thought I was looking for a living person I'd be calling her name, not shining a torch onto undergrowth.
Because Luke told her "Find Jodi!" on the way back? He already decided they were looking for a dead Jodi at that point? Or did he think she may have been hanging around in the woods in the dark? (and if the latter, why wasn't he calling out her name?)
Another mystery is why, after Luke Mitchell had just walked the entire length of Roan's Dyke path with the family German Shepherd Mia supposedly looking for Jodi, did the entire group then decide to retrace his route instead of looking for her elsewhere?
If the dog really was capable of scenting Jodi, why didn't she react the first time she passed the body when there were no distractions instead of doing so on the return journey when there were numerous distractions?
All adds to the circumstantial evidence!
Agreed.
Of course someone's again going to post that Mia wasn't in 'tracker mode' at this point ::)
Luke knew before he set off to meet the trio that Jodi was missing so surely would have been looking for her on his way to meet them? And as you've said - why retrace the route and not look elsewhere?
maybe because he was fourteen going into the pitch black on a secluded woodland path :)
It wasn't his idea to recheck the way he had come from.
Alice obviously didn't trust him then...I wonder why?
my main qustion what was the search party there for a girls an hour late why go searching for her in a dark wood on the imfortion they had it was a strange thing to do.
i mean you would only look in the wood if you knew that ws the last place they had been at the time they had no way of knowing that.
but they seem convinced she is in the woods even though they havent checked more obvios places.
my main qustion what was the search party there for a girls an hour late why go searching for her in a dark wood on the imfortion they had it was a strange thing to do.
This is one of the reasons the Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.
Oh come off it Sandra! We all know why you and Billy Middleton had to remove the Luke Mitchell forum from the WAPO website and it had little to do with any original documents since you never posted any on the website in any event. How many times did you respond to questions on the forum by saying you had to check the files etc.. ??
The difficulty for those who advocate on behalf of Mitchell is that there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support their claims but much to condemn him including...
I would suggest that the difficulty for those advocating for his guilty verdict is that all they have is circumstantial and there is, for me, a lot of reasonable doubt about all that evidence. Including everything on that list. Plus I don't ever see any explanation for how there is no forensic evidence linking him to such a bloody murder.
I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?
"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm
That isn't much of a rebuttal. Can you be more specific about what I have misunderstood?
All circumstantial. All with reasonable doubt.
The killer would not have necessarily have been covered in blood.
Cases like these are often riddled with circumstantial evidence. It's about looking at the bigger/whole picture.
So what do you suggest - all killers should be let off because people like you think there's reasonable doubt?
If I were on a jury with someone like you on a case like this I guarantee you I would not give up.. ;D ;D
the forensisc said the killer would be cobered in blood i belive.
this was incredible bloody murder id say it would be nigh on imposable for the killer not at least some blood on them.
The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.
I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.
I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.
Here are the facts..
You haven't seen the crime scene photos.
Forensics sometimes get things wrong. It happens.
Luke had time to change/clean himself up.
The prosecutions theory was that his clothes were burnt in the log burner. Jury members did not have to believe the prosecutions theories or agree with them.
As I've said before, if Luke didn't do it, who did?
The pathologist said it was unlikely that he wouldn't have been blood soaked.
I understand the need for circumstantial evidence but in this case the circumstantial evidence is riddled with issues that prevent them from building a case that is beyond reasonable doubt, for me.
I think your statement about being on a jury with me says everything. I can't guarantee that and I think the point of a jury is to discuss the evidence and to make your mind up that way. But maybe I've just seen Twelve Angry Men too many times.
but when he was taken into custidy hes nails were dirty and so was proving that he hadent had a wash.
Imo Luke Mitchell wasn't a 'normal' 14 year old boy.
What reason did the police have for fitting him up?
What is 12 angry men? A fictitious movie?
so somone thinking your not normal makes you guilty of murder now does it.
I don't think they "fitted him up" in a conscious effort, but more that they believed him to be guilty and tried to find everything they could to prove it rather than an evidence led investigation.
Why do that? What did they have to gain? Do you think the police would have been happy to convict an innocent boy leaving Jodi's killer at large?
its hard to get your dirty agian in such a short time.
Because they thought he was guilty. Certainly not the first time that has ever happened.
It was the jury who convicted him. It was the jury who listened to all the evidence presented to them and took just over 5 hours to convict him. Luke had a top lawyer representing him.
I believe LM to be personality disordered.
Several hours? Is it? ???
I believe he presented with quite apparent conduct disorders - drugs, knives, sexually active at 12?, into pornography, interests in the occult. Difficulty showing emotion. Etc etc
"It is well known that addiction and mental health problems go hand in hand for youth. While depression, PTSD, anxiety, ADHD, and eating disorders get the bulk of the attention, it might surprise you to find out that Conduct Disorder is by far and away the most common mental health diagnosis in young addicts. It’s not even close. And Conduct Disorder is that very ominous risk factor for developing antisocial personality in adulthood, alternately referred to as sociopathy in the mainstream (I will use antisocial behaviors and sociopathy interchangeably, but some refer to sociopathy as only the very extreme of antisocial tendencies)."
one ive never heard of him having an intrest and if its true how is it unuasual for a teenager to look at porn.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-home-is-not-democracy/201306/is-my-child-sociopath
I would suggest you need to read up on your understanding of the case.
"The prosecution highlighted his knife-carrying and cannabis smoking, and claimed he had told another teenager that he knew the way "to slit someone's throat".
"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm
so agian how is unuasul for a teenager to ocasionaly look at porn.
Sandra there's really no point in you even replying any more if you don't actually want to discuss anything worth while. Almost every response from you to someone pointing out Mitchell acting strangely (seriously, look over your posts) is "well so did *****!", this doesn't support Luke's innocence or help him in any way and it's why your campaign went nowhere. None of these other people were found guilty of the murder, of course it's Luke's behaviour we are putting under analysis. Saying "but the family did it too" isn't an explanation. No point responding unless you're wiling to attempt to actually provide innocent explanations for his strange actions.
so somone ocasionaly looks at porn listens to crap music and watchs horror films and that makes them guilty of murder beyound reasonable doubt.
Luke was utterly silent for almost 10 years in response to his innocence until that offensive letter Sandra staged so she could send it to a newspaper. Luke swaggered around HMYOI Polmont smirking at people lapping up his notoriety.
"He understands that ranting and getting angry is not going to take him anywhere. For such a young man, he's very mature. He knows that the only thing that's going to get this moved forward is sticking with the facts of the case."
Not mature enough to have grown out of his 14 year old Satanic/rebellion phase.
A parka Luke was owned disappeared from the face of the Earth regardless of what Sandra says. Why would you believe a woman who had never met Luke before the murder over Luke's own friends and school teachers who confirmed he owned one? Totally illogical.
That's sneaky of you. The problem for you is I provided a link showing that those statements had never been written any where else on the entire internet, so stop deceiving readers by implying I'm attempting something dishonest when they can click the link or google the phrases and see for themselves. If Luke got them from games, movies or songs, there would be references to them online. There is absolutely none. You were lying with your "video game." response. The "devil's green blood" is the only quote he plagiarised.
Don't do that again. This is my problem with you.
"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."
I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.
His hair was matted on the night of the murder? Can you provide a source for that?I'm sure it was the police who checked him over for cuts bruises and such that determined his hair hadn't been washed for a couple of days.
Ok, let's look a little more carefully at the facts. No-one was asked about a Parka jacket prior to August 14th 2003 - the police were not looking for a Parka jacket, as is clearly evidenced by the interrogation of Luke on that day. The first picture of Luke in a Parka in the media was on August 15th.
According to Dobbie, when the house was searched on April 14th 2004 - 8 months later - police realised the parka was "missing." These are Dobbie's words, not mine. The existence of dozens of pictures of Luke in a Parka for 8 months renders all these statements unreliable - how could anyone be sure when they were "remembering" Luke in a parka? And there is not one single picture of Luke in a parka anywhere before August 15th 2003 - no friends, no relatives, no school pictures - nothing at all.
In your opinion*
Pure speculation.
How can you be satisfied just believing that every single person is simply mistaken? You're smarter than that.
The school teacher confirmed Luke had a parka because staff joked about Luke resembling a hooded monk with it on at school. It's these wee things that stick in your memory. Before the murder. This teacher had left the school before June 30th. Why would his brain conjure up this false memory and why would an educated man involve himself in a murder trial without being 100% sure?
As I previously mentioned is far too easy an explanation to just rubbish every every single witness as easily led/dim witted etc and one that I wouldn't be comfortable just accepting so readily like many of your followers. Just like you rubbished those quotes that appear nowhere else online as song lyrics etc.
Luke's friends all confirmed he had a parka, it would be pretty easy to remember a jacket a friend owned without being confused by a newspaper photograph of a person you'd seen countless times before. No doubt they'd have numerous occasions/locations in their memory of him wearing it. I can picture in my mind what jackets my friends own right now.
There isn't a photograph of him wearing a parka before the murder? I don't believe any of us have seen a picture of Luke before the murder fullstop. And why would there be pictures of him doing such mundane things as being at school or hanging around with mates? I was 14 at the same time as Luke in Edinburgh and can confirm we weren't bringing cameras to school and taking pictures. (This was before camera phones yet - Nokia 3310s etc were considered top of the range)
Luke's friends who actually knew him and witnessed his behaviour unlike you also find it easy to accept that he's guilty. Why is that? Why does Shane find it perfectly possible for his younger brother to be guilty? Does his dad believe him to be innocent?
He's immature. He's done absolutely nothing positive with his time, no trade, no education. Just smoking weed with the other beasts.
This eejit is my age and still trying to be edgy by requesting books on Satanism.
(http://i.imgur.com/N1e3ldf.jpg)
Don't expect any clarification. I feel for gordo who was one of the most genuine out of them who stepped away from the case because he was being kept in the dark. Sandra doesn't think these people who put their reputation on the line defending Luke are entitled to answers.
Oh, I think your problem with me is a lot more than that! I did nothing sneaky - I said you are able to call me a liar beause I am unable to provide a source. Goodle "Shake hands with the Devil" - song lyrics. So, I was mistaken and said "Quote from video game" rather than "song lyric" - I did, however, say in my next post that all of the quotes had come from video games, song lyrics and t shirts.
"The letter also addresses claims that Mitchell appeared cold and emotionless after the discovery of Jodi's body. He said a GP had prescribed tablets for anxiety and depression that are not recommended for children."
I don't believe this either. He was a regular weed smoker. Anti depressants usually take several weeks to work and tranquillisers, which he may have been prescribed are indeed occasionally prescribed to children. They don't stop you from showing emotion.
Oh, she's a doctor now.
How do you explain this Sandra?
"His fascination with the darker areas of human behaviour was also reflected in his opinions on religion.
His school jotter was covered in Satanic slogans, with the numbers 666 and references to the Devil.
He also wrote an essay questioning God's existence and saying the world needed Satanic people - "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance."
"Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?
"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."
He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm
Below are some of the teaching of satan:
"I ALLOW EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN NATURE, BUT HE THAT OPPOSES ME WILL REGRET IT SORELY."
Satan wants us all to be happy individuals. We are all free to indulge our fetishes, personal tastes, preferences, and so forth. This is one of the many reasons we are happier than most.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/COMMANDMENTS.html
I used to be into Satanic stuff when I was a teen
That doesn't surprise me ::)
You do realise that Satanism is an atheistic ideology. Luke Mitchell does not actually believe in a devil or any supernatural/fictional deity
What is satan if not a deity ::)
So what was it Marty?
"Mitchell's cannabis use was said to have escalated after the death and he claimed it doubled to four-and-a-half ounces a week, which was estimated in court to be about 600 joints."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm
Initially he admitted to smoking 600 joints per week after the death, then 10 years later he says he appeared without emotion due to the drugs prescribed to him by a Dr that weren't meant for children?
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505
You do realise that Satanism is an atheistic ideology. Luke Mitchell does not actually believe in a devil or any supernatural/fictional deity
What is satan if not a deity ::)
I have no idea which school of thought Luke comes under.
Exactly how Baz put it. Satan to many is just a symbolic character of fiction that rejects god. Hence is a role model for those raised in faith who lose faith.
I was questioning your ability as a doctor to know that what he was prescribed wouldn't stop him from showing emotion.
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread ::) ::)You have been rattling on about satin for the last few pages, now when your posts are shown to be nonsense, we have to start a new thread. Quality
It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new ::) ::)
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread ::) ::)
It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new ::) ::)
We were discussing it in terms of its significance in this case i.e an interest in satanism doesn't make someone a murderer and that there are a lot of misconceptions about satanism as a whole.
What's the point we missed?
Boys if you want to solely discuss satan start a new thread ::) ::)
It's clear the 3 of you are completely missing the point but that's nothing new ::) ::)
The point is peoples misunderstanding of what Satanism is needs to be addressed if one is to make a sound judgment on the case
I very much doubt members of the jury at trial knew much about the occult or satanism.
Brother, Shane, have I got it right, did he ever become a suspect, was he ever arrested and interviewed, did he resemble Luke in appearance, and wear similar clothing?
Brother, Shane, have I got it right, did he ever become a suspect, was he ever arrested and interviewed, did he resemble Luke in appearance, and wear similar clothing?
shane was on the internet they know that from the phone records.
Was Shane Mitchells DNA checked against samples recovered from the crime scene?
Well, I think he should have been a suspect. I can't understand why he stabbed his brother in the back (so to speak), unless it was his opportunity to point a finger of suspicion at his brother, to enable him to get away 'scot - free'. I have an uneasy feeling about Shane Mitchell, something doesn't ring true. I am worried...
The fact there was a 'constant internet connection' proves nothing, or does it?
it proves somone was on the internet shanes computer showed he was looking ar certan websites at that time.
theres was only shane and luke there.
What does anybody know about him?
it proves somone was on the internet shanes computer showed he was looking ar certan websites at that time.
theres was only shane and luke there.
How long had the victim been dead by the time the body was discovered?
Several hours
According to the alleged time of death
What is the alleged time of death?
How many times was the victim stabbed?
Additionally, which parts of the body sustained stab wound injuries, and at what angle were they inflicted?
Was the killer left handed, or right handed?
How tall was the victim?
How tall was Luke Mitchell?
Did the victim have any defensive wounds, or marks?
I disagree totally, and have the suspicion you know this to not be true also ::)
However, no one needs to understand what satanism is nor does it need to be addressed, but go ahead if it makes you feel better ;D
The point is, people like you should be looking at the whole picture as opposed to dismissing each apparent individual behavioural problem.
I very much doubt members of the jury at trial knew much about the occult or satanism.
Luke Mitchell need not have been interested in the above at all - the things that came out of his mouth were enough for lay people to be convinced they were dealing with a 14 year old with alarming behavioural problems.
My impression is that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi, but I don't know enough about the case to be 100% certain of his innocence...Strewn around the scene
Where were the victims clothes found?
Strewn around the scene
Her jeans were used to tie her hands behind her backHow old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?
How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?
How old was his brother, Shane, at the time of the murder?
I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.
Mike you've asked a set of questions regarding this case which I can assure you were already investigated.
Luke Mitchell is not serving a life sentence for his brother Shane. I agree with you that the brothers silence over these years is questionable but I do not believe for one minute it's because he's a killer.
If JJ's killer were still at large my opinion is that he'd have struck again by now. I'm not aware of any murders that have been linked to this case and my opinion is that, even at the tender age of 14, Luke Mitchell had motive, means and the opportunity - and was clearly already presenting with behavioural problems.
I struggle with opportunity also
SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.
You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
I have written down that he was 23 at the time of the trial so he would have been 21 at the time of the murder, I think.
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
Does anybody know anything about built in 'GEO SENSORS', inside mobile phones, which log information about the units location, movement, and sounds, on databases kept by Network providers? Did you know that it is possible to not only track a mobile phone, and potentially eavesdrop conversations, but also it is possible to establish whether or not a person carrying a particular mobile phone, is walking, running, standing still, sitting down, falling down, laid down, etc...
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder?
[/quote
i really dont know as we have shane was never a suspect for fairly obvios reasons so not much was reported about him.
i dont see how having a steady girlfriend makes much diffrence to anything.
if the last one of the 3 diffrent times given by the police is corect he would of had around 50 minutes.and what if it was the original time, 530 ? No answer required.
in that 50 minutes he had meet her knock her down strugle with her then tie her up kill here do all the mutliations to the body then go and clean himself up and go back out agian to dit on the wall.
and that depends n the third time for jodi leaving the house being correct.
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder?
[/quote
i really dont know as we have shane was never a suspect for fairly obvios reasons so not much was reported about him.
i dont see how having a steady girlfriend makes much diffrence to anything.
He visited porn sites regularly, and according to his own account he was watching porn around the time of the murder. My guess, is that he didn't have a girlfriend with him that day, if he had one at all, but it sure seems like he had sex and sexual relief on his mind, at the time Jody was stripped of her clothing, and had her hands tied behind her back, with her own jeans...
Not the sort of thing a 14 year old lad would do, by any stretch of the imagination. No, in my opinion, Jody was killed by an adult person, with a warped (activated) sex drive...
and what if it was the original time, 530 ? No answer required.
The phones back then were a bit more primitive. I'm surprised mobile phone tower records weren't checked though. They can give some idea of a persons location at least.
He doesn't look upset does he, infact quite the opposite imo.
Sounds about right
Back what up...dear o dear
He visited porn sites regularly, and according to his own account he was watching porn around the time of the murder. My guess, is that he didn't have a girlfriend with him that day, if he had one at all, but it sure seems like he had sex and sexual relief on his mind, at the time Jody was stripped of her clothing, and had her hands tied behind her back, with her own jeans...
Not the sort of thing a 14 year old lad would do, by any stretch of the imagination. No, in my opinion, Jody was killed by an adult person, with a warped (activated) sex drive...
Your ad hominem attacks are see through ::) change the record 'Marty'
Your post don't seem coherent Stephanie, posting newspaper reports to questions you have bee asked. I don't have to attack you, honestly.
You seem a little confused. Posting pictures with no relevance. Maybe if you explained what you were posting it would help. All it seems to me is a personal thing between you and sandra.
It is a surprise baz, maybe they were, but didn't help the prosecution's case. The defence also should have had this checked. Seems a no Brainer now.
If that's how it appears to people like you, then so be it. ::)
It's a bit of a leap from watching pornography to being a deviant.
If he wasn't watching porn at the time Jody was being killed, I should think it is a huge clue to his culpability. How did he know what time Jodie had actually been killed, to make him introduce his own alibi, and contradict his younger brothers alibi? If phone records were checked, and he had a mobile phone, I reckon its odds on that he was with Jody when she was killed. That's my take on it, anyway. In a nutshell, Shane Mitchell is more likely to be the killer, that his younger brother Luke. If Shane didn't do it, then as sure as hell, neither did Luke...
Without mentioning names I'm not the only person on here who is questioning your posts. Again, you cause others of not giving answers. It's clear you are doing the same.
To be fair mike, I think you need to read a good deal more about the case before you come to any conclusions. I do believe Shane is as likely the killer as luke is though, but in my opinion, it wasn't Shane.
No need to mention names - I can guess ;D ;D
I say again, so be it. But these 'people' must be really bored with your own lives if all they can think to do is mock mine! They sound jealous, why would my name randomly come into their heads?
I personally haven't been talking to anyone. I am coming to this conclusion from posts on this thread. The only things I know about you ( apart from the obvious) are what I have read here. Not mocking , want logical answers.
Fair enough. I'll leave you to debate with Nugnug and Baz ;D ;D
How long had the victim been dead by the time the body was discovered? ...What is the alleged time of death?ToD claimed to be 5.15pm, body found at 11.30 - 11.35pm. No time of death ever established.
How many times was the victim stabbed? Additionally, which parts of the body sustained stab wound injuries, and at what angle were they inflicted? Did the victim have any defensive wounds, or marks?Cut-throat injuries, 12 - 20, claimed to be "bi directional" - alost decapitated. Knife forced into her mouth, piercing a tonsil (but not damaging teeth). 2 severe cuts to the abdomen, one to the left breast, slashed cheek to lip, earlobe, smaller cuts to forehead eyes, bridge of nose, hairline. Defensive wounds to arms were extensive -left arm almost cut right through. Angle of all other injuries apart from throat never ascertained. Bruises to back of hands and knuckles.
Was the killer left handed, or right handed
Where were the victims clothes found?Bra, one strap cut through, the other missing, hooks pulled out of shape, pants, t-shirt cut into two pieces, shirt and shoes all within a few feet of the body. Glasses (one lense broken, legs bent outwards) and two one pound coins found a little further away. Hoodie further away still. Other bra strap discarded in some foliage.
I take it, his brother Shane did not have a regular girlfriend at the time of the murder? If he wasn't watching porn at the time Jody was being killed, I should think it is a huge clue to his culpability. How did he know what time Jodie had actually been killed, to make him introduce his own alibi, and contradict his younger brothers alibi? If phone records were checked, and he had a mobile phone, I reckon its odds on that he was with Jody when she was killed. That's my take on it, anyway.
I do need to read up some more on this case, I agree, I was just giving an insight into my thoughts based on the little I know thus far. To me, Alarm bells ring when I find out one brother introduces an alibi, at the expense of his younger brothers alibi, with little regard for the consequences for his younger brother. From what I have read about the case thus far, I don't like the sound of Shane, what he has said, and the reason for saying what he said. His account is too pat. He appears to have known about the actual time of Jodies death, whereas in contrast, Luke simply has no idea, hence why he maintained he was at home preparing tea, with his mother, and big brother. I believe Luke has told the truth about this, it is true because Luke didn't have any involvement in the attack on Jodie, but his brother Shane, probably did...
If prosecution or police pursued such a line of enquiry, and because it didn't suit their case, then the information will have been filed away in one or two locations, (1) Unused material, or (2) withheld under pii..
I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
Cut-throat injuries, 12 - 20, claimed to be "bi directional" - alost decapitated. Knife forced into her mouth, piercing a tonsil (but not damaging teeth). 2 severe cuts to the abdomen, one to the left breast, slashed cheek to lip, earlobe, smaller cuts to forehead eyes, bridge of nose, hairline. Defensive wounds to arms were extensive -left arm almost cut right through. Angle of all other injuries apart from throat never ascertained. Bruises to back of hands and knuckles.
Or alternatively, did not pursue because they were afraid it would destroy their case. There were a number of accounts of movements and alibis of others which are questionable - checking the phone mast records of those may have opened a huge can of worms which the police would not have wanted opened.
Also, such checks would, I believe, have shown that Luke's phone did not move out of the Newbattle area that evening until he went up the path at 11 o'clock looking for Jodi, which would also have destroyed the prosecution case that he had gone up the path before 5pm, in order to have met with Jodi at the Easthouses end at 4.54pm, in order to have been her killer.
I am left in no doubt, that the cost of introducing the telephone technology to support Luke Mitchells alibi affected the outcome of his trial. I am also certain that the police did take this approach, and did obtain phone records, and if they did, there was nothing to incriminate Luke Mitchell, otherwise, the prosecution would have utilised this information. By the same token, that same information would be of significance to the defence case. As I have previously said, if police sought and obtained phone records but chose not to rely upon any of it, these records will have been retained, and could be accessed if requested...
That's an interesting point. Is there anything held under pii in this case.If that law applies in scotland?
Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's
Was a murder weapon found, or identified as the tool which inflicted all the injuries?
I'm bothering because people like you, Baz and nugnug (sorry if I've missed anyone) actually seem to want to discuss the case intelligently and respectfully. I'm fairly sure there are others out there who are interested, who read but don't post - I just like to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they can make up their own minds.
Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me.
SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.
You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.
Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.
When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months
So, he wasn't actually connected to any dedicated porn sites? That's way beyond misleading. Did df point this out?
Sandra did answer his question with her point of view. If you deny this why not share what information she told you that changed your mind?
Sandra it's because of disingenuous statements you make like this -
"Its not about trying to "convince" anyone of anything (and especially not Stephanie, John or Lithium) - I'm just here passing on information, correcting wrong information, pointing out flaws in arguments where I see them - people are, of course, free to make whatever they will of that.
If I don't do this, then it's all the false and misleading inforrmation that gets left out there, and that's what people are left with to draw their conclusions from - that just doesn't sit right with me."
that some of us also believe you to be 'sneaky,' as lithium has pointed out in a previous post.
I clearly said it was because of things you had told me about the Mitchell family that my opinion had changed.
Marty's question clearly asked you what it was you had said to me about THE MITCHELL'S.
And you clearly IGNORED my previous FACTUAL statement and the question posed by Marty and instead gave a completely different slant on things - YOUR PRESUMPTUOUS, MADE UP VERSION!
YOUR VERSION where you try to convince others of FALSE and MISLEADING EVENTS/INFORMATION.
Hence why you make me laugh... ::)
Though I say again - I do feel for those people that get taken in by your stories!
One more time just for you Baz.......
Sandra did answer his question with her point of view. If you deny this why not share what information she told you that changed your mind?
Sandra answered his question with her spin, posting it as though it were fact. Tut tut Sandra!
You've avoided my point yet again. If it is not fact then refute it with facts i.e the information that changed your mind.
I've not avoided your point. I've already stated it was to do with the Mitchell family and dysfunction.
It's up to Sandra to be frank with you and everyone else. She was the person who told me what she had witnessed first hand. She was the one who was upset, and I quote, about the 10 years of her life she had wasted....
It all sounds a bit disingenuous to me. You say you're not avoiding my point but then you again offer no details about this groundbreaking information.
Why would she still be spending her time arguing for his innocence if she felt she had information that proved his guilt?! That makes no sense!!
As I've pointed out it up to Sandra to explain herself not me. She told me things in confidence and while I may have put her on the spot it's up to her if she see fit to publicly reveal the details. That's all I've got to say about the subject.
I thought as much.
I guess honesty also has a power that some can't wield either.
Why would she still be spending her time arguing for his innocence if she felt she had information that proved his guilt?! That makes no sense!!
Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.
I feel like whether Shane is looking at cars of porn or some mix of the two is sort of irrelevant.
I feel like whether Shane is looking at cars of porn or some mix of the two is sort of irrelevant.
This is where we agree.
But can you see what Sandra has done? It's as though she's suggesting - if 'porn' were taken out of the equation, then Luke had an alibi and/or the police are not being truthful about Shane watching porn and/or the jury were misled in some way by the brother having watched porn?
It makes no difference what he was watching (though I believe Shane suggested he was watching porn and had checked to make sure no one was in the house etc) whether it was the latter or cars or whatever. The fact is the police found Shane had been on the internet at the suggested timings - therefore Luke wasn't in the house when he said he was.
It's the embarrassment factor. They put him a situation which is degrading at best. Manipulate him into the position they wanted. If they weren't trying to do that then you are right it wouldn't matter what he was watching. But the porn scenario is deliberately trying to belittle him into breaking down Luke's alibi.
I haven't read anywhere he checked to see if anyone was in the house. Can you tell us the source for that
THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.
Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.
Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.
His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.
Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.
The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.
"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.
"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."
Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.
Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this
sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"
"No, " he said.
"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.
"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.
"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"
"Yes, " came the answer.
Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"
"I don't know, " he said.
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.
The trial continues.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/
THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.
Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.
Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.
His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.
Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.
The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.
"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.
"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."
Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.
Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this
sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"
"No, " he said.
"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.
"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.
"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"
"Yes, " came the answer.
Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"
"I don't know, " he said.
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.
The trial continues.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.Jodi_trial___brother__apos_alone_in_house_apos__Court_hears_porn_admission/
You are speculating and possibly projecting your own feelings...
How do you know how Shane felt? I imagine he already knew it would be mentioned in court. The jury were no doubt made aware by the defence 'that many young men his age watched porn' - or words to that effect. It was about Luke's ALIBI not Shane and what he was doing or watching. He was in court to tell the truth.
As the qc touched upon in your newspaper article.
Surely if he was checking the house, he would have checked Luke's bedroom also
Jodi trial: brother 'alone in house' Court hears porn admission
Thursday 13 January 2005 / News
THE brother of the teenager accused of killing Jodi Jones thought he was alone in his house on the afternoon of her death, a court heard yesterday.
Shane Mitchell, 23, told the High Court he arrived at the family home just before 5pm, about 50 minutes after his brother, Luke, answered a call from his mobile phone to the house landline. Mr Mitchell said he then watched internet pornography in his bedroom and masturbated.
Luke Mitchell's alibi claims he was at home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.
His brother, a mechanic, told the court he did not remember seeing or hearing anyone until his mother arrived home from work a short time after 5.16pm.
Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked Shane Mitchell what he was doing during the internet session. He said he could not remember.
The lawyer then confronted him with photographs of Jodi's mutilated body. Shane Mitchell was visibly shocked and asked for a break. He sat down and drank from a glass of water.
"You look a bit horrified, " said Mr Turnbull. "They are not pleasant, I know, but the reason I have asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what you are dealing with.
"I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this."
Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.
Mr Turnbull said: "Would you have been content to have watched this
sort of pornography in that room without a lock on the door, and to have masturbated if someone else was in the house?"
"No, " he said.
"Accordingly, who did you think was in the house?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "No one at that time." He added that he did not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room.
"If you had done, you would have recalled you weren't alone, " said Mr Turnbull.
"We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?"
"Yes, " came the answer.
Mr Turnbull asked: "I want you to reflect on the question whether Luke was there when you went downstairs. Do you think he was there?"
"I don't know, " he said.
The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm.
Luke Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi with a knife or similar instrument on June 30, 2003, and has lodged two special defences of alibi and incrimination. He claims that at the time he was in or around his house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown.
The trial continues.
Yet Sandra Says the following?
"Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi."
We now find out that according to Luke Mitchells witness statement, he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening...
Does anybody know what the mothers account regarding this is / was?
Mr Mitchell, referring to the internet pictures, agreed that he would not normally look at such graphic images, had anyone else been home. He added that he thought he masturbated at the time.
But for me Shane's changing story is about the only thing that makes me doubt Luke's innocence. It seems to me as if Shane does all he can to BE an alibi for Luke even when he is tripped up/embarrassed on the stand. He refuses to point blank say that Luke wasn't at home even though his testimony makes it sound like he knew he was. It does seem unlikely, to me, that Luke could be home without Shane knowing but it's far from impossible
I understand this - it does seem a bit strange, at first glance. However, first glance doesn't factor in the treatment of Shane at the hands of the police prior to trial. He was threatened that a memory that was not 100% accurate in every detail would see him convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was threatened that, if he could not 100% back up any claim he made on the stand, he was going down. Given that the police repeatedly told him they would not accept "I think so," "to the best of my recollection," "I'm fairly sure that's what happened," "that's pretty much how I remember it," and so on, demanding instead concrete Yes or No answers against this backdrop of dire threats if he got a single thing "wrong," it doesn't really surprise me that Shane was not only utterly confused, but completely intimidated before he even took the oath.
Why did Luke Mitchell kilThis is very interesting, thanks Steph.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.Why_did_Luke_Mitchell_kill__His_mother_holds_a_clue/
This is one of the reasons the Luke's website had ot be taken down - I no longer have access to the papers so, if I don't have notes about something, I can't post sources, allowing people to do exactly as Lithium has done here.
From memory, which is the best I can do, as I don't have notes, all of the quotes I commented on were confirmed as having come from song lyrics, computer games or t shirts.
From memory, which is the best I can do, there were a number of topics which students could choose from, of which "The existence of God" was one. It is going to get very wearing if I have to add "from memory, which is the best I can do" to everything that I no longer have paperwork for.
The power of the half-story. He didn't have dinner with Shane, because Shane took his dinner up to his room - Luke and Corinne ate downstairs.
You'll notice as well from the article that's been posted here a few times now that it says:
He's looking at pictures, rather than "watching porn" which appears to confirm the "pop up" nature of the sites in question.
Also "He added that he thought he masturbated at the time" - please! 23 year old guy, on the stand with scores of media waiting to report just casually throws in this piece of information. I have the exact wording of this part of the evidence in my notes somewhere - I'll look it out and post it verbatim.
It was never suggested that Shane "checked the house" to see if anyone was in - he came in, went straight upstairs to his room, stopping to wash his hands on the way
Baz said
I understand this - it does seem a bit strange, at first glance. However, first glance doesn't factor in the treatment of Shane at the hands of the police prior to trial. He was threatened that a memory that was not 100% accurate in every detail would see him convicted of perverting the course of justice. He was threatened that, if he could not 100% back up any claim he made on the stand, he was going down. Given that the police repeatedly told him they would not accept "I think so," "to the best of my recollection," "I'm fairly sure that's what happened," "that's pretty much how I remember it," and so on, demanding instead concrete Yes or No answers against this backdrop of dire threats if he got a single thing "wrong," it doesn't really surprise me that Shane was not only utterly confused, but completely intimidated before he even took the oath.
I thought you didn't have notes Sandra? Or was it just on this occasion? ::)
She literally says "if I don't have notes on something" in the thing you have quoted.
Why did Luke Mitchell kil
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.Why_did_Luke_Mitchell_kill__His_mother_holds_a_clue/
This is very interesting, thanks Steph.
Can't Sandra answer for herself?
Maybe she'll search out her notes with regards the song lyrics, and other quotes she refers to then when she's looking up her notes for Shane's evidence.
Yes, agreed. His treatment at the hands of the police makes it difficult to fully rely on any of his statements and, for me, excuses a lot of the issues with this alibi. But what he says on the stand, even though it's high pressure and humiliating, is presumably the truth and it's not a great alibi, is it? "He could have been in." I for one would appreciate his evidence verbatim if you do find those notes.
Did Luke mention Shane being in in his statements? I know that article says that Luke said he ate with his Mother but did he mention Shane eating upstairs? What are Shane's movements after dinner? If the clothes burning happened would he have been in to see it?
I think we should also remember that his Mother's alibi was never disproved. And while I can see a Mum willing to give a false alibi to protect a child, surely not even a Mum would for a crime this gruesome. Maybe I'm wrong.
If Luke ate with his mother downstairs, and she confirmed this as being true, and depending upon the time of Jodie's death, Luke surely had a sound alibi. It is irrelevant that his brother has no recollection of seeing him, particularly if Shane ate his tea upstairs, in his own bedroom. Who cooked tea? If Lukes mother confirmed Luke had prepared and cooked tea, irrespective of Shane eating his, upstairs in the bedroom, Shane would presumably have not been in a position to say who had prepared or cooked the tea, he ate...
If Luke had prepared or cooked tea, which Shane ate, the eating of the tea by Shane surely provided Luke with an alibi, depending upon the time Shane ate his tea in his bedroom, as compared to the time the victim was killed...
Clothes being destroyed in the family owned burner, may just have easily been attributed to the older brother Shane, than to young Luke Mitchell. Where is the evidence to distinguish, one from the other, or doesn't anybody know?
Take it from me, they did not apprehend or convict the killer. The person they arrested, and prosecuted, and convicted, was but a boy, not a man. Let me assure everyone that it was not a boy who carried out these atrocities, it was an adult with a warped, evil mind, who had a history of violence, and a hatred of young females. The killer was not Luke. The results from a lie detector test he took, supports his innocence...
I could tell you right now who it was...If you like
I could tell you right now who it was...If you like
I have no names, stocky man perhaps?
Personally I think a older more powerfull person than luke. I also don't think it was their first time at a crime of this nature. Only my opinion.
It was.... STOCKY MAN, it's a no Brainer to me
It was.... STOCKY MAN, it's a no Brainer to me
the people with the best cercumstancel case agianst them are john ferris and gordon dickie for some reason i dont think they did it but i think they know a lot more than they are telling.
No, they found a guy at the reconstruction which a witness thought was stocky guy but was not. He has never been found.
The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)
My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.
And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.
Well I'm now convinced stephanie
We have had this discussion before about Robert greens. I don't think if I remember correctly she said it was greens, I think she said the possibility was never explored, checked out that it could be him.
Are you referring to the Shirley Mckie forum?
She certainly alluded to him having been a suspect imo.
So you think it was 'stocky man?' So if we are to go along with your belief; Don't you think he would have struck again by now?
No - I don't believe it checked out it could be him (Greens) - plus if you are still suggesting that to be so, is that your 'stocky man?' Or have you got 2 suspects in mind?
the people with the best cercumstancel case agianst them are john ferris and gordon dickie for some reason i dont think they did it but i think they know a lot more than they are telling.
Shane had a very regular girlfriend. He didn't introduce porn, the police did, 10 months later, from internet records. "Watching porn" is also very misleading - records show he connected with a number of car sites, with what appear to be "pop ups" of a few seconds each appearing intermittently over the 15 minutes or so the internet was connected. These are the "porn sites" which allowed the prosecution to introduce the whole "watching porn" story in order to undermine Luke's alibi.
Mike. It's ridiculous to conclude that Luke is innocent due to lack of evidence while claiming it was Shane. There is absolutely nothing to support this.
Yes, Ferris and Dickie may know more than they let on, but perhaps being the type of people they were, they didn't want to grass or get involved with the police. Didn't Ferris point the finger at Luke early on? Maybe they did see something after all. Might JF's refusal to come forward with important evidence against Luke be the reason the Jones family hate him and for Joey wanting to beat him up?
2 witnesses claimed to see a stocky man, late teens or early 20's, messy ginger hair following Jodi as she made her way to meet Luke. The thing is though, one of these witnesses claimed to see the same man a week later in the police reconstruction. This man recognised the description of himself and came forward. So why do you place these sightings above others such as those of Luke Mitchell? If it were stocky man currently in jail for jodi's murder with Sandra defending him, no question she'd be totally discrediting this witness for such an error. And would you, being a moj campaigner, be satisfied with such a witness? How does this constitute a "no brainer"?
So the guy at the reconstruction wasn't the stocky guy seen following Jodi? Did they ever find him?
It was never even confirmed that the girl was Jodi.
Nope. This guy had just returned from England on the night of the reconstruction so it couldn't have been him a week prior, despite the witness claiming it was him. This is evidence that marty considers a no brainer apparently.
possibly a teenage girl walking down the street
with a young stocky guy walking down the street a bit behind her
the credibility of at least one of the 2 witnesses can be questioned for reasons stated
(despite what nugnug says nobody was witnessed following Jodi into the woods.)
The police were actually very keen to track the guy down and made much of it at the time. Funny for a police force Sandra claims decided it was Luke within a few days.
So, he wasn't actually connected to any dedicated porn sites? That's way beyond misleading. Did df point this out?
Pop-ups aside, Shane Mitchell agreed under cross examination that this was not an activity he would have engaged in if he thought anyone else was in the house and so he failed to corroborate Mitchell's alibi.
Yet again, Sandra has attempted to play down the reality of the situation and raise doubt in the mind of the uninformed reader. Brings a whole new meaning to her claim to be, "correcting wrong information".
A COMPUTER belonging to Luke Mitchell’s brother was used to access explicit pornography on the day Jodi Jones was murdered.
The High Court in Edinburgh today heard that someone using the computer visited a series of sex websites during the early evening of June 30, 2003.
A password-protected internet account paid for by Shane Mitchell had accessed the pages.
The court heard evidence from Detective Inspector William Cravens from the National High Tech Crime Unit, based at Newbridge, who had been called in by Lothian and Borders Police to examine the device following the killing of the Dalkeith schoolgirl.
DI Cravens said that he had used forensic software to determine that the computer had been used to access the internet between around 4.53pm and 5.16pm on June 30.
He added that 131 files had been created on the computer’s hard drive during the internet session.
Prosecutor Alan Turnbull asked him if the files could be retrieved. DI Cravens replied that he had retrieved the files and they were of a "pornographic nature".
Mr Turnbull asked if there were other pornographic images on the computer. Detective Inspector Cravens replied: "There were a lot of pornographic images."
The court heard that the final image which had been accessed before the internet session was ended depicted a man who had been digitally altered so his lower half was that of a naked female.
Defence solicitor Donald Findlay asked DI Cravens if the image was pornographic. He replied: "To an extent. It’s a very odd picture."
Mr Findlay said the image was a "bad taste joke" and asked for the image to be displayed to the court.
He added that the image had in fact been downloaded from a motoring website and that many of the other websites that had been accessed referred to automobiles.
Mr Findlay said: "Not all the sites were pornographic. Many were car-related."
The police report confirmed that the time on Shane Mitchell’s computer was accurate.
It also stated that an internet connection had been open between 4.53pm and 5.16pm on the day Jodi was killed. DI Cravens explained to the court that the internet files which had been accessed were automatically saved on to the hard drive.
He was able to access these files after obtaining the encrypted password from Lothian and Borders Police.
But Mr Findlay queried whether all the pornographic websites which had been stored on the hard drive had actually been opened by the computer’s user. He said that pop-ups often redirect people to alternative sites which may have contained sexual images.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-to-access-internet-porn-on-day-that-jodi-died-1-957682#ixzz3s44hW4Tw
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.
They probably had a fair idea the very night after Jodi was murdered when they took him into the police station for questioning. It's a real shame we don't have access to the video of the police interview like we had in the Adrian Prout case. Body language can be a great indicator of guilt to the trained investigator.
Normal psychological profile except that he insisted he was innocent, which appeared to confuse them somewhat.
I find it interesting that any professional psychologist would make a diagnosis on the basis of one poem, without any other information within which to contextualise that poem. He did not meet Luke, speak with him, examine him, ask him what he intended or meant when he wrote the poem etc etc...
And I agree, read from the point of view of maintained innocence, it makes sense that he is angry and vengeful, not only against those who have treated him so unjustly, but also against whoever killed Jodi.
The power of the half-story.
Damn fine piece of academic research there. I mean, look, it even says:
Sorry, I digress, no I haven't seen the movie, and it wouldn't affect my thoughts on whether or not computer game violence has an impact on real life violence (any more than the claims that violent movies 20 -30 years ago "caused" specific real life acts of violence) because it's a movie - you know, fictional?????
I agree. I'm also inclined to believe a transcript of the police interview alone, isn't the best indicator.
And whilst I know the way a suspect behaves when in a police cell/corridor/yard etc cannot be used as evidence in a court of law - I also believe this behaviour can help the arresting officers. And specifically comments they make whilst not being interviewed.
I think the public should be allowed access to at least parts of a convicted criminals police interview as I believe it would help us see the way these individuals behave under question. Again the Nathan Mathews interview was telling imo - same applies to Shauna Hoare who clearly contradicted herself during her interviews.
Body language, facial expression, tone of voice and others physical behaviours are a helpful factor.
He either was a suspect straight away or not, can't have it both ways.
I think the way they treated him that night shows that they did. I think that's worrying.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was a suspect straight away or not and that I can't have it both ways?
From my knowledge and experience I would have thought anyone directly involved with Jodi would have been a suspect. Police usually start illuminating family members/boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wife's etc first.
I'm unsure what it is you find worrying? Worrying for Luke you mean?
Worrying for the course of justice.
How so?
So many of these cases seem to start with the presumption of guilt and that can obviously be an issue for justice. I'm not saying that definitely happened here, I don't know enough about the investigation to be able to. But it does seem like there was a lot of attention placed on Luke immediately, focus no one else seems to have received.
Give me a list of 2 or 3 cases you are referring to.
The police interviewed over 3000 people in this case. And as I've already pointed out, those closest to
jodi would have fallen under the header 'suspect' until illuminated. I also imagine the police saw something or sensed something about Luke that bothered them when they met with him that night. I'm sure they had their reasons for asking him questions that night.
With regards the course of justice, as a member of the public, I would have expected Luke to have been one of the first questioned - based on the evidence adduced that Jodi was last seen on her way to meet with him on the path.
It would have bothered me if the police hadn't followed this up as soon as they were able.
Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.
Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.
From memory, they interviewed less than 200 people.
One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."
Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).
The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:
1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body
2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.
3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.
Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?
Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?
We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.
Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.
I doubt that very much.
Unless you are referring to 200 suspects? ::)
With all the questions posed to you and the pointing out of misleading information contained in your posts - you choose to respond to this?
There were around 40 police officers involved in initial door to door enquiries - so that could be 40 plus statements there. Some people in cases like this give 2,3, 4 or more statements each. Then there would have been statements from forensic experts, friends, family members and other people of interest.
I'm certain there would have been more than 200 statements in a case like this.
It says interviewed, people were asked to hand in statements not about what they knew, just what they knew about luke mitchell. So they were never interviewed just asked to hand a statement.
Who's misleading here, I can see only one.
Mike. It's ridiculous to conclude that Luke is innocent due to lack of evidence while claiming it was Shane. There is absolutely nothing to support this.
Yes, Ferris and Dickie may know more than they let on, but perhaps being the type of people they were, they didn't want to grass or get involved with the police. Didn't Ferris point the finger at Luke early on? Maybe they did see something after all. Might JF's refusal to come forward with important evidence against Luke be the reason the Jones family hate him and for Joey wanting to beat him up?
2 witnesses claimed to see a stocky man, late teens or early 20's, messy ginger hair following Jodi as she made her way to meet Luke. The thing is though, one of these witnesses claimed to see the same man a week later in the police reconstruction. This man recognised the description of himself and came forward. So why do you place these sightings above others such as those of Luke Mitchell? If it were stocky man currently in jail for jodi's murder with Sandra defending him, no question she'd be totally discrediting this witness for such an error. And would you, being a moj campaigner, be satisfied with such a witness? How does this constitute a "no brainer"?
You are misleading yourself by the looks of it? The police would have taken statements - the general public would not have written their own!
They were asked to write a statement of what they knew about luke Mitchell, not what they knew about the crime.
A lot of the statements were from school boys.
So I presume the school may have been asked to do this part.
And I'm unsure what relevance this has with regards the conviction?
The prosecution argued that Luke was interested in the Black Dahlia and that there were similarities with both crime scenes.
One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."
Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).
The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:
1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body
2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.
3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.
Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?
Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?
We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.
To quote a previous post of yours:
Phahahaha ;D ;D ;D
the crime scene looks nothing like black dali elisbeth short was cut in half.
Asked to write a statement, not all interviewed.
What you on about
That's why I said i find it hard to believe. But I have not seen JJ crime scene to make a comparison. From what I understand there are no similarities at all.
Did the school boys also draw pictures to go with their statements? ::)Why do you think, so the police didn't have to waste their time interviewing everyone silly. When they were only trying to get info on luke mitchell and not the crime, silly.
Why would the school have 'been asked to do this part?'
The police would have taken the witness statements from the school children and teachers.
There were between 2 and 3000 statements taken - not that number of people interviewed. Dozens of kids whose statements started "I have been asked what I know of Luke Mitchell," (one lad's statement begins like that and continues "I don't know why, because I don't know him and have never met him!")
35 statements from neighbours talking about the log burner (none of whom noticed anything "untoward" that night).
Multiple statements from particular witnesses - I recall working out that there were, on average, something like 8 statements for every one of Jodi's family (including extended family members)
Of those statements, literally dozens of them were from police officers simply logging what they did at certain stages of the investigation - i.e. "I was tasked with patrolling the grounds of St David's High School the day the pupils returned" and so on.
There may have been 2 - 3000 statements, but how many of them were actually the result of genuine investigation (rather than simply attempts to gather damning information about Luke?)
For accuracy, Corinne's fingerprints were never found on the form from the tattoo parlour, nor was her signature on it. A single thumbprint from Luke was identified, which would be expected, since he signed the form. I've said before, the only thing Corinne was guilty of in the tattoo episode was being Luke's mother, and she certainly never denied that! Seriously, can you imagine - "I've come for a tattoo, I'm over 18 and I've brought my mum along to prove it" - please!
The males close to Jodi were not "ruled out one by one." Their stories were either accepted at face value, or the police handed them "innocent explanations" - SK and Janine both say, in statements "I have been asked if it is possible the t shirt Jodi was wearing that night belonged to me/Janine." That'll be the T shirt that had Kelly's DNA from bodily fluids on it.
Ferris and Dickie were "ruled out" before police discovered they'd lied, Ferris cut his hair, and before the DNA results had been returned. So, on what basis were they ruled out? The statements from the witnesses that proved they were lying were not taken until two months later - by which time the investigation was hurtling full pelt down the "Luke Mitchell's our murderer" route.
What about Falconer? His condom was found in the early hours of the morning, he lived a stone's throw from the murder scene, police were in his house on the second day of the investigation, and still they didn't connect the DNA from that condom with him - took them another three and a half years. Then they ruled him out again, even though his own story meant he would have literally have had to step over Jodi's body twice, in daylight, on the evening of June 30th.
"According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.
On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.
In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone."
http://news.sky.com/story/322561/meeting-with-a-murderer
"According to Police sources, Prof. Ekman found that amongst the emotions on show by Luke Mitchell was one of delight as he delivered his alibi that was subsequently exposed as a lie.
On the day of Jodi's funeral, he was showing little sign of distress, but he demonstrated pleasure as he told the story he thought would fool the watching audience.
In the field of micro-expression, it's known as "duping delight" - gratification that comes from duping someone."
http://news.sky.com/story/322561/meeting-with-a-murderer
Well if we are going to take detection and reading of micro expressions as evidence then we surely have to give as much weight to the lie detector. Both pseudo science, both hugely problematic when drawing conclusions.
From the point of view of looking at all the circumstantial evidence available, I would suggest LM to have shallow emotions - he may even well be a psycho? On that basis - psychos can pass lie detector tests.
Are you qualified to declare someone a psychopath?
Did he not receive any psychological examination?
The pathologist said the similarities were superficial at best.
One of the most enduring mysteries in this case is why Shane Mitchell failed to corroborate his younger brothers alibi when he was facing a murder charge, certainly Sandra Lean has never been able to explain it and mother Corrine has always avoided the question like the plague. This is what seperates guilt from innocence in many cases, an inability to answer that one really simple but sticky question.
i think she did lardgely becouse there were no sightings of her after that i meean if she was still alive were was she.
Depending on which version of events you accept, she was ungrounded wto weeks previously, or at least by Saturday 28th June, when she left Luke's home in a taxi just before 10pm.
If you accept the "ungrounded on the afternoon of June 30th" version, the ungrounding happened a few minutes before 4.34pm - that was the time of her first text to Luke which, it was claimed, was made "immediately" she was ungrounded.
In one statement, Judith said she was sitting on the settee and Jodi was "trying to" talk to her (Judith). the statement says, "I was telling her tobe quietshoo and go out." Later, she said that was her way of telling Jodi she was ungrounded, so it seems, even from judith's own statements, she did not claim that she told Jodi directly that she was "ungrounded" - perhaps because, according to all of the other statements from Judith, Alice and Janine, Jodi's grounding had "petered" out and things had returned to normal two weeks before June 30th. Janine was able to give the exact date of the start of the grounding because it happened on the day of one of her exams. All of them agreed that the grounding ended within 4 weeks, which meant it was over two weeks prior to the murder.
There are some claims that Luke didn't return home after school, because he went straight to the woodlands strip to "wait" for Jodi. There are several problems with this theory (not least the witnesses who saw him walking his usual route home).
Firstly, either he would have had to be carrying the weapon with which Jodi was killed throughout his day at school, or he had "stashed" it somewhere in advance. It was never the prosecution stance that the murder had been pre-planned - their approach was that a fight had spontaneously erupted when Jodi allegedly confronted Luke about another girl. From all of the forensic and pathology evidence available, the knife used to murder and mutialate Jodi was a large knife - where did Luke "conceal" such a knife on his person throughout the school day?
The claimed spontaneous fight came about because, the prosecution claimed (without a scrap of evidence), Jodi had found out at lunchtime about another girl. So, staying with the "he didn't go home after school, he went straight to the woodland strip" theory, Luke had no reason to leave the house that morning carrying a large, concealed knife. He didn't go home at lunchtime, so when did he acquire the knife in order to take it straight to the woodland strip after school?
Then there's the point you make, marty - if the ungrounding that day story is true, Luke would then be waiting in a woodland strip for someone who wasn't going to be out of her house that evening.
Next, there's the curious question of why he would have come out of "hiding" to put himself in full view at the Easthouses entrance to the path (as per the Bryson sighting) - why didn't he just wait at the junction of the paths until Jodi happened along there? If he'd hidden for over an hour, why choose to come out of hiding at all... and what a coincidence that he came out of hiding to be at the entrance to the path in the one minute window available to Andrina Bryson to make her sighting!!
(For clarity, the Bryson sighting was timed at 4.49 - 4.54. It could not have been 4.49, because Jodi did not leave her home until 4.50. It could not have been prior to 4.52:40, because the walk from Jodi's house to the Easthouses entrance to the path was timed at 2 minutes and 40 seconds, so there is just 1 minute 20 seconds for the Byrson sighting to have happened, accccording to the official timings.)
And we still have the mystery of the landline making an outbound call at around 4.15pm, and a dinner that cooked itself by 5.15pm
Luke called the premium rate speaking clock from his mobile phone at 16:54 only a minute before he was spotted arguing with a female at the east end of Roan's Dyke path. It's safe to say he wasn't at home at this time.
Depending on which version of events you accept, she was ungrounded wto weeks previously, or at least by Saturday 28th June, when she left Luke's home in a taxi just before 10pm.
If you accept the "ungrounded on the afternoon of June 30th" version, the ungrounding happened a few minutes before 4.34pm - that was the time of her first text to Luke which, it was claimed, was made "immediately" she was ungrounded.
In one statement, Judith said she was sitting on the settee and Jodi was "trying to" talk to her (Judith). the statement says, "I was telling her tobe quietshoo and go out." Later, she said that was her way of telling Jodi she was ungrounded, so it seems, even from judith's own statements, she did not claim that she told Jodi directly that she was "ungrounded" - perhaps because, according to all of the other statements from Judith, Alice and Janine, Jodi's grounding had "petered" out and things had returned to normal two weeks before June 30th. Janine was able to give the exact date of the start of the grounding because it happened on the day of one of her exams. All of them agreed that the grounding ended within 4 weeks, which meant it was over two weeks prior to the murder.
Luke called the premium rate speaking clock from his mobile phone at 16:54 only minutes before he was spotted arguing with a female at the east end of Roan's Dyke path. It's safe to say he wasn't at home at this time.
Not going to be more specific than "large knife"?
The blade only had to be large enough to reach her tonsils, not a bowie or fixed blade hunting knife by a long shot. Likely a 4 inch blade at the most. I haven't seen anyone suggest the injuries were caused by what most of us would consider a "large knife"
Are we forgetting the texts they exchanged?
Not surprised Sandra didn't correct you here though.
The failed decapitation...
You say this after listing several knives he owned, and that's just the ones you know about. Owning several knives isn't normal for a 14 year old boy. Again, I'm Luke's age and from the surrounding area so don't try and tell me what was and wasn't normal for 14 year old boys in 2003. Ferris was legal age for owning a knife, which in 2003 I believe was 16.
The relevance of the tree carving is that it shows this "law abiding teenager" carried knives on Roan's Dyke. Near where his girlfriend who was going to meet him there was murdered, with a knife.
LACORS have also recognised that a sale to someone buying on behalf of someone that is too young to make the purchase themselves, or so-called proxy selling, is not illegal. This reflects the fact that many young people have perfectly legitimate need for the use of knives and knife blades
http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/documents/guide%20to%20knives%20scotland%20-%20july%202010.pdf
The relevance of the tree carving is that it shows this "law abiding teenager" carried knives on Roan's Dyke. Near where his girlfriend who was going to meet him there was murdered, with a knife.
Legal age for buying a knife then.Your deliberately posting false information.
How petty, and it doesn't change my point about Ferris having knives at all.
I wonder who if not her boyfriend she climbed a wall into a secluded area with.
The path she entered goes on for quite some distance before she would reach the break in the wall. You saying she realised while on the path someone was following her and decided to climb the wall to avoid him instead of getting out of the area asap? Who would do that?
what false information's that? Surely you don't mean the buy/own thing...
Why would she swap a pathway out in the open view for a secluded woodland if she was running from someone, this isn't a b-rated horror movie.
And if Stocky man was someone she knew why would she run?
But you just said she climbed over the wall to get away from a stranger following her. This is an uncommon theory can you provide more information which leads to you believe this?
no not at all he walked up the path. Please research the scene.
The woodland is on the opposite side of the wall.
Well I've seen Stocky Man being pinned on Joey Jones and S. Kelly
I don't believe a 14 year old girl would climb a wall into the woods with her big sisters boyfriend or her own big brother. I also don't believe she'd try and run and hide from them if she encountered them behind her on the path.
So where did this stocky stranger come from and when did he decide he was going to kill Jodi? She would have only been out of her house for a few minutes before reaching the path. He encountered her in these minutes, decided he was going to follow her and murder her and to his luck happened to be carrying a knife? And even luckier for him, she climbed a wall into a secluded area to make everything so much easier for him? And this maniac who can't control his murderous impulses has never struck again?
I find it far easier to assume she was over the wall by choice and with someone she trusted. This person killed her. And if they left the path in the opposite direction, they'd be exactly where Luke was spotted hanging around acting suspiciously. It really is a "no brainer" for me.
I wonder who if not her boyfriend she climbed a wall into a secluded area with
That would provide a possible explanation for her being behind there, but wouldn't she tell Luke she was picking up cannabis before coming to his?Hard to say really
Well that's easily explained despite how suspicious you attempt to make it sound.
There are some claims that Luke didn't return home after school, because he went straight to the woodlands strip to "wait" for Jodi. There are several problems with this theory (not least the witnesses who saw him walking his usual route home).
Firstly, either he would have had to be carrying the weapon with which Jodi was killed throughout his day at school, or he had "stashed" it somewhere in advance. It was never the prosecution stance that the murder had been pre-planned - their approach was that a fight had spontaneously erupted when Jodi allegedly confronted Luke about another girl. From all of the forensic and pathology evidence available, the knife used to murder and mutialate Jodi was a large knife - where did Luke "conceal" such a knife on his person throughout the school day?
The claimed spontaneous fight came about because, the prosecution claimed (without a scrap of evidence), Jodi had found out at lunchtime about another girl. So, staying with the "he didn't go home after school, he went straight to the woodland strip" theory, Luke had no reason to leave the house that morning carrying a large, concealed knife. He didn't go home at lunchtime, so when did he acquire the knife in order to take it straight to the woodland strip after school?
Then there's the point you make, marty - if the ungrounding that day story is true, Luke would then be waiting in a woodland strip for someone who wasn't going to be out of her house that evening.
Next, there's the curious question of why he would have come out of "hiding" to put himself in full view at the Easthouses entrance to the path (as per the Bryson sighting) - why didn't he just wait at the junction of the paths until Jodi happened along there? If he'd hidden for over an hour, why choose to come out of hiding at all... and what a coincidence that he came out of hiding to be at the entrance to the path in the one minute window available to Andrina Bryson to make her sighting!!
(For clarity, the Bryson sighting was timed at 4.49 - 4.54. It could not have been 4.49, because Jodi did not leave her home until 4.50. It could not have been prior to 4.52:40, because the walk from Jodi's house to the Easthouses entrance to the path was timed at 2 minutes and 40 seconds, so there is just 1 minute 20 seconds for the Byrson sighting to have happened, accccording to the official timings.)
And we still have the mystery of the landline making an outbound call at around 4.15pm, and a dinner that cooked itself by 5.15pm
Jodi set out to meet Luke after having her grounding lifted, it was only natural that when she didn't turn up that they search the shortest route between Easthouses and Newbattle.
What is revealing however is that the Mitchell's German Shepherd called Mia failed to scent Jodi on the first pass according to Luke Mitchell yet did so on the return journey with Alice, Janine and Stephen in tow. Any dog handler will tell you that such a thing would never happen which only means one thing and that is that Luke Mitchell lied. He knew exactly where Jodi lay but pretending to find her on his own would have attracted suspicion.
Jodi set out to meet Luke after having her grounding lifted, it was only natural that when she didn't turn up that they search the shortest route between Easthouses and Newbattle.
What is revealing however is that the Mitchell's German Shepherd called Mia failed to scent Jodi on the first pass according to Luke Mitchell yet did so on the return journey with Alice, Janine and Stephen in tow. Any dog handler will tell you that such a thing would never happen which only means one thing and that is that Luke Mitchell lied. He knew exactly where Jodi lay but pretending to find her on his own would have attracted suspicion.
Why didn't the defence call on a dog handler to prove a trained sniffer dog would walk past a dead body uncaring but react to it when passing it a second time?
Mia not alerting Luke to the body on the way there is a huge problem. In his 14 year old mind he thought being with the family as they discovered the body would make him look innocent (imo).
If "any dog handler will tell you" and it's important in showing Luke's guilt..... Did the prosecution call a dog handler to the stand to show this?
Why didn't the defence call on a dog handler to prove a trained sniffer dog would walk past a dead body uncaring
Oh, so Mia couldn't have found Jodi?
Did Mia have cadaver training?
cadaver scent is detectable for dogs within 2 hours of death.
I thought you just said a tracker (like Mia) wouldn't find blood or dead bodies?
It goes against every dogs natural instinct to ignore the smell of blood on the way up the path. I've always owned dogs, if you ever walked a dog near where a dead animal lays, watch its reaction. Just try and get it to ignore it and keep walking. It would be easier to accept Mia ignoring this instinct if we weren't expected to believe the same scent drove her crazy and caused her to scrabble at the wall on the way back. I'd really like to hear a handler's opinion of this inconsistency/contradiction.
To me it leaves 2 options, none which look good for Mitchell.
1. Mia didn't detect the body the first time, so wouldn't have detected it on second passing - Luke lead her to the body.
2. Mia did find the body, so it's only logical she must also have alerted Luke to it upon first passing - Luke ignored this because discovering the body with the family looks less suspicious than discovering it alone and leading them to it.
Training aside, all dogs would follow the scent of blood. It's nature. My dog hasn't received any training and would sniff out a dead animal or butcher meat only meters away from where it was walking. (I apologise for these comparisons)
Was Mia given an item of Jodi's clothing to smell from one of the search party? I don't buy the "seek Jodi!" Lassie scenario that apparently resulted in a complete 360 of the dog's behaviour.
Or are you saying it was Jodi's clothing and not Jodi that Mia detected... because this was strewn all over.
Who says their later statements weren't more accurate? Are you saying hindsight isn't a thing?
Their original statement simply outlined, without question, the dog scenario as it was presented to them by Luke. (if my opinion of his actions are true) Of course they believed that originally if it was Luke's intention to deliberately deceive them like this.
Nope dogs don't recognise appearances. Try tricking your dog if you have one by walking in your gate with a hood up, slowly, differently from your normal walk. They'll bark at you like a stranger.
No but if what I think is right, he successfully deceived them. His "find the body with the family and say it was the dog" plan worked initially.
No it's not a good point.That's pathetic and anyone reading this will realise it. I was enjoying a debate, but clearly your losing so reverting to games. I'm off for now.
My dog would smell biscuits on the way up.
my dog would smell raw meat on the way up.
my dog would smell someone it knew on the way up.
my dog would smell blood on the way up.
You aren't refuting my argument at all lol.
I'm curious as to why Luke would ignore the dogs reaction on the way up, or indeed wait until meeting the search party before putting her in tracker mode.
He was looking for Jodi from the second he left the house with a torch. He originally stated that he set up the path to look for her, and only if he couldn't find Jodi would he head to the Jones household, so why no "seek Jodi, find Jodi" before stepping foot on the path to look for her with the dog?
Instead he ignores the dogs unusual behaviour
, heads straight for the Jones household where he is met by the search party
who had made their own way to the path
and makes a point to ask them for an item of Jodi's clothing for Mia to smell (even though she doesn't need this to track Jodi and hasn't been trained this way) just to make it clear he's about to put Mia into tracking mode. ::)
and hasn't been trained his wayis wrong. The command for a specific scent from an article would have been a different command, (for which the dog had also been trained) and would have set the dog sniffing for a particular, more specific scent. Why did Luke suggest this? I don't know - because he could? Because Alice suggested a double check of a path he'd only just checked which would have been a bit of a waste of time unless there'd been something added to the search (i.e. something other than four of them looking at the same empty path Luke had just traversed). Because the situation had changed, since it was now clear that Jodi was not anywhere on the path, nor was she anywhere else that any of her family knew of - after all, it was Alice who suggested they go back down the path.
What a lot of crap
The dog wasn't looking for jodi on the way up the path. The dog was looking for jodi on the way down the path when it had been told to..
Do you think a dog reacts every time it recognises a scent, it may well have recognised the scent but as far as it was concerned it was out for a walk, nothing more.
If Luke had planned the "finding Jodi with the family" scenario, he left a heck of a lot to chance - firstly, he couldn't know he would meet family members on the way, secondly, he could not possiby have known Alice would suggest they go back down the path - what if she'd accepted Luke's account that he hadn't seen Jodi, and ordered the lot of them, quick smart, to Judith's house to talk to the police? No chance Luke couldd have "led them to the body" then, was there?
Mia never smelled Jodi she smelled her clothes that were scattered around the scene, despite the unwashed shirt being Janine's. Oh deary me.That's how trackers work
Mia detected the clothes, not blood. Despite the clothes being covered in blood...
The dog wasn't looking for anyone period. The dog scented cadaverine which would have put her at some unease, she would have reacted exactly the same on the first pass.
Luke Mitchell wasn't to know where he would meet Alice, Janine and Stephen but he made damn sure that he wasn't alone when he found Jodi regardless. Had he been the sweet innocent lad that Sandra Lean would have us believe then he would have followed Mia to the body on the very first pass.
I've been 14. It wouldn't take a boy genius to realise finding a body would immediately point fingers at you. I'd probably have had the same idea as LM.
What age were Venables and Thompson when they had the idea of disguising their crime as a train accident?
And what's pathetic about that? Your comment about a dog smelling biscuits was irrelevant and contradictory when you were arguing the point that Mia wouldn't have detected a familiar scent behind a 6ft wall on the way up the path.
But we are going round in circles and my suspicion regarding Mia apparently only detecting the scent on the way back won't shift so yea we can end it here.
Why?
You're right. Alone it isn't compelling enough to suggest guilt or innocence. Wouldn't leave something like that up to a dog's behaviour.
Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?
I see, so Luke actually came up with the cunning plot not to be the one who found the body alone at precisely the point where Alice suggested they double check? Isn't that a different argument to the one we've already spent so much time on? And how does this new one work?
Surely the best way to avoid being the one to find the body alone would have been to not go out looking at all - he was 14 years old, it was coming up to 11pm - his mum could have put the foot down and said, "No way - Judith's called the police, they'll know what to do. You're not going out there on your own at this time of night."
He could have chosen not to put the dog in tracker mode and then, as Findlay pointed out, they would all have "walked right past" Jodi's body - as Mia was so excitable, the family wouldn't have known if she'd "reacted" to something.
"Safely tucked up in bed?" This lad's got superpowers! He didn't know he was going to meet the family en route, so he was heading for Judith's house. how could he (a) have known how long he would be there and (b) when Jodi's body would be found?
You're right. Alone it isn't compelling enough to suggest guilt or innocence. Wouldn't leave something like that up to a dog's behaviour.
Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?
If anything, the limited forensic results gathered from the Jodi Jones murder scene assisted Luke Mitchell's defence so I cannot see why you are complaining about it? It wasn't the forensic evidence which put Luke away for twenty years but it was the circumstantial evidence.
Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?
I'm "complaining" (although I posted the article because I thought the subject was both interesting and pertinent) that junk science is allowed to pass as evidence in our courts, with absolutely devastating consequences. As John knows, my interest is in justice, not in one single case. I have seen convictions obtained where the so-called science is literally unbelievable - a biologist unable to say whether sperm heads on a victim's body came from a man who was vasectomised 14 years previously, selective interpretation of "results" which studiously ignore information which would make those "results" a laughing stock ... it goes on and on.
As for the last part of John's post, our justice system is supposed to be based on the right to be presumed innocent until proven[/i guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Luke was never afforded the right to be presumed innocent, from the moment the body was found. The SCCRC determined that he was a suspect from the moment he was "medically" examiined in the police station in the early hours of July 1st, and arguably from the point where he was separated from the other searchers. As for beyond reasonable doubt, where does one begin? Unidentified male DNA, not Luke's, on the victim's clothing and at the crime scene. Claimed alibis for others which, on closer inspection are nothing of the sort - or, at least. were nothing of the sort until opportunities were offered to changes stories and statements. Failure to follow up critical evidence (including identification evidence, plausible and corroborable evidence which shed others in suspicious lights), leading questioning and selective recording of statements and interviews... all of that before we get to the questionable forensic evidence!
As is always the way with these cases, it's as much what was not done as what was done that raises the doubts and questions.
I've not forgotten my promise to look out the stuff about Shane's evidence, I just haven't had time to do so yet - I have some holiday time coming up, so will look for what notes I have on both of these subjects in the next few weeks.
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides. What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides. What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?
there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides. What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?
So I've just discovered Sandra now believes Luke is guilty.
Oh dear.
I believe Luke Mitchell to be 100% innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones, that has not changed.
There was no "sudden silence" - I said on December 10th I would come back once I'd had a chance to look through the notes I still have during my up-coming holidays, which were from December 23rd to January 5th.
However, for the first time in years, I used those holidays as... holidays. Yup, took some time out to relax and do a whole lot of nothing before going back to work.
Sorry I didn't use more of my own precious time to provide the documented evidence I've provided over and over again for years - just felt time for myself was more important this time.
If I get around to pulling out the boxes of papers, I'll post what I have, but I'm no longer prepared to drop everything and put the rest of my life on hold because some stranger on the internet demands information I've provided dozens of times before.
For those who are genuinely interested in Luke's case, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I hope you understand.
Ignore xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx as usual. Thanks for clearing up your position on the case, hopefully Lithium takes their post back - or posts their reason for why they made that claim in the first place.
What I am wondering and I assume others will be wondering is will there be an explanation for leaving?
I have been reading the WAP forum for a long time and this sudden departure seems suspicious.
It makes me wonder has Sandra Lean found out something she did not know before?
I think a statement as to why this relationship has broken down so badly should be forthcoming.
Its not fair to just up and leave and say nothing.
?
You asked the same questions about me!?
It's referred to as the rinse, spin and repeat pattern.
What I am wondering and I assume others will be wondering is will there be an explanation for leaving?
I have been reading the WAP forum for a long time and this sudden departure seems suspicious.
It makes me wonder has Sandra Lean found out something she did not know before?
I think a statement as to why this relationship has broken down so badly should be forthcoming.
Its not fair to just up and leave and say nothing.
I believe Luke Mitchell to be 100% innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones, that has not changed.
There was no "sudden silence" - I said on December 10th I would come back once I'd had a chance to look through the notes I still have during my up-coming holidays, which were from December 23rd to January 5th.
However, for the first time in years, I used those holidays as... holidays. Yup, took some time out to relax and do a whole lot of nothing before going back to work.
Sorry I didn't use more of my own precious time to provide the documented evidence I've provided over and over again for years - just felt time for myself was more important this time.
If I get around to pulling out the boxes of papers, I'll post what I have, but I'm no longer prepared to drop everything and put the rest of my life on hold because some stranger on the internet demands information I've provided dozens of times before.
For those who are genuinely interested in Luke's case, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, I hope you understand.
so if there was skin under jodis fingernails and lukes the killer how comes hes unmarked when examend that night.Was there skin found? I didn't anything was found under her nails. To be honest though, can't really remember.
well at the appeal markkane was
dismissed as a suspect on the grounds his dna dident match the dna under jodis fingernails
the only dna you can get under your fingernails is skin.
I think you are just a tad naive to claim to know that Mitchell is 100% innocent
I also wonder where else Jodi could have ventured to, the road towards the entrance to the paths heading to newbattle may have led elsewhere, was it a thoroughfare to many different estates, was she heading somewhere else and not to the paths, was this the reason why stocky man was following her and had waited for her to leave the other place and again follow her to Luke's at a later time where he saw the chance to murder her at a later time and at the place we know she was found
if we assume that jodi wasnt heading to the paths at all but elsewhere what are the possible destinations she could have been heading to going in that direction.
given the identity oif the stocky man surely she must have been aware that he was there if not just to wonder where he was going
As part of the sccrc investigation the clothing (at what level I don't know) were retested and two further samples found on the zip of Jodi's jeans these were never put through the data baseIt seems that Jodi was pretty active sexually, and could have been involved in group sex.
That's conjecture as of course all samples could relate to one individual and if you believe the transferrance theory then she may only have had one sexual partner.It must have been discovered at autopsy that Jodi was not a virgin.
There is other evidence to suggest otherwise but its whgwhgen you bring it forward we get abuse for discussing it, which I don't mind to be honest.
Reading through this thread again to catch up a bit I saw you list the police failings and one you said they failed to take the body temperature, I remember discussing this years ago and I always thought they had but said it was inconclusive because of the environment that night.
Do you remember how soon the autopsy took place after jodi was found?
Rigor mortis is always established at autopsy and is accurate up to 30 hours or so afterwards.
Was there any entomology assessment done also?
The DNA analysis is a shambles, labelling,instructions and so forth its impossible to say what they meant , the samples that proved a match swere all to one person but the other samp!es cannot be ruled out as his either.I agree the DNA was a shambles. If luke was sexually involved with Jodi, I can see no reason
Jodi was having sex with Luke so no need to establish her virginity.
The DNA analysis is a shambles, labelling,instructions and so forth its impossible to say what they meant , the samples that proved a match swere all to one person but the other samp!es cannot be ruled out as his either.
That's strange that eggs were found in such small quantity and only reported in one area, this is not the best topic but relevant as most flies lay eggs in wounds because of the natural moisture and around eyes,mouth and nostrils but in small quantity that would suggest a later death possibly before sunset as certain insect are only active during light.
What time was sundown on that day around 10pm?
Sandra have you seen anywhere mainly in the autopsy or pathologists reports any estimate for time of death even if it was roughly taken
Forensic entomology is 90% crime scene assessed and the removal of the body to a plastic sheet meant it was impossible to establish anywhere near a credible time, although again any eggs could have been incubated and brought to a condition where there could be a relative time of death ascertained.
If the attack happened so early on as she entered the path why would she run further into the woodland area when she was so close to safety going the other way, this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide
the branch at the clearing remember wasn't this the place where Luke had claimed he and Jodi did spend time over the months they were together and the one place he knew about?
I also feel that if true the possibility that the killer had left it there on his way back to easthouses is a very real possibility
If the attack happened so early on as she entered the path why would she run further into the woodland area when she was so close to safety going the other way, this wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide[/uote]
Apologies again - I forget that not everyone is as familiar with the area as I am. If the attack began on the entrance to the path, before the big break in the wall at the very top of Roan's Dyke path, where it joined Lady path, Jodi could not have run back along the entrance track to the main road, because the attacker was behind her. She would have had three options - try to outrun him down Roan's Dyke path (it's a long run for a young lady who wasn't very athletic), try to outrun him along Lady Path (a shorter run, but still a long run) of the third option, which only a local would know about.
Jodi could have run into the woodland strip through the big break in the wall. Here, she would have had two choices - turn left and try to make her way to Newbattle behind the wall, or run straight ahead along a track through the woodland that would bring her out at the back of the Easthouses estate.
If you imagine a letter T, the "leg" of the T is Roan's Dyke path. The right-hand portion of the top line (as we look at it here) is Lady Path, the left hand portion, through the break in the wall, is the track leading to the back of the Easthouses estate. If you extend the leg of the T upwards, you get a plus sign + - the bit you've just extended is the entrance to the path area, where the branch is claimed to have been found.
I would reckon, if Jodi was attacked prior to the junction of the paths, her instinct would be to try to get home - it was the nearest place of safety for her. The only way to get there, with the attacker cutting off the route she had just come, would have been the track through the woodland strip.
If her attacker was local, he, too, might have known about the track - he could, for example, have cut across the waste ground and cut Jodi off on the track before she got to the back of the Easthouses estate, forcing her back into the woodland strip to escape him. Confusingly, there is also a wall running along the side of this track, but there were at least three breaks in it - two opening onto the wasteland itself towards Easthouses, the third opening onto the back of the estate.Quotethis wasn't a wood but a woodland area that was mature the opportunity for any attack being witnesses was very real and the woodland area wasn't wide enough for Jodi to let's say run and hide
I agree - the possibility of the attack being witnessed on the entrance to the path, Roan's Dyke path, or in the woodland strip was extremely high for any of these places. Also, the cyclist who heard a noise when he was cycling up Roan's Dyke path (between 5 and 5.30, from memory) heard what he believed were kids playing in the woodland strip. Those kids were found and interviewed - they were, indeed, playing the woodland strip behind the wall at around that time. A couple of dog walkers reached the junction of the paths in the same time period, but decided not to take their usual walk through the woodland strip because the dogs had already had a long run earlier in the day. Crucially, if Jodi was, indeed, at the junction of the paths or on her way down Roan's Dyke path, these dog walkers would have seen her. They didn't see anybody, and didn't hear anything untoward. (The moped, silent by 5.15pm would have been too far down the path for them to have seen it from the junction of the paths.)
I also don't believe the attack took place in silence, all of which, for me, suggests the attack did not take place behind the wall between approximately 5.10 and 5.15pm (the time it would have taken Jodi to get there from the AB "Sighting").
There was a report of a scream later in the evening - around 8 or 8.30pm, from a witness in perhaps the closest proximity to the path, without actually being on it. Again, that report was simply noted - I've never seen anything suggesting that others were asked if they heard anything similar.
Coincidentally, this was around the time DD and his dogs were in the woodland strip, according to one account (before the waters got extremely muddy and nobody could remember anything about where they were or when.
we have no sighting of jodi on any of ther paths heading towards Newbattle but sightings of her heading there, nothing to establish time of death but i do remember the toxicology reports saying she had smoked canabis around the time she was reported to have left home or later was that right?
Wow 8 pm was roughly the time I was thinking for Jodi making her way towards Lukes, still early enough for her to see him before getting home before curfew and after the timing of JF being there. I can't help feeling that Jodi had stumbled upon something and someone she knew on her way to Luke's when she decided to make her way there. She wasn't going there at 5 but later on, it's where was she and what was she doing that's the problem and the DNA available is speaking volumes I just don't know what the hell its saying
If DD was indeed walking his dogs in the woodland strip we have had dogs abuse (pun intended) about why Mia hadn't detected the body on the way up as dogs react to these things so why didn't DD's dogs not do the same thing , is this another reason that the body wasn't there at that time or simply that it had just been around this time that death occurred
I'm sry we always abbreviated the names as there are so many people involved in the case we would be writing them constantly.
DD is David dickie father to Gordon dickie the youth on the motorised bike, he lived closest to the scene.
JaF is James falconer the owner of the condom found at the scene but only discovered a match 3 years later due to another crime that led to his DNA being on the data base. He had convictions before the murder and should have been flagged up in this case before but for some reason he never was.
At what time on that night did DD put the dogs through the v break
is this the same break in the wall that jodi's body was in situ?According to the official line, yes, with the proviso that Jodi's body was, in fact, 16.3 metres west of the break in the wall
Ok you said around 8 pm sry but these dogs were Spanials and beagles of my memory is correct , traditionally cadaver dogs.Spaniels, eight of them, all claimed to be "working" dogs, but not cadaver dogs as such - game dogs, sniffing out and bringing back rabbits, pheasants, etc
Was DD investigating the scream around 8 pm did his Dogs find the body as wasn't there leaves and soil found on the abdomen area of the body is this testimony of dogs finding a body , could he have discovered the murderer performing the post mortem mutilations? ( ok clutching at straws a bit there but not totally unreasonable)
lets look at the time frame between 17:00 and 17:45 this is when jodi was both entering the paths towards lukes,meeting someone,crime taking place and perpetraitor/s making their way out of the area.
1,we have two people possibly at an earlier time about to travel one of 3 possible routes as witnessed by AB there included because if they were going to newbattle they may well have been on the paths during this time.
2, a cyclist on the route either entering or leaving by the easthouse end, he would have been only a short time on a bike on Roans dyke path but there non the less.
3, boys playing in the very strip of woodland where the attack took place, the length of time they were there is negligable and the amount of the woodland they covered.
4, two other dog walkers on the path
5, young woman pushing buggy
6,two indentified males on motorised bike
7, many people paying attention to the bike and who witnessed it proped up against the V in the wall, what was it about this bike that made people notice it? could we also say that had anything like jodi being forced over the wall or indeed anyone around that break in the wall would have been noticed and brought to the police attention?
all this happening and in the middle of it a young girl is subjected to a terrible ordeal and murder and no one sees anything or hears anything !!
is there anyone out there who still believes jodi was on that path and the crime being committed at this time......
The case of Sian Jenkins where he was convicted on microscopic bloodless says it all for me, this is what any killer is up against when it comes to DNA , this case was very much about blood and the thought that someone could perform those injuries to Jodi and not be contaminated is rediculous. There was blood on branches that would have transferred, blood on the ground, blood from contact with the body and blood from creating or being in contact with the wounds.
There are a number of ways the killer could have escaped without coming out onto either of the paths, but this was never even a police consideration - in order to shoe-horn everything into their chosen theory, the initial claims that the killer would be heavily bloodstained, and appeals for anyone who'd witnessed someone disposing of their usual clothing, changing appearance, etc were dropped by trial - by then they were claiming the killer would "not necessarily" have been blood stained at all.
Even thought Busuttil, the pathologist, later stated it would have been impossible for the killer not have been contaminated with Jodi's blood, the ridiculous prosecution contention still stands today.
One of the routes through woodland runs around the outside of the golf course - there were two reports of suspicious behaviour in that area - one golfer saw a man emerging from the woods holding a "bundle" before stepping quickly back out of sight. Another saw someone at the river, possibly washing something in the river.
None of those other potential escape routes, however, makes it possible to get to Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where Luke lived, and to his front door, without emerging onto a main road, and a wide residential street.
we know the ground was such that footprints were cast and wasnt it DD that suggested one was heading in the direction of Newbattle? luke wore very destinctive shoes ones that would have an almost unique footprint, there would have been other forms of organic forensics that may have put the killer at the crime scene so not all blood it was impossible to be forensically free of that crime and have commited it.
Bruising on Jodi's hands, head and face was visible - it's not possible to say whether she was gagged or not.
Police took the clothes he was wearing when Jodi was found immediately (including the boots with the distinctive treads) and the remainder of his belongings on July 4th.
The reason I think they didn't go down the "missing footwear" route to explain why none of Luke's footwear matched the recovered prints was because they were a different size to Luke's shoe size.
They didn't even bother to take casts of some of the footwear imprints, so convinced were they that Luke was their man.
The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.
The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)
However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh). The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.
That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?
The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.
The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)
However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh). The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.
That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?
Was there any signs of blood still flowing when her body was found. Did anyone state that they seen this or was it all stopped
Hi sandra
I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?
Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.
The area where the body was found was in a clearing right? but the area the initial assault and murder was further on towards Newbattle, where the blood spray and smear were found on the wall. Wouldn't the movement of the body have created the debris on the thighs and lower part of the body?
Still trying to remember what i can but weren't the clothes spread around where the body was found mainly with a few exceptions (bra strap) being further away. If so would that suggest she was clothed when moved.
The dog trainer has never been publicly named, nugnug.
Jodi's trainers (DCs) were dark blue with white piping and laces .
Jodi always wore her glasses, yes.
From memory, Luke sent the first message, but I'm far from sure on that, and would have to check. JuJ seemed to think Jodi "must have" texted Luke (since, according to JuJ, she had just ungrounded Jodi), however, for that to be the case, there would have had to be three texts - one from Jodi saying "Hey, I've just been ungrounded, are you coming out tonight" one from Luke saying "Cool, you want to come down here after tea?" and a third from Jodi saying, "Sure, I'll be down later."
But the official line is that there ere only 2 texts, from memory, Luke saying, "Are you coming out tonight, fancy coming down here after tea" and the response from Jodi "Yeah, I'll be down (or see you there) later."
DC's?
Sorry, I can't remember the sizes of either Luke's shoes or the boot prints - I only remember that they were different sizes. I probably have a note of that somewhere as well. Looks like I really am going to have to dig out those notes - I'll try to do that I the next couple of days - problem is, I have to empty a whole room to get to them!
The jeans were knotted round Jodi's left wrist, wrapped around her right wrist. I'd say it was possible that the jeans could have been used to drag her body - her right arm was angled slightly outwards from her body, rather than being by her side, like her left arm.
There were blood stained branches, etc, further towards Newbattle, but the blood spray on the wall was only about 3' or so from where Jodi was found. Most of the clothes were found in a trail over about 15' between the V break and Jodi's body - i.e. in the Easthouses direction - in order, they were found, from furthest away from the body to nearest - bra strap and two pound coins (these were found "later?"), hoodie to the right in some shrubs, glasses (missing one lens) and T shirt midway, bra, underwear and shoes nearest the body. By nearest the body, I mean less than 5' away. Jodi was claimed to have been fully clothed when she was murdered, her throat cut while she was in a sitting position at the wall where she was found, and stripped afterwards. Yet the bra was pure white, the laces and trims on the shoes were pure white, there was no visible blood staining on either. Is that possible?
Sorry, nugnug, I was rushing yesterday and didn't read your post properly.
The army cadets guy's name was Matthew Mouraska. Interestingly, his evidence was that he saw another cadet "passing something to Luke" - at no point did he say the knife belonged to Luke. Yet another little sleight of hand that was allowed to slip by un-noticed.
The dog trainer has never been publicly named, nugnug.
Jodi's trainers (DCs) were dark blue with white piping and laces .
Jodi always wore her glasses, yes.
From memory, Luke sent the first message, but I'm far from sure on that, and would have to check. JuJ seemed to think Jodi "must have" texted Luke (since, according to JuJ, she had just ungrounded Jodi), however, for that to be the case, there would have had to be three texts - one from Jodi saying "Hey, I've just been ungrounded, are you coming out tonight" one from Luke saying "Cool, you want to come down here after tea?" and a third from Jodi saying, "Sure, I'll be down later."
But the official line is that there ere only 2 texts, from memory, Luke saying, "Are you coming out tonight, fancy coming down here after tea" and the response from Jodi "Yeah, I'll be down (or see you there) later."
Does anyone remember what jodi wore to school that day? I'm not sure if the schools in the area were strict when it came to wearing uniforms but being the last week and a lot of kids away on a trip they might have been relaxed on what you were allowed to wear. Luke certainly wore casual clothes but was wondering if that was normal.
Does anyone have links to the diagrams curious made about the DNA?
There were a lot of samples of semen found but there were others like possible sweat, saliva and hairs but is there anything to suggest if ameligenin test were performed to determine wether or not these samples were male or female?
Also we know SK's profile was either taken or they had it as he went over the wall but were the DNA from the other members of the search party taken?Yes, but it's not clear when - there are statements several days later saying "I was asked to give a sample for DNA purposes" but it doesn't say if that was on the day the statement was taken, or if they forgot to take the statement at the time,, and went back for it later.
Jodi never had her phone so why would Luke know which phone to text, different if he was texted first then he would just respond to the number he was texted on. I don't see him just text JuJ in case she was nowhere near Jodi at the time.
Very good point, Gordo! So where is the other text? It's not as if Jodi texted to say, "I'll meet you at such and such a place" and Luke just texted back to say "OK."
JuJ said she'd just ungrounded Jodi - if that was the case, Jodi couldn't have known if Luke had made alternative plans for the evening, so would have to have said "Can we meet up tonight?" or something similar. Luke would then have texted back with the suggestion that she come to Newbattle, but she would have had to reply to that, so that he knew she was coming down.
Alternatively, Luke's story is that he suggested Jodi come down, and she said she would be down "later" - as you point out, the suggestion that Jodi come to Newbattle had to be in response to an initial text from Jodi, otherwise, how would he have known which phone to text her on?
The bra strap was found furthest away from the body but closer to the V break, did Jodi try and get away from the attack and run to the V for safety but was grabbed by her attacker by the bra, it was found with the hooks and plastic fastening all stretched out of place .
I can't help thinking inside padding was due to maybe old washing transferral or something similar, it's also plausible with what you have written that these were transferred via contact with other clothes or fingers but what about the hoodie? It's could of course been processed correctly by someone else. In true form with this case though it throws up problems when you think you have answers as wasn't there a single sperm head found on the vaginal swab also.Gordo, it is possible that Jodi was performing oral sex, and the semen got into the bra padding
Gordo, it is possible that Jodi was performing oral sex,
maybe unwillingly and the semen got into the bra padding
that way. It seems that quite a lot of semen was on Jodi's front, and the semen on the hood was
from a standing male.
Jodi never had her phone so why would Luke know which phone to text, different if he was texted first then he would just respond to the number he was texted on. I don't see him just text JuJ in case she was nowhere near Jodi at the time.
Was jodies phone not broken, would luke not have known this from school. It may have been a ploy to try and get jodi ungrounded as teenagers would do. Put the thought in jujs head as they would have known that jujitsu would have read it.
I'm confused ???
The whole clothing angle where we have the police asking SK about the possiblities that jodi shared/took JaJ's clothes was put to SK in the first interview is that right?
We also have Jodi's aunts giving out details that jodi was always using JaJ's clothes sometime before that? or after?
AW doing the washing the very day after the body was discovered.
The only thing helping the family through its grief was the hope that her killer might be caught.
"Obviously this is a very difficult time for the family but we hope that by making this public appeal someone who may know what happened to Jodi or has information for the police will come forward
"The family is asking everyone to examine their conscience and share with the police any doubts about someone they know who has been acting strangely, or out of character."
"I believe someone at this time is still in turmoil over doubts they have about someone close to them. They just do not accept that this person, someone they know, is capable of such a thing. You have to break through that non-acceptance and come forward for the protection of other children.
note the emphasis on borrowing her sisters clothes at the press confrence anyone else think tats a bit of a funny coincedence.
He had personality disorders and was at the time on trial drugs or new drug for his condition
Where are the documents to support any of the claims regarding this case? Why should we take the word of Sandra Lean and the slant she had chosen to put on this case?
If the police believed JJ's was murdered by a family member or any of the others mentioned on this thread and alluded to, they would not have pursued Luke Mitchell.
Do you not think Luke Mitchell displayed early signs of psychopathy/personality disorder?
Do you not think Luke Mitchell displayed early signs of psychopathy/personality disorder?
Nugnug, you may have hit on something there.
YW, Jodi's cousin, lived just across the street from Gran. She lied about Jodi being in her flat on at least two occasions previously (the time Jodi skipped school and the time JaJ was sent looking for Jodi at silly o'clock in the morning because she hadn't returned to her Gran's by 10 o'clock... that was the time there was no instant search). Gran also lied to JuJ about Jodi being in YW's flat (and also to Corinne who was led to believe they were all staying over at the Gran's).
If Jodi left her own house too early to see Luke, she could have taken the same route through the complex, but gone to YW's, rather than her Gran's. YW's statements were not taken seriously by anyone (she was described as "not too bright".)
JF rubbished YW's claim that he had told her on July 1st that he was going to go to the police in the morning to tell them he had been on the path, on the moped.
YW's was the main place they all hung out to smoke weed, because they could. She was a young single mother with her own flat - no adults around to tell them what to do.
Instead of going to his Gran's, where he was supposed to be staying the night of the murder, JF left GD's ridiculously early (GD said it was because his gran was an early bedder and liked him in before she went to bed - utter nonsense, according to all of the other statements) - he went to YW's where he watched the search party leaving from the gran's house. How many people are gazing out of the window at after 11 at night?
Anyway, I digress, there is a plausible theory of where Jodi could have been if she had to "be quiet...shoo...go out" way to early to meet Luke. Looking at it now, it is the most likely place she would have gone. It is also the most likely place where the cannabis that was still in her bloodstream when she was murdered, was ingested.
Why would YW say nothing if Jodi had been in her flat? Fear? Threats? Told not to tell? (Remember, JF claimed his gran told him not to go to the police because he was on the path at the "wrong time" - the only reason he was forced to come forward, in the end, was because he and GD had been seen by more than half a dozen witnesses.)
If there were no witnesses to Jodi being in YW's flat and she was never asked the question, she may have been convinced by others that it was not important. For the record, I have never seen any statement outlining what YW did the day of the murder (who was in her house throughout the day, for example). From what I know, she was vulnerable and suggestible.
For example, she didn't know what to do about the gloves, and she didn't report them to the police. A friend, when she found out about them, told the police, and only then were questions asked about them. If the friend hadn't found out, or hadn't bothered to say, that would have been another piece of information known to the family, but not to the investigators.
It would be difficult, all these years later, to ask YW directly, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it means legitimate ways of doing so have to be found.
Gran's lies were not called out in court. Evidence of JF and GD's lies consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of their lie about the time they were on the path. Their reasons for not coming forward sooner were pretty much skipped over at trial - they were asked, mumbled the usual "I don't remember" and then things moved on. JF was quizzed about cutting his hair, but that line of questioning ended up going round in circles.
It's almost impossible to believe - if the defence QC had pushed the question "why did you not come forward before the police television appeal?" whatever answer JF had given, the opportunity would have been right there to read out his police statement about his Gran telling him not to.
None of the information about Jodi's previous "disappearance" two months earlier, and the complete lack of concern on that occasion, came out in court. None of the family's tendency to cover things up from each other came out (I'm not casting any negative aspersions there - the absolute truth is that they did cover for each other prior to Jodi's murder - from each other, from the authorities, from the medical profession.) It took 8 years for me to find out the truth about these matters, and then to face the utter disbelief that none of it made it into the trial.
This is from memory, so the timings may be out a little bit:
JuJ's claim was that JF was with JoJ the whole afternoon until "sometime after 3.30pm" - she couldn't say for sure, because she didn't hear him leave. BUT, JuJ called the doctor at either 3.05 or 3.20pm that day (really sorry, I don't remember which) to cancel JoJ's regular home visit (for his mental health conditions) which was scheduled for 5pm. When she was asked why, she said it was because JoJ wanted to smoke cannabis, and the doctors had said he should not because it negatively impacted both his medication and conditions.
Let's just break that down. According to the statements, JoJ and JF had been smoking cannabis since "lunchtime." It could be that JuJ was wrongly quoted when she said "wanted to smoke " rather than "had been" smoking. But if JuJ was in the living room, calling the doctor between 3.05 and 3.20pm, how did she not hear JF leaving? He would have to have walked past the room where she had just called the doctor, the room where she sat in silence (doing some paperwork) until just before 4pm, when she went into the kitchen to start preparing dinner. More to the point, she is quite clear it was sometime after 3.30 - how did she know? In one statement, she suggests that JF is there when JoJ asks her to call the doctor, but according to JF and a statement attributed to JoJ, JF was long gone by then.
And why, of all days, was the appointment cancelled that day? It was clearly not an issue prior to that day - doctors' visits when JoJ had been smoking were not unheard of.
If the statement is accurate, and the appointment was cancelled because JoJ "wanted to (continue to) smoke", and JF was there when the request to call the doctor was made, did it not occur to JuJ that it was a little strange that JF left so soon afterwards? If the request was so that the smoking session could be extended (as JuJ seemed to be implying), why did JF leave almost as soon as the arrangement had been made?
It's important to understand, in terms of the timings here, that Jodi walked through the door no later than 4.05pm. There has never been any suggestion that JF was still in the house when Jodi arrived home from school.
i don't think he was diagnosed with such and we are not qaulfied to diagnose him.
It would be difficult, all these years later, to ask YW directly, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it can't be done, it means legitimate ways of doing so have to be found.
Gran's lies were not called out in court. Evidence of JF and GD's lies consisted almost entirely of cross-examination of their lie about the time they were on the path. Their reasons for not coming forward sooner were pretty much skipped over at trial - they were asked, mumbled the usual "I don't remember" and then things moved on. JF was quizzed about cutting his hair, but that line of questioning ended up going round in circles.
It's almost impossible to believe - if the defence QC had pushed the question "why did you not come forward before the police television appeal?" whatever answer JF had given, the opportunity would have been right there to read out his police statement about his Gran telling him not to.
None of the information about Jodi's previous "disappearance" two months earlier, and the complete lack of concern on that occasion, came out in court. None of the family's tendency to cover things up from each other came out (I'm not casting any negative aspersions there - the absolute truth is that they did cover for each other prior to Jodi's murder - from each other, from the authorities, from the medical profession.) It took 8 years for me to find out the truth about these matters, and then to face the utter disbelief that none of it made it into the trial.
This is from memory, so the timings may be out a little bit:
JuJ's claim was that JF was with JoJ the whole afternoon until "sometime after 3.30pm" - she couldn't say for sure, because she didn't hear him leave. BUT, JuJ called the doctor at either 3.05 or 3.20pm that day (really sorry, I don't remember which) to cancel JoJ's regular home visit (for his mental health conditions) which was scheduled for 5pm. When she was asked why, she said it was because JoJ wanted to smoke cannabis, and the doctors had said he should not because it negatively impacted both his medication and conditions.
Let's just break that down. According to the statements, JoJ and JF had been smoking cannabis since "lunchtime." It could be that JuJ was wrongly quoted when she said "wanted to smoke " rather than "had been" smoking. But if JuJ was in the living room, calling the doctor between 3.05 and 3.20pm, how did she not hear JF leaving? He would have to have walked past the room where she had just called the doctor, the room where she sat in silence (doing some paperwork) until just before 4pm, when she went into the kitchen to start preparing dinner. More to the point, she is quite clear it was sometime after 3.30 - how did she know? In one statement, she suggests that JF is there when JoJ asks her to call the doctor, but according to JF and a statement attributed to JoJ, JF was long gone by then.
And why, of all days, was the appointment cancelled that day? It was clearly not an issue prior to that day - doctors' visits when JoJ had been smoking were not unheard of.
If the statement is accurate, and the appointment was cancelled because JoJ "wanted to (continue to) smoke", and JF was there when the request to call the doctor was made, did it not occur to JuJ that it was a little strange that JF left so soon afterwards? If the request was so that the smoking session could be extended (as JuJ seemed to be implying), why did JF leave almost as soon as the arrangement had been made?
It's important to understand, in terms of the timings here, that Jodi walked through the door no later than 4.05pm. There has never been any suggestion that JF was still in the house when Jodi arrived home from school.
1 thing that struck in jodis text to luke was she said I don't know what time ill get there now if she was going straight to lukes I think she would have a rough what time she would get there by that suggests to me that she was planning to go somewhere else before going to lukes.
Already ruled out by the real psychologists and psychiatrists over and over and over again.
Exactly Nugnug. These were 14 year olds, getting up to stuff they shouldn't have been, trying to keep the oldies out of the equation. They had their own code ... "later" could have meant "I'm going to try to pick us up some stuff on the way down, don't know how long that'll take, see you when I get there."
It would also have explained Luke's reticence about why he didn't call JuJ back to find out where Jodi might be - he said, in his very first police interview "I didn't want to get her into trouble." By the time the interrogators were done with him, six weeks later, he was on the receiving end of a barrage of demands to come up with an "acceptable" reason why he hadn't called back (because they wouldn't accept any of his perfectly reasonable explanations) this was the interrogation, by the way, in which the appeal court concluded that the interrogation officers had "lost it" and their behaviour was "deplorable" -
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.
This would explain a lot.
Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.
2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.
3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.
4. The over emphasis on the borrowing of clothes between siblings.
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.
6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.
7. The lack of blood on the torso if the killer realised that had the victim worn the t-shirt then front and back would be covered in blood so possibly used the t-shirt to clean the body.
Potentially explain.
1. Why AW took to washing the day after her granddaughter was murdered and some of those clothes that were washed belonged to Jodi .
2. Why Jodi was intent on seeing Luke earlier than was their normal routine.
3. Why all the clothes at the crime scene appear to be linked by singular sperm cells.
4.
Loosely explain.
1. If there was a clear and present danger to Jodi could stocky man have been sent to protect Jody and not as thought be a threat to her.
Can anyone add to this?
if she was going to get some canabis where would she have gone i asume to see jof but was anywhere else she culd of got it.
If my theory is correct and the t-shirt belonged to the killer it leaves the possibility that other items were to.
This would explain a lot.
Definitely explain.
1. The change in description from the initial blue jeans/blue hoodie to the clothes found at the crime scene.
2. Why the bra was not contaminated by Jodis blood.
3. Why no one was ever seen covered in blood from the crime scene.It would be one explanation, yes. But the network of tracks and cycle paths in the area mean the killer could have travelled a fair distance without ever emerging onto "public" areas. Rape Kit man Allan Roberts, for example, was claimed to have admitted to Jodi's murder while he was on remand awaiting trial for an attack on another woman in Musselburgh. It is possible to get from Easthouses to Musselburgh without emerging onto proper roads or paths, simply by following the river.
4. The over emphasis on the borrowing of clothes between siblings.Again, the whole borrowed clothes thing is very strange and definitely seems contrived.
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.There's something intrinsically wrong about the way this was explained away - what police force, in a massive murder investigation, tried to come up with "innocent explanations" for this? Some of the other recovered partial DNA matches, however, do not fit this individual's profile, so there would have to be an explanation for their presence.
6. The t-shirt not being cut at the arms to allow removal.Not sure what you mean by this- I can't remember exactly how the t shirt was cut, but from memory, it was an upside down L shaped cut - again a strange thing to do if the cutting of the t shirt was intended to aid removal.
7. The lack of blood on the torso if the killer realised that had the victim worn the t-shirt then front and back would be covered in blood so possibly used the t-shirt to clean the body.Yes, but I'd have expected smears to be left behind - there were none. The torso was completely blood free.
Potentially explain.Potentially, yes. AW doing the washing meant that SK, JF and JoJ's clothes were all being bundled together with all of the females in the family, so any cross-contamination of any items would have an innocent explanation.
1. Why AW took to washing the day after her granddaughter was murdered and some of those clothes that were washed belonged to Jodi
2. Why Jodi was intent on seeing Luke earlier than was their normal routine.We don't know that she was. According to JuJ, she was telling Jodi to be quiet, shoo and go out around 4pm, just after Jodi came in from school. But she also said originally that Jodi left around 5.30, before changing the time to 4.50. Luke said Jodi texted that she would be down "later."
3. Why all the clothes at the crime scene appear to be linked by singular sperm cells.Not all the sperm cells have been proven to originate from the same source, though.
Loosely explain.Depends who stocky man was. If he was unpredictable, that might not have been the best idea?
1. If there was a clear and present danger to Jodi could stocky man have been sent to protect Jody and not as thought be a threat to her.
If it was the killers t shirt, surely you would have to have the killers dna
if it was the killers t shirt wouldent the killer have to be roughly the same size her in order for it to be mistaken for her hers.
I would have thought there would be a complete DNA sample on the t shirt if it was the killers. All the ruff stuff, sweating, saliva and so on. Probably numerous samples.We have them, everything you have posted and more were there, including hairs. The fact the t-shirt was reported to have been laundered recently may add to the fact that little defined DNA was available plus the fact it was saturated with blood would contaminate a lot of the DNA that was there .
Quote
5. The DNA samples of blood and semen from an identified male.
There's something intrinsically wrong about the way this was explained away - what police force, in a massive murder investigation, tried to come up with "innocent explanations" for this? Some of the other recovered partial DNA matches, however, do not fit this individual's profile, so there would have to be an explanation for their presence.
I don't agree if the t-shirt is Jodi's then yes all DNA must be accounted for and should lead to the killer and what happened that evening.
If the t-shirt is the killers then any DNA is pertinent to them, who they met,what and where they were and what they did but that wouldn't always be linked to the crime, although it would help identify the killer.
if the body was moved was it necasrly by the killer or could it of been somone else.
the patholgist said he thought the body had been moved and he wouldent of said that without good reason.
Sandra was the blood in the hoodie and the armpit as well as the injury to the mouth on the same side, if so it's consistent with someone bleeding from a wound on the face while lying on their side arm extended above their head and the head nestled into the arm pit.
The hoodie wouldn't need to be over the head it would naturally fall to that side.
Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.
I find this a little misleading as any deviant sexual assault could only be acertainted once the culprit is caught, it would not be wise for the police to assume any crime could have a deviant aspect to it. Some people gain sexual gratification throught simply stealing from shops and other obscure activities.
What the police were saying is that the crime wan't of an "A" sexual nature as opposed to a pseudo
sexual crime.
Thats what im saying there is a third theory where these samples were placed innocently on the garment/s if the garment/s belonged to someone else. This is the point where the police were banging their heads between sexual/non sexual crime but I can't believe they looked for an explanation that discounted these samples from being linked to the crime and not simply being used to solve the crime.
misleading was the wrong choice of word sry.
I meant that at the early stage of the enquiry with what they knew there was a specific route to investigate , when at that point there was no concrete evidence of sexual assault then they proceeded to not interview known sex offenders and other proceedures relating to a sexual offence. Im not sure if they really ever lost sight of that possiblity though.
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads. Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theo
Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.
Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads. Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?
But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.
The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.
The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.
But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.
So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?
The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.
I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt
Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.
I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.
does anyone think its a bit funny that jodi borrowing her sisters clothes is mention a fair while before the dna results came back long before theres any reall reason for it to be mentioned.
Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change
There were loads witheld from the defense in this case but not everything is as sinister as it appears, the law requires proper corroboration and i feel he police have their hands tied to a point. I also think its easier for us to see how things may help with hindsight.
This doesn't excuse the proceedural problems with this case that got to the point where almost nothing could be relied on and very basic mistakes were made.
I agree that not everything is sinister, however, the real point is that the police/crown can't know what might be significant for the defence in every instance, especially as they are viewing the case, from the off, from the perspective of "what do we need to prove our case?"
Without any sinister intent, that question alone makes it far more likely that they will overlook, ignore or discount anything that doesn't serve a purpose in proving their case.
Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change
I have learned so much about the justice system that you would not believe was possible on this forum and others.
You wouldn't think it was possible in a noble country like ours.
There was, nugnug - it was a really odd part of the case.
JaF's younger brother had given his hoodie to a pal the week before, because the pal was cold, but the pal didn't want it, and threw it away in the waste ground behind Reed Drive (the opposite end of Lady Path from where it meets Roan's Dyke Path.) Or, at last, this is what the mother told police later.
On the morning of July 1st, the younger brother "found" the hoodie and pointed it out to police. Bit of a problem here - the hoodie was within the police cordon. This is the same morning JaF said he went behind a tree and masturbated (again!) ... within the police cordon.
I'm thinking it wasn't much of a cordon, really, when two members of the same family were wandering around within its boundaries.
Anyway, I digress, brother has pointed hoodie out to police by lunchtime, mother then calls the police around midnight to say her son pointed out a hoodie to investigators earlier in the day, but there's an innocent explanation for it.
The hoodie was blue, in the style of a baseball/ basketball top, with a number in white on one side of the front chest area.
Sometime later (much later), JuJ tried to claim on a forum that Jodi had borrowed a blue hoodie from Luke, and may have been wearing it on the evening of June 30th, which may have explained the "wrong description" of clothes attributed to the girl who could have been Jodi. JuJ also claimed that Luke had a "missing" hoodie (alluding to the fact that the hoodie found behind Reed Drive may have been the "missing hoodie.")
Problems!
(1)The hoodie belonging to JaF's brother was light blue with a white number on it - description of girl-who-could-have-been-Jodi hoodie was navy blue, plain.
(2) Even if it had been navy, JuJ was asking us to believe that Jodi was somehow wearing a navy hoodie over the top of her very baggy Deftones hoodie (to account for AB not noticing the bright orange Deftones logo)
(3) Police knew from the 1st day of the investigation that that hoodie didn't belong to Luke.
When the blue hoodie was photographed, the grass beneath it was withered and yellowed, so it had been there for some time.
However, another hoodie and joggers were found behind Roan's Dyke (wall) in the woodland strip. These were never photographed in situ, but what I always found interesting was that the hoodie was in the school colours of St David's High School uniform. Remember, although Jodi and Luke attended St David's, Jodi was found behind Newbattle High School (the two schools are about a mile apart, as the crow flies.) Maybe there's nothing in it - we'll never know now, because nothing was done about this hoodie and joggers.
We don't even know if it was a school hoodie (i.e. with a school badge) or it just happened to be the colour of St David's uniform - my question has always been, what was the equivalent of a St David's school uniform doing behind the wall near Newbattle High School, to whom did it belong, and why did L&B think it was unimportant?
seems strange to me that he had to point the police if it was within the cordon im suprised they hadent allready found it.
im also puzzeled why he pointed it out to the police as he knew it was noting to do with the murder
and why dident he explian this all to the police at the time pointed it out.
What we need is a tv programme like the avery one.get people talking about it
If people are now suggesting Jodi wasn't on her way to meet Luke, who was he hanging around waiting for at the other side of the path?
sandra did the lad who jafs brother supposedly lent the hoodi to confirm his story.
Hoodies have never been a part of St. Davids school uniform. No idea why you're making that leap.
Are you seriously asking us to believe that such small traces of semen suggest the perpetrator ejaculated on Jodi at the crime scene?
What was that you were just saying about it never being your intention to mislead?
No, I haven't said or suggested that anywhere. The quote you've posted here came from a longer post, pointing out that the attack as a whole should have at least alerted the police to the possibility of a sexually motivated attack.
Sometimes, quoting things out of context can be misleading - it's also time consuming because posters then have to re-clarify what they said initially.
I didn't ever suggest the attacker ejaculated on Jodi, therefore, I can't have been trying to mislead anyone with such a suggestion, can I?
I was just about to post something similar mate . If we had two siblings, same sex and same parentage then they would have very similar DNA ! In the absence of unique markers then wouldn't they be explained away as Jodi'? Just thinking in the absence of DNA from JaJ considering it was her t-shirt.
yes thats the thing if its her t shirt her dna should be on there and its not that means ethere its not her t shirt and sk has some serious explianing to do or her dna has been mistaken for jodis
but i was also thinking is could jafes brother dna have been mistaken for his could that have been his condom
I can see no compelling case against Luke.
Challenge accepted, give me a minute to read everything.
There was no blood DNA sample. Ask Sandra to provide her source for this.
(http://i.imgur.com/1liU1wa.jpg)
:o
I like how JF "hacked off all of his hair!" rather simply "just had a haircut"
You should be a journalist, Sandra.
Do you have a source confirming that he cut his own hair on this occasion?
Not sure what point you're trying to make about the dog. My point is that Mia apparently lead Luke to the body just by passing the V in the wall, despite having already passed it on the way up. How do you explain that inconsistency?
QuoteBut how could anyone have known at that point which direction Jodi took that night? She wasn't believed to be going to Luke's house
Yes she was. Even Luke was at home waiting on her, or was he not?! Oops.
Quotewhy did they consider looking at the path at all?
Why did Luke? He brought a torch/sniffer dog and everything...
QuoteJodi's mother also told police that sometimes, when they were hanging around "up here" they went to Scotts caravans. The search trio also walked straight past there without looking.
Considering she had just spoken to Luke on the phone who confirmed he wasn't with Jodi, it would be obvious she wasn't at Scotts Caravans with him. Don't let that obvious explanation get in the way of attempting to making Judy sound guilty (of God knows what) though.
QuoteThe sighting/description of the girl and the youth given by AB is not credible and, in my opinion, the mistaken description of clothes, etc, coupled with the early pictures of Jodi aged five and eight, seriously hampered the search for witnesses who may have seen Jodi.
Why is it not credible? Who did AB see and why have they disappeared off the face of the Earth?
QuoteA lot depends on the time she actually left her home. If it was much earlier than 5pm (and there is some evidence that this may, in fact, have been the case
I would love to see what evidence you have of that. Please.
QuoteWhat reason could there have been for her mother apparently trying to keep her quiet and get her out of the house so soon after arriving, especially since Jodi was supposed to be grounded?)
You tell us. Don't make accusations and expect us to answer them for you.
QuoteThe road on which Jodi was walking is a fairly busy road - from there she could have taken the Mayfield route I described earlier, or walked towards Newtongrange (but there is nothing to suggest she had any connection with/reason to go to Newtongrange.) This route could also have taken her on a circuitous route either to Mayfield or Newtongrange, but that's about it - it's not a route that gives access to a large number of places
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest she did any of this, but hey lets give this priority over the independent sightings.
Quotever made public, and never, to my knowledge, followed up by police investigators. It was discovered by the SCCRC investigation, almost 10 years later, that one of the witnesses to Stocky Man on the day of the murder saw a person on TV on the day of Jodi's funeral, and recognised him as the man she'd seen following Jodi. She returned to the police with this information, but no further action was taken on her up-dated statement.
So why wasn't this mentioned in the SCCRC submission?
Quotejodie could of died at more or less anytime bettween her last being seenn and the body being found.
Yes thanks for that nugnug, I think we can all agree that Jodi died between her last sighting and the discovery of her body.
QuoteOne big problem with a prolonged attack is th lack of noise, Jodi fought her attacker and fought for her life wouldn't she have screamed for it also! The lack of any credible witnesses to noise from any area that night is really strange, if the crime was later than 5:15 were getting to the time when dog owners were taking their dogs for their last evening walk someone had to have heard something
Likewise wouldn't she be screaming if she was being stalked/pursued through the woods as Sandra suggests?
Unless of course she was over there with someone she knew, by choice.
QuoteAs we know, hardly a single word of JaF's statement can be believed - we know it was his condom and that's about it. But interestingly, he claimed it was getting "grey dark" and he thought it was about 9 - 9.30. It didn't start getting dark until around 10.30 that evening, but even if he was mistaken about the level of darkness, what can we make of the time? Another mistake? An outright lie? Or the truth, in which case, either he did, in fact, step over Jodi's body, or she wasn't there.
He wouldn't have had to "step over Jodi's body", why do you keep saying this? It's an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has ever seen the crime scene. Why can't he have just walked past/been near it? In reality, he would have no reason to step as close to the wall as where Jodi lay.
Quotei find it hard to belive that the spaneils wouldent of sniffed out the body but that goes on the assumption that there was a body there at the time.
But you don't find it hard to believe Luke's dog never sniffed out the body when they walked directly past it on the way up the path... Different story on the way back though in front of the search party. That's what I find hard to believe.
QuoteThat's just half an hour before JF was supposed to return to JoJ's house to smoke cannabis with him, but somehow, he forgot to go
Or simply changed hid mind? But hey don't let a chance to point suspicion at anyone but Luke go to waste. Luke's family can completely forget seeing him in the house and being served dinner by him but that's fine I suppose.
Quoteis there anyone out there who still believes jodi was on that path and the crime being committed at this time......
Yes. Nobody heard any struggle because she was over there with her boyfriend...
QuoteHi sandra
I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?
Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.
There isn't. The only people who believe Luke is isn't is the small few you'll see posting on forums like this. The local community is comfortable that the right person is behind bars, supported by the complete absense of any other similar attacks since Luke's incarceration.
QuoteWhy is every item contaminated by singular sperm cells!! we can produce up to 200 million in one ejaculaton so why just singular ones dotted around every item of clothing apart from the hoodie?
Because this reinforces the fact that innocent transfer explanation is by far the most likely. Nobody ejaculated at the murder scene.
I like how JF "hacked off all of his hair!" rather simply "just had a haircut"
You should be a journalist, Sandra.
haha
like what
haha
like what
hahah like glue :))
could of been good thinking.:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
JF cut his hair to put himself st the crime scene as witnesses said both people on the bike had short hair. JF had long hair so couldn't have been on that bike.
Actually he had short curly hair, but don't let the truth get in the way of you stating your far fetched theories as facts. JF has never had "long hair" and indeed has been totally bald since his 20's. Also nowhere near the size or build of the person you're suggesting he was covering for. Fancy sharing that with everyone?
I didn't suggest anyone who he may have been covering for, in the end it's not far fetched to suggest that it wasn't JF on the bike due to the description of the two people who were there.
who did the moped belong to jof or gd.
could it possible be the jof wering the helmet and not gd and the staements got mixed up somehow.
They were just "mucking about" with it - after JoF picked up GD from the jobcentre, they messed about in the woods for a bit on it, then headed back to GD's. JoF claimed he was working on the bike when GD was at the jobcentre because it wasn't running properly - I don't think there was a plan to go to JoF's house with it. (According to other statements, by then, JoF was living with AW, not his mother).
Like everything in this case!
According to JuJ, JoF was in her house with JoJ until after 3.23pm. GD claimed to have left his house around 3.15pm, his mother taking him to Dalkeith for his Jobcentre appointment.
Somewhere in all of this, Jof apparently called GD from his (JoF's) mother's house and was in GD's house before 3pm, in order to be working on the bike. (If he didn't arrive until after 3.15pm, GD couldn't have seen and spoken to him there.)
There is one irrefutable, undeniable fact in all of this - JoF could not have been in two (or maybe three) places at once. So where was he? JuJ's house or GD's house?
If he wasn't in JuJ's house, the reason for the cancellation call to the doctor (that JoF and JoJ were going to be in JoJ's room smoking cannabis) cannot be correct, leaving the question, what was the real reason for the cancellation call?
If he was in JuJ's house, the only way for him to have been the other youth on the moped is for him to have left JuJ's house on receipt of a call from GD from the Jobcentre at 4.20, gone round to GD's house and picked up the bike, then set off for Dalkeith. That would have meant the timing of their sighting at the Tool Hire place ruled out their story of "mucking about in the woods on the bike for a bit" - by the time JoF got to GD's house, got the bike, got to Dalkeith and picked up GD, there would be very little time left for "mucking about" before they emerged in the Tool Hire grounds.
Or, alternatively, he went to GD's house, even though GD was not there, worked on the bike in GD's garden and was coincidentally, right there when GD called at 4.20pm. Nobody ever suggested that was what he did and the only person who would have been able to verify it would have been GD's dad (since his mum was already out and the other friend who was in the house that afternoon left with her and GD).
What I've never been able to get my head around is why the police didn't go back to all of them and say, this can't be right - between 2.30pm and 3pm, JoF was, according to all of your statements, in two places at once. Nope, accepted all of the statements as "fact" even though, as I've just shown, someone had to be mistaken ... or lying.
is jof an only child or did he have a brothe or sister.
When we were talking about the hoodie one thing been bothering me, with th eblood on inside of hood and under arm same side I believe the only explanation was that Jodi was lying on her side arm extended and bleeding from an injury. The problem I have is that it was likely that Jodi was unconscious at this point as it would have taken time for blood to flow to the areas it was found.
The thing is I always thought the clothes were taken of during the initial fight but it would seem that wasn't the case then, so at what point are they removed and the defender wounds inflicted? Was she possibly stripped when she was unconscious but then would she be able to put up the fight she did having just gained consciousness ?
When we were talking about the hoodie one thing been bothering me, with th eblood on inside of hood and under arm same side I believe the only explanation was that Jodi was lying on her side arm extended and bleeding from an injury. The problem I have is that it was likely that Jodi was unconscious at this point as it would have taken time for blood to flow to the areas it was found.
The thing is I always thought the clothes were taken of during the initial fight but it would seem that wasn't the case then, so at what point are they removed and the defender wounds inflicted? Was she possibly stripped when she was unconscious but then would she be able to put up the fight she did having just gained consciousness ?
We can't discount a non fatal wound to the neck first but things don't stack up with that as that type of wound wouldn't account for the spray as it would need to be arterial for that, it may account for the blood on foliage.
That type of wound would have caused saturation on the clothing but items like the shoes one would think would have been contaminated with blood. Was she naked at that time? Well hard to tell but I would imagine that shock and her will would have meant that Jodi was trying to escape her attacker so was there any injuries to the soles of her feet? Or were her hands heavily blood stained?
I don't remember the hoodie ever being described as heavily bloodstained but simply blood on the inside of hoodie and under the arm pit, is it that theses areas were saturated? Having not seen the blood at base of the wall it was always described as spray but was it more like concentrated blood drops?
I suppose the snare and drops could have been an attempt by Jodi to somehow scale the wall and that she could well have been semi naked, top have make but trousers on and it was these that she was caught by and forced to another area.
theres a simple though somhat implausable answer to all this maybe the clothes found at the sene werent here
sandar before allegdly pleasuring himself in the woods what did jaf say he was doing that i would imagine the police would of assked him to reacall the whole day.
i dont suppose the polce mentioned of condom that was used.
A MAN named by Luke Mitchell's lawyers as an alternative suspect in the Jodi Jones murder today declared he was "100 per cent innocent". James Falconer hit out after being identified as a possible suspect in papers lodged by Mitchell's defence team at the Court of Appeal. He accused Donald Findlay QC, who is leading the appeal, of dragging his name into the mud and accused the lawyer of "sheer desperation". Mr Falconer, who lives only a few minutes' walk from the secluded spot were 14-year-old Jodi was killed, has been questioned by police in connection with the brutal murder. But detectives are understood to have ruled him out of their investigations. Mr Falconer, of Reed Drive, Dalkeith, was identified by Mitchell's legal team after being linked to a condom found near the woodland murder scene.He said: "I was questioned by police and they cleared me. I think it's tragic my name has been dragged into this by Donald Findlay."I had nothing to do with the murder. I could never do something like that. I'm 100 per cent innocent." The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police. The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-didn-t-kill-jodi-1-1249412
I was just wondering how long luke got sentence wise. Was it 15 years? If so hasn't he served his time or because he says he's innocent they won't release him?
if you stumbled across a dead body I think your first instinct would be to ethere call the old bill or just get the hell out of there.
I don't think you would get the urge to start touching yourself and even if you did I think you'd resist it.
unless of course he only noticied the body after he had done it at then thought oh shit.
I would have thought so too, but according to his own statement, right after he heard about the murder the following morning, he went out and did the same thing again, behind a tree at the Reed Drive end of Lady Path - the place was swarming with cops - it might just be me, but I think that's just weird... and very worrying.
It's so hard in this case to for any real summary as to what we believed happened at the crime scene, every abnormality in the case seems to be precluded with another.
We know Jodi had to have been at the point where she was discovered but the police believing that Luke was there waiting just doesn't make sense. There are so many possibilities as to why she was there she may have chosen that way herself,followed someone or as I believe she was trying to avoid one of the people on that motorised bicycle who we know were on the path, strangely her killer to might have been trying to avoid the same person.
The lack of noise concerns me but possible considering the fact there were people on a motorised bike in the area and Jodi may well have been overcome very quickly, I believe someone heard something as those on the bike appear to have been drawn to the v break.
Jodi was knocked unconscious and possibly semi stripped early on and numerous wounds caused over a lengthy time, this wasn't a 5 min assault but most probably took in excess of 20/25 mins.
The clothes and their proximity to the body can tell us very little as we know that some staging took effect, body moved, clothes handled and on occasion placed or folded neatly. There's nothing to suggest that all the clothes at the crimes scene were placed by designed
Note how Paddy errs on the side of caution
"Involved in the campaign is Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly accused of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombing. He said: “I remain extremely concerned and disturbed that Luke was convicted of this crime based on the evidence presented
Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/new-attempt-to-release-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4581473
Paddy once backed Simon Halls campaign
Paddy raises concern regarding the evidence presented at trial. He has NOT claimed Mitchell is innocent
Paddy isn't quoted as saying "at trial," is he? Everyone who has ever worked with a claimed wrongful conviction knows there is so much more than simply the evidence presented at trial.
[Note to readers: This survey is anecdotal, the start of a future study]... a doctor of criminology at Birmingham City University has pointed out that there are three distinctive types of mothers that might be more likely to raise a murderer.
After examining 10 murder cases in the UK series Murderers and their Mothers, Dr Elizabeth Yardley began to demystify the psyche of killers by looking closely at their maternal relations.
What about Luke's "unusual" relationship with his mother?
Is there actual “new evidence” or a summary look at the old evidence that may or may not have been at trial. We had two new DNA samples discovered during the last appeal process that were neither considered good enough to invoke a new appeal and were never identified through the national database.
Great news this is being looked at again. I don’t believe Luke has is guilty, let’s hope the real killer gets caught
Who's looking at this again? You mean Mojo?
[/quote
Yes read it on google news ,
Paddy isn't quoted as saying "at trial," is he? Everyone who has ever worked with a claimed wrongful conviction knows there is so much more than simply the evidence presented at trial. And, as it should be, Professor Jamieson is going to review the forensic evidence.
What does it matter which cases groups or individuals have reviewed previously? The suggestion that they "got it wrong" in the Simon Hall case (I'll reserve judgement on that, since there are still so many unanswered questions) can't then be used to infer either that their opinions/reviews are worthless or that they will "get it wrong" in other cases.
The criminal justice system is deeply flawed and is getting away with convictions on the flimsiest of evidence - that's not justice for anyone. Trying to address those flaws and ensure true justice for all is, in my opinion, a responsibility that belongs to all of us.
It's always difficult, in cases like this, to post meaningful information because of the tendency for it to be misrepresented, misquoted or used against the very case it's trying to assist. So please bear with me and read between the lines where necessary.
There is "new information" in the literal (legal) sense - information that was not known about (and could not have been known about by the defence) at the time of trial and the appeal.
There is new information that has not been released to anyone other than those most closely involved in the new initiative, and will not be released publicly until it becomes a matter of law.
A group of people with individual, specialist understandings has agreed to carry out a whole case review. That means reviewing the investigation, the evidence, the media involvement, the legal arguments - pretty much every aspect of the case will be scrutinised and held up against accepted norms and values and the findings of those involved will be offered at the end of that review. It is not a new concept - it has been done in a number of other high profile cases (some of them discussed on this forum) and it's had a number of successful outcomes, even though, unfortunately, it has taken a great deal of time to get there.
I think I've answered all of the questions asked in the last few days - if not, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer anything I've missed.
Thanks to everyone still interested almost 14 years and 4 months later.
well it stands to reason noting is going to be disclosed at this stage theyd be mad sat anything this early in the process.
of course theres no tral harm in talking about things that are already public and there is plenty.
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.
Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.
Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads. Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?
But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.
The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.
The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.
But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.
So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?
The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.
I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt
Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.
I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.
She is here. And she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves. She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish. I'm not being petty, Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have. (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)
Apparently not, Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.
My point was if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.
if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.
she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves.!
She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish.
I'm not being pettyI agree - Lithium is being deliberately dishonest, not petty.
Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have. (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)
Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.
Hi folks, just wondering if there is anything new here to report . It was suggested in some of the last conversations that something may have been getting put together.
Good luck to Luke! He has a strong team behind him which is fantastic to see. i will await the updates and hope justice is done very soon
It isnt just that Luke has has 15 years taken from him life but a killer is also walking free. Time to swap places now.
I agree, got to be realistic but its good to know Luke has a chance
Today, my book about the case, Innocents Betrayed, was launched. Profits from the book are being donated to help fund a new organisation, Long Road to Justice, which will be taking a radically new approach to helping the fight against injustice.
Details of the book can be found here:
www.longroadtojustice.com
LUKE MITCHELL IS INNOCENT !
Sandra,what are your thoughts on Stephen/Steven Kelly ?
have you been researching him lookout.
Hi, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back.
Although I've made this point many times in the past, I'll make it again, just for clarity. When I discuss people connected with this case, I'm not making any suggestion that they're guilty (or possibly guilty) of anything - I'm pointing out failings in the police investigation.
My take on Kelly is that it was absolutely bizarre that the police handed him an innocent explanation for his DNA being found on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing. Fifteen years later, it has still not been confirmed that the t-shirt was definitely one of Janine's that Jodi borrowed without permission. There was none of Janine's DNA on the t-shirt and it was "freshly laundered," yet had visible semen staining on it.
The "washing machine transfer" or "rainwater transfer" theories do not, and cannot, account for visible semen staining. It also had a large saliva stain; the originator of that saliva was never identified. How, amongst all of that visible evidence, could anyone be certain that a full DNA profile got there by transfer in a washing machine, prior to the depositing of the other substances?
The rainwater theory is even less credible - it means DNA from Kelly had to first survive a machine wash (which is, theoretically, possible) and then be transferred, by the rain, from wherever it survived on the t-shirt, following the wash, to where it was found. But the prosecution theory was that only Kelly's DNA was transferred by rainwater - that same rainwater didn't transfer or disperse the visible semen or saliva staining.
Are we really suggesting the trace semen was transferred at the crime scene?
Nothing to do with luck, Steven had an alibi and Luke didn't.
Oh so Jodi's sister gave him a false alibi. Funny how Janine doesn't have any trouble accepting it was her shirt.
Have plenty of people had false alibis from girlfriends who were also the victims sister? You may live on a planet where girls help cover for their sisters murderer. I live in the real world where it was her boyfriend with the knife obsession who she met with before she was killed that stabbed her.
Yes nugs besides others.
Are we really suggesting the trace semen was transferred at the crime scene?
Nothing to do with luck, Steven had an alibi and Luke didn't.
We're not, the prosecution was. The important question is not so much where semen was transferred (since according to the prosecution it managed to grow legs and run across the woodland strip from one item of clothing to another), but how it came to be deposited in the first place.
It was never proven that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing belonged to Janine - zero evidence, not even DNA from Janine herself. So, on the basis of the actual evidence, all of the samples from the t-shirt returned DNA from Jodi, some partial, unidentified male samples and a full profile from Kelly. If there is no proof that the t-shirt belonged to Janine, we have to default to the evidentially supported theory that the t-shirt was, in fact, Jodi's.
That changes the ballpark somewhat, because now, the question is, how did Kelly's DNA get on Jodi's t-shirt?
The full DNA profile was recovered from the outside front of the t-shirt. It was never recorded exactly where on the t-shirt (upper front, lower front, etc).
Everything else on the t-shirt and bra was explained away by "transfer theory" - including a recorded semen stain on the outer left cup of the bra which, it was suggested, had transferred into the padding below.
That stain matched up with the visible semen stain on the left sleeve of the t-shirt.
Do you think the huge difference in treatment right from the start was intentional? Everyone else involved or known to Jodi seems to have been able to give various explanations for their actions and whereabouts even changing the info yet the same didnt apply to Luke.
I'd forgotten about that!
The aunt who took care of all the media communications worked with the same child protection unit as the Senior Investigating Officer, I think?
it might of had something to do with the fact jodis aunt knew the investigating officer
I didnt know that... could explain a lot couldnt it?
I was told, years ago, that it was agreed that none of the family would speak to the media except this one aunt because she "knew how to deal with the media".
On the one occasion that Judith did speak to the media directly (after she drunkenly attacked Corinne in her workplace), Judith was quoted as saying, "It's all rubbish - it never happened." Of course, we will never know if that was what she said, or if the media just made that up, but it's the only time, to my knowledge, Judith was ever quoted directly (any other time it was "sources" who spoke on behalf of the family). And it was a lie, because it most certainly did happen!
I just had a thought (how could I not have thought of this before?) If this aunt knew SIO Dobbie at the time, that might explain the aunts' public appeal that included the information about Jodi borrowing clothes from her sister without asking, at exactly the time the DNA results came back with Kelly's DNA on the t-shirt Jodi was wearing.
As it turns out, nugnug, she was probably moved more than once - the lack of blood at the foot of the wall and where the body was found suggest she wasn't killed in either place.
They shouldn’t be moving anything until all possible evidence has been gathered though.
Is there some reason Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell do not want to upload information much the same way Mike Tesko has for Bamber?
Is there some reason Sandra Lean and Corrine Mitchell do not want to upload information much the same way Mike Tesko has for Bamber?